National Security Act 2023: Charges

Before I call the Home Secretary to make her statement, I must remind the House that the resolution of the House relating to matters that are sub judice prohibits any reference to cases in which an individual has been charged. Three men have been charged with offences under the National Security Act, and the matter is therefore sub judice. However, since this case concerns matters of national importance and it is in the public interest for the House to hear from the Home Secretary, I am granting a limited waiver for the purposes of this statement only, to allow discussion of the wider security issues. Members should exercise a high degree of caution in their remarks and take every care to avoid saying anything that could potentially prejudice the criminal trial.

16:12:00

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the charging of three individuals under the National Security Act 2023 that took place on 17 May, and the further action that the Government are taking to counter national security threats. I want to thank the police and the security and intelligence agencies not just for their work on the vital operations and investigations that are currently under way, but for the dedication that they show each day to defending our national security and keeping our communities safe. Their tireless work—often in the shadows, often in secret, and often in great personal danger—is indispensable, and I hope that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their service. On Saturday, three Iranian nationals were charged with offences under the National Security Act 2023. All three have been charged with engaging in conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service. Additional charges were brought in relation to engaging in conduct, including surveillance, reconnaissance and open research, with the intention to commit acts of serious violence against a person in the United Kingdom. The foreign state to which these charges relate is Iran, and those individuals are the first Iranian nationals to be charged under the National Security Act. The criminal and national security investigations in these cases are ongoing, and the police and security services have my support in their vital work. These cases must now also progress through the criminal justice system, which means that until the trial, there are limits on what we can discuss so as not to prejudice that process. However, in respect of a series of grave, wider issues, I want to update the House on the stronger action that the Government are taking to strengthen our national security, including the introduction of new powers on state threats, further action on Iran, and strengthening our border security to keep the public safe. This is the first time there have been charges under the National Security Act linked to Iran, although the House will be aware that it comes against a backdrop of a rising number of Iran-linked operations on UK soil, where there have been repeated warnings by Ministers, the police, and our security and intelligence agencies. The director general of MI5 said in October last year that the police and MI5 had responded to 20 Iran-backed plots presenting potentially lethal threats. Let me be clear: we will not tolerate growing state-backed threats on UK soil. The Iranian regime poses an unacceptable threat to our domestic security, which cannot continue.  Following the charging decision, I can confirm that the Iranian ambassador has been summoned, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has told the Iranian Foreign Minister in the strongest terms that we will not accept any Iranian state threat activity in the UK. As the Security Minister set out in March, we have placed the whole of the Iranian state in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, which is due to come into effect on 1 July. The Government have also introduced sanctions as part of efforts to systematically dismantle the criminal networks and enablers that Iran uses to carry out its work, including the Foxtrot network, which was sanctioned last month.  International co-operation is critical in challenging Iranian transnational threats, which is why we are convening ministerial counterparts from allied nations facing similar threats to discuss co-ordinated action, but we need to go further in strengthening our powers to address national security threats. The Security Minister and I have both warned of the increasing complexity of the threats we face. Threats from extremist and terrorist groups and individuals, including from Islamist extremism and far-right extremism, continue, and vigilance and action against them remain crucial. But malign activities against us by, or on behalf of, foreign states have grown and the threats we face have become more complex and intertwined. MI5 state threats investigations have increased by nearly 50% in a year, and police investigations into state threats, led by counter-terrorism police, are up fivefold since 2018. As well as growing, those threats are becoming more interconnected, and the old boundaries between state threats, terrorists and organised criminals are being eroded. We have seen malign foreign state organisations seek to exploit any vulnerability, from criminal networks to our cyber-security and our borders, to do us harm.  In our manifesto we committed to stronger action on state-based security threats. Before entering government, the Foreign Secretary and I set out plans for the establishment of a joint unit to pursue and co-ordinate action. I can announce that the new state threats joint unit is now in place, with staff from across Whitehall driving a broader approach across Government and building new partnerships with industry and academia. Last week the Security Minister set out the recommendations of a review by the defending democracy taskforce into transnational repression—where foreign states attempt the intimidation, surveillance and harassment of UK-based individuals—including providing stronger support for those who are being targeted. This is criminal activity and will be treated as such, because everyone in this country should be able to go about their daily lives freely and without fear.  We have of course supported the National Security Act, which was rightly brought in by the previous Government, but we need to go further. That is why I commissioned Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, to examine further gaps in the national security legislation where counter-terrorism powers could be emulated and to look at proscription powers, because I have long raised concern that it is too difficult to apply existing powers to state and state-backed bodies. Today Mr Hall has published his review, and I thank him for working so swiftly and comprehensively. He has concluded that there are gaps in a series of areas, including proscribing legislation, where he identifies a series of legal difficulties in using powers that were designed to deal with terrorist groups for state and state-backed organisations, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.  I can tell the House that we are committed to taking forward Mr Hall’s recommendations and that we will draw up new powers, modelled on counter-terrorism powers, in a series of areas to tackle state threats. Crucially, I can tell the House that we will create a new power of proscription to cover state threats—a power that is stronger than the current National Security Act powers in allowing us to restrict the activity and operations of foreign state-backed organisations in the UK—including new criminal offences for individuals who invite support for or promote the group in question. We will not hesitate to use the power against organisations that pose a threat to UK residents, because we will not stand for foreign state organisations seeking to escalate threats on UK soil. As was confirmed at the weekend, the three individuals who have been charged came to the UK between 2016 and 2022 by lorry and small boat. This Government have made it clear that border security is national security, which is why we are introducing new counter-terrorism powers at the border. However, let me also be clear that our border security needs to be strengthened. Those involved in organised crime, malign state actors and extremists can all exploit any vulnerabilities, so the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is introducing a wide range of counter-terrorism-style powers to pursue organised immigration crime and strengthen border investigations. We have introduced the Border Security Command, which is drawing together security operations around our border that have not been taken seriously enough before, modelled on the approach that successive Governments have taken to counter-terrorism. As part of our existing CT capabilities, security identity and criminal record checks are carried out on everyone who applies for a visa through our immigration system, on identified clandestine entries and on those who arrive by small boat, so that immigration and counter-terrorism powers can then be used to address threats, including refusals, restrictions, tagging, heightened monitoring and immigration bail. However, I have instructed officials to review those capabilities against the state threats as well as the terrorism-related risks we face, so that we can strengthen our security response alongside the new counter-terrorism-style border powers that we are introducing. We are already reviewing our current response to criminality or threats in the asylum system, including the potential for greater use of a range of techniques and technology, as well as the existing ability to revoke or refuse asylum. Finally, in the face of this increasing range of hybrid threats to our national security, the Prime Minister has committed to publishing a new national security strategy. The strategy, which is in development, will set out how not just our world-leading police and security and intelligence agencies, but the whole of Government and society, including businesses and communities, need to respond to these changing and complex threats. National security is the first duty of Government, and it is the foundation of our plan for change. The threats we face are more intertwined than ever, and our response needs to adapt. Together with our international allies, we need to face down the security threats and strengthen the powers and capabilities of the police and security services, who work around the clock to investigate and disrupt those who mean us harm. Our agencies have the wholehearted support of this Government because, in a volatile and uncertain world, their efforts could not matter more. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

16:22:00

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I join her in paying tribute to counter-terrorism policing and the security services for the work they do daily to keep us safe. Let me straightaway put on the record that the Opposition support the Government’s plans to place Iran into the enhanced tier of the FIRS regime, and we will also support the moves they wish to make to increase proscription powers and any other powers that are necessary to keep us safe. We will support those measures. The whole House should be in no doubt about the malign influence that Iran spreads around the world. It is responsible for supporting Hamas, who perpetrated the sickening massacre on 7 October 2023. Iran takes western hostages, including Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was held in squalid conditions for years. Iran supports the Houthis, who have attacked and tried to sink civilian merchant shipping in the Red sea as part of their war against the Saudi-backed, internationally-recognised Government. In Ukraine we see Iranian drones and military equipment used by Putin to murder Ukrainians and further Russia’s illegal invasion. Of course, Iran also threatens to acquire a nuclear weapon. Iran also persecutes its own people. Women are abused, imprisoned, and in some cases even killed, for not adhering to the behaviour demanded by the ayatollahs. Twenty-two-year-old Mahsa Amini was arrested and killed by the Iranian religious police simply for wearing what she wanted, and I am sure every single Member of this House will condemn that atrocity. People who are gay in Iran are persecuted and sometimes killed, and those who oppose the Iranian regime are brutally oppressed and often murdered. We should be in no doubt about the threat that the Iranian regime poses to its own people and to international peace. The tentacles of the Iranian state now stretch on to our very own soil here in the United Kingdom. Iran International TV, an independent TV channel, had to temporarily locate to the US not long ago, because its premises and people here were threatened by Iranian agents. Iranian dissidents on UK soil are threatened and harassed. And, as the Home Secretary set out, just two weeks ago eight Iranian nationals were arrested while planning attacks on UK soil. In opposition, the Home Secretary said that she would proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—she said so a number of times, including from this very Dispatch Box on 15 April last year. The Home Secretary has now been in office for nearly a year, so my first question is this: why has she not yet done what she said she would do by proscribing the IRGC? She said that the Iranian ambassador has been summoned. That is not an adequate response. Why have Iranian diplomats, including any suspected of supporting espionage activity, not been expelled? What further steps can be taken to develop international sanctions against the Iranian regime? The Home Secretary confirmed that the three individuals charged over the weekend entered the UK illegally, including by small boat. As recently as March this year, just a few weeks ago—I think it was on 6 March—extremist Abu Wadee entered the UK by small boat. He had previously been pictured on social media wielding an AK47, throwing pipe bombs and calling for the slaughter of Jews. This is the kind of illegal immigrant who is able to enter the country by small boat. The Home Secretary talks about her new Bill, which we debated a week ago today, but the truth is that it will not make very much difference. Confiscating mobile phones from illegal immigrants and slightly enhanced powers to monitor communications will not stop the crossings. The Border Security Commander has no actual powers other than to publish an annual report and set some strategic objectives. I do not think people smugglers are going to worry too much about that. What will stop the crossings is a proper deterrent so that all those who arrive—not just some, but all those who arrive—are removed. Then, they will not bother to attempt the crossing in the first place. This deterrent approach worked in Australia about 10 years ago. The Home Secretary must by now be regretting the decision to cancel the Rwanda deterrent before it even started. Crossings since she became Home Secretary are up by 30% year on year, and 2025 so far has been the worst in history. Does she finally agree that it is time to follow other countries and establish a proper removals deterrent applying to all those who arrive illegally by small boat? It is time to bring back Rwanda. In their first six months in office, the Government have not returned a single Iranian to Iran—not one—including Iranian criminals. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is now time to repeal the Human Rights Act for immigration matters, so that criminals and other dangerous people can be more easily removed from the UK and can no longer persuade UK judges to allow them to stay here on ever-more tenuous human rights grounds? The only way to protect our borders and ensure security is to remove all illegal immigrants as soon as they arrive. I hope she urgently adopts that policy.

I just say to the shadow Home Secretary that he was an immigration Minister when the number of small boat crossings soared and when net migration soared. On his watch, controls were reduced. Under his party, we saw returns plummet. This Government are clear that the rules need to be respected and enforced. That is why this Government are introducing counter-terrorism-style powers to strengthen our border security, something that his party, shockingly, has repeatedly voted against. The right hon. Gentleman still refers to his Rwanda scheme, which cost £700 million and, in the two years that it was operational, sent four volunteers—just four volunteers—to Rwanda. Border security is a part of our national security. Frankly, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not taking sufficiently seriously the national security threats that we face. I supported the work that his Government did to introduce the National Security Act, but, as he will know, I warned repeatedly that the powers were not strong enough, and that we could not use legislation designed for terrorism to proscribe state-backed organisations. We called on his Government repeatedly, if they were unable to proscribe the IRGC, to strengthen and amend the powers to be able to do so under national security provisions. In fact, we even put forward an amendment to the National Security Act in the previous Parliament, and the Conservatives voted against it. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman now says he will support our measures to strengthen our national security and bring forward stronger proscribing powers that can be used against all kinds of state or state-backed organisations that might attempt to do us harm. Our national security is the first duty of any Government, which is why this Government will continue to take ever-stronger action to pursue issues around criminality and extremist or terrorist, border and national security threats. That is how we keep our communities safe.

Given the wide range of threats that we face from hostile state actors, it is more important than ever that we protect ourselves from state-backed cyber-attacks and similar threats. Can the Home Secretary update us on what is being done to increase the nation’s resilience and countermeasures against such attacks?

My hon. Friend is right, because the complex national security threats that we face now take different forms and are increasingly intertwined. Cyber-threats and the use of technology are increasingly a part of those threats. Work on that will form a central part of the new national security strategy that the Prime Minister has announced, which is being developed at the moment, so that we recognise the interplay between these different threats.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats remain extremely grateful to all the extraordinary people from our police, intelligence and security services who continue to put themselves at risk to keep our country safe. We support the action taken by the Government so far, and stand ready to support further robust sanctions and other actions against cowardly regimes that seek to destabilise our and other western democracies. We last discussed the threat posed by the Iranian regime in this Chamber a couple of weeks ago. In response to questions about the proscribing of the IRGC, the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), referred to the work undertaken by Jonathan Hall KC to review the legislation we have in place, and it is good to hear that that review has been published today. The Home Secretary mentions planned changes that will be made and additional powers that will be introduced to respond to the legal difficulties in using powers designed to deal with terrorist groups for state and state-backed organisations such as the IRGC. Could she confirm that these new planned powers will finally enable us to proscribe the IRGC? I would be grateful if she could update the House on the timetable she foresees for bringing forward those changes and, given the difficulties with previous counter-terror laws, if she could tell the House whether any of those changes will be subject to the appropriate pre-legislative scrutiny. Our democracy has faced and continues to face systematic threats from hostile foreign states—not just from Iran, but from China and Russia. Now that our police and security services have had a chance to use the provisions in the National Security Act, could the Home Secretary update the House on any further gaps they have found during their work? We live in a perilous world with war on our continent, and we Liberal Democrats welcome the increase in defence spending. However, the decision to take that money from the official development assistance budget will leave a vacuum in some of the most vulnerable places. We know that China and Russia are seeking to fill that void, and Iran will undoubtedly try to do the same. What assessment have the Government made of malign actors using their soft power to influence events overseas and the resulting threats to our national security?

I thank the hon. Member for her comments and her support for the police and the intelligence and security agencies. She asked about the IRGC. In his report, Jonathan Hall states specifically that, under the existing legal framework, there are significant challenges when it comes to trying to take restriction or banning action against state-backed and state organisations—there are legal challenges to doing that—and he refers particularly to the IRGC in that context. That is why he set out the need for new powers, and we are committed to bringing those in. Obviously, we will need to follow the process by bringing in the new legislation, but I continue to be concerned about the IRGC. The hon. Member is also right to highlight threats from Russia and the different kinds of threats and challenges from China. In his report, Jonathan Hall identifies other areas where powers could be strengthened, including stop and search, cordons and post-charge questioning in specific circumstances. We will be looking at the detail in order to take forward all the recommendations and the issues that are raised.

The charging of Iranian nationals raises alarming questions about the extent of Iranian state activity in the UK. We know that Tehran uses the IRGC to push its influence around the world, including by supporting attacks against Jewish people and Israelis around the world. What assessment have the Government made of the threat posed to the British Jewish community by Iranian operatives? What steps are being taken to protect the community and eliminate those threats?

My hon. Friend is right to mention the importance of security for our Jewish communities, which should never be compromised either domestically or by any kind of foreign state influence or activity. That is why we work very closely with the Community Security Trust on a range of issues around support and protection for the Jewish communities across the UK, and why we take immensely seriously any malign Iranian influences that are targeted towards Jewish communities.

The Home Secretary rightly says that the threats from hostile states are complex and intertwined, so will she update the House on what further steps the Government have taken to protect critical national infrastructure, in particular from cyber-attacks? Our security services commit vast expertise in our protection. Their successes must be hidden, but their failures are often picked over. The one thing they really need is additional resources, and I urge the Home Secretary to make the case for that vigorously during the forthcoming spending review. That is the least they deserve from this House.

I know that the right hon. Member took these issues immensely seriously when he was in government. I agree with him about the importance of critical national infrastructure and the implications of cyber-attacks. I know that he will agree that the critical national infrastructure is changing: what is critical now is different from what might have been critical even 10 years ago, let alone 20 or 30 years ago. We need to have the processes to be able to adapt swiftly, and that will be considered as part of the national security review. He can be assured that I will always argue strongly for support for our intelligence and security agencies.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, in particular on the outcome of the Jonathan Hall review and the steps being taken to proscribe the IRGC. It is very sad that the previous Conservative Government failed to do that in 14 years. While we wait for the legislation, will she reassure the House by reaffirming that anyone in the UK who fails to declare a relationship with the Iranian regime is committing a criminal offence?

My hon. Friend is right; that is exactly the reason we have put the IRGC on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, alongside the whole of the Iranian state. We expect people to abide by that law, and there will be criminal offences if they do not.

The Home Secretary may be aware of a visit I made to Iran International just a few weeks ago, during which it expressed its appreciation for the fantastic support it has received from the Metropolitan police and security services. If she has not already done so, will she or the Minister for Security visit Iran International in order to send the message that threats to its journalists and those of the BBC Persian Service are utterly unacceptable, as are threats to their families based in Iran?

I thank the right hon. Member for his important question. Threats to Iran International, its journalists and their family members are disgraceful and completely unacceptable. He is right to commend the work of counter-terrorism police and the security services in addressing this issue. We take the safety of anyone on UK soil immensely seriously, and no threat to the safety of any individual, and certainly any organisation or journalist, will ever be acceptable in the UK.

I thank the Home Secretary for this important statement, and I thank our security services—the finest in the world—for keeping us safe. It is important that we have tools to assess the threat or potential threat posed by those who arrive through irregular means, such as small boats. Can the Home Secretary update the House on progress made to intelligence sharing with our international partners?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. In order to address transnational and international threats, networks and challenges—whatever form or route they take—it is immensely important that we strengthen co-operation and work with our international allies. We are already working to strengthen international co-operation and information sharing, but we are looking further at what checks and security assessments we can do in the UK.

The British people will be appalled to learn that Iranian nationals who have come across the English channel have been charged with terror offences. They will also be concerned that the Home Secretary talked in opposition about proscribing the IRGC, but now we have Jonathan Hall KC recommending a delay in proscribing the IRGC. Surely the right thing to do is proscribe it now and if any more powers are required, introduce them through emergency legislation, but we must not kick the can down the road.

Our border security is national security. That is the approach the Government are taking. We will continue to strengthen border security, including by introducing counter-terrorism powers. When in opposition I repeatedly called on the previous Government to strengthen the legislation in order to be able to take much stronger action on state-backed organisations like the IRGC. The Jonathan Hall report that is out today identifies the legal difficulties and problems with applying legislation that was designed for terrorism to state-backed threats. It is important that any legislation we apply is actually effective and does not unravel. That is why some years ago, in 2023, the Labour party put forward proposals to strengthen the legislation and bring in the new stronger powers that we are talking about for use against organisations that are state-backed, such as the IRGC. It is because we believe that national security is so important that we are prepared to give the Government, police and security agencies the powers they need to take action and make sure that something happens in practice.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I put on record my thanks to those who work day in, day out to keep our streets and communities safe, and who undertake work and activities that many of us may never hear about. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that with this Government the police and security services will always have the powers and resources that they need to keep us safe?

My hon. Friend is right to talk about the vital work that the police and the security and intelligence services do. It is because we support them so strongly that we are putting forward proposals to strengthen the law so that they have the powers they need at all stages to keep us safe.

We understand that the three individuals concerned entered the country illegally and then claimed asylum. Does the Home Secretary agree that this country is particularly attractive to those who wish to claim asylum because it is relatively easy to be successful in that endeavour compared with, for example, France, so it makes sense to claim asylum here? Does she attribute any of that to the Human Rights Act? If so, how does she plan to amend it? Does she have cause for concern that those who are tasked with making decisions are sometimes guilty of overzealous application of the law in respect of asylum?

The three individuals that the right hon. Member referred to entered the UK between 2016 and 2022 and were granted asylum. Grant rates for asylum have fallen in the last year and returns of failed asylum seekers have increased. We are strengthening our border security with counter-terrorism powers and strengthening the checks around criminality across the immigration and asylum system.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and the Security Minister for his written statement last week on the work of the defending democracy taskforce. As the Home Secretary will be aware, the Joint Committee on Human Rights is conducting an inquiry into transnational repression. I am sure that she will look at our findings carefully. Will the state threats joint unit bring a cross-Government approach to the work on transnational repression so that we can tackle this important issue?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The inquiry that his Committee is pursuing is important. The Security Minister will give evidence to that inquiry about the work being done on transnational repression, including the work of the defending democracy taskforce. The state threats joint unit is looking at a wide range of issues in respect of how we tackle the threats we face across the country.

As President Trump seeks to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran, may I ask the Home Secretary, along with senior Ministers across Government, to work with Five Eyes partners and the National Security Council and National Security Adviser team in the White House to ensure that any deal is comprehensive—it must not exclude ensuring that Iran cannot continue to work in proxy form, whether through criminal gangs or other states—in order that we do not have sanctions lifted without further action in the areas that she has discussed today?

The right hon. Member makes an extremely important point. It is essential that Iran is prevented from developing any further nuclear threat. That is why the US-led talks are so important; we support them strongly. He is right that this needs to be a comprehensive approach, and we agree with the approach across the Five Eyes partners.

I associate myself with the praise for our intelligence, police and security services. I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement about the combination of international co-operation and robust action at home, as was set out previously by the Security Minister, which is critical when tackling alleged acts of direct threat to life and property. Does the Home Secretary agree that measures such as the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme are really important because we are increasingly seeing actions by organised criminal gangs and other groups, which are an insidious force in our country, and we must deter other states and organisations from the nefarious actions that they are taking?

My hon. Friend is right. We are increasingly seeing a pattern where foreign state organisations end up using criminal proxies to pursue malign activity. That is why we have to link up the work around serious and organised crime with work around counter-terrorism and work around state threats. It is about combining the different hybrid threats that we now face, which is why the new national security strategy is so important.

The Home Secretary said in her statement: “The Iranian regime poses an unacceptable threat to our domestic security, which cannot continue.” Yet we know that Iranians make up the third-largest group of illegal migrants crossing channel, so does the Home Secretary agree that any Iranians crossing the channel should be detained and deported and should not be allowed to claim asylum?

The system that we inherited from the previous Government—including a Government that the hon. Member was at different times a part of—was not strong enough. Border security needs to be treated as a national security issue, but it has not been for far too long. That is why we are introducing counter-terrorism-style powers as part of our border security response. I am really sorry that he and his party repeatedly chose to vote against those counter-terrorism powers, because we need those powers to be introduced. We are also strengthening the security and criminality checks across the asylum and immigration system, because we need to make sure that we are doing everything possible to keep our country safe.

I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today. I join her in paying tribute to the security services and thank them for keeping us safe. The actions of the last few days have underlined the profound threat that Iran poses to our country. Many of the Iranian community in my constituency of Hendon live in fear of transnational repression. Could my right hon. Friend say more about what the Government are doing to protect our Iranian community and all those who live in fear of transnational repression, so that they can live their lives in freedom in Britain?

My hon. Friend is right to say that transnational repression has become a growing threat and challenge, not just from Iran but from other countries. The Security Minister provided an update to the House just last week on the further actions that we are taking, including further support for those who are being targeted and further advice and guidance for those who face threats. Those are the kinds of threats that our police and security service are particularly vigilant towards, to ensure that everyone in our country can feel confident that they will be kept safe.

Can the Home Secretary explain why the British envoy in Tehran was summoned by the Iranian authorities at the weekend? More importantly, does this not signal a complete disconnect from reality on the part of the Iranian state?

The hon. Member is right to raise this. We have made extremely clear to the Iranian regime our views about the unacceptability of state-backed threats on our soil, including through the summoning of the Iranian ambassador to the UK and through further measures, not just in the foreign influence registration scheme but those we are now going to take forward in response to Jonathan Hall’s report. It is immensely important that the Iranian regime hears the points that we are raising and that it understands our determination to protect the security of those on UK soil.

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement today and for the work that she and her Ministers have done on this really important issue. I also want to put on record my thanks and the thanks of the people of Harlow for the work that the police and security services do to keep us all safe. Does she agree that, as the methods of state-backed agents change and adapt, we too need to change and adapt? I am thinking in particular of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) said about intelligence gathering, and the Jonathan Hall report will be an important part of that.

My hon. Friend is right. The Jonathan Hall report identifies a series of areas where we have long-standing counter-terrorism powers that go further than the powers we have around state-backed threats. That might be something as simple as the power for the police to set up a cordon around the target of a potential terrorist incident, and they should have the same ability to do that for the potential target of a state threat incident. We will be looking to take forward those powers, but in order to use them most effectively, we also need the best intelligence gathering. We already have the best security and intelligence agencies in the world, but they need to be able to work ever more strongly with international partners too.

I thank the Secretary of State for her strong and determined words and actions—we appreciate them. I offer my thanks to the counter-terrorism unit for its work on the case. I know that this is the tip of the iceberg of the work being carried out unseen to keep us all safe across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The arrest of these three asylum seekers will naturally highlight the failings in the system, and I say that regardless of which party was in power at various times through that journey. What action will the Secretary of State and this Government take regarding the influx of young single men claiming asylum who seem empowered to declare war against this nation that has fed and clothed them for so many years? How do we assure our British public—my British public—that the end has come to housing these foreign nationals who hate this nation and all it stands for?

The hon. Member is right to pay tribute to the police and the security and intelligence services. He will know more than many in this House the complexity and wide range of different threats that our agencies have had to deal with through the years. They continue to need to deal with terrorist threats, from Islamist extremism to far-right extremism. They have of course had to deal over many years with Northern Ireland terror threats, and they have to deal with changing patterns of state threats, the different forms those threats can take and the way in which they interact with criminality. This Government have made it clear that we see border security as part of national security. That is something the Prime Minister said in his speech to Interpol before Christmas, and it is why we are strengthening the counter-terrorism-style powers we are using and bringing forward through this House. We are also strengthening international co-operation. We held the first ever international summit on organised immigration crime because we see that as a national security issue, too.