Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate. As I say, my Amendment 33 seeks merely to create an advisory board for the SIA, so that we can have some form of independence—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, just to confirm, the noble Lord will be speaking after the Minister.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

As the song used to say, “It Should Have Been Me”, but there we go.

The key starting point in this debate is the relationship between the SIA, its responsibilities, the Home Office and the people it serves. Quite self-evidently, Ministers decide and have responsibilities under Clause 12 to ensure that the SIA produces an annual report on its performance. It enables the Secretary of State to issue directions to the SIA on what it should be doing if it is not doing what it should be doing, ensures that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint board members, including the chair, and requires the Secretary of State’s approval for the SIA’s operational guidance that will be issued in due course. Ministers will be accountable to this House and the House of Commons for the performance of the SIA. If there is to be an advisory board in place, I suggest that the House of Commons and this noble House suit that purpose down to the ground; they will hold Ministers to account for the performance of the SIA.

In the first instance, I am surprised. Obviously the concept of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has not yet floated across the channel to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, or the Opposition Front Bench, because this set of amendments creates another set of bureaucracy to oversee the SIA and an interface between it and Home Office Ministers. It adds bureaucracy and cost, but not a great deal of value. In doing so, it also confuses the relationship between the Home Office’s direct responsibility to this House and Parliament and the responsibilities of the Security Industry Authority.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

or event—I think the Minister said at Second Reading that this included hostile vehicle mitigation—to what extent does that include hostile vehicle mitigation in an event’s car parks?

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

I am sorry have to say to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that the time limit is 10 minutes for him. If he could bring his remarks to an end, the House would be very grateful.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I will. Thirdly, as regards the requirement in Clause 6(3)(d) relating to security of information about the event that may assist in planning acts of terrorism, given that most large events are pre-advertised and many are pre-sold, how practical will this requirement be and how does the Minister consider it can be complied with? I will write to the Minister with my other questions.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, regarding Amendment 4 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we need to define exactly what we mean by “from time to time”. Is it a decade? It must be defined if organisations are to understand their responsibilities. At the moment, it is unclear. In my Amendment 11, I seek merely to establish an exemption for premises that are assessed to be in a low-risk category by an independent assessor. We have genuine concerns about which premises will be required to implement security measures under the Bill.

I have heard what the Minister has said, but I am not entirely convinced. This is an issue that we will take away and consider before Report. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment leading the group was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, so he should have replied and he must formally withdraw it.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I formally withdraw my amendment.

Asylum Seekers: Hotels

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have sat down. The time has gone, I think.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

There is some time.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have time. As I have known the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for such a long time and worked with him in such a constructive way, and even though the clock is flashing, I will take his intervention.

Retail Crime: Effects

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkham (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a retailer. I started work at 16 as a shop assistant, in 1969 founded the business that would become DFS furniture, and more recently served for a time as director of the retailer Iceland Foods.

DFS is fortunate that it is quite difficult to steal a sofa from a store display. However, it is a very different story at Iceland Foods and at every other retailer operating in our high streets, out-of-town retail parks and shopping centres. Shop theft has become a plague affecting every shopkeeper in the land—and I am not alluding here to hungry individuals stealing food for the family or children cheekily pocketing a bag of sweets. I mean organised and violent criminals who go into stores equipped to clear their shelves of high-value items and will not hesitate to use threats and violence against anyone who gets in their way.

We know from the excellent Justice and Home Affairs Committee letter last month that there are currently nearly 17 million incidents a year of shop theft across the country. In its last financial year alone, Iceland Foods—the smallest of our national food retailers—recorded 1,000 violent incidents involving store staff who were threatened and attacked with weapons, including hammers, screwdrivers, knives, hypodermic needles and even firearms. No one should have to go to work feeling frightened, knowing that they might face abuse and assault in the course of their day.

The police are overstretched, and too often they are unable to attend stores when they are called. Security guards are legally constrained: they are shackled in their inability to search or detain offenders before the police arrive, and thieves always seem well informed of their legal rights. Where prosecutions ensue, the punishments handed down seem to offer little deterrent.

Even more bizarrely, the state seems determined to obstruct efforts by retailers to protect themselves. The Information Commissioner’s Office “condemns” the sharing of photos of known shoplifters among retailers on WhatsApp groups, apparently placing the “criminal’s right to privacy” above the safety of store workers. As retailers look to take advantage of new technology to deploy live facial recognition to identify and deter thieves, they are warned that they are moving into an “Orwellian dystopia” where Big Brother is watching you. While it is simplistic to declare, “If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear”, retailers are entirely correct to prioritise the safety of their staff and customers above the right to privacy of the criminals, as indeed the chairman of Iceland Foods, Richard Walker, has pledged to do—because this is a crime, not a minor misdemeanour, and it is certainly not a victimless offence.

Ultimately, we all pay for retail theft, do we not? We pay in the higher prices that shops have to charge to cover the cost, not just of the goods that are stolen but of the CCTV systems, the alarms and the security guards. We pay for the NHS treatment of shop workers who have been physically injured by thieves, or of those whose mental health has been damaged by the trauma they have suffered. We pay too in the degradation of the retail environment. Who wants to shop in stores where legs of lamb or bottles of spirit have to be tagged, security boxed or locked in cabinets or refrigerators that can then be accessed only with the help of staff, or to run the risk of becoming collateral damage as a gang runs amok clearing goods off shelves? Shopping should be a safe and pleasurable experience whether you are looking to buy luxury goods, gifts from Mayfair galleries or something for the family’s tea on the high street of a northern town.

Organised, aggressive and violent threat theft is intimidating customers, deterring shoppers, destroying community cohesion and making some of our high streets no-go zones for law-abiding families. There can be no hope of high street revival and the associated opportunities for economic growth unless and until the crime wave is decisively addressed. As the Justice and Home Affairs Committee recommended and the noble Lord, Lord Hannett, commented, we should sweep away what is in effect the decriminalisation of thefts valued at less than £200.

The promise to make assaults on shop workers a specific criminal offence is a welcome gesture, and I am glad that the Government have pledged to enact this measure that was proposed by the Conservatives in April. But until that is done, it is important to recognise that assault is already a crime, and we should ensure that the existing law is enforced with rigour.

We should give the police the resources to respond to the thefts from shops and give the criminal justice system the resources to prosecute offenders and punish them appropriately. We should reinforce the teaching of citizenship in our schools so that children develop an appropriate respect for the property of others and for civility at all times. We should teach them that crime does not and cannot pay.

We should crack down on the social media companies that make it all too easy for professional thieves to resell stolen goods and on the venues that facilitate it. With a couple of clicks of a mouse, stolen property can appear on offer to millions through Facebook Marketplace within minutes of its theft.

Let us please stop putting regulatory hurdles in the way of retailers who want only to protect their store, staff and customers, keep prices down, and ensure that they are not driven out of business. Give retailers’ security guards the legal powers they need to be effective. Most definitely lift the ban on sharing images of known thieves and ensure that facial recognition technology is permitted—with safeguards, of course. Let us not rule it out on the basis that it is an affront to criminals’ right to privacy.

Talk of retailers potentially being driven out of business is certainly not overdramatic. I know at first hand British retail businesses whose losses from shop theft and the cost of trying to prevent it considerably exceed their annual profits.

We evidently have a Government of change and the October Budget clearly indicated that we can act quickly and decisively when we want to. It would not be premature on this occasion to act quickly to halt this horrific wave of criminality that is undermining our town centres and threatening our society. I thank noble Lords for their tolerance.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, there is limited time in the debate. There is a set time of two hours, so I ask noble Lords to please stick to the time limit.

Respect Orders and Anti-social Behaviour

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, Back-Bench questions will follow shortly. The Minister has not yet finished.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

For the benefit of doubt, I will now sit down. Having finished my, I hope, helpful response to the Opposition Front Bench and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I will now take questions from the House.