Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this fees order sets out the immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged and the maximum amount that can be charged in relation to each of those functions. Within the order, we propose a number of changes that will facilitate major government policy.

Fees charged by the Home Office for immigration and nationality applications are an essential part of the department’s funding settlement and help to support the sustainable operation of the migration and borders system while reducing reliance on taxpayer funding. It is important, therefore, that we have sufficient flexibility within the department’s legislation to set fees at levels that support this funding approach. This amendment order will play an essential role in delivering this flexibility while also helping to ensure that our legislation remains current and reflects changes in the wider migration and borders system.

I will go into more detail on each of the changes that we propose, but, to summarise, this order covers a number of areas. First, it will increase the fee maxima that can be set for the electronic travel authorisation—ETA—for sponsorship on work routes, for naturalisation as a British citizen or British Overseas Territory citizen, and for certain nationality services. It will also remove the fee provision related to the electronic visa waiver and make consequential amendments to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to remove the fee.

I turn to the changes we propose to the fee maximas. The figures set out in this order act as a ceiling within which the Home Office is able to make changes to fee levels by laying separate legislation and seeking agreement across government. It is sensible to keep these maximas under review, to ensure that the order continues to support our fees and funding objectives. The changes we propose today, which are accompanied by an economic impact assessment, will provide the necessary flexibility to make changes to fee levels where they are required to ensure that the sustainability of the migration and borders system is maintained.

I emphasise that the actual fee levels that are charged to those seeking to enter or remain in the UK are not changing in this order. Any changes to the fee levels will be made through separate legislation and will also be accompanied by full economic impact assessments. However, in laying this order, we have sought to provide some clarity to Parliament and the public about our intention to increase certain fees when parliamentary time allows and when further orders are brought forward. We will, first, increase the fee maxima applying to an application for an electronic travel authorisation—ETA—from £15 to £16, in order to facilitate a subsequent increase in the chargeable fee from £10 to £16. The fee maxima that applies to certificates of sponsorship, which are assigned by employers to employees who need a visa to work and stay in the United Kingdom, will increase from £300 to £525. This maxima increase will also apply to the successor sponsor a worker process, which is being rolled out on a phased basis currently. In both cases, the chargeable fee for the main category of application will increase from £239 to £525.

We will also increase from £1,500 to £1,605 the fee maximum that applies to adult applications made to naturalise as a British citizen or a British Overseas Territory citizen. This will facilitate a subsequent increase in the chargeable fee for applications to naturalise a British citizen to the new maximum level. We will also increase the fee maxima that apply to various nationality-related services, which include an amendment to the certificate of registration or naturalisation and the supply of a certified copy of a document granted under current or former nationality Acts or, indeed, the supply of any of the documents specified in Table 7 in this fees order. All these will increase from £400 to £428. The review of a decision related to immigration and nationality will increase from £450 to £482, and the issuance of a document confirming that a person has the right of abode in the United Kingdom will be increased from £550 to £589.

To be clear to the Grand Committee, although we have announced our intention to increase fee levels later this year, they will not be increased until we lay separate legislation, the immigration and nationality fees regulation, which will be subject to agreement and approval by Parliament.

Finally, we will remove from this order the chargeable function from an electronic visa waiver and make the necessary amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Fees Regulations to remove the fee. This change is being made because the electronic fee visa waiver has been replaced by the ETA for nationals of Qatar from October 2023 and for nationals of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates from February 2024. The changes we will be making through this order are vital to provide flexibility to amend fee levels. They will subsequently have to have the approval of Parliament to ensure that the system is sustainably funded. I emphasise once again, there is no fee increase today through this order, but I move the principle so that Parliament, the public and those who want to access those services know where they stand for a future planning purpose.

[Lord Rowlands (Lab)]

My Lords, it was my pleasure for the past three years to have served on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It has reported on a whole series of immigration and nationality fees, and it is in that context that I wish to raise a particular, serious issue that has arisen. That committee has never questioned the need or requirement for such fees, or that they should be appropriate and should match the costs. However, an extraordinary situation has arisen in the context of some of the fees that have been charged by the Home Office. That is, a whole series of fees have been charged unlawfully, in that it proved to be the case, after years of these fees being charged, that there is no statutory basis for doing so.

On top of that, worse is to follow. In fact, VAT has also in some cases been inappropriately served on some of these fees. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn the special attention of the House to this extraordinary situation. The committee recommended that those fees that were considered unlawful should be suspended until such time as the matter had been resolved. The department refused to do so and, in fact, is continuing unlawfully to charge fees in some areas, despite the recommendations of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

I seek to draw attention to this extraordinary situation. I have been around for a very long time and have never come across the situation where a major government department has behaved in this way. In a three-year period, it collected £50 million without statutory authority. That is an astonishing situation. Therefore, we on the committee have been pressing—indeed, everybody should press—the department to resolve this legislative shambles that has occurred.

It appears that the possible resolution for this situation is that it may require retrospective legislation to sort it out. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister, first, whether the department now agrees that it is necessary for such retrospective legislation to resolve this legislative fiasco? Secondly, if so, when will that be introduced? He cannot drag his feet any longer. This unlawful imposition of fees has been going on for a long time. I therefore ask the Minister to assure us not only that there will be such legislation but that it will be brought in promptly, so that the intolerable situation that has arisen can be resolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, again, my thanks go to the Minister for setting out the background to this order and for the specific detail that he outlined. As he said, it is a matter of the principle of the fee increase, not the actual increases themselves. I am also grateful for the pertinent and interesting points made by the noble Lords, Lord Rowlands and Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

As the Government have outlined, this order seeks to increase the maximum fees that can be levied for a range of key immigration services, including the ETA, certificates of sponsorship and applications for naturalisation. This measure is not unexpected. It aligns with the policy direction pursued by successive Governments—including the previous Conservative Administration, who sought to make the immigration system financially self-sustaining and to reduce its reliance on general taxation.

Noble Lords will know that the principle that those who benefit most from the immigration system should contribute to its costs is a long-standing one. In this context, it is logical that the Home Office looks to raise fees, given the increasing financial strain on the system. The proposed fee increases are expected to generate an additional £133.6 million annually while reducing public service provision, thereby saving the Exchequer a further £12.42 million. On the surface, this appears to present a clear net benefit to the Government’s finances; the previous Government acknowledged the necessity of fee increases to maintain the sustainability and integrity of the system.

Going forward, it is of course important to assess whether these revenue projections are robust, particularly in the light of the complex and ever-changing landscape of immigration; and to ask whether these measures will in effect lead to the intended behavioural changes. For instance, we are told that previous fee increases had little impact on demand. Is that always going to be the case? The Government’s own impact assessment here on ETA, for instance, indicates a modest reduction in ETA applications due to the fee increase. All of this points to a general question for the Minister: what ongoing monitoring is in place to assess, on a continuing basis, the impact of fees on issues such as behaviour, demand and costs? I would be grateful if the Minister could outline that in his response.

In conclusion, we do not oppose the Government’s desire to increase fees in order to fund the immigration system. We must ensure that these fee increases are implemented in a way that is fair and equitable and which truly serves the long-term interests of both the immigration system and the broader public. It is in the best interests of the United Kingdom to have an immigration system that is financially sustainable and fair to all those who seek to contribute to our society. I trust that the Government will continue to monitor the effects of these increases and remain responsive to any concerns that may arise.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the contributions from noble Lords and from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I want to remind the Grand Committee of something it already knows, but it is worth putting it in context at the beginning: there is no increase today in the fee levels, and impact assessments for each potential future fee increase, if this order were to be approved, would be put in place. There would be an impact assessment for each potential new fee level determined by the Government, in due course. That fee level may or may not be put forward by them at some point in the future, up to the maxima being agreed today, and would include an assessment of the impact on tourism, jobs, investment, growth and on the appertaining costs of any fee as a whole.

I know that the Committee knows that, but it is worth putting it in context. This is the hors d’oeuvre to a meal; it is not the main meal, because that will come downstream when potential new fee levels are put before both Houses of Parliament for approval, with an appropriate impact assessment covering the many points made by Members here today.

I will start with my noble friend Lord Rowlands, who I am pleased to see in his place. We shared a long time together in the House of Commons and it is good to see him again here today. He touched on a very important point. First, there is the scrutiny of legislation by the statutory instruments committee, which was also touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The points my noble friend made about that, and the performance of the Home Office, are well made. They were made in the previous debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton; I am hoping that they will not be made in future debates, for the reasons I outlined then. The Government intend to make sure that statutory instruments have proper Explanatory Memoranda and are thoroughly investigated and overseen by Ministers, and that measures which are brought forward are appropriate and testable by the SI committee, and defensible by Ministers accordingly.

My noble friend Lord Rowlands made a clear reference to the failure to provide legislative cover for fee increases. This was round about April of last year. My first defence is that, as he will know, I was not the Minister responsible at the time. Why it happened is a matter of conjecture, but it has. I am not going to put the proverbial political boot in to previous Ministers or officials. That is where we are and, in their defence, there was a general election, which has impacted upon any timescales to rectify that error, but that error has existed. When it was noticed, measures were brought to the attention of Ministers in the current Government, and we brought forward regulations at around Christmastime. Those were taken through the Grand Committee and the House and approved accordingly, so that the fees now being charged are on a legal statutory basis.

As my noble friend mentioned, that leaves a gap of some months—maybe April to November—where fees were charged accordingly, with no legal backing. He asked, rightly, what measures there are to ensure that we take action on that. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill has within it measures to provide retrospective statutory authority for those fees that were charged in connection with services provided by Ecctis Ltd. On that basis, that Bill, which has been published in the House of Commons, is correcting the position on fees charged to date.

Those who have previously been charged have received a service that they have paid for. We want to avoid putting an additional burden on taxpayers, so we do not intend to issue refunds, because although the fee was charged without that legislative cover, the service that the fee provided was still received by the individuals concerned. We are trying to ensure that we regularise not just the situation, as we have now done, but that gap which happened—not on my watch, but it did. It is now being regularised by this legislation, which will be challenged. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also mentioned this point. It is open to scrutiny and to approval, rejection or amendment in this House, but it is the Government’s position to try to resolve something we were not responsible for. I hope that answers my noble friend’s point, but I will happily take an intervention.

[Lord Rowlands (Lab)]

I believe so. The most important thing is: have the lessons been learned as a result of the fiasco that occurred, so that we can be assured that, in future, there will never be a fee that is not statutorily based?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will give my noble friend what I would say is a guarded response: I hope so. It is my intention that that will not happen again. I cannot verbally legislate today to say that mistakes will not be made by Ministers and/or officials downstream, but I hope that lessons have been learned. The moment it was drawn to this Government’s attention, we introduced legislation to regulate the current level of fees that were being proposed and, through the proposed Bill, cover legislatively the backdated gap that was in place. I hope I can give my noble friend that assurance. Certainly, it is something that current Ministers are aware of and do not wish to have—but, as ever, it is a human system, as my noble friend knows.

I turn to the meat of other points that were made noble Lords. I welcome the support of His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench. The noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised the impact on tourism, on jobs and on a range of other things. Let me put this into context again. The Government have to cover the costs of the immigration border control system. This is potentially helping with any future decisions taken—not the increase today, but any future decisions—to meet the costs of that system and to put in place measures to ensure that we have border control for tourism and employment, as well as the measures we are taking separately in the immigration Bill to look at illegal migration. It is important that we regulate that and that the taxpayer gets resource back from it. We have taken decisions, which may not be popular with the noble Baroness, to look at how we can potentially raise money from that. As I said, we will bring forward further impact assessments and proposals on the actual figures for each of the sectors that she mentioned, but we have made a judgment that we have to cover those costs and we must ensure we can do that.

The Government have a growth agenda. We do not want to hinder growth in jobs or in tourism; we want people to come to the United Kingdom. The question I throw back to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is: would a fee of £16 deter somebody from coming to the United Kingdom on a tourist visit? I think he said yes from a sedentary position. That is a judgment we will have to examine and look at. The impact assessment shows a marginal impact. It is something we will have to look at. When and if we bring forward proposals on the rise from £10 to a potential maximum in the future, we will look at those issues. I do not know—do I not go to America because it costs me £35 or whatever it is for an ESTA? Do I not go to France, in due course, when I am charged a fee for its equivalent of an ESTA? Do I not go to Spain, to Greece or to other countries? Alternatively, do I absorb that as part of my tourism package?

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

There is a great deal of research evidence on this very point. Going to America turns out to be very different from going to a country within the European Union. Going to a Schengen area country turns out to be very different now from going to the UK, because of course you can get one document to get into all the different countries. There is a great deal of evidence already about this, and when we bear in mind that this country has higher VAT on, for instance, accommodation, tourist attractions and so on than most other countries, we are already at a disadvantage. All I am grateful for is that the Minister has assured me that we are going to have full consultation and a full impact assessment when he brings the next stage forward.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There will be an impact assessment. I still say to the noble Lord that people want to come to London: they want to see this building and Buckingham Palace; they want to see Downing Street and Trafalgar Square. In my home city of Liverpool, people want to see Beatles-related material or they go for football matches. People will go to York because of its history. People go to Scotland—the noble Lord’s home base—because they like Edinburgh and Scottish culture. That is not going to change because we have gone from £10 to £16. There might be other factors that stop people coming but I am not convinced that that figure will be looked at. I reassure the noble Lord that if the figure goes at a future date from £10 up to the maximum of £16 on that proposal, there will be an impact assessment and he can test it. He can vote for or against it in due course.

The noble Lord made another important point on the ETA form and I am grateful to him for raising it. I want to get the bottom of the source of his knowledge about potential translations—I will do this, if I may, outside the Grand Committee. I will look at it and write back to him in due course. At the moment, the form is available only in English. It has been launched in the Gulf countries. We have had no significant feedback, but I will take that point away. If there were assurances given previously by Ministers or officials, I want to get to the bottom of them. I am not aware of them from the discussions that we had today or from my discussions with officials in the Home Office. We will look at that in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about the logic for all of this. The logic is that we have to fund the cost of the migration system. The logic is that if there are fee-level increases—which are not yet on the table, but could come—with impact assessments, these will be to ensure that we maximise the income to cover the cost of administration and of border systems generally. There may also be some businesses that ask, “Can I recruit home-grown employment?”. That is an important consequence as well.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am mindful that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that some of the increases in the maxima might not cover the administrative costs of introducing them. That then starts to be a burden on the Home Office’s budget, so is analysis being done to look at that? It will otherwise become counter- productive.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The driver for some of these issues is to ensure that we have self-sufficiency on costs for this area. Obviously, I am talking today about the potential for maximas. We are not talking about what those fees are going to be. They may be the maximas and they may not. The Home Office will take that decision and it will lie predominantly with Ministers who are Members of the House of Commons, rather than of the House of Lords—such as myself. We will discuss those fee increases. That is a decision taken by the Minister for Migration and Borders, who is a Member of the House of Commons in the Home Office team. We will look at that and these orders will come forward to both Houses in due course. I will take feedback and discussion, as I am doing now with colleagues in this House.

The general principle of this is that we ensure that we raise that resource and potentially look at challenging behaviour so that we give opportunities for people to say, “If it costs X to bring someone from Y country, are those skills available locally to boost the economy locally?” That is a perfectly legitimate policy objective that I think was shared by the last Government and which is not difficult for Members to accept and understand.

I hope that I am covering all the points. The final point that I want to make is on Northern Ireland. Citizens of the UK, including citizens who live in Northern Ireland—whether they identify as Irish or British—will not have an ETA to go to Ireland, and, vice-versa, Irish citizens will not need an ETA to go to Northern Ireland. There will be tourist movement from other countries into Ireland and Northern Ireland, and potentially into the United Kingdom as a whole through that route. I am cognisant of that and we are aware of it. We will make an assessment on that. Again, I repeat my record that says that we have not yet made the decisions on the figures. We have not brought those forward or made the impact assessment but when we do, I will be ensuring with colleagues that that impact on Northern Ireland tourism is assessed, as will be the impact of the collectability of that ETA in relation to the island of Ireland and the common travel area.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have raised that issue but it is something on which we have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government since the inception of the ETA policy. We will continue to work with those partners to understand the impact of ETAs in Northern Ireland. By requiring an ETA on crossing the land border, we will also have a better understanding of those who are seeking to come to the United Kingdom. However, as noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will know, the land border issue in Northern Ireland is sensitive and not one that we wish to see imposed—as it was, even in the times when I was a Northern Ireland Minister 20 years ago.

With that, I hope that I have answered the points made. I commend this order to the Grand Committee.

Motion agreed.

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Amendment) (Provision of Information) Order 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Amendment) (Provision of Information) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

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

My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee has considered the order, which amends the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 in order to give the Disclosure and Barring Service, the DBS, an express power to share its barred list information with UK non-territorial police forces and the Crown dependency police forces of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. I hope this will be a relatively straightforward Motion for the Committee because, as well as issuing criminal record certificates, commonly known as DBS checks, the DBS also maintains two lists—one of people that the DBS has barred from working in regulated activity with children, and one of those it has barred from working in regulated activity with adults. Regulated activity for the purposes of this includes sensitive roles such as work in schools, health and social care.

The DBS bars people from such work if their criminal history or other information held by the police, or their behaviour in the workplace, indicates that they pose a high risk to either or both of those groups. The DBS itself updates the police national database, PND, on a weekly basis with the names of individuals who have been barred. If the police then look up a named individual on the police national database—for example, for the purposes of criminal investigation or police officer vetting—the police will be able to see if that person is on one or other of the DBS barred lists.

An express power to share such information with the police is provided to the DBS by Section 50A of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. This gives the DBS the power to provide any information it has to a chief officer of police for the purposes specified in the Act, and it confirms that a chief officer of police includes the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Police Scotland. However—and this is the nub of the order before the Committee—it does not make express reference to the non-territorial police forces or the Crown dependency police forces. Following an extensive review, which includes arrangements for accessing the police national database, the DBS has decided on a precautionary basis that there should be express statutory ground for sharing its barred list data with these forces. It therefore took steps in March 2024 to prevent them accessing the barred status of individuals, pending resolution of the legislative position. This means that, at the moment, non-territorial forces and the Crown dependency police forces cannot currently access an individual’s barred list status.

We therefore intend, through this order, to make it clear that the definition of “chief officer of police” in Section 50A also includes the chief officers of the UK, non-territorial and Crown dependency police forces. Those non-territorial forces are the British Transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police, the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Air Force Police, the Royal Military Police, the National Crime Agency and the tri-service serious crime unit. The Crown dependency forces, for the purposes of this order, are the States of Jersey police force, the salaried police force of the Isle of Guernsey and the Isle of Man Constabulary. This order effectively gives the Disclosure and Barring Service the certainty it seeks to provide all forces with access to information that indicates that someone is considered to pose a risk to children and vulnerable adults.

In conclusion, the DBS’s barred list exists to help protect the most vulnerable in our society from those who pose a high risk of harm to them. That information is important to decisions made by police forces, whether related to police officer vetting or related to the prevention and investigation of crime.

This order’s purpose is to give the DBS the statutory power, beyond any doubt, to share this information with all forces, including the non-territorial and Crown dependency forces. I commend it to the Committee.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, just before I contribute, are we not doing both SIs together?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the detail and rationale for this order. I make no comment on the on the observations just made by the noble Baroness and seek to address only the substance of the order.

As the Minister said, this statutory instrument seeks to grant explicit statutory authority for the DBS to share information with a range of non-territorial and specialist police forces. Although the need for this clarification is important and of course understandable, there are several questions about how this change will affect safeguarding practices more widely.

The order seeks to address a gap in the legal framework and expand the list of forces with access to the DBS. These were listed by the Minister, and I do not seek to repeat them. Given the critical role that these forces play in safeguarding vulnerable people, it is vital that they have access to all the relevant data that could indicate a risk to public safety. If properly implemented, the changes discussed today should enable the relevant forces to access that information and enhance protection.

I will probe the Minister on a couple of points. Is he confident that the forces now granted access to DBS data are fully equipped—in terms of both training and technology—to handle and act upon this sensitive information effectively? Safeguarding data is of the utmost sensitivity, and the risks of misuse or failure to act on such information are significant. What specific protections are in place to ensure that qualified authorised personnel within these forces can access and use the data properly?

Further, the SI allows the sharing of data on individuals barred from working with children or vulnerable adults. There is obviously an expectation that that data will be actively used to prevent harm. Therefore, are any guidelines or protocols in place to govern how this information will be used by the additional range of forces?

Finally, it is important to understand how these new regulations will fit into the broader safeguarding landscape. While recognising the need to protect and secure sensitive personal data for a host of reasons, I ask: does that preclude a more integrated approach to data sharing in general, not just among police forces but perhaps with agencies such as social services and healthcare providers?

The Opposition see this a positive step toward improving safeguarding. Plainly, it is important that its utility is measured and evaluated. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I first address a point that the noble Baroness made about the Explanatory Memoranda for Home Office SIs. I am going to be honest with her: there has not been a been a good performance by the Home Office for a long period of time. The Home Office has recognised that. I am responsible for what has happened since 4 July last year. A number of SIs criticised by the statutory instrument committee were lacking in information and assessments from the previous Government. I am not going to pick a fight with the previous Government for that; that can happen.

On entering office in July, my job was to recognise that concern from the statutory instruments committee and to ensure that we try to address it. In addressing it, I did two things: I met the then chair of the statutory instruments committee—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—and I have since had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, who has subsequently taken over that position. We will continue to liaise with him on that and we will examine that with him. I initially gave the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the assurance that we will try to improve performance on SIs. I am committed to ensuring that SI legislation is delivered to the highest standard.

We are in a transitionary period. We are still in only the seventh or eighth month of this current Government. Therefore, we, the Home Office, are working hard to drive improvements in explanatory materials where there have been deficiencies. That includes organising refreshment training and guidance for members of staff. I have personally met with officials who deal with the statutory instrument guidance across the board. They are fully aware that not only I but the Leader of this House and the Leader of the House of Commons are very keen to ensure that SIs and Explanatory Memoranda are at a better standard than they were. I give that assurance to the noble Baroness today. It is starting to yield results, with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee having commended the department recently for its explanatory materials provided in support of several of the latest Home Office instruments. I assure the noble Baroness that that will get better over time, all being well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister very much for his very helpful answer. I was asking about individuals because if this tiny group do not know that they are on the barred list but are having jobs denied them, we are going back to the system that used to operate 30 years ago when I was chair of education in a county council. It was essentially a secret list then. The point about those who have criminal records is that the individuals concerned know. It may be only a small number but I am very concerned about that group.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think I said—but I will check Hansard again—that all individuals will know that they are barred. Having reflected on this matter, I can confirm that all individuals will know that they are barred. Again, this is, in a sense, a process matter to ensure that there is legal certainty for the agencies that share that information.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

What about the individuals?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The individuals know that they are barred because of the reasons they have. So there is legal certainty about that. I hope I have answered the noble Baroness, but, if she wishes to intervene again, I am obviously happy to reply. If she does not, I commend this instrument to the Grand Committee.

Motion agreed.

Domestic Abusers: Reoffending

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what programmes and interventions are used to reduce re-offending among domestic abusers in the community; and what are the re-offending rates of those who participate.

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

The domestic abuse and stalking perpetrator intervention fund currently provides funding to 27 police and crime commissioners across England and Wales to commission domestic abuse and stalking perpetrator intervention programmes locally. Although evaluations are currently limited, early evidence about the ability of perpetrator interventions to reduce reoffending is promising. An independent evaluation of the Drive project showed that the number of Drive service users using physical abuse reduced by 82% and that the risk to the victim was reduced in 82% of cases. Further evaluation of a wide range of interventions is needed to better understand reoffending rates and what works in stopping perpetrators.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. We know that a whole-community approach is required, such as the White Ribbon campaign, which focuses on engaging men and boys in tackling harmful behaviour. Likewise, the Hollie Gazzard Trust helps reduce domestic violence through promoting healthy relationships with training programmes in schools, colleges and businesses. This includes powerful bystander intervention training, which enables people to know why they should intervene and gives them practical techniques to do so. So what are the Government doing to promote and evaluate bystander intervention training?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes an extremely important point. It is important that we do not just have interventions on perpetrators but also that those individuals who can help, intervene and support victims are both supported in how they can make those interventions and have support and training generally. She will, I hope, welcome the fact that a new violence against women and girls strategy—one of the Government’s “plan for change” manifesto commitments—will be published later this year. Prevention and education are fundamental to the Government’s approach. I will certainly take back her comments to the Minister responsible, Jess Phillips, who will be developing the strategy, and we will look at it: obviously, it will be published for this House to interrogate in due course.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate mentioned the importance of schools and of teaching young people about healthy relationships. She also mentioned the Hollie Gazzard Trust and various other charities that work in this area. But I wonder what is happening up and down the country to ensure that there are not just pockets of education but that this education is widespread among young people in our communities.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend hits on an important point. Domestic violence does not just happen when an individual reaches a certain age; it is inbuilt and ingrained over a long period of time. Therefore, in order to prevent domestic violence downstream, the way young people in primary and secondary schools and beyond are educated in mutual respect and understanding, and in non-violence, is extremely important. I would hope that my colleagues at the Department for Education, and indeed in the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, recognise that need for early intervention and resilience building to ensure that we do not create the perpetrators of the future who will then need the required investment and intervention I talked about in my earlier answers.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner found that 60% of domestic abuse survivors wanted their perpetrator to attend a behavioural change programme, but that only 7% could do so because of the lack of availability. We do not have enough programmes and we do not know which programmes work best. Although some studies, such as Project Mirabal and the Drive programme, show promising results, the programme evaluation overall has been painfully slow. What steps are the Government taking to accelerate it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I mentioned in my original answer, the Government have put £20.5 million into perpetrator intervention programmes currently, and those are under evaluation as we speak. The evaluations are slow by their very nature and, again, I can only answer for post 4 July 2024. What we are trying to do is examine, with the violence against women and girls strategy, what works effectively and what interventions we can take forward. Therefore, both the points that the noble Baroness made and other considerations of intervention—and how we evaluate that intervention to make sure it has a real impact and give comfort to victims primarily—are important issues. We will be examining that during the development of the violence against women and girls strategy.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, everyone’s thoughts will be with those who have been victims of domestic abuse, and supporting such victims is rightly of paramount importance. Given that the Government have released domestic abusers early as part of their efforts to manage prison capacity, can the Minister explain what assessment has been made of the risk that this policy poses to victims?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord will know that offences have been excluded from the SDS40 early release scheme. Those include sex offences, irrespective of sentence length; serious violent offenders with a sentence of four years of more; and specific offences linked to domestic violence, irrespective of sentence length, including stalking, coercive controlling behaviour and non-fatal strangulation. So the noble Lord’s basic premise is, I am afraid to say to the House, wrong. Domestic violence perpetrators are not being included in the programme he referred to.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that, in a high proportion of households in which there is domestic violence, there are also very vulnerable young children. Could the Minister assure the House that the services that are tackling domestic violence will always give a high priority to the protection of children who are caught up in these very unhappy and destructive experiences?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Children should be central, because they will have witnessed domestic violence and potentially had their outlook on life, towards both their mother and father, impacted by that domestic violence, and will remain scarred by that. So it is extremely important that, as well as intervening on perpetrators, be they male or indeed female, we also have to ensure that we look at the family as a whole and what is best for individuals, particularly the children who have been impacted. I cannot give the noble Lord specific comfort today but, again, if he looks at the violence against women and girls strategy, published in due course, he will I hope see a range of mechanisms there to ensure we take a whole-family approach to this issue.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, to go back to the original question from the right reverend Prelate about bystander intervention, those of us who travel on public transport in London will be aware that there is a programme currently in operation offering very specific advice to travellers on how to intervene in circumstances where they witness the kind of abuse we are talking about. I wonder whether my noble friend has any information from Transport for London on how successful that programme is and what impact it is having.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I cannot specifically say today that I have that information for my noble friend, but I will certainly investigate. My noble friend Lord Hendy, the Transport Minister, is sat next to me on the Bench today and will have heard the question. We will negotiate and discuss between us whether there are lessons to be learned and how that programme is of value. I will look into that for my noble friend.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

It seems to me that victims, even when the perpetrators have been caught and convicted, feel that they are the ones responsible for keeping themselves safe from the behaviour of perpetrators. There seems so little evidence of successful programmes. Would the Minister agree with me that, despite the £20 million-odd that he has already talked about, we need to invest more in research for programmes that actually work.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We do need to ensure that the programmes work. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that in 2025-26 we in the Home Office are providing an additional £90 million to police and crime commissioners to look at the very issue that she has mentioned, through the domestic abuse and stalking perpetrator intervention fund. This will be not just for when someone is convicted of a domestic violence offence but when they are released, when there may be a need for greater support for the victim to make sure that they do not feel intimidated, stalked or damaged by the relationship that has already caused them damage.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, we have already heard about the centrality of education to make sure that we are making a difference on violence against women and girls. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether in the other place the Department for Education is working closely with our honourable friend Jess Phillips to ensure that more teachers are trained to be clear about the effects of adverse childhood experiences on the young people they see day in and day out?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can assure my noble friend that the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy is a cross-government strategy. When it is published, it will include contributions from a range of government departments, not least the Department for Education.

Emergency Service Network Programme

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in delivering the Emergency Service Network programme.

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

My Lords, in December 2024, the Home Office awarded the user service contract for the emergency service network to IBM and its partners. The programme’s attention is now on producing a plan with our partners, focusing on mobilisation and delivery of key capabilities to deliver the emergency service network. Programme delivery dates with milestones will be available in the spring.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, and I declare my interests as in the register. Members may not know this, but this is essentially about moving the police emergency services, the fire brigade and the ambulance service from a radio network to a mobile phone network. That should have been delivered in 2017, but here we are in 2025 and we do not yet have an implementation date. The initial cost of £2 billion is now in excess of £12 billion. I wonder whether the time has come for a radical new approach. Instead of pursuing the present idea, which was a good one, of having the data and radio system on a mobile phone network, we could pursue those two avenues separately, so that we make progress and do not waste more money on a programme that has struggled to make any progress.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, who will be aware that I can be responsible only for activity post 4 July 2024. There was significant time and money overspend under the previous Government. However, he is right that the service will provide for 300,000 users across Britain, 107 emergency services, 44 police forces, 50 fire and rescue services and 13 ambulance trusts, as well as 300 other organisations that use Airwave for this important purpose. I hear what he says, but we have set a course of action and a direction of travel. He will no doubt monitor that, and I want to ensure that the switchover from Airwave to the new emergency service network happens as quickly as possible. As he knows, it will take some time to bed in following the ending of the previous contract and the beginning of this contract. I hope that the House will bear with me on that delivery in due course.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, this saga goes back so far that I was the telecoms Minister when this was first being discussed, in 2015. I am glad that progress has been made, but with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, setting a new course of action at this late stage would not necessarily be the right thing to do. The fundamental point is that the Home Office should not be building or contracting a mobile phone network, and I am glad that BT/EE is in charge of it. What worried me was reading that the Home Office itself is planning to build 300 masts. How does this programme correspond with the DCMS’s programme for a rural network shared between the mobile operators? It seems that the left hand and the right hand may each not know what the other is doing.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Given the overspend, I do not know whether the noble Lord was the left hand or the right hand in the previous Government. But whichever he was, I declare an interest: I was the Police Minister in 2009-10, and this had not started then. The delay, obfuscation, overspend and costs happened entirely on the previous Government’s watch. However, let us put that to one side. The key thing is ensuring that our police forces, fire services and others have appropriate services. The Home Office will provide some masts because there are some security implications, which we need to examine and deliver on. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that the Home Office will have a grip on this and will deliver, and that it has a three to five-year plan to get the basics in place, with a handover as soon as possible.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my policing interests as listed in the register. I am pleased that the Minister acknowledges the grotesque excess expenditure and delays that are clearly the fault of the previous Government. What consideration is being given to the resilience implications of the emergency services using a mobile phone network? At the moment, if the Airwave network goes down, the police and other emergency services can use mobile phones to communicate with each other. If something affects the mobile phone network, what will be plan B?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Plan B is part of plan A, which is also to provide the 292 4G mobile phone sites that the noble Lord mentioned in his question. We have picked this up. We have made a decision to terminate the previous contract; we had a court case to do that. We are now putting in place a revised contract—we have to exit the former contract—and resilience will be built in to make sure that this is the most important service that can be provided, because this is how police, fire and other emergency services communicate with each other in times of difficulty. It is an absolute priority for the Home Office to get this right, and I hope that we will do so in the course of the next few years.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I keep hearing that the Government want us to be leaders in AI, but it is very difficult to work out how this can be when the Government have not dealt with the fact that the police are being run as an analogue operation in a digital age. It almost beggars belief that all 43 police forces in the UK use different IT systems, the majority of which do not even speak to each other.

We have just heard about the 51 year-old police national computer; that is never going to be sorted in the next, goodness knows, five to 10 years, and it stores only very basic biometric data. Many of the drones the police are using are clapped out and need to be replaced. When are the Government going to wake up to the major problem the police have got with technology and actually provide the funds to deal with this once and for all?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an extremely valid point. There are 44 police forces in total—43 plus the British Transport Police—and they have a range of different technological methods of gathering information and working. Obviously, from a taxpayer efficiency and a security point of view, we want to make sure that we get the best deal. Part of the Government’s efficiency drive will be to look at how we can work with police forces, which are independent, to do that downstream. The change we have made from the previous Government’s position will save the taxpayer £200 million per year when up and running. That is a more efficient way of getting a better service for the taxpayer.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

His Majesty’s Opposition look forward to monitoring this programme according to the timescale set out today. What assurances can the Government give that the emergency service network will ever deliver what it set out to do, especially in light of the ongoing vast expenditure of the programme?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me give the noble Lord this assurance: I am not sure how we will monitor it, but it will be better than the previous Government’s monitoring. The previous Government’s overspend and the delays—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—were all, dare I say it, on his watch. We signed a contract in December and it is a significant amount of taxpayers’ money—potentially £19.2 billion over a 28 year-period. The Home Office, with colleagues, will monitor the introduction, delivery and efficiency. As we do so, and as we have done with the previous contract that his Government signed, if it becomes inefficient, we will take action. We are now in discussions with Airwave and Motorola to find recompense for the taxpayer for the overspend that was inflicted on his watch.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

Has the Minster read the latest leader in the Economist, which sets out the irrefutable case for the substantial rearmament of this country and its western European neighbours if we are to provide adequately for the security of our people? Does he accept that that is a question not just of pure military power but of national resilience, in which emergency communications play a crucial role? Further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, can the Minister assure the House that this new system, whenever it comes in, will be fit for purpose in a potentially hostile environment?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right. Any future Airwave system has to be resilient to potential hostile actor threats and attacks. That is built into the system, and it is something we are cognisant of. The security element of that is extremely important not just in an emergency services context but in the context of any other form of communication. The noble and gallant Lord will know that there are hostile actors who seek to do harm to the United Kingdom. Our job is to stand up to them and to provide resilience accordingly.

County Lines Drug Trafficking

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle ‘county lines’ drug trafficking.

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

The Government’s county lines programme is targeting exploitative drug-dealing gangs while breaking the organised crime groups behind this trade. The programme has closed more than 400 drug-dealing lines since July 2024 alone. The Government are committed to halving knife crime in the next decade and to tackling the violent gangs who lure children into crime. We will be introducing a new offence of criminal exploitation of children in the crime and policing Bill, which will be published very shortly.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I admire the Minister’s indefatigability in addressing three of noble Lords’ Oral Questions today and I thank him for his Answer. An estimated 14,000 children are at risk of child criminal exploitation as a result of county lines drug trafficking. In 2022, it was reported that there had been 8,000 arrests since the introduction of the county lines programme in 2019; that is an average of 2,600 per year. In the last nine months, Home Office statistics appear to show that there have been around only 500 arrests. Why is this, and what are the Minister and his department planning to do about it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that I can answer only for the period from July 2024 to September 2024, which are the latest figures. These figures show that 400 deal lines were closed, more than 200 dealers were arrested and charged, 500 further arrests were made, and there were 800 safeguarding referrals for children and vulnerable people. He asked what we can do in particular—yes, roughly 14,500 children have been impacted by county lines, and first and foremost we are looking at how we can support those children.

Very shortly—in fact, tomorrow—the new offence of criminal exploitation of children will be introduced in the police and crime Bill. I look forward to the noble Lord’s support on that. It will mean that we can go after the gangs who are luring young people into violence and crime, and we will have an additional penalty for individuals who exploit and damage children as a result. So there are short-term interventions to be made, but there are long-term measures too.

I would also say to the noble Lord that the additional 13,000 neighbourhood police officers will be an extremely important way of gathering intelligence, putting police boots on the ground and putting the fear of God into those people who are undertaking county lines activity.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

I take it that my noble friend the Minister is aware that a fair number of children who are recruited into county lines have been excluded from school. In that connection, what liaison does his department have with the Department for Education to reduce the number of children who have nothing else to do when they are kicked out of school?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is right that we should put children at the focus of county line activity. By that, I mean preventing children from being involved in county lines, not criminalising those children who are involved in county lines but seeing them, as I think my noble friend indicated, as victims who need our support. I will take away her contribution and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Police Minister, see what steps are being taken to do that, and contact my noble friend accordingly.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, more than 27,000 suspected drug suppliers are either on bail or released under investigation due to forensic and digital backlogs. One in five of those cases has been going on for more than a year, and currently there are more than 25,000 digital devices waiting to be examined. While a government funding boost is always welcome, what is being done specifically to address the lack of regional and national co-ordination and the insufficient numbers of trained forensic personnel?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a valid point, and I will start from that premise. The Government have put an extra £1.1 billion into police forces with the police settlement that was approved by the House of Commons just a few weeks ago, and that is providing a range of functions. It is for police forces, chief constables and police and crime commissioners to determine the use of that resource locally, but she makes a valuable point about co-ordination and central management, which I will continue to reflect on because we need to ensure that there is not a backlog. The amount of digital material we have on our phones now—Twitter contents, phone calls, texts, Facebook messages and everything else—means that when someone is arrested there is a giant amount of digital information, and that is growing daily and monthly. It is important that we focus in on getting the right digital information to ensure convictions and drive up the conviction rate from the figure that I mentioned for between July and September last year, and that means tackling the backlog that the noble Baroness has rightly mentioned.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that those who conduct this awful business often seek out the most vulnerable children in the area, then supply them with drugs and get them completely dependent on them so they will then distribute these drugs around the country. Will the Minister assure the House that the Home Office and the services that are provided will do all they can to remind local authorities of their child protection responsibilities? The child and its welfare should be of paramount importance.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that the child should be central, and I will take away what he said today. I hope I can reassure him that the new offence we are introducing tomorrow of criminal exploitation of children will mean that there is another mechanism to hold to account those criminals who seek to use vulnerable children to undertake their criminal activity. When that comes to this House, I hope it has widespread support.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has mentioned this already, but can he outline what progress the Government have made towards fulfilling their manifesto commitment to recruit additional neighbourhood police and community support officers? Does he agree that tackling this type of drug trafficking requires not just tougher enforcement but ensuring sufficient police numbers on the ground?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will help the noble Lord, I hope, by saying that the Government announced £1.1 billion more this financial year than the police budget was in the last financial year, and this financial year is under a Labour Government while the last financial year was under a Conservative one. When I was the Police Minister in 2009-10, we had the highest number of police officers ever. We faced 20,000 police officers being cut between 2010 and 2015-16, and only latterly have they been built up again. I hope the noble Lord will work with us to ensure that the £1.1 billion of extra spending is put to good use. He can certainly monitor the delivery of the 13,000 officers, which will be a real improvement on the ground to help tackle county lines and other neighbourhood policing issues. That is a 6.6% cash increase and a 4.1% real-terms increase in funding, and I hope this House welcomes it.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill introduces new offences, which appear to have no connection to immigration, of possessing any specified article that might be used in connection with any serious offence. What safeguards does the Minister think need to be in that Bill to prevent the needless criminalisation of children? Does he agree that a legal definition of child criminal exploitation might help in that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. The legal definition of child criminal exploitation will be in the police and crime Bill, which will be published very shortly, almost certainly tomorrow. On immigration and criminal penalties, this is down to penalties around the supply of boats, engines and materials to ensure that the use of that material in small boats is criminalised, which currently it is not. That helps downstream and we have done some work with Germany, France, Belgium and Holland to look at how we can prevent that equipment reaching channel shores in France, Belgium and Holland, where it is used to transport people illegally to the United Kingdom across the channel.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for asking this Question. Not for the first time, a Question coming from the Opposition Benches has caused me to do some research into how the current strategy for a particular policy came about. He will know that on 9 July 2024—five days after the general election—the National Police Chiefs’ Council published the Disrupting County Lines Policing Strategy 2024-2027, which presumably had been approved by the Home Office when he was then a Minister. So if it is not performing that strategy which he agreed to, I say to my noble friend the Minister that it is good that there is a piece of legislation coming forward to clear up the problems in the legacy that we got from that strategy, is it not?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

How can I not say yes to my noble friend? Let me reach out the hand of friendship to the Opposition. I know that they do not want to see county lines and drug runners in place. I know that they do not want to see exploitation of children or the crime that results from that such as car theft, theft from houses and other thefts. My hand of friendship to them is that when the police and crime Bill is published shortly, I hope they will reach out and support the measures in the Bill on child exploitation and other areas of real importance to support the ending of these county drug lines—test the measures, by all means, but ultimately support them when they come to this House.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 5 to 12, Schedule 3, Clauses 13 to 34, Schedule 4, Clauses 35 to 38, Title.

Motion agreed.

Prevent: Learning Review

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the murder of Sir David Amess highlights the urgent need to strengthen our counterterrorism strategy if we are to prevent similar tragedies in future. The terrorist threat is continually evolving. More extremists now follow multiple ideologies, or none at all, with the internet and social media fuelling self-radicalisation. Conspiracy theories, personal grievances, misogyny and anti-Government sentiment further blur the picture, making credible threats harder and harder to predict. To stay effective, our approach must adapt to this increasingly fragmented and unpredictable landscape.

The review that was made public yesterday highlights that Sir David Amess’s killer had his Prevent file closed too soon in 2016—a failure the Home Office and counterterrorism police have known about since at least February 2022. Yet, as we heard last week, less than three years on, a similar pattern of failure has been identified in the review following the Southport stabbings. This suggests that, while much may have been done to improve the workings of Prevent in the last decade, some critical lessons have still not been learned. We therefore echo the sentiments of Sir David’s family in welcoming the fact that light has finally been shone on those failings, following yesterday’s retrospective publication of the 2022 report.

The Liberal Democrats have consistently raised concerns about whether the Prevent strategy is the most effective mechanism for addressing radicalisation. Unfortunately, recent events confirm that its shortcomings are not isolated incidents, and I therefore welcome the Government’s decision to task the new Prevent commissioner with reviewing the handling of Sir David’s case. Can the Minister confirm that the commissioner will have a broad and independent mandate to conduct a thorough assessment of Prevent? Will the Government commit to placing this role on a statutory footing to ensure accountability and effectiveness?

Any comprehensive review must also examine how Prevent collaborates with stakeholders, including police and crime commissioners and elected mayors. Community engagement is central to an effective counterterrorism strategy. Can the Minister outline how local communities will be consulted in the development of future counterextremism policies?

The current system is simply not equipped to manage emerging risks effectively. We live in a world where counterterrorism casework involving young people is increasing, and more referrals are now for individuals with a vulnerability rather than an apparent ideology. To tackle both emerging and traditional forms of radicalisation, we urgently need a system that is built for the reality of modern extremism.

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for their comments and contributions and I will try to answer the questions accordingly. I begin with the praise given to the late Sir David Amess by the noble Lord. Like him, I served in Parliament with Sir David—in my case, for 28 years. I shared with him a role on the Panel of Chairs, chairing debates in committee and in the House. I found him to be an honest, open colleague who stood up for his constituency with immense passion, and I am very pleased that Southend is now a city as a result of Sir David’s campaign. I also want to remember that primarily, Sir David was a father and a husband, and his family grieve much more than we will ever know. Our thoughts are with them today.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness talked about the failures of the Prevent system in the case of the convicted killer of Sir David. There were a number of recommendations, and six findings were highlighted in the report. The Government wanted to publish those findings to ensure that they were open and transparent, and that the concerns raised would not be hidden behind a secret report. It is right that we did that this week, and it is also important that we look at the four recommendations in the report. To date, the Government have completed all four recommendations on key issues. I hope that that will give some comfort to those who have been the victims of previous attacks.

Having said that, we recognise that there are a number of considerations. The Shawcross report, which the noble Lord mentioned, made a number of recommendations; again, the Government have accepted those. They are in the process of implementing, I think, 31 of the 32 recommendations and will complete those in due course.

The noble Lord asked whether we need to look at other forms of monitoring. The terrorism prevention measures, which are in place to monitor people who are on the radar or who have had convictions, are extremely important and the Government keep them under regular review. The noble Lord also mentioned the Prevent commissioner, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. We have given the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, a temporary position for the moment, and have asked him to do three things, in effect: a sprint review of what happened in the specific case of Southport and the murders that took place there; a sprint review of what happened in relation to the murder of Sir David Amess, now that this document has been published; and a long-term review—which may well be taken forward with the full-time commissioner, who is shortly to be appointed—of the Prevent legislation as a whole. That review will look at legislation and the operation of Prevent; examine any specific lessons learned from those two horrific incidents—Southport and the murder of Sir David; and examine whether there are any recommendations to bring back to Ministers to continue to improve the position and help ensure that we stop future murders.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned that there is considerable focus on potential Islamist and neo-Nazi terrorism, and that that is considerably fuelled by online activity. We are committed to looking at the implementation of the Online Safety Act, which will come into real effect on 17 March this year. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has also written to tech companies, asking them to be very wary of what I would term illegal criminal terrorist content and to remove it, pending the Government’s own review of whether there needs to be further action downstream through the Prevent review as a whole. Online radicalisation is extremely important and is the driver of many of these sole individuals who commit horrific crimes without any organisation behind them. They learn and they mirror, and the Government are extremely cognisant of that self-radicalisation online.

I turn to some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, made. It is extremely important that we look at the whole question of internet regulation and at the six failings that were identified and the four recommendations that we have now implemented. I recognise the concerns that have been raised, but there is still a very positive story to tell about much of what is happening in Prevent. Since Prevent was put on a statutory footing by the previous Government in 2014, and onwards since 2015, some 5,000 individuals have been referred and have successfully gone through what I will term de-radicalisation programmes, having been identified as vulnerable individuals with a range of tendencies that are driving them to potential activity. That success has been positive, even though there are terrible failings, of which the murders of Sir David and the three young girls in Southport are critical examples.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the role of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will be to look at Prevent legislation and policy; to oversee and ensure implementation of recommendations from previous reports and reviews, including the one on Sir David; to look at the coronial process; and to look at general Prevent learning reviews. It will be independent of government: no one who knows the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will doubt that he will be independent of government. His job is to make recommendations, raise critical issues and, along with the general political process of the House of Commons and House of Lords, hold Ministers to account on the delivery of these recommendations.

I shall end where I started. Sir David Amess was a good man. He did not deserve the death that he had. He served his constituents well, and we need to be cognisant of the fact, particularly those of us who hold public office as elected Members of Parliament or Members of this House, that what happened to Sir David could have happened to any of us, at a surgery or at a public meeting. I am extremely cognisant of the fact that we need to address this.

Going back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the Speaker’s Conference is looking at security. Operation Bridger, the police-Home Office response for Members of Parliament in particular, is looking at security requirements generally. On a case-by-case basis, Members of this House can be examined and supported by Operation Bridger. That is extremely important, because the key thing is that the murder of Sir David Amess was an attack on democracy in this society. It was an attack on all of us, and on all the values that bring us to this House and to the House of Commons. So, I praise his work and I mourn his loss, but our lesson from this event must be to ensure that we improve the Prevent strategy to prevent radicalisation of further individuals downstream.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I conducted the first Prevent review in 2011 and started what became the Shawcross review, which I strongly support. I thank the Government for the remedial steps that have been taken, as described in the Statement, following the loss of a valued colleague with whom I too was in the House of Commons and had many happy exchanges. Can we now be a little bit more positive about the future? Does the Minister agree not only that there have been successes, as he just described, but that some of them have been quite remarkable in turning young men and women from becoming potential terrorists, and that we should not let up in enhancing the effectiveness of Prevent in what is an extremely challenging and difficult area of work, which is sometimes underestimated?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for both his previous work on helping to support to development of the counterterrorism strategy and his comments. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, there have been around 5,000 successful Prevent referrals since 2015, and there are people now living productive, constructive lives who may have gone down the radicalisation route had Prevent intervention not taken place.

I add that I was in the Home Office from 2009 to 2010, and in the Ministry of Justice from 2007 to 2009, and when we dealt with Prevent then it was an entirely different world. There was no Twitter or Facebook; the internet was relatively in its infancy. In the 14 to 15 years between then and my return to the Home Office, there has been the dark web, radicalisation, fake news—a whole range of things. One of the key issues for the future is asking the tech companies to step up to the plate on what they need to do to help support the Prevent strategy and deradicalisation. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has written to tech companies, following both the Southport and Sir David Amess reviews, to ensure that we can examine, with them, their responsibilities once the Online Safety Act comes into effect on 17 March.

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. He is right that Prevent can be a success and we should not throw it out on the basis of failings that are self-evident but which are not the full story of how the Prevent strategy has worked.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s typically generous remarks about my former colleague Sir David Amess, who was a personal friend and a fine and decent public servant. The city status of Southend-on-Sea and the Children’s Parliament, which he helped to found, are fitting tributes to a good life and one well spent.

Having represented a constituency which was 16% Muslim, I know the difference between those who follow the Muslim faith and those who follow the pernicious poison of Islamism. On the latter, can the Minister reassure the House that the Islamist proselytising that we have often seen across the prison estate, in madrassas and in some mosques in this country will be part of the review, and that the Government will take those issues seriously? If Prevent is in a position to intervene early with some individuals in those settings it may head off some of the much more serious criminal activity.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments. The loss of Sir David was felt keenly across the House, but particularly by those who shared his political party or were close to his region. He will be forever remembered for the Adjournment debate, now named the Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate, in the House of Commons. For those who do not know, Sir David was always first up in every Adjournment debate to raise about 46 issues to do with Southend. Of those, 42 or 43 ended up in some positive outcome for his constituents. I should mention that, before Southend, he was the Member of Parliament for Basildon.

The noble Lord raises extremely important points. There is a criminal threshold for individuals who promote Islamist or neo-Nazi terrorism, or terrorism related to any other form of hate, such as misogyny. It is extremely important, if evidence is brought forward and the threshold is crossed, that the police take action via the CPS. The Prevent strategy is particularly about younger people being radicalised by those who have criminal intent and have provided criminal material, or individuals who have crossed that threshold and are having their own grievances or immaturities exploited by individuals for the purpose of terrorist activity. The Prevent strategy is about helping people who are going down that route. I think the noble Lord is referring to the criminal threshold, which is for the police and the CPS to determine. They have my full support to prosecute anybody who encourages terrorist activity.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I fully support the Prevent strategy. It is vital, as one of the four legs of the Contest strategy. Along with Pursue, to arrest the people who did it, Prevent obviously tries to prevent the thing happening, and Prepare ensures we prepare for the consequences.

One thing that needs to be addressed, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised, is that there is a handful of TPIMs in place. For those who are unaware of what that means, it refers to people who are not charged but have appeared in court, and conditions are put on how they live in free society. One of the most effective measures is their relocation, but it is also expensive, as is the surveillance that surrounds them. Over time, the security services have suppressed the number of people under TPIMs because, having served them, they have to follow these people, as do the police.

This situation seriously needs looking at, because we now complain that the police and others did not look at these people to prevent them committing the awful crimes we have heard about today. That suppression, which happens partly through resourcing but partly through accountability, does us no good. I cannot comment on whether 200 or 50 people need to be on these orders, but it needs to be more than a handful, because we expect others to bear that risk. When it goes wrong, we say, “Why didn’t you do something?” It is because we have suppressed the number under TPIMs. The place to decide whether they should be on them is called a court. I am afraid that, in my view, it has not happened in sufficient cases.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord brings a lot of experience to this topic. He is right that a very small number of individuals are currently on TPIM orders. For the House’s information, I publish on a regular basis the number of those on TPIM orders. A Written Ministerial Statement on this was published in, maybe, the last two weeks. From memory, the latest figure is certainly low. I cannot remember the exact figure, but it is under 10.

There is an argument to be had but, in a sense, it is not for Ministers. The TPIM legislation is there. If the police and the courts have severe concerns about individuals who may have previous prosecutions, but in this case do not have a prosecution in the specific area, TPIMs are a tool that can be used. It comes with a cost and potential further risks, but it is a valuable tool. Throughout my time in this field, TPIMs have been a way in which individuals who have not committed a crime can be monitored because of the danger they pose, and action can be taken in the event of them moving towards potential terrorist activity.

The noble Lord makes a valuable point, but I cannot, at the moment, give him a plan on resources. However, his point is noted and I will take it back to officials.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to Sir David. My thoughts are with his family, in particular with his daughter, who is being very courageous in pursuing this issue. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank the Government for the openness and transparency they have shown by publishing this Prevent Learning Review and emphasise the importance of defending democracy by ensuring the security of Members of Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the Minister have both said.

Would the Minister agree that the best will in the world and the most thorough procedures, carried out in the most diligent way, cannot guarantee the absence of terrorism, while maintaining the freedoms that we cherish in a liberal democracy—particularly in relation to attacks by lone actors. Would the Minister care to comment on the inference that dedicated professionals involved in these processes might be ignoring credible threats because of political correctness?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Again, he brings a perspective that is helpful to inform government policy as a whole. I am not aware of anybody having their reputation slurred by political correctness, but I say genuinely to him that I have a great admiration for all individuals, in the police and elsewhere, who work to help the Prevent programme have the successes that it has.

There are failings in these cases—again, every individual can fail at different times. Are they systemic? That is what we are asking the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, to look at. Are there suggestions for improvement? Yes, there undoubtedly are. Are there suggestions for future legislation? Probably. But the question for me is: is it still worthwhile investing in support for professionals to undertake diversionary work for younger people who are coming into contact with neo-Nazis and Islamists, or indeed who are forming views which will lead to terrorist action downstream? The answer to that question is a resounding “Yes”. As the Government, we have to give full support to those professionals who are making judgments that I do not have to make on a daily basis, but they do. They deserve our full support, but that does not mean that we do not have to learn lessons when things have gone wrong—and in this case, and in the case of Southport, things have gone wrong and lessons need to be learned.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have heard the passion and fury from Katie Amess, David Amess’s daughter, over recent weeks, demanding a full inquiry. I would just like to say that she is very much her father’s daughter and he would be so proud of her. She feels that the Government are ignoring her. I ask the Minister whether he will please look seriously at her common-sense suggestion that the Axel Rudakubana Prevent inquiry is expanded to include Katie’s father’s murderer, Ali Harbi Ali, because, as she says, it is wrong to pick and choose which murders Prevent failed to prevent should be investigated.

Also, does the noble Lord agree that both cases have a lot in common, not least that politicians can get distracted by some bizarre blame games. When Sir David died, there was a swathe of people discussing online civility—anything but discussing radical Islamism. After the Southport killings, what have we been discussing? Selling knives on Amazon. It does not feel too serious to me. A full inquiry into both together would be helpful for everyone.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. We have ordered a public inquiry into the Southport murders. We agreed to do that and we are looking currently at terms of reference and a number of other measures to get that inquiry under way. We have asked for an initial Prevent review from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in relation to the murder of Sir David. Like the noble Baroness, I pay tribute to Sir David’s daughter, Katie, who has done herself proud in standing up for the legacy of her father, and also in standing up to make sure that her father has justice and that lessons are learned. That is a vital role for her to do.

We will first review the examination by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, of what has happened, on top of the reviews that have been undertaken, which we published this week. In the light of that, we will consider further discussions downstream. That might not satisfy the noble Baroness now, but I am trying to put that into the context of where we are to make sure that we do not lose valuable lessons from what happened to Sir David.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very gracious and moving tribute he paid to the late Sir David Amess. I was fortunate to be elected on the same day as Sir David, 42 years ago. All of us will never forget the day the news came through of his tragic murder. We owe it to him, on all sides of this House, to make sure that we get this policy right.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I know he was elected in 1983 in North West Norfolk. It does not seem like 42 years ago. I went down in flames in Eddisbury on that day. I pay tribute to the fact that he won his seat, as did Sir David on that day. Again, from my perspective, we have a lot of political knockabout in both Houses at times, but you can also spot and respect integrity, and Sir David had integrity. It is important that we recognise and celebrate that.

While we will always have political differences, including with the noble Lord now, we must recognise that behind the politician is a person with a family and a commitment. Whatever drives us into politics for our own values, this is the place to debate them. We should be able to debate them outside, in our constituencies and in public, without the fear of attack or death by those who disagree with the principle of democracy, and not least with the individual who is the face of their ire. It is not just Sir David but my former colleague in the House of Commons, Jo Cox, and many people from Northern Ireland who have stood their ground, put their views forward, been in the public domain and found themselves subject to violence as a result. That is not the way we should be doing things in this United Kingdom.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, I too want to thank the Minister for what was not just a kind and generous tribute to Sir David but also an immensely sensitive Statement, and on point in terms of how to address the issue. These things affect us all. David was a neighbour of mine and was one of the first people to welcome me, a Yorkshireman, down to Essex, and to make me feel at home.

We are about to debate the Holocaust. A Holocaust survivor once said to me a few years back that the thing that she noticed most coming to Britain after the war was that the policemen smiled, and that it was easy to meet councillors and officials. What happened to David threatens that. That ease that we have in this country is very much central to what makes us tick and we need to be able to hold on to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely. The noble Lord and I were elected on the same day—9 April 1992—to the House of Commons. One of the great joys I had as a Member of Parliament, was, yes, debating in Parliament, but actually it was having face-to-face surgeries where I walked into a room and did not know who was going to walk through the door and I did not know what problems they would bring; or I would go to a fête or a factory; or I would walk down the street and be stopped by individuals who asked for help and support or sometimes wanted to make a vigorous point about a particular aspect of government policy. That is the essence of our democracy.

The noble Lord has reminded us that the murder of Sir David was an attack on that democracy. For those who have witnessed the growth of authoritarian regimes such as those who will be the subject of the debate shortly on the Holocaust, this democracy of ours is open and should be willing and transparent. We should be held to account for our views and our actions, but we should do so in a way that is with peace, tranquillity and fair and open political debate. The murder of Sir David and the murder of Jo Cox in the political context were horrendous attacks on them and their families, but also on our democracy.

E-scooters

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of enforcement measures against the illegal use and operation of e-scooters.

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

Tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for this Government and a key part of our safer streets mission and plan for change. The Government have announced proposals to give the police greater powers to clamp down on e-scooters and other vehicles involved in anti-social behaviour, with officers no longer being required to issue a warning before seizing vehicles. These powers will be included in the forthcoming crime and policing Bill.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I want to address the current illegal use of privately owned e-scooters in public places. The current rules are simply not working. The Minister addressed the fact that crime is being perpetrated by owners of illegally operated e-scooters. Will he look favourably on the provision in my Private Member’s Bill, where I ask the Government to consider legalising the use of privately owned electric scooters in public places to regulate their safe use and introduce compulsory insurance? Currently, these cannot be insured as they are illegal in public places. The cost to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau—and therefore all of us who pay for our motor insurance—is going up. Some 35% of the claims paid out by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau are against pedestrians between the ages of seven and 80. The numbers of deaths and casualties are increasing. What are the Government doing to address this increasing problem of illegally operated e-scooters?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My colleagues in the Department for Transport have already made it illegal to use e-scooters in public places. There are 17 current pilots to examine how e-scooters can be used, and they are being evaluated currently. The police and others can issue fixed penalty notices. The noble Baroness’s Bill has been discussed previously, and there are several ideas in there which are worthy of consideration. However, the Government’s first priority in the crime and policing Bill is to make sure that where those bikes are now being used illegally, they can be seized without any warning by the police. If this House and the House of Commons pass that legislation before the end of this year, those bikes will be seized by police.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this situation is not sustainable. Research carried out by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety shows that e-scooter riders are more likely to fall forward in the event of a collision and therefore are more likely to suffer a head injury and serious consequences. Will the Minister push for new regulations to ensure the safety of private e-scooters separate from the public trials?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness focuses on very important issues, and the safety of the public is a prime concern. It is currently illegal to use e-scooters in the way in which she has described, and the police have powers to issue fixed penalty notices on a range of measures—that is an important issue. The trial that is being undertaken is to see whether the safety measures that are required are appropriate, and that will be reviewed in due course by the Department for Transport. But in the meantime, we have recognised that there needs to be action on those illegal scooters, which is why we are exercising powers to allow seizure as a matter of first recourse, not as a second or third recourse. If this House approves them, those powers will be operational as soon as the crime and policing Bill receives Royal Assent in due course.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, this is a tangential issue which I hope the Government can get ahead of. On Monday I was walking back towards the Tube and came across two people with two small fridges about this big on six wheels—they were robots. I said, “What are these things?”, and one of them said, “We are working for the Co-op supermarket and we’re trialling on-pavement delivery services around the country”. They mentioned the Co-op and a number of towns. I said, “Have they got permission to be on the pavement?” “Yes”, he said. I asked, “What happens when I’m on the pavement?” He answered, “They’re very clever—they will miss you”. However, supermarkets are very greedy and are always looking for an edge. So, if there is no legislation, we do not want six-wheeled, horizontal fridges whizzing down our pavements in the near future. Please can the Government find out and do something about it? It will be a problem.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for educating me in the use of mobile fridges; I saw on my local regional television service that the Co-op is trialling them in the north-west of England. I am not aware how widespread that is, and to be honest from the Dispatch Box, I am not aware of what current legislation will cover that issue. But, as ever, I will take it away, examine it and make sure that I respond to the noble Baroness, and I will certainly look with interest at the impact of those mobile vehicles on pavements. My view is—this is a long-standing view—that pavements are for people, not for cars, bikes or e-scooters. But I will examine for the noble Baroness how that aspiration goes into legislation.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, further to the point on criminality made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, quite apart from the nuisance value and the danger that is attached to the use of these e-scooters, there is strong evidence to show that they are being used in connection with crime and anti-social behaviour, such as the increasing level of mobile phone thefts. Can the Minister perhaps outline what action is being taken to tackle this problem in conjunction with the Home Office?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord may be aware—if he is not, I will certainly send him information on it—that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary convened a meeting last week with police chiefs and the Metropolitan Police to look at ongoing concern about mobile phone theft, and as a result of that discussion, several areas of work are being commissioned to look at how we can reduce it. It is completely unacceptable for any criminals to use bikes, e-scooters or other potential means of movement to steal mobile phones. It is a growing crime that we want to crack down on, and it is distressing to people. It is not about the loss of the phone; if the phone is unlocked, it can lead to wider fraud issues, such as bank fraud and the use of Apple Pay, et cetera. The noble Lord raises a really important issue, and I will update the House when we have had further discussions with the police about what actions can be taken.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

The theme of this Question seems to be public safety. I noticed that last week two fires were reported in London due to lithium battery failures, one in an e-scooter and one in an e-bike. What consideration are His Majesty’s Government giving to mandatory safety standards for PLEV batteries, and how can we enhance awareness of safe charging practices to protect lives?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate raises an important issue. I confess that he is straying into areas that are beyond my direct responsibility because they are Department for Transport issues. But it is extremely important to make sure that we have sufficient regulation and assessment of the potential dangers of electric batteries causing fires in electric vehicles and cars. If the right reverend Prelate will allow me, I will refer his comments to my noble friend Lord Hendy, the Transport Minister, and I will ensure that he gets a reply on the specifics of that issue downstream.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, as a regular user of hired electric scooters, I welcome them. They are very convenient and if you obey the law, it is fine. But will the Minister encourage his colleagues in the Department for Transport to introduce legislation so that people can own e-bikes and e-scooters with impunity rather than having to hire them?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope I have helped the House by saying that currently the use of those scooters in public places is illegal but they are allowed to be used on private land. There is the ability to have selected trials of hired e-scooters, in which my noble friend is participating, obviously. The Government intend to review how that trial has gone, to learn the lessons about safety, the use of those scooters, the costs and indeed the points that the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Pidgeon, have mentioned. That review will take place over the next 12 months, and the issues that the noble Lord has raised will be forward policy which will lie with my noble friend Lord Hendy.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, despite being banned in public places in Northern Ireland, e-scooters remain a common and worrying sight on the Province’s streets and roads. Last month, on the Floor of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, gave me a welcome commitment to launch a UK-wide consultation with all enforcement authorities to ensure that the laws on e-scooters are upheld. Is the Minister able to provide an update on what progress has been made in delivering on this commitment, and can he assure me that the Police Service of Northern Ireland will be fully involved?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The regulations that we are looking at in the crime and policing Bill will be England and Wales provisions, and they are in relation to the seizing of scooters if the police decide that they are being used to commit anti-social, illegal acts. The wide-ranging review of offences is ongoing. I suspect that transport issues are devolved in Northern Ireland, but I will check for the noble Lord. I will respond to him in due course. I will maintain my discussion on direct Home Office issues but will refer any points that have been raised here on transport issues so that my noble friend Lord Hendy is appraised of the feelings of the House.

Citizenship Applications

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, we have strengthened measures to ensure that anyone who entered the UK illegally faces having British citizenship refused. We take our international obligations very seriously, and the good character policy is compliant with those obligations. The Government will continue to consider positive factors such as the contribution that a person has made to society, as well as negative factors such as breaches of immigration law. The policy provides for applications to be granted where mitigating circumstances mean that it would be appropriate to do so.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that nuanced Answer. I assure him of my absolute support for the actions of this Government in tackling people smugglers and organised criminal gangs and the securing of our borders. However, he may remember that I was responsible for the reshaping of, preparation for and granting of citizenship back in 2003—the tests, the ceremonies and the expected commitment to our country and our values. Will he ask the Home Secretary to reflect on the societal and cohesion aspects of this policy, the impact on children and their right to UK citizenship, and the statelessness that would arise for individuals if their birth country refused to renew or retain their nationality? Surely this Parliament should have a say in such a big change.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for the work he did on citizenship when he was Home Secretary some years ago. He will know that the proposals today are about illegal entry to the United Kingdom and do not affect rightful citizenship applications for people who are entering legally. On those who are stateless and at risk of losing citizenship, there is a stateless leave provision for people who qualify, and they can apply for that; children will be considered sympathetically under existing legislation.

My noble friend mentioned community cohesion. The central premise of government policy is to ensure that we have a society that respects and has cohesion. He highlighted the importance of the Government’s proposals to tackle small boat crossings and illegal migration. The Bill introduced in the House of Commons on Monday, which will reach this House in due course, provides for a new border force. It will tackle criminal gangs and make sure that we use the security services to gather and share data, and that we stop this pernicious trade, which is benefiting only those who wish to make money out of misery.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that the people in question would have been accepted as refugees. By definition, over a number of years, most of them would have been seeking to contribute to British society and focusing on integration. How will they take it when they find that, in the “good character” criterion, they are bracketed with criminals and terrorists? On a factual point, there must now be a lot of very distressed and anxious would-be citizens. Can the Minister confirm that the guidance will not apply to people who have arrived here before 10 February?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The guidance applies to individuals from 10 February of this year. The noble Baroness made a number of points about what is happening to asylum status. None of the proposals in the guidance mean that individuals cannot apply for asylum status. None of the proposals mean that individuals cannot have asylum status approved. None of the proposals mean that individuals cannot apply for citizenship. The basic test is that there is a presumption that those who enter the UK illegally will not have citizenship approved unless there are specific criteria in the guidance to make a case for their particular circumstances. The designed effect of that is to ensure that we reduce the amount of illegal migration and ensure that people enter the United Kingdom, or apply for asylum, through legal, strict routes and means.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, what proportion of people who have come into the country illegally since the Government took office have applied for asylum status?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I can give some figures, but not off the top of my head. I will certainly write to her about that.

The key question is illegal migration. The guidance we are talking about is on revising procedures for those who have entered the United Kingdom illegally and currently could apply for British citizenship after a period of 10 years. We have lifted that 10-year procedure, so no one can have British citizenship approved, as a presumption, if they have entered the country illegally. They can still apply for British citizenship and have mitigating circumstances brought forward, should they so wish. A range of measures has been issued in the guidance published this week.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Can the Minister assure those of us who stood shoulder to shoulder with the Labour Party in opposing the previous Government’s completely discredited Rwanda proposals that people who come within asylum criteria are not affected by the announcement made today?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

People entering the United Kingdom or applying for asylum using a viable and legal route are not affected. Individuals who come here through illegal routes will be subject to the criteria in the guidance, which are that they can apply for British citizenship, but the presumption is that it will be refused unless they bring forward mitigating circumstances, which can be considered.

The noble Lord will know that the Bill introduced in another place on Monday repeals the Rwanda Act, on which we have already spent a wasteful £700 million. We will come to this House in due course to say that it was not a deterrent for illegal migration, and we should be looking at legal, safe routes, which I know the noble Lord supports.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, earlier today the leader of the Opposition in the other place asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will appeal a decision to allow a family from Gaza to stay in the UK, after applying through the Ukraine refugee system. The Prime Minister declined to answer. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will indeed appeal this decision?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Like the Prime Minister, I am not going to discuss individual cases over the Dispatch Box. The noble Lord will know that there are general principles, which we apply, for the provision of asylum. If those principles are broken or if the courts uphold a decision that the Government do not support, they will self-evidently appeal that decision. Today’s Private Notice Question from my noble friend Lord Blunkett is about the specific guidance issued on Monday, which is available to this House. In answer to a point from the noble Lord which I did not cover, it is guidance which does not require legal back-up or consultation. Self-evidently, he and my noble friend can make representations to the Government at any time, as can any Member of this House, about the implementation of that guidance.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, of course we all support the Government in taking tough action against the people traffickers as vile individuals, but can the Minister explain what the purpose of all this is? Is it meant to deter a young man in Calais who is hoping to get to this country? Will that young man look at the debate and say, “If I can’t get British citizenship, I’m not coming to the UK”? Of course not. Given the terrible circumstances that people have fled from, finding safety is surely much more important to them than the technicality of a passport, worthy as a passport is.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend has a long history of interest in and support for refugees and asylum seekers, and I respect and understand his position. The Government are trying to set down some basic red lines on a range of issues. The first red line is that people trafficking is a crime and will be pursued vigorously. The second is that the Rwanda scheme was ineffectual, and the third is that British citizenship is not a right but a privilege. That privilege will come to citizens if they enter this country under legal asylum routes or apply for citizenship through legal routes, but not if they have entered the country through an illegal route.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, it is important to support in general this approach by the Government, but I fear that there is some uncertainty. First, in relation to those who come here to claim asylum, under international law—we have had these debates on many occasions in the House—there is an argument that that in itself does not create illegality. It may be irregular but it may not be illegal. It is therefore important that the Government get their ducks in a row on this, because I think all of us would otherwise support the Government in saying that those who come here in blatant, illegal ways should not be granted the benefit of citizenship.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government believe, and I know that the noble Lord will share this belief, that the proposals in the guidance are compliant with our international obligations. It is an essential matter of government policy that we meet our international obligations. We believe that the Article 31 obligations are met by the proposals announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on Monday of this week.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, having been a Minister in the Home Office responsible for law enforcement, I have a great deal of sympathy with and support for the Minister. However, law enforcement means enforcing international law. I have in front of me Article 34 of the convention, which we have signed. It is very clear that:

“The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate”—


I emphasise the term “facilitate”—

“the assimilation and naturalization of refugees”.

How is what the Minister proposes, and what this rule change implements, consistent with the term facilitation? If it is not, are we now going to withdraw from all or any part of the convention?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are not going to withdraw from the convention. The Government support the convention and believe that the proposals referred to in this Private Notice Question are compliant with it. Nothing in the proposals today stops any individual applying for British citizenship, however they have arrived in the United Kingdom. But the presumption is that those who have arrived illegally will find their application turned down, unless they can provide a range of circumstances which are exceptional, compelling and mitigating, and where the Secretary of State may therefore choose to apply discretion to grant citizenship on an exceptional basis. I believe, as does my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, that that is compliant with our international obligations and, at the same time, examines what is an illegal route to the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, is not this Labour proposal almost worse than the shocking Tory legislation that we spent three years opposing, in that people are going to be lulled into a false sense of security? The Tories tried to stop people getting refugee status; Labour is going to allow them to get refugee status and, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, start to contribute to and integrate into British society, and then, down the line, they will be told, “Oh no, we don’t want you as a citizen”. How can such a fundamental change be made through Home Office guidance rather than through primary legislation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The guidance is there and the ability of the Government to change that guidance is there. We have made a Statement to the House of Commons in relation to that guidance being changed.

There are many individuals who reside in the United Kingdom who live, work and enjoy the benefits of living in the United Kingdom and who are not British citizens. The right of citizenship is a different issue. As I said to my noble friend Lord Boateng, individuals can apply for citizenship, but the presumption is that they will be refused if they have entered illegally, unless there are compelling, mitigating circumstances. That is our position. That it is not worse than the Rwanda scheme—we are repealing the Rwanda scheme. We are changing the immigration scheme through the immigration Bill, which will come before this House in due course. The noble Baroness will know that there are major steps in that Bill to end the pernicious trade of people trafficking, to stop the wasteful Rwanda scheme, and to ensure that we place immigration and migration on a proper footing. Further, there will be an immigration White Paper later this year, which will cover a range of issues, including the needs of society and the need for immigration for the British economy and growth.

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

The more that we listen to this, the more a number of us conclude that this is a major change that deserves much more substantial consideration and scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force. Does the Minister accept that for refugees who have come here by whatever means, and who have become stateless and remain here indefinitely, under this measure, unless they are subject to what the Minister described a moment ago as citizenship on an exceptional basis, they are going to find themselves second-class citizens?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I accept that there will be individuals who either arrive here as stateless or subsequently find themselves stateless through loss of documents. There is a stateless route for application for leave to remain, and that remains in place. The Home Office has had to examine the question of British citizenship. In doing so, this guidance has been published. It is subject to—as it is today—discussion, comment and representation from Members of this House and the House of Commons.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I will speak to Amendment 37A to Clause 31, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. This amendment proposes to remove Clause 31 and replace it with a new provision, stating that:

“Nothing in this Act or regulations made under it affects any right of action in civil proceedings”.


The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill represents a critical step in strengthening the security framework for public venues and premises across the country. The increasing sophistication and unpredictability of terrorist threats demand that we establish robust and effective measures to protect the public. By setting out clear responsibilities for operators of certain premises, the Bill aims to ensure that the tragic events that we have seen in the past are less likely to be repeated in the future.

As we consider Amendment 37A, it is essential to examine whether the proposed changes will support or potentially undermine the Bill’s objectives. At its core, this amendment seeks to clarify that the Bill will not interfere with the right to pursue civil claims. Such a provision could be seen as a safeguard, ensuring that individuals and organisations maintain access to legal redress if they believe that negligence or a breach of duty has contributed to harm caused by a terrorist incident.

This is a significant consideration. Civil liability serves as an important mechanism for accountability and justice in our legal system. It encourages responsible behaviour, provides a pathway for compensation and often plays a complementary role in reinforcing public safety. Ensuring that individuals retain this right can provide reassurance that public security measures do not come at the expense of fundamental legal principles. However, there are important questions that we must address.

First, is this amendment necessary? It is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that civil liability is not displaced unless explicitly stated in the legislation. Therefore, some may argue that this amendment is redundant and risks introducing ambiguity into the Bill’s interpretation. If the existing legal framework already protects the right to bring civil claims, we must carefully consider whether including an explicit provision could inadvertently complicate matters rather than clarify them.

Another practical consideration is the potential impact on compliance with the Bill’s requirements. Premises operators, many of whom are already facing financial and operational pressures, may view the introduction of this provision as increasing their exposure to litigation. This could have the unintended consequence of discouraging proactive security measures if operators become overly concerned about the risk of legal action. It is essential that the Bill strikes a balance between imposing reasonable obligations and supporting those who are making good-faith efforts to comply.

Furthermore, we must assess whether this amendment could lead to increased litigation that detracts from the primary purpose of the Bill. Legal disputes can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, diverting attention from the urgent task of implementing effective security measures. We should be mindful of the potential for unintended consequences that may hinder the Bill’s objectives. It is also worth considering the impact on the insurance market. If the inclusion of this provision is perceived as creating greater uncertainty or exposure to liability, it could lead to increased insurance premiums for premises operators. This may place an additional financial burden on businesses and organisations that are already navigating a challenging economic environment.

That said, the Government must also be mindful of the importance of maintaining public trust and confidence in counterterrorism measures. Ensuring that individuals have access to justice when they have been wronged is fundamental to our legal system and to public confidence in the rule of law. If stakeholders, legal experts or civil society organisations believe that this amendment is necessary to provide clarity and reassurance, their concerns should be carefully considered. Ultimately, the key question is whether the amendment strengthens the Bill by providing clarity or whether it introduces unnecessary complexity that could hinder its implementation. I look forward to hearing the Government’s view on this matter and the perspectives of other noble Lords.

As we deliberate on this amendment, let us remember the importance of striking the right balance: ensuring robust security measures that protect the public, while safeguarding access to justice and upholding the legal rights that are fundamental to our democracy. We must strive to create a framework that achieves both security and fairness in the face of evolving security threats.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling this amendment, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. We have had discussions outside this Committee to examine these issues. I am genuinely sorry that I was not able to allay the concerns expressed in our discussions, but I hope to be able to do so today, formally and on the record. I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which I think were supportive, and those from the Opposition Front Bench made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.

The purpose of the Bill, as we have discussed, is to mitigate the effects of physical harm arising from acts of terrorism. My starting point, which I know will be shared by everybody in this Committee today, is that the people responsible for such heinous acts that might be inflicted as a result of terrorist activity are the terrorists themselves. The purpose of this potential Act, if it is approved downstream, is to ensure that there are requirements on the duty holders under it which make a real difference to the physical harm caused by potential acts of terrorism. For this reason, there is both a set of conditions to put in place, under Clauses 5 and 6, and robust regulatory and enforcement provision in the Bill.

However, the duties should not impose an actionable right for someone who has suffered loss or injury to bring a claim for a breach of statutory duty. I will try to explain why I think that is the case in due course. I may or may not convince the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, but I will attempt to do so.

Clause 31(1) puts this principle beyond doubt and provides valuable reassurance for responsible persons who, fearing they may face civil proceedings, could otherwise feel pressured to overcomply with the Bill’s requirements. These points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. They might, as the Liberal Democrats have previously spoken about, drive people who have those statutory responsibilities to start to engage expensive consultants to overworry about the provisions or to make alterations to their premises that are disproportionate to the risks they face.

Throughout the Bill, the Government have tried to make the provisions as simple and clear as possible and to not put concerns that would lead to potential costly litigation on the face of the Bill. Clause 31(2) makes it clear that it does not affect any right of action which exists, apart from the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill. I know the noble Lord is aware of this because we have discussed it but, for example, a claim for negligence could still be made under the provisions of Clause 31(2). That provision is precisely in line with existing legislation, such as the health and safety legislation in 2013, which ensured that no civil right of action was available for breach of statutory duty unless provided for specifically under the Bill.

It is right that the Bill makes it clear that existing rights of action, such as negligence claims, are not affected, while providing what I hope—again, this is for noble Lords to assess—is clear reassurance to all that a civil claim for breach of statutory duty may not be brought. Therefore, I hope it helps the true purpose of the Bill: to require reasonable, simple and effective steps to mitigate the harm that could be caused by an act of terrorism, for which the terrorist is solely responsible. It should be achieved appropriately, proportionately and without overcompliance flowing from a fear of costly litigation.

I may not have succeeded, but I hope I am finding the balance point between the concerns expressed by Members of the Opposition, and the genuine concerns put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I hope that balance point is achieved by what the Government say. I will listen again if the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, wishes to make any further points based on what I have said. That is —not with my legal training but the legal mind of the Home Office lawyers behind me—the position I put before the Committee in response to the amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate. I do not know whether noble Lords listening are any clearer as to where we are going on this. I make it clear to the Committee that my first objective is to achieve something that is readily understandable to anybody reading this legislation. The Member’s explanatory statement refers to clarity. I was seeking to address this to, first, get clarity and then debate the substance.

I was also concerned that it is important to get discussions on the record. This is not an accusation, but I was not involved in any discussions outside this House. It occurs to me listening to the discussion that it will also be important that guidance or explanations about how this new regime is to work are written in kindergarten language and available to the public.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Perhaps I might again reassure the noble Baroness. What I have said, from this Dispatch Box, is that guidance from both the Home Office and downstream will be put out once the Security Industry Authority is established, and that it will be subject to discussion in this House. I hope that will achieve the noble Baroness’s objective.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I hope that anything that is put out does not need that much discussion in terms of clarity and whether the plain English campaign is satisfied and so on. I am not going to seek to take this further today, but I come back to it as one of the central political points about legislation being clear to those who have to operate it and who are affected by it. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and other contributors to this debate that I have been on a few demos myself. I have quite enjoyed them; they are part of the democratic right to oppose certain things. Although my demo days have gone for the moment, because, as a Government Minister, I support government policy, there may be occasions in the future when I want to go on further demonstrations. I do not anticipate this Bill or any other legislation—apart, perhaps, from the legislation put in place by the previous Government—curtailing that democratic right to protest.

I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that none of the Bill’s provisions are intended to interfere with people’s rights, which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act, including the right to protest. To be clear, the Bill aims to protect the public, not to infringe their rights. The noble Lord will note that something that I never expected to happen to me again happened with this Bill. On the front of it are the words:

“Lord Hanson of Flint has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998”,


and, for the benefit of the House, I will repeat what it says:

“In my view the provisions of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”,


of which the right to protest is at the heart.

The noble Lord referred to a number of points around the undergrowth of the legislation and some of the clauses and schedules that he has concerns about. However, the front of the Bill says—and I put my name to it—that it is compatible with the convention of human rights. In my view, the measures are carefully developed to ensure it appropriately and proportionately captures the places and requirements of qualifying premises and events. In the development of the Bill, we have been mindful of its application to protests and demonstrations.

The expectation is that most demonstrations and protests will not fall within the Bill’s scope at all. They will not constitute “qualifying premises” under Clause 2, as they are not qualifying activities under Schedule 1. Even if they were, it would be unlikely that the premises would be wholly or mainly used for those purposes.

Some large demonstrations and protests may be qualifying events. However, many will not have to put in place the specific measure to check entry and, as a result, will not satisfy the criteria to be a qualifying event under Clause 3. An open access event, which is how I would term some of the demonstrations that I have been on, might have more than 800 attendees at a time—that number would be a good demonstration—and will not be within the scope of the Bill. Where demonstrations or events are within the scope of the Bill, it is right that the relevant provisions will apply. In some cases, large numbers of people will be gathered in a location where the organiser must have adequate control to consider and take forward appropriate security measures and procedures, so far as is reasonably practical.

I hope to reassure the noble Lord, His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that, within the Bill’s scope, we are required to act compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. I can say from this Dispatch Box that nothing in the legislation interferes with that.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for teasing out the discussion. I look forward to perhaps joining him on a demonstration, if we ever find shared common ground. But, for the moment, his pressing is valuable as it gives me the opportunity to say that he can undertake protests without worry about the Bill’s provisions—unless, of course, his protest falls within the scope of the Bill, in which case it is treated no differently from any other aspect of life that falls within the scope. I hope he will reflect on that and withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the Minister. Obviously, the Section 19 declaration on the front of the Bill is a statement that, in the Minister’s view, it is compatible with the Act. As one of the very small number of Ministers who has signed a Section 19(1)(b) statement, which is to be signed in different circumstances, where you are not so confident, I can assure the Minister that such a statement of opinion is not conclusive. The courts regularly find that measures in Acts of Parliament—for example, in the recent litigation about the Northern Ireland legacy Act—are in fact incompatible, notwithstanding statements or declarations of compatibility on the front of the Bill.

Be that as it may, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I obviously agree with much of it, but I still wonder whether he might go back to the department and consider whether it is appropriate to put in just a short clause along the lines I suggested, to make crystal clear that the right to protest is not to be interfered with indirectly and unintentionally by the measures in the Bill. For now, of course, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 40, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. This amendment proposes the insertion of a new clause after Clause 34 to establish tax relief incentives for security investments by businesses covered under this Act. The purpose of this amendment is to encourage businesses to strengthen their security infrastructure voluntarily by offering tax deductions of up to 25% for qualifying security expenditures. These investments would include, but are not limited to,

“surveillance and monitoring equipment, … physical barriers and access control systems, … staff training on counter-terrorism measures, and … cyber-security infrastructure for venue security”.

The security landscape we face today is increasingly complex. The threat of terrorism has evolved, targeting not only traditional public spaces but also a wide variety of venues where people gather for work, entertainment, and everyday life. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly places obligations on certain premises to implement security measures to protect the public. However, it is essential that we consider the financial burden this may place on businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, which form the backbone of our economy.

This amendment offers a constructive and forward-thinking solution by incentivising security investments through tax relief. Such an approach would have several key benefits. First, by offering financial incentives, we encourage businesses to take proactive steps to enhance their security infrastructure. Many businesses want to do the right thing but are constrained by budgetary limitations. Tax relief would help alleviate these financial pressures and empower them to invest in modern, effective security measures that reduce the vulnerability of their premises to acts of terrorism.

Secondly, the amendment recognises the importance of innovation in counterterrorism technologies. By incentivising investments in advanced surveillance systems, access control solutions and cybersecurity infrastructure, we create a market environment that encourages the development and adoption of cutting-edge security technologies. This not only benefits individual businesses but strengthens the broader security landscape of our nation.

Thirdly, security is a shared responsibility. While the Government have a duty to protect its citizens, the private sector also plays a critical role in safeguarding public spaces. By incentivising private investment, this amendment helps reduce reliance on public funding for security infrastructure, ensuring that taxpayer resources can be allocated more efficiently. Fourthly, providing a financial incentive makes it more likely that businesses will not only comply with the requirements of this Bill but go above and beyond to implement comprehensive security measures. This contributes to a safer environment for the public and demonstrates a collaborative approach to counterterrorism efforts.

Critics may argue that offering tax relief for security investments could reduce government revenue. However, this must be weighed against the potential costs of a terrorist attack, including the loss of lives, economic disruption and the subsequent expenditure on emergency response and recovery. Investments in security are not merely costs; they are investments in resilience and stability. Additionally, by incentivising security investments, we send a strong signal that the Government recognise the challenges businesses face and are willing to support them in meeting their obligations under this Bill. This builds good will and fosters a sense of partnership between the public and private sectors in the collective effort to protect our society from terrorism. Furthermore, the scope of this amendment is deliberately broad, allowing the scheme to cover various types of security investments. This flexibility ensures that businesses can tailor their security measures to their specific needs and circumstances, rather than being forced into a one-size-fits-all approach.

The amendment strikes the right balance between enhancing security and supporting economic growth. It encourages businesses to invest in vital security measures while reducing the financial burden they face. By incentivising innovation and collaboration, we create a more secure and resilient society, so I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment. It is a pragmatic, forward-thinking proposal that strengthens the Bill, promotes public safety and supports businesses in playing their part in counterterrorism efforts. Security and prosperity are not mutually exclusive; they can and must go hand in hand. This amendment embodies that principle and deserves the full support of this Committee.

I now speak in support of Amendment 41, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. This amendment proposes the insertion of a new clause after Clause 34 to ensure that local authorities are adequately supported and properly co-ordinated in their role under the Bill. The amendment has two key components. First, it calls on the Secretary of State to provide funding and resources to local authorities to support their expanded role in overseeing compliance with the security requirements outlined in this legislation. Secondly, it requires the Government to issue clear guidelines for local authority co-ordination with the Security Industry Authority. The importance of this amendment cannot be overstated. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly seeks to enhance security measures at public venues and premises across the country. However, it is clear that local authorities will play a critical role in ensuring the effective implementation and enforcement of these measures. If we are to succeed in making public spaces safer, local authorities must be properly equipped to carry out their responsibilities.

Local councils are already under significant financial and operational strain. Many are grappling with stretched budgets, increased service demands and a shortage of skilled personnel. Adding the responsibility of overseeing complex security compliance requirements without additional support would place an unsustainable burden on them. This amendment recognises that reality and ensures that councils are provided with the funding and resources necessary to carry out their new duties effectively. By investing in local authorities, we not only empower them to fulfil their role under the Bill but enhance the overall security infrastructure of our communities.

The Security Industry Authority has a vital role in regulating private security services and ensuring high standards across the sector. However, effective security co-ordination requires seamless co-operation between local authorities and the SIA. This amendment addresses the need for clear and consistent guidelines on how such co-ordination should be conducted.

Providing clarity on roles and responsibilities will prevent a duplication of effort and reduce the risk of confusion or gaps in enforcement. It will foster stronger partnerships between local authorities, the SIA and other stakeholders, creating a more cohesive and effective security framework.

Terrorist threats are complex and multifaceted, requiring a co-ordinated and collaborative response at all levels of government. Local authorities are often best placed to understand the specific security challenges within their communities and to engage with businesses, venue operators and the public in implementing tailored security measures. However, this localised approach can be effective only if councils have the necessary resources and clear guidance from central government; without this, we risk creating a fragmented and inconsistent security landscape that leaves communities vulnerable.

Some may argue that councils already have extensive responsibilities, and that security should remain the domain of specialised agencies. However, the evolving nature of security threats requires a whole-of-society approach. Local authorities are on the front lines of public service delivery and community engagement; they are uniquely positioned to play a key role in implementing the security measures under this Bill, provided they are given the tools and support to do so. It is worth noting that investment in local authority capacity will have broader benefits beyond security: strengthening council capabilities can enhance their ability to deliver other services more effectively, creating more resilient and well-managed communities.

This amendment represents a practical and necessary step to ensure the successful implementation of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. It acknowledges the vital role of local authorities and provides the support they need to fulfil that role effectively. By ensuring proper funding, resources and clear co-ordination with the SIA, we can create a security framework that is both robust and locally responsive. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment; it strengthens the Bill, supports our councils and, ultimately, contributes to a safer and more secure United Kingdom.

Amendment 42 calls on the Secretary of State to establish a financial support scheme to assist businesses with the cost of implementing the security measures required under this legislation. The proposed scheme would include low-interest loans, grants or tax relief for businesses facing costs ranging between £3,000 and £52,000. While we all recognise the necessity of strengthening security measures to protect the public from the ever-present threat of terrorism, we must acknowledge the financial burden these requirements may place on businesses—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—many of which are already grappling with rising costs, from energy bills to supply chain disruptions.

For a small business, an unexpected £3,000 security expenditure can be a significant financial strain, let alone costs in the tens of thousands. Without support, some may face difficult decisions, including delaying essential security upgrades or, in extreme cases, closing their operations altogether. This would not only harm local economies but could inadvertently weaken the overall security framework that the Bill seeks to strengthen. A financial support scheme, as outlined in this amendment, offers a practical solution. By providing low-interest loans, grants and tax relief, we can alleviate the financial pressures on businesses, while encouraging compliance with those security requirements. This is a prudent investment in the safety and resilience of our commercial sector and the communities it serves.

Finally, Amendment 45 addresses the equally important issue of financial support for voluntary and community organisations, including village halls, which are often at the heart of rural and suburban communities. It calls on the Secretary of State to provide grants or funding schemes to cover the costs associated with compliance under the future Act. Voluntary and community organisations face unique challenges; they often operate on shoestring budgets, relying heavily on donations, grants and volunteer support. These organisations provide essential services and spaces for social engagement, education and cultural activities. Village halls, in particular, are vital hubs for community life, hosting everything from children’s playgroups to senior citizen gatherings.

The imposition of costly security measures, while understandable from a public safety perspective, could deter community engagement and even lead to the closure of some of these cherished institutions. That is a price that we cannot afford to pay. By providing targeted financial support, we ensure that voluntary and community organisations can continue to thrive while meeting their security obligations. This amendment is not just about compliance; it is about preserving the social fabric of our communities and recognising the invaluable role that these organisations play in society.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments, and I hope that I will be able to respond to them fully.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for her plug for the service she mentioned; I take it in good heart. She will know that the purpose of the Bill is to give the Security Industry Authority the power to give advice and for the Home Office to enable that. I will take away her suggestion and feed it to officials. If it can be done, we will look at how it can be examined by the Security Industry Authority to be a helpful contribution to resilience for local groups and organisations. I thank her for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 43, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. This has been a very interesting debate. The amendment seeks to introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to

“consult with local authorities on integrating counter-terrorism measures into the planning and design of new buildings which are likely to be designated ‘qualifying premises’ for the purposes of this Act”.

It further calls for the introduction of measures to ensure that anti-terrorism design principles are incorporated into building projects, particularly those in high-risk areas.

The importance of designing safer urban environments from the outset cannot be overstated. In an era where the threat of terrorism continues to evolve, our approach to public safety must also adapt. The integration of counterterrorism measures into the planning and design of buildings offers a forward-thinking solution that enhances security while reducing the need for costly and disruptive retrofits. By embedding security principles into architectural design, we can create spaces that are both functional and secure. Measures such as blast-resistant materials, secure perimeters, control access points and natural surveillance through open and well-lit layouts can significantly reduce the vulnerability of public spaces.

Many countries have already embraced the concept of designing out terrorism. For example, in the United States and parts of Europe, urban planners and architects routinely incorporate security features into the design of transport hubs, commercial centres and public venues. The United Kingdom should not lag behind in adopting similar best practices. This amendment encourages a collaborative approach between the Government, local authorities and the construction industry to ensure that new developments are designed with security in mind. Local authorities are uniquely positioned to provide insights into the specific risks and needs of their areas, making their involvement in this process essential.

Incorporating counterterrorism measures at the planning stage is not only more effective but more cost-efficient. Retrofitting existing buildings to meet new security requirements can be expensive and disruptive, often requiring extensive modifications that compromise the original design and functionality. By contrast, proactive design reduces long-term costs and creates environments that seamlessly balance aesthetics, functionality and security.

I must stress that this amendment does not seek to turn our urban landscapes into fortresses. Good design can enhance both security and public experience without compromising the openness and accessibility that define vibrant communities. By working closely with architects, planners and local authorities, we can ensure that security features are thoughtfully integrated and do not detract from the usability and beauty of public spaces. I fully associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on this issue.

The amendment rightly prioritises high-risk areas where the likelihood of terrorism incidents is higher due to factors such as foot traffic, symbolic importance or previous threats. By taking a proactive approach in these areas, we would not only protect lives but bolster public confidence in the safety of shared spaces. In conclusion, the amendment would strengthen the Bill by embedding security into the very fabric of our built environment. It demonstrates a pragmatic and forward-looking approach to counterterrorism that balances safety, efficiency and community needs. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment as it represents a vital step forward, creating a safer, more resilient United Kingdom.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for raising the important issue of how new buildings—his amendment mentions “new buildings”—and development should consider security in their design where it is appropriate to do so.

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lords, Lord Elliott and Lord Empey, for bringing to the Committee their experience of Northern Ireland—with which I have a small element of familiarity but not as much experience as they do.

I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and particularly his invitation for CT advisers to be incorporated into an advice mechanism, whatever that might be. I will give him the same answer I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. I reassure him that we want to have this simple advice, focused via the Security Industry Association, and I hope that I can at least refer his helpful suggestion and see how it can be incorporated into the advice given. I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for his contribution, and the Liberal Democrat and Opposition Front Benches for their comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I speak to Amendments 46 to 49. I adopt everything that my noble friend Lord Davies has already said, so I can be short.

Amendment 46, which is a probing amendment, is very simple. We all know we cannot let the terrorist indulge in preventable acts of terror. I emphasise “preventable”. Equally, we cannot allow the threat of terror to close down society and normal life as we now understand it to be. Also, it must be plain that once the Act has been enforced for 18 months, people will have a better idea of what may and may not work, so a review at that stage will be helpful to everyone. It is a shakedown period and it will cut both ways.

As to Amendment 47 and the six-month delay of commencement, that is simply to impose a minimum period—it can be longer if appropriate—before regulations and other actions can be taken by requiring draft guidance to have been issued and consulted on first. This will simply ensure that businesses and other bodies are properly consulted before guidance is finalised. It will ensure that the consultation on the guidance has preceded the laying of regulations. We are moving into new territory. A wide range of powers is being exercised over disparate bodies and a wide range of organisations in respect of matters which have not previously been subject to such detailed supervision. It is obviously right that those affected should be consulted. That will apply to the potential enforcers—the SIA and local authorities—as well as to those on the receiving end who are running the establishments and organisations where these regulations will apply.

Finally, Amendments 48 and 49 are simply probing amendments on the timescale. We have heard that it may take two years to come into force. We tabled these amendments, as my noble friend has said, to test how that period will work.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling the amendments today. I hope I can respond to them in a positive and reassuring manner.

First, I will look at Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst. All through this debate, at Second Reading, in Committee, and in discussions that we have had outside of this Chamber, we have been keen to reassure noble Lords that we are trying to strike the right balance between public protection and burdens on premises and events. In fact, I prefer the word “standards” to “burdens”; a burden is something that is difficult. What we are trying to put in place is a number of basic standards which it is important for businesses and organisations to meet.

I have said throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee and at Second Reading that, following Royal Assent, we expect that there will be a period of at least 24 months to give us the time to ensure that those responsible for premises and the events in scope understand the new obligations, that they have time to plan and prepare, and—to go back to previous discussions —any training required of volunteers or staff is undertaken.

The proposed timetable in Amendment 46 of 18 months would, with respect, be before any detailed action has been taken under the provisions of the Act. It would assess the preparations generally, as opposed to the actual impact and implementation downstream. Ministers, including myself and my right honourable friend Dan Jarvis will keep legislation under review, including its effectiveness, impact and implementation. Should unintended consequences be identified, the Bill provides powers, which have been subject to debate, to adjust the regime as appropriate. I hope the noble Lord will reflect on Amendment 46 and, when the time comes, withdraw the amendment.

On Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, there will be a 24-month implementation period before the Act is commenced. The Government intend to issue guidance under Clause 27, published before commencement. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord seeks to put some timeframes on that. I think it is best to leave that to judgment, both in the guidance and in the consultation on that guidance with key partners.

Again, the 24-month period covers Amendments 48 and 49, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sandhurst. The implementation period will allow those in scope to prepare for and comply with the new obligations. It is important that the SIA, particularly, is operating as soon as is practical. The Government must be certain that it is ready for its new role. We anticipate that this will take at least 24 months—it might take slightly longer—in the light of previous timeframes for other regulators introduced under previous legislation.

I do not anticipate any delays in commencement, but I want to keep the flexibility and appropriate ability for the Government to pick an appropriate commencement date when the Government assess that the SIA has fulfilled its duties, as we anticipate them under the Act, and that the organisations impacted by the Act at that stage are fully prepared and cognisant and are able to implement. Again, I gently suggest to the noble Lord that it would not be sensible for the Secretary of State to be driven by a tied provision in the Act, as opposed to the judgment that, as I have said to the Committee, will look in due course at whether or not we put those provisions in place.

Generally, in relation to Amendments 48 and 49, the 24-month period is what I would hope to be a realistic time to establish the set-up of the regulator and for those in scope of the Bill to prepare. If the Bill achieves Royal Assent, which I hope it will, the noble Lord, this House, the House of Commons and the court of public opinion—that is, the people in businesses and pubs and others who will be impacted by this legislation—have the opportunity to feed into both the Government for their guidance and the SIA for its guidance, as well as into the debate generally about implementation, about how they think the Act is going and what measures are being put in place. A formal consultation or review, as outlined and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, would inhibit that process and set formal timescales that would not be helpful. This House remains the first port of call for any concern or points that noble Lords may want to raise about the implementation downstream. I hope that reassurance means that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken, including the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—who talked about the unintended consequences of the Bill, which are a worry—and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I thank the Minister for his response, particularly about striking the right balance. I am pleased to hear that he will keep its effectiveness under review and revisit it. On the issue of 24 months, the Minister assures me that he does not anticipate delays, and I will keep his words in mind. For the time being, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.