Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the speeches which have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, talked about sledgehammers cracking nuts; I slightly wonder whether that is what the amendments in this group would have the effect of doing. It is clear that for the qualifying premises—let us separate out the enhanced duty ones for a moment—what is being talked about is taking reasonably practical measures, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, and that there should be appropriate public protection.

When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, I thought that it sounded as if, as an event organiser, he is already exemplary because he has thought about these things. I am sure that he has briefed the volunteers and the people around him about this. I slightly wonder why people have got so worked up about what the consequences and implications of all of this are.

If people want to know why there is this question of whether you invacuate or evacuate—whether you lock the doors or whatever—I am very taken by the accounts I heard of the Borough Market incidents. There were decisions which had to be made instantly as to whether to shut and barricade the doors or bring people in from outside. That assessment is going to be made on the spot, in an instant, but it is much better if the event organisers or the premises organisers have spent a bit of time thinking about it in advance, as clearly the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, has done, briefing each other and considering the various “What ifs?”. There is no right or wrong answer in those cases; you have to make the best assessment, but you will always make a better one if you have thought about it in advance, worked out what the choices are and what drives them.

My other point is about Amendment 22 and the waiving of public protection procedures. This sounds like the sledgehammer to crack a nut, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. A bureaucratic process will be set up whereby an events organiser or a premises organiser will make an application for a waiver to a public body, no doubt filling in lots of forms. Frankly, would it not be quicker just to do what the Bill asks: to make appropriate, reasonable arrangements? That is surely what is there and, if they are appropriate and reasonable, then the organisers will not have problems as a result of this Bill.

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

I am grateful to the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments because, self-evidently, they have generated a discussion on some important points. That is extremely valuable, not just as clarification today but for those who ultimately, should this Bill become an Act, have to implement it downstream, so I am grateful to noble Lords for them. If I may, I will try to deal with the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst, first and then return to that of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, as a separate series in due course.

Amendment 20A from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sandhurst, concerns the procedure under Clause 5 for preventing individuals entering or leaving premises or events. Clause 5 sets out some types of procedure, four in total, of which lockdown procedures may be used to reduce the risk of harm by moving people away from danger. I think the proposals in the legislation are dependent on the premises or event. They would potentially include locking doors, closing shutters or, in some cases, moving people to a safer part of the premise.

The noble Lord highlighted some examples in his contribution. If an armed attacker were outside a theatre, leaving doors open or unlocked would risk the attacker entering the premises. There could be a plan whereby, at certain events, a lockdown procedure would have to be activated to secure the auditorium against entry, such as locking the doors until the police arrive or securing the scene, which may reduce harm to staff and the audience. It might be a procedure relating to particular circumstance. It will vary according to the type of situation or attack.

In some cases—as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey mentioned, this happened in the event at Borough Market—a lockdown might help to save lives. In other cases, it might be more appropriate for people to flee. Statutory guidance will be published by the Home Office/SIA in due course to illustrate the Bill’s provisions, including on public protection measures. During the London Bridge attack—the noble Lord said that he wanted the Minister to give examples—some premises successfully executed a lockdown procedure and, in doing so, saved lives. That is really important to remember.

We are not being prescriptive. Going back to what my noble friend Lord Harris said, the public protection procedures in Clause 5(3)(a), (b), (c) and (d) set down the type of things that organisations and the responsible person need to think about and prepare for as part of a plan. With all due respect to the noble Lord, the changes he is proposing are not necessary because the Government consider that the requirements of the clause are appropriate as drafted. Again—we will come on to this issue in a moment, with other amendments in the name of the noble Lord—we are trying to be proportionate and reasonable.

On Amendment 21A, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that proportionality is at the heart of the Bill as a whole. It is important to remind the Committee that this Bill has been through several iterations. It has been through consultation, drafting, a Home Affairs Select Committee, previous Government engagement and the engagement of this Government. Out of that, we want to get proportionate measures that ensure that in-scope premises and events take proportionate and appropriate steps.

It is about being reasonably prepared and prepared for risk—straying into what the Lord, Lord De Mauley, said—whatever the size or location of a premises. He is right that the majority of these attacks have taken place in urban areas at large venues, or in urban tarmacked areas. That is not to say that it will not happen elsewhere, that a terrorist group will not pick a farm event, a small village hall or another similar event.

That is why not just this Government, but the Government he supported, put in place the measures before us today. It is why the Bill went through a public inquiry, emerging from the recommendations of Sir John Saunders. It is why it went through the draft legislation process, and why the Commons Home Affairs Committee supported it on a cross-party basis, even though the majority of its members were from His Majesty’s Opposition. We are trying to be proportionate and reasonable, and the public protection procedures in Clause 5 are an important element of the Bill’s effectiveness and power.

I hope that assuages the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. Again, we are trying to do something that is proportionate, achievable and relatively cost-effective. I have mentioned elsewhere the cost of the potential measures. We have estimated it at around £330 per year for the lower tier. That is not in terms of cash being paid out to anybody; that is our assessment of the potential costs that can be incurred. It is about good practice, good training, good support, making sure that we have evacuation and invacuation procedures, looking at the exits and entrances and what would happen, and making those assessments, while making sure that the responsible person knows what they are.

The Secretary of State could add further procedures if they consider that necessary, but I am straying into later amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I have some sympathy with those, and I hope that when we reach them—probably now on Monday—I will be able to give some comfort to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Anderson, about the use of Henry VIII powers. However, we will deliver that at a slightly later date in the consideration of the Bill. Whatever happens, if there were any changes under the current proposals, they would be subject to the affirmative procedure, so this House and the House of Commons would have an opportunity to support or reject any changes brought forward by the Government as a whole.

On Amendment 23A, from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sandhurst, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, again gave a reasonable level of support to the idea of a timeframe for any duty and consideration being put in place. Clause 7 places the legislative requirement on those responsible for enhanced duty premises and events to prepare and maintain a document that records important elements of their compliance. That is a valuable document that will help the regulator consider compliance. It should be provided to the Secretary of State via the Security Industry Authority as soon as is reasonably practical. This will enable the SIA to make an initial evaluation of the premises’ or event’s security approach and engage in meaningful discussion or engagement about any potential inspection.

There is no single standard type of premises or event. Some will have long-established premises with little change needed and some will have to make changes accordingly. To ensure that regulatory provisions work as effectively as possible for all, the document should be sent to the SIA at an early stage. However, at the moment, by providing a maximum timeframe of six months, the amendment may result in either inaccurate documents or material that is out of date being sent. It could hinder regulatory activity and it could hinder the provision of advice and help to strengthen the venues’ practices. But I have noted what the noble Lord said and what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in support. Although I do not wish to accept the amendment today, those points have been put on the record and we will obviously examine them in due course.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I genuinely understand his motivation to ensure that the Bill does not render it difficult to put on many events that are valuable for cultural, social, tourist and business purposes. I accept and understand that objective. The Bill as drafted has caused concerns that he has put on the record—which, again, I will examine because of his timeframe, and if he writes to me I will examine those concerns as well—that are founded on his belief that this will be damaging. But, in my view, the Bill sets down the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey mentioned: procedures for public protection in place so far as is reasonably practical. In determining what is reasonably practicable, the responsible person—which may in this case indeed be him—will take into account their operating context and the particular circumstances of the premises or event. They will consider the appropriate procedures in the light of the cost and resources. That is the assurance I give him.

What we are asking for in the Bill, under the various clauses before us, is that he thinks, as I think he has tonight, about the consequences and about whether there is a threat; that he makes that assessment; that he makes the provisions; that he—or she—looks at whether those areas need to have that plan; that he makes sure that the volunteers in an organisation know about that plan; and that he makes sure, potentially, that the paid professionals he or she is dealing with look at and understand that plan. Accordingly, no procedure is required to be put in place at unreasonable cost to the responsible person, and in the measures in the clauses that he mentioned and expressed concern about, such as public protection measures, he will note that there is no mandating of those public protection measures or mention of scanners or other material. There is simply an assessment for the responsible person to organise accordingly.

The first condition in the noble Lord’s amendment for the grant of a waiver is therefore unnecessary. Furthermore, it is anticipated that developing and implementing these procedures should be simple, for cost and staff time. Some of the actions required as part of the procedure could be as simple as locking doors, closing shutters and identifying a safe route to cover. Some of the areas that he has mentioned, such as open-air events, will qualify under the Bill only if they have the requirements in earlier clauses—a building, or a paid entry or exit or ticketing system. Again, I accept that some of the events that he referred to in his contribution may have that, but the whole purpose of the Government’s proposals—which I remind him was shared by the previous Government in broad terms—is to provide good practice, a framework and a consideration for somebody responsible to think of a plan in the event of a terrorist attack.

I assure the noble Lord that this is not about preventing a terrorist attack. That is the job of the police, to whom I pay tribute, the Security Service, to which I pay tribute, and the myriad organisations trying to make sure that we stop bad people doing bad things before they ever get to the stage of doing them. But, sadly, he will know that the risk is always there. The security services try to do this every day of the week, but there may be occasions when something difficult and challenging happens, and this Bill is about what happens when that begins. It is about mitigating the risk, having that plan and proposals in place, and having those public protection measures to stop an attack and reduce the vulnerability in that place.

I genuinely understand the noble Lord’s intention and I look forward to receiving his letter and giving him a full response to it. I hope that I can assure him that the Government’s objective is to put good practice in place at minimal cost and ensure that those people who have a responsibility for an event transmit the evacuation protection plans to those who can impact those plans in the event of that split-second moment, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey said, when a daily event of enjoyment, pleasure and fun suddenly sees, in its immediate effect, a terrorist attack under way. We are trying to ensure that the split-second decisions that saved lives in Borough Market are thought about beforehand to save lives in the event of an attack.

I would love to assure the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that no attack would ever take place at the Caerwys Agricultural Show in my former constituency, for example, or at a scout gathering somewhere else, but I cannot. We will stop it upstream when we can but, in the event of an attack happening, we are asking whether the people on the ground know what to do. That is what the Bill is about, and that is why I urge him to write to me and not to press his amendments this evening, as, indeed, I urge the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst. Their points are well made and they will continue to be considered, not just during the passage of the Bill but, crucially, when Royal Assent is achieved. The two-year period that we have to implement the Bill is the time when the guidance and discussion that the noble Lord seeks will be part of the consideration of this, I hope, successful and productive legislation.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a short debate on Amendment 1. If the Committee will indulge me, I am keen to very briefly set out an overall approach from these Benches to Committee stage. I reiterate that we support the Bill. We recognise that families and survivors have already had to wait a very long time to get this important legislation on the statute book, but we believe it is also important to get clarity on certain areas of the Bill and to probe the thinking behind some of the drafting, so that it can be the best Bill possible. I also pay tribute to Figen Murray and the campaign team. They have done an amazing job, but there remain areas in the Bill that are very much a framework. Greater clarity, as well as reassurances from the Minister, would be helpful.

I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, regarding Amendment 1. In fact, I was sitting in my office this afternoon thinking, “Isn’t that exactly what the Long Title of the Bill says, so what is the added purpose?”. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but I am afraid that I too did not really hear the additional purpose of his amendment. As I see it, the purpose of the Bill is about public confidence and public protection, as well as the protection of premises. In other words, it should be about people as well as just premises.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it is about people taking responsibility for themselves. It is about making sure that people feel safer when they go to a venue or an event. On Saturday, I happened to go to a theatre in central London where I was asked to open up my rucksack. I also went to a very small private museum on Sunday, staffed by volunteers, where I was not only asked to show my rucksack but had it confiscated and put in a locker. These things do not necessarily cost money, since at that museum they were volunteers.

The Bill should be about introducing measures that minimise the risks, making sure that venues and events have a plan in place and a person responsible for implementing that plan

“to reduce the vulnerability of the premises”

as it says in the Long Title of the Bill. The Bill is also about making sure that there is a plan in place in the tragic event that an attack happens. One of the main problems that I see with this amendment is that it sets out only part of what the Bill aims to do. Yes, the Bill is about protection of premises from terrorism, but it is also about having plans in place to minimise the number of casualties in the extremely unfortunate case that an attack occurs. We should remember that people who are involved in an attack have injuries for life—and not just physical injuries. They can also have emotional and mental health injuries. For that reason, from these Benches, I am afraid that we cannot support this amendment.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for this short debate on Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He was right, at the start, to remind us of the reason why this Bill has been put in place, as did the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. That is because of attacks on Borough Market, on Manchester Arena and on London Bridge. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned a death today in Sheffield, about which I pass on my sympathies to the family. I cannot comment in any more detail at this time, but ongoing investigations will take place.

I understand the intention of the amendment, but, if I may, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey have endorsed what I would have said from this Front Bench about the Bill. The Bill has a Long Title, which I which will not read for the convenience of the House, but it is on the face of the Bill, and that is relatively clear as to what the purpose of the Bill is. The Bill is designed, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, to ensure that premises and events in scope are better prepared for an act of terrorism, should one occur. We have taken some expert advice on what that should be, and the consideration is that there are certain measures that could be put in place which, if they were in place prior to a terrorist attack occurring, could potentially save lives.

For ease of Members, although we are jumping ahead slightly, I refer them to Clause 5, which sets down a number of public protection measures that are required. This goes to the heart of what of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned about what we should do in the event of an attack. In Clause 5, the Bill sets down a range of measures, including

“evacuating individuals from the premises … moving individuals to a place on the premises or at the event where there is less risk of physical harm … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.

They are specifically in Clause 5 and, later on, in Clause 6, setting out clear objectives for both public protection procedures and measures. Those procedures are designed to reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals if an act of terrorism were to occur.

I am straying into the sort of Second Reading debate area that we have had, which I do not want to do, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and others mentioned the issues around the scope of the Bill, the cost of the Bill and other issues there. We have taken a measured approach and have made some changes, based on consultation, raising the level of the threshold in the Bill from 100 to 200, with a later second tier of 800. That will reduce the number of venues taken into the scope of the Bill from 278,900 down to 154,600, with 24,000 in the higher tier; so we are cognisant of the fact that there were, potentially, a number of areas where that would have brought a lot more premises into scope and created much more difficulty for people.

What we are trying to do with this legislation is to establish the principle that we have requirements in place which are there for low-level training and support for individuals to be able to understand what happens in the event of a terrorist attack. Again, I said at Second Reading that, downstream, we have to undertake a lot more work to prevent any attacks in the first place; but, in the event that one happens at a premise in scope, we have to ensure that measures, as in Clauses 5 and 6, are in place. I think that the Explanatory Notes, the Long Title and the clauses that I have mentioned meet those objectives, but that is for the Committee to determine.

I will add one more point, if I may. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talked about the two-year period for implementation. By all means, let us have a debate about that downstream, but, again, what this Committee is trying to do—and what the Government are trying to do in supporting this House and supporting the objectives of Figen Murray and the campaign—is to make sure that the measures in place are effective; are implemented in an effective way; have proper oversight and regulation from, as we will discuss later, the Security Industry Authority; and that we give consideration to all other bodies impacted by the Bill to allow time for them to undertake the training, undertake and understand the legislation and put preparations in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I have three brief points to make in response to this rather interesting short debate. My first point relates to Amendment 20, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. As my noble friend said, it is very much a probing amendment that resulted from organisations that organise events and have premises but are unclear as to the definition. They are people who want to do the right thing but want a greater explanation on the record from the Government as to what it actually means in practice.

My second point continues the flattery of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. If the noble and learned Lord is asking a question, I feel it is one that has to be answered. He is asking the right question although, as he acknowledges, perhaps he has not come up with the right answer yet in terms of the wording. I hope the Government will return to this before Report with some of the suggested wording, taking on board the various points that have been raised.

My third and final point relates to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In many ways, the noble Baroness hits the nail on the head; we should not let the terrorists win. But that is what the Bill is about: it is about getting the balance right between not letting terrorists win and yet letting the public feel safe to go to events and public buildings and not worry, because they know that somebody, somewhere has thought about what to do in the case of an attack.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That was an interesting group. I thank noble Lords for tabling the amendments; they are worthy of discussion and I hope I can answer each point in turn.

Essentially, there are two issues: the definition of “building” and the definition of “immediate vicinity”. I will try to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, in their amendments.

Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord De Mauley, seeks to amend the definition of “premises” in Clause 2(2) so that the term “building” refers to the definition at Section 121 of the Building Act 1984. The Bill has carefully defined qualifying premises and qualifying events to ensure that it is able to appropriately catch the wide range of premises and events that there are, and the definition in the Building Act sadly does not align with this.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, sort of stole my notes on this, because she commented that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, includes a number of moveable objects, such as transport items and transport purposes. I confess I did not know that before the amendment was tabled, but research helps on these matters. Having looked at what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has said, there are parts of the definition in the Bill that are not replicated in the Building Act. The term “building” is commonly used and the Bill relies on this ordinary meaning. We do not want to over-define terms that are already well understood, particularly where doing so may create confusion or indeed loopholes.

For those reasons, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the extension to transport objects—including hovercraft—means that the definition of “building” in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 is not really appropriate for this definition today. I hope the noble Lord can accept that and I hope my comment reflects what has been said in Committee today.

I turn now to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It was interesting, and I understand the intention of his amendment. I have not been in this House long, but I sense that the noble and learned Lord’s contributions are ones the House listens to; so I understand and accept the point he has brought forward today.

Clause 2(2)(b) specifies that “qualifying premises” must be wholly or mainly used for one or more of the uses specified in Schedule 1. These uses cover activities where the premises are accessible to or used by the public. I hope I can reassure the noble and learned Lord that temporary buildings can form part of such premises. I hope that will give him the reassurance he seeks in relation to his amendment.

The amendment would extend the scope of Clause 2 to include temporary buildings or structures even if they are not a feature of the usual activities undertaken at the premises. For example, where a field is not in scope, erecting a very temporary structure for the purposes of an event, such as an annual village fete, could draw the field into scope of Clause 2 under this amendment. It may not normally meet the conditions elsewhere, by the very nature of the building being put up, but it would then be drawn into scope by his amendment.

The Government are mindful of the many temporary and one-off events that occur across the UK, many of which will draw large crowds and consist of temporary structures such as tents and staging areas. It is the Government’s intention to capture these events under Clause 3. We have carefully designed the criteria to do so, in a way that strikes a balance between achieving public protection and avoiding undue burden on businesses, organisations and local communities, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, again including the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst.

To that end, we are not looking to legislate for all events and Clause 3 carefully clarifies this. As such, open access events that do not have such checks in place will not be in scope of the Bill. The Government do not consider it appropriate or practical for events that do not have these types of controls and boundaries in place to be in scope. Again, I understand why the noble and learned Lord tabled his amendment, but I hope that on reflection he can accept the points I have made and will not take his amendment further.

Amendment 20 is important, because it asks for genuine clarification. I hope I can give clarification to both noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, on this amendment, which seeks to examine the meaning of “immediate vicinity”. I want to first reassure that the duties under the Bill do not require responsible persons to implement procedures or measures that are beyond their control. Self-evidently, there are some things in the immediate vicinity that will be beyond their control: for example, erecting safety equipment on pavements or other land for which they are not responsible outside the premises.

As I have already set out, the purpose of the Bill is to require people in control of qualifying premises and events to take steps aimed at reducing the risk of physical harm to people in the event of a terrorist attack that might directly impact their venue. An act of terrorism close to a building may also result in physical harm to people inside that building, as well as to people queuing, entering, exiting or even just passing by. Therefore, when considering appropriate procedures and measures to reduce physical harm from, and vulnerability to, terrorism, it is right that duty holders also think about what they should do for their premises in the event of an attack taking place just outside.

We have not deliberately chosen not to define “immediate vicinity” for the purposes of this Bill. The Bill relies on what we term the ordinary meaning of those words. What constitutes the immediate vicinity of a premises or event will depend on its specific circumstances. If the Bill were prescriptive and, for example, to stipulate a certain distance from the premises, it would undermine the flexibility with which requirements can apply to a range of venues in an array of different places. For example, the procedures appropriate for an inner-city pub are likely to be quite different from those for a sprawling visitor attraction in the countryside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I am grateful. Will the Minister undertake to think again on the point I made about certainty when you meet resistance from people with a temporary facility wondering whether they have to go through all the trouble and expense of complying with the measures in the Bill. The problem is that it is quite easy for a lawyer to construct an argument to point to the Building Safety Act, which says that “building” means any “permanent or temporary” building. It does not say that here, so it raises a question as to whether temporary things are covered at all. The way to cut out that argument completely is to include those few words, which I am not sure would do any harm at all to the Bill.

I am not asking for an answer now, but I would be grateful if the Minister would consider very carefully whether there is an advantage in certainty, given that it is important that these measures are capable of being enforced, to avoid arguments going round in circles as to what “building” really means.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I have tried to impress on the Committee that we think that the type of circumstance that the noble and learned Lord has suggested is covered by the Bill. I will obviously examine Hansard and the contributions again in the light of the discussion, but I remain convinced that the Bill meets the needs that the noble and learned Lord is concerned about. However, reflection is always a good thing and I will certainly examine his comments in detail.

I had a sense of a looming intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, before I sit down, but I am obviously just generally nervous of his potential interventions coming my way.

I hope I have satisfied noble Lords and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie. With that, I hope that the amendments are not pressed. I will look at Hansard and at the comments made.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will not try to answer any points about Amendment 20. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned it but did not really emphasise whether his amendment, or a similar amendment referring to temporary structures, would do any harm in this context. I do not think it would, but it is a discussion that we should have.

The Minister is quite right to be wary of any body language demonstrated by the noble Lord sitting immediately opposite me—you never know what is coming.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has made his case and I have made mine. His words are always worthy of examination, and that I will do.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Section 30 of the Building Safety Act 2022 or Section 121 of the Building Act 1984, that is the question.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, makes some strong points, particularly in regard to whether it is capable of enforcement. That is an extremely important point. A number of other important points have been made by noble Lords. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, about people attending events without having to worry and having a relaxed time is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, makes an extremely helpful point about wanting a good definition, which includes collapsible buildings, and he talked about circuses with up to 500 people. All in all, this is a definition that requires some further discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is right that it is for the Government to come forward with a definition that satisfies us all. On that basis, perhaps we can go away, have a discussion, and come back at Report with something that satisfies all of us. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11, standing in my name, as well as Amendments 4 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst.

Amendment 11 seeks to establish an exemption for premises which have been assessed to be in a low-risk category by an independent assessor. As the Minister knows, we have concerns about which premises will be required to implement security measures under the Bill, and we feel that there should be some flexibility for the premises that are affected by it.

It may be that the correct flexibility would be delivered by Amendment 22, in the name of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, which will be debated later in Committee, or by Amendment 8, in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. However, the overriding point here is that there must be some flexibility in approach.

Not all premises that are currently caught by the Bill are in need of these additional measures, and it equally may be the case that the Bill as drafted will miss a number of premises that are in need of them. We hope the Government will listen to these concerns and engage positively so that we can ensure that the right premises are required to put in place the appropriate measures to protect the public from the risks of terrorism. This amendment would make this judgment an independent one, taking the discretion out of the responsibility of the department and giving premises that are at low risk access to a route to exemption. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s remarks in response to this debate, and I hope he will engage with me as we seek to deliver the flexibility I have spoken about today.

I will now speak to Amendments 4 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, which seek to clarify the Bill’s language around the frequency of a premises breaching the capacity threshold. As drafted, the Bill says that the measures will apply when a premises reaches the threshold in the Bill “from time to time”. This is far too vague, and the organisations affected by the Bill need clarity now. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst has rightly seized on this point and argued forcefully for the need for clarity today. While I expect that the Minister will tell us that this can be addressed through guidance, it is important we get clarity in the Bill.

To establish a way forward, I ask the Minister to set out what timeframe the Government expect to appear in the guidance. If the Government can answer that question today, can he explain why that timeframe cannot appear in the legislation itself? It is our view that setting the timeframe in law would give businesses and other organisations which will be regulated under the Bill certainty that this definition will not be altered through guidance. I hope the Minister can see how the lack of clarity on this point in legislation could leave space for the timeframe to be changed over time, which could see more venues caught by the rules than is appropriate, and Parliament would have no input in that process.

As I said in the opening debate in Committee, the seriousness of the issues involved in this Bill means we must get the legislation right. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to this probing amendment and look to table constructive amendments to Clause 2 where necessary at Report.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am again grateful to noble Lords for the constructive way in which they have approached the amendments before us. If I may, I shall start with Amendment 11, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. The first and foremost point I want to make on Amendment 11 is the one that is made to me as Minister by the security services. The threat to the United Kingdom from terrorism is currently substantial. Terrorists may choose to carry out attacks at a broad range of locations of different sizes and types, as attacks across the UK and around the world have shown. As I have explained during the passage of the Bill, the Bill is not about preventing terrorist attacks—that is the job of our security services and the police. The objective of the Bill is to ensure that public protection procedures and measures are put in place to reduce the risk of physical harm if an attack occurs and the vulnerability of premises and events to attacks.

The key point for the noble Lord is that this is not related to the particular premise or a particular time, be it rural or not and inside or outside the scope of the Bill. It is about ensuring that the threat, which is substantial, is recognised, and that can happen at any premise and at any time. That is why we believe the amendment to be well-intended but not in keeping with the objectives of the legislation, so the Government cannot support Amendment 11 for those reasons. If the Government took a position on setting a size threshold in the Bill and considered the noble Lord’s amendment the right approach, we would end up discarding a large number of premises that could, due to the threat being substantial, be subject to attack. That point was made very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in her contribution.

Amendments 4 and 9 have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. They would change the provision of Clauses 2(2)(c) and 2(3)(a), which provide that, to be in scope as qualifying premises, 200 or more individuals must be reasonably expected to be present on the premises at the same time in connection with uses under Schedule 1 “from time to time”, as we have stated. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord would change “from time to time” to refer to the number of individuals expected “not less than once a month”. This would change both the number and range of premises caught by the Bill either at all or at enhanced duty premises.

The Government’s intention in bringing forward the Bill is to ensure that we examine that, where significant numbers of people gather at premises, steps have been taken to protect them against terrorism. This should be the case whether the relevant thresholds are met on a daily or monthly basis or less frequently. An assessment based on the number of people expected at least once a month would not take into account the myriad ways in which different premises are used and attendances fluctuate over the course of a year. For example, there is the seasonal nature of sports grounds and visitor attractions, and a monthly assessment would take those premises out of the equation.

Therefore, I hope the noble Lord is again offering me a probing amendment to examine, but I cannot support its current phraseology.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

So, is once a year “from time to time”?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are trying not to define what “from time to time” is because, for example, if a premise on one day of the year met the threshold, that would be from time to time, or it might be monthly or daily. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would mean a prescriptive assessment on a monthly basis, and that in my view would not be sufficient, given the substantial level of the threat.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

I understand the difficulty that the Minister is in, but the point I am trying to make is that it is important that those operating the premises know what they are required to do. Unless they know what “from time to time” means, it is very difficult for them to do that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Without straying into other parts of the Bill, I would hope that people and premises that fall within scope of the Bill, be it a 200 or an 800 threshold, would have clarity over their responsibility areas. If they look at Clause 5, “Public protection procedures”, they will know exactly what is required of them for those public protection matters that fall within the scope of the Bill. So, whether it is “from time to time” as in one day a year or as in every week or every month, if we are more prescriptive, as would be the case under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we would take out a number of premises that—even if it was only one day a year, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned—would still meet the criteria of the scope of the Bill. My judgment is that the measures in Clause 5 are important but not onerous. They are about training, support and examination of a number of areas. Therefore, if from time to time, one day a year, a premise falls within scope to meet the objectives, the responsible person needs to examine the premise and look at the measures needed in place. That is the reason.

I say that not because I want to impose burdens on a range of bodies but because the terrorist threat is substantial. While the terrorist incidents have occurred in large cities, there is no likelihood that they may not occur in other parts of the country. Therefore, those measures are required within the scope of the Bill. From my perspective as the Minister responsible for taking the Bill through this House, it is important that they are required on a “from time to time” basis, not on a very prescriptive monthly basis. That is why I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

In the case of an enhanced premises, where there is an event of 1,000 people once a year but for the rest of the year there are never more 200 or 300 people going through, does that bring it into that category? You are normally just “qualifying” premises and so must have the facilities and systems in place to deal with a terrorism event if, heaven forbid, such happens, but if, now and again, you get to 800 people, does it mean that you have to search everyone coming and going throughout the year or is it only when there is the event? That is where I have concerns.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that I can help the noble Lord. There are two categories. There is a 200 threshold and an 800 threshold. If a premise crosses the 200 and/or the 800 threshold, it will be responsible for undertaking certain activity as prescribed by the Bill, common to which are the items in Clause 5. From time to time, if an event is over 800, it will have to go to the levels of the Bill for those thresholds of businesses and premises over 800. That is the nature of the proposal before the House in this Bill.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments to Clause 2 tabled by my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Murray of Blidworth. I am sorry that the Government have declined to give this group a proper title and referred to it as the “degroup”. For the benefit of the Committee, it would have been better for this group to have been given a proper title, such as “capacity of premises”. I hope the Minister will take this back to officials, so that we can have proper titles for groups of amendments going forward.

These amendments collectively seek to adjust the minimum threshold for qualifying premises under the Bill and to ensure that the legislation strikes a careful balance between security and proportional regulation. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 propose raising the threshold from the current 200 person capacity to 300, 400 and 500 respectively. These are important proposals that merit some serious consideration. The current threshold of 200 people is relatively low and risks imposing unnecessary and disproportionate burdens on small venues, community spaces and independent businesses.

I particularly have in mind when communities come together to protest at public meetings called at short notice in community halls, often with more than 200 and perhaps more than 300 people—I see the Minister smiling; we have all been there.

Small and medium-sized enterprises, including restaurants, cafes, independent theatres and community halls, are vital to the social fabric and economic vitality of our communities. Many of these premises operate on razor-thin margins and simply do not have the financial capacity or staffing resources to implement the comprehensive security measures that may be required under this legislation. Compliance with the regulations could entail significant investment in security equipment, personnel, training and operational changes—costs that could be ruinous for smaller businesses.

It is also worth considering the administrative burden that a low threshold may impose on both the businesses themselves and the enforcement authorities tasked with overseeing compliance. By setting the bar at 200 people, the current provision potentially captures a vast number of venues that pose a relatively low security risk. This dilutes resources that could be better focused on higher-risk premises where security efforts would be more impactful. Moreover, we must take a proportionate and risk-based approach to security policy. If we overburden smaller venues with costly and complex requirements, the unintended consequences may be that many of them are forced to reduce their operations or even close altogether. That would deprive communities of essential spaces for social, cultural and economic activities, particularly in rural and underserved areas where small venues play an outsized role.

Raising the thresholds to 300, 400 or 500 people, as proposed by these amendments, would ensure that security requirements are applied where they are most necessary—namely, at larger venues with higher footfall and greater potential risk. It would also signal that this legislation is responsive to the concerns of business owners and recognises the practical realities of running a small venue in today’s challenging economic climate.

It is crucial that we approach this matter with pragmatism and proportionality. A higher threshold would help protect businesses, community spaces and cultural venues from unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining a clear focus on enhancing public safety where it truly matters. We must recognise that many smaller establishments operate on tight margins and have limited resources. Mandating extensive security measures may be feasible for larger venues but could place an unsustainable financial and administrative strain on smaller premises. Raising the threshold would help to ensure that security requirements are applied where they are most necessary: namely, at larger venues with higher footfall where the risks are more significant.

That said, I appreciate the wisdom in Amendment 8, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, which he spoke to with some passion and which takes a nuanced approach. This amendment proposes a dual system where the default threshold is raised to 300 people but the Secretary of State retains the discretion to designate smaller premises as qualifying if they are at

“heightened risk of a terrorist threat”.

That flexibility is crucial. Although larger premises are generally more attractive targets, we must acknowledge that smaller venues can also be vulnerable under specific circumstances, whether due to their location, the nature of the events they host, or intelligence indicating a credible threat. Granting the Secretary of State this discretionary power ensures that the legislation remains responsive to evolving security challenges without imposing blanket requirements on small businesses.

Furthermore, Amendment 8 reflects a thoughtful understanding of the need for a risk-based approach to security. Security should be proportionate to the threat, and, by incorporating an element of ministerial discretion, we can achieve a more targeted and effective framework.

In conclusion, these amendments collectively represent a pragmatic and balanced approach to enhancing public safety while safeguarding the viability of small businesses and community spaces. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to adopting a higher default threshold alongside a discretionary mechanism to ensure that security measures are applied where they are most needed.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I am grateful to noble Lords. A range of amendments have been brought before the House and the nub of the arguments is about the threshold for qualifying premises. That issue was quite rightly debated in this House at Second Reading and was also debated in the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think it was me.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I thought the noble Lord mentioned 800.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

It was the other one.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Sorry, I left north Wales at 7 am, so it has been a long day already. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned the figure of 800. Why have we come to our figure? I can make all sorts of justifications. Two hundred takes into account the greatest number of large premises, so it is a figure that we have determined accordingly. We have to set the figure at a certain level and we have done so following the wide range of consultation that has taken place.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

To what extent has the department made an evaluation of the impact on volunteering of the measures as they are currently proposed, with a threshold of 200? Does the Home Office have a threshold for the number of trustees that they think will go unfilled, or the lack of volunteering in community ventures and village halls, as a consequence of the threats and burden imposed by these measures?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The measures that we have accepted are part of the consultation that we have undertaken. The noble Lord was a Minister standing at this Dispatch Box in this department during the genesis of this Bill, so he will know that there has been wide consultation on these matters. Again, I point him to Clause 5 on public protection measures. Clause 5(3) refers to

“evacuating individuals from the premises … moving individuals to a place on the premises … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.

Are those onerous issues? Or are they things that, even in our own assessment, are relatively low cost in terms of training? That relatively low cost is, essentially, in person hours when determining what those requirements are.

Again, we could fix a number. If I fixed the number at 300, 400 or 500, we would take even more premises out, but that would dilute the purpose of this legislation, which is to set good practice for the prevention of an attack when an attack is occurring and the steps that can be taken to save lives. People’s experiences—not mine, but those in the consultations of the public inquiry—mean that the 200 figure we have now settled on is the right one. I commend that figure to the House and hope that noble Lords will support it in due course when it comes to the final decision by this House before Third Reading.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

I thank everyone who contributed to this section of Committee. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful comments. I appreciate that there is a degree of arbitrariness in this number, but, equally, it is our task to try to make it as non-arbitrary as possible and make sure that the number we eventually choose is as well grounded in reality as it possibly can be.

Perhaps I might be permitted just one remark before sitting down. I say that because there is pressure for risk aversion, and we have heard some of that in your Lordships’ House today. It is important to be careful what we are doing here. We need to keep in mind what the threshold number means. If we set it at 200, for example, we are not saying that we are prepared to tolerate the risk of 199 people being killed in a terrorist attack. That is not what the threshold is about. The risk that we want to tolerate of that is the number zero.

What we are saying is that there is a trade-off. The costs to businesses and society of complying with these measures are justifiable above a certain number when we take the broader risk of terrorism into account. As the Minister said, the risk of a terrorist attack is unlikely in any individual case. We have to be able to debate this number prudentially while understanding exactly what the threshold means. We have debated it and I suspect we will so again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front-Bench spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for their contributions to this debate. My noble friend first drew my attention to his concerns during the pre-discussion of the Bill, as well as at Second Reading. I wrote to him on his concerns prior to Christmas. I hope that I can again assuage his concerns expressed in the discussions we have had this evening.

Amendment 10 seeks to ensure that railway vehicles, such as trains, that are temporarily stopped at a station are excluded from the assessment of the number of individuals that it is reasonable to expect from time to time at railway stations. I hope I can give my noble friend some assurance that a train that stops at a station as part of its journey does not form part of the station premises. Clause 2(2), which sets out what a qualifying premises is, states that the site must consist of

“a building or a building and other land”.

If I can put it this way, the train has a temporary interaction with the station as it passes through—rather like it does when I travel through Crewe on a regular basis—but the passengers on the train are not “present on the premises” for the purposes of the definition of qualifying premises. The train and the building are completely separate. A train in use as a train is a vehicle, which is not a building, so the train will not form qualifying premises in its own right either. I therefore hope that Clause 2 is sufficiently clear on what constitutes a premises.

Amendment 12 looks at the definition of a railway station in Schedule 1, which has been drawn from Section 83 of the Railways Act 1993—on which I served at the time; that takes me back 32 years, which is a long time ago—which in turn stems from Section 67 of the Transport and Works Act 1992. A station may include some or all parts of the premises that this amendment appears designed to remove. Furthermore, the words that the amendment would remove are a non-exhaustive list. These areas are already capable of falling within the definition if they are used in connection with the station.

I hope my noble friend will understand why I do not think it appropriate to change the definition for the purposes of this legislation, as it may remove some parts of a station which may form part of its premises. Where there is not already a legislative requirement comparable to the Bill, it is the Government’s intention to include such of those parts within scope where they properly form part of the premises for the purpose of the Bill’s objectives. Again, the building and the rail are separate entities.

For station premises which fall under Clause 2, the parts that the amendment seeks to exclude may form part of the premises and therefore may be relevant to taking forward public protection procedures or public protection measures, as far as is reasonably practicable. I know from previous exchanges I have had with my noble friend that this amendment seeks to exclude the specified parts of a station premises in order to provide greater clarity that these would not feature in an assessment of the numbers of persons it is reasonable to expect at a station premises. Locations such as a forecourt or a car park are usually transient locations. It would be difficult to envisage a scenario whereby a car park would have great significance to an assessment of the number of individuals present on the premises.

Therefore, I recognise the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment, but I do not consider it an appropriate approach. I therefore hope that I have assuaged his concerns.

It may be helpful if I put Amendments 16, 17 and 18 in context by setting out the Government’s approach to the application of the Bill to transport premises. Where a transport premise satisfies the Clause 2 premises criteria, it is considered that it is comparable to other publicly accessible premises that the Bill captures, and it is appropriate and necessary, therefore, to include it within the Bill’s scope. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of Schedule 1, therefore, include definitions of relevant transport premises for this purpose.

It is expected that, for example, some airports, railway stations and bus stations will, under the definition in the Bill, be qualifying premises required to take forward the Bill’s requirements. This is considered appropriate, given that the security of the public at those premises is of equal importance to that of the public at, for example, an entertainment centre or a large retail premise. However, paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 excludes those transport premises that are already subject to existing requirements to consider and mitigate terrorist threats. To do otherwise would confuse and duplicate burdens on operators and give no additional public protection benefits. Excluded premises therefore include airports, national rail and underground premises, international rail premises and port facilities, as described in the schedule.

I turn to Amendment 16 specifically, which I know is of concern to my noble friend. Where there are premises that are shared—for example, where a national rail and a heritage railway station are concurrent or form part of the premises—there may be parts of those premises that are subject to legislative requirements related to mitigating terrorist threats, and parts that are not. If there are premises, or parts of premises, that meet the Clause 2 criteria and are not subject to existing legislative requirements, it is considered that they should meet the requirements of the Bill.

I want to pay tribute to the volunteers and those who run heritage railways. The Llangollen heritage railway is not too far from where I live. The Government consider heritage railways, as described by my noble friend, as primarily visitor attractions that help support tourism and the local economy rather than necessarily means of transportation in themselves. They are, by their definition, very different from the rest of the rail network, which is already required to have appropriate security procedures and measures in place.

As such, it is not considered appropriate that parts of the heritage railway premises at shared or joint stations should automatically be excluded from the scope of the Bill where equivalent safety provisions are not already in place. To do so would mean there would be no requirement for parts of these premises to consider appropriate security procedures and measures, and the security of the public at heritage railway centres is just as important as at any other premise within scope of the Bill.

In previous discussions and exchanges with noble Lords, I have emphasised very strongly that the measures required for the above-200 premise in Clause 5 are important but not onerous measures, and ones that volunteers at railway stations or elsewhere would wish to adopt as good practice, as well as being a legal requirement under the Bill. Evacuating individuals, moving them to a place of safety, preventing them from entering or leaving premises and giving them information, is all good practice, but with the legislative back-up of the Bill.

So I hope that the distinction between trains as trains on the move, and buildings as buildings, is one where my noble friend can understand where the Government are coming from and accept. I hope that is sufficient to persuade him and the triumvirate of noble Lords who raised these concerns not to press the amendment. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, wishes to contribute, so I will certainly let him.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. Is he able to say anything on the points I raised about the secondary powers that the Bill brings about and grants to the Secretary of State to vary some of the conditions, and particularly how that would relate to organisations such as those in the heritage rail sector that are reliant on a large number of volunteers? Would he accept that there is a difference between a business that has an employee who has an ongoing responsibility for following changes in the law that the Secretary of State makes through secondary powers and the burden that is imposed on organisations where volunteers have to keep abreast of changing laws? They may be following closely the deliberations on the primary Act, but the Act provides for a number of secondary powers that would be more difficult for them to follow than an organisation with full-time employees.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I accept that there will be requirements for guidance. Again, the purpose of the Government is to ensure that we have that guidance in place, and that will be circulated via the Security Industry Association in due course. I hope that will help. The Secretary of State’s powers will be subject to further amendments and discussion later on. Hopefully, I will be able to give some assurances on that.

I thought my time was over, which is why I was sitting down, but instead I shall turn to Amendment 17. By virtue of Section 119 of the Railways Act 1993, such requirements as requested in Amendment 17 apply to railway stations in Great Britain. However, as my noble friend said, Section 119 of the Railways Act does not extend to Northern Ireland. Therefore, where there are stations within the Northern Ireland Railways network that meet the Clause 2 criteria, I consider it appropriate that the Bill is applied to those stations accordingly.

On Amendment 18, I understand from my noble friend’s explanatory statement that the intention behind it is to exclude stations or parts of stations that are not buildings. There are some important factors to consider regarding that intention. First, to be a qualifying premise within the scope of the Bill, the premises must consist of a building or buildings or the land, and if there are stations or indeed premises that do not meet this condition, they would not be qualifying premises. The formulation of the Bill at Clauses 2 and 3 is to capture premises where there is control and ownership of that venue, not to capture freely accessible open spaces. However, there are obviously many premises that are constituted of a building or of the land that fall under premises defined in Clauses 2 and 3. Where that is the case, it is our intention that those parts of premises that constitute land with a building should be in scope. To exclude those premises at stations or other premises would have a detrimental effect on the aims of the Bill.

Again, I draw all noble Lords back to the basic premise of the Bill, which is to provide a basic floor for conditions for premises over 200 and over 800 where we have the appropriate requirement to ensure that we put in protections in the event of an attack on those premises. I hope my noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lady Ritchie, if she is here, will see the consequences of what I have said. As such, I cannot support the amendment, but I hope I have explained the reasons why.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by expressing my deep appreciation to the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Davies of Gower, on the Benches opposite. I think their speeches will be read with great enthusiasm by the members of the Heritage Railway Association, and I am sure that both of them will be welcome at any heritage railway for the next year at least, for understanding so clearly the contribution the heritage railways make to the tourist economy and in terms of increasing general well-being and satisfaction. I thank them very much.

I also thank my noble friend the Minister. I think we are edging towards an understanding where it may be possible to achieve what the Government want to do, while at the same time not jeopardising the financial circumstances of a sector that is finding life very tough, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, pointed out.

Some of the answers that my noble friend gave right at the end of his speech are quite technical—I hope he does not mind my saying that—and I am going to read those with great care and take some advice on them. Again, I welcome his support for the principle behind my amendments. Whether or not we come back on Report is a matter for further discussion, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the efforts of noble Lords in tabling the amendments we are considering and the points they have raised. The intention of the Bill is to provide a framework for security in the event of a terrorist attack: that is its prime focus. I recognise that there will be pressures on volunteers to come to the table on these provisions, but it is part of the scope of the Bill to ensure that happens and there is good practice.

I can assure the Committee that as part of the development of the Bill, both the current Government and the previous Government have carefully considered where it is appropriate to exclude premises and events from its scope. In particular, we have taken into account the potential impact on smaller community and grass-roots premises. For the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned, we have to draw that line in relation to the Bill as a whole.

On Amendments 13 and 15 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the Government are conscious that there are many types of premises used for sports activities with different operating models. That is why we have made revisions to the previous draft version of the Bill to distinguish between sports premises which are open to the public to access freely and those where there is some form of control of entry, whether a ticket check, swipe card access or other.

Schedule 2 to the Bill excludes open-air premises which might otherwise be captured. This includes parks, sports grounds and open-air premises used for recreation or leisure where there are no measures to control access. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, gave me a number of examples, including the boat race, as it involves buildings and tow paths. I will reflect on his examples. My gut feeling is that buildings are covered, but tow paths and other associated provisions are not, except if—as mentioned in the Bill—payment is made, invitations or passes to access are issued, or individuals must be members or guests of a club or association to gain access. I will reflect on his points, however, and prior to Report—which will not be too far hence—I will make sure the noble Lord has a letter in his hand. He can then decide whether to take action on Report or be satisfied; I hope, of course, it will be the latter.

I have the concern that under the noble Lord’s proposals to remove paragraph 3(2)(d) of the schedule, a non-league football match, such as at Flint Town United in the town I live in, with 8,000 people attending, would be out of scope and its security not considered. That is unacceptable, because the amendments could leave only a few hundred premises across the United Kingdom within scope. Again, the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that we put in a basic minimum, which is to provide protection in the event of an attack and steps that can be taken by the associated individual. That is the bottom line, and sometimes it causes reflections that the noble Lord has made.

The costs were touched on by a number of noble Lords. We have estimated that for a standard duty premises the costs will be around £330 per year. That is not cash up front being paid externally; it might just be an assessment of the time involved by volunteers to undertake the training and be the responsible person. Again, there is a judgment to be made, and we have made the judgment that that is a right level of approach. Noble Lords have expressed concerns about that, but I do not think it will reduce the level of volunteers. Nor, having looked at the impact assessment from the Home Office, do I share the concerns that the penalties set out in paragraph 68, for example—which I agree are heavy—will put people off, because we are trying to instil into the system a level of good practice. Downstream, undoubtedly, that will not be administered as a day one fine—there will be discussion between the authority and the regulated premise in due course. I hope that will not put individuals off, but the noble Lord has made his point.

The noble Lord mentioned that officials have drawn up the impact assessment. I pay tribute to the officials for doing that, as they have worked hard, but he will note that the signature on the bottom is of the Security Minister, Dan Jarvis. Political leadership takes responsibility for this document and will continue to do so with the support of officials downstream.

On Amendments 14 and 19 from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the noble Lord himself mentioned that he thinks they need to be reflected on. I will take his word for that and give him the encouragement to reflect on them still further. The Bill sets out that open-air premises which might otherwise be caught are excluded, but he can reflect on his amendments and, if he feels that he wishes to bring them back on Report, a recrafted amendment could be tabled, should he wish to do so. That is his decision and his call in due course.

If I may, I will reflect on all the comments made by noble Lords. There were some detailed questions about the pavilion and reflections on that. I hope that noble Lords will understand that we are trying to achieve a baseline, and we want clarity on that, because clarity means that it serves a purpose so volunteers and others will take the right approach, the SIA will know what it is monitoring, and Ministers and this House will be accountable for the performance. I will reflect on all the points that have been made and, if clarity is required, then we will try and ensure that it happens. I will write to Members and, if noble Lords feel that that clarity is not present in my correspondence, then there will be opportunities later in the day to take action accordingly. With that, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. We both share the overall objectives; of that there is no doubt, and I think that applies to everybody in the Committee. I hope that, in addition to the letter, the Minister will give consideration with his colleagues to sector-specific guidance. That would be very helpful in the context of the sport and recreation world.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I should mention that, if this Bill receives Royal Assent, as I hope it will, then there is that potential two-year implementation period, and we will be looking clearly at guidance to make sure that the wishes of the legislation are reflected in how it can be implemented by a range of organisations.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I appreciate that. By “sector-specific”, I was talking about the sport and recreation world, so I hope that that is also taken into consideration by the Minister. My biggest concern by far is the community amateur sports clubs—the CASCs—the volunteers, and the grass-roots sportsmen and sports-women in this country who give so much of their time voluntarily.

We will go away and consider the response that the Minister has kindly given the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

Terrorism: Glorification

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am grateful for this debate today, which has been full of emotion and concern. It has raised issues that deserve to be respected, and I hope to be able to answer them in part.

I am particularly aware that this week, as the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, mentioned, sees the commencement of the Omagh bombing inquiry. I had the privilege of attending the Memorial Garden in Omagh some 15 years ago. I met victims there and learned of their continued pain, anger and desire for answers. The noble Baroness has herself been a victim of terrorist activity, and I understand the pain, anger and wish for answers that she brings to this debate. I have met with victims of Omagh. I have sat in a room with the widows of police officers who were murdered. I have met those who were killed by the IRA—and, indeed, those who were shot dead by loyalist paramilitaries as well. I have sat with, and looked into the eyes of, people who have undertaken those killings, both from the IRA and from the loyalist community. I did so to try to understand and resolve some of the issues that underpin this debate today.

I am grateful for the comments from a number of noble Lords and Baronesses. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, mentioned my service in Northern Ireland. I had a fleeting period in Northern Ireland, but it left a deep impression on me and on my examination of the issues that still affect us today. Even in this Home Office job, just before Christmas, I attended the 50th anniversary of the Birmingham pub bombing. People still wanted answers and still did not understand; they were still the victims of violence that took place in the context of our discussions today. So I understand that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, asked what has changed since I was there. I would be interested to see what has happened since I left. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, mentioned this as well. One thing has happened since I left. When I was in Northern Ireland, I was the First Minister; I was the Deputy First Minister; I was the Treasury Minister, for a while; and I was the Culture Minister and the Housing Minister. Now, Michelle O’Neill and Emma Little-Pengelly hold those posts in a devolved Administration salvaged from the trauma of that not occurring. They have got local decision-making back in place, as envisaged by the Good Friday/Belfast agreement—call it what you will—of 1998. So, there has been progress in many ways, but pain—it has been visible in the Room today—still exists as a result of that activity.

In a sense, I would like to look to the future as well. We have the legacy of the Troubles, which, again, is self-evidently visible in this Room today—the trauma experienced by individuals and communities, and by some noble Lords and Baronesses in this Room, some of whom have represented such individuals in Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe.

Addressing the legacy of the Troubles is one of the aims of the Good Friday agreement. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government, through my right honourable friend Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, are looking at how we can build on that legacy in order to ensure that we understand and find a way through those difficult issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has given a view on the First Minister, as have other noble Lords here today; that is in the Room and on the record today. I hope that we can look at some of the issues as we go forward, while recognising that there is still a very deep scar in Northern Ireland as a whole.

That brings me to two points in relation to this debate. First, there is a Section 1 Terrorism Act 2006 offence of encouraging terrorism, including unlawful glorification. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned it. I will come to the other points he raised in a moment. For individuals who glorify acts of terrorism, whether online or offline, whether with reference to proscribed organisations or individual acts of terrorism, such behaviour has no place in our society. There is a legal definition of that act of glorification currently on the statute book. Police forces in Northern Ireland or elsewhere can seek to examine it and can bring prosecutions accordingly. It may not be satisfactory to the noble Baroness, and she may worry about the number of prosecutions made—I understand that—but that framework is there in law.

In that sense, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Austin, who I still call my noble friend, that the incidents at a football match this week, which I was not party to—I have read about them, I have not seen them personally, but I take his word for what happened—can be referred by the police if they feel a criminal act was committed under that offence. I urge him to draw it to the attention of the West Midlands Police because that is where the appropriate response lies. It is not for Ministers to determine whether criminal action has taken place, it is for Ministers to put legislation in place.

The second important area is Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which makes it an offence to support a proscribed organisation. Again, this was referred to by a number of Members. There is a whole list of proscribed organisations which the Government have determined are beyond the pale, owing to their activities. Hamas is included in that. I was not in Parliament at the time, but in 2019 the offence was widened to ensure that it captured such statements even where the speaker is reckless as to their impact. The penalty for that proscription offence is a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. Again, there is legislation on the statute book now, and it is not for Ministers to determine whether that legislation has been broken. It is for the police to make an arrest, prepare a case and put it to the Crown Prosecution Service; and it is for the CPS to determine whether charges should be made. Those charges are either made or not. If they are made, they go to court. If they go to court, they are in front of a jury and the jury determines whether the law has been broken.

So, currently, there is a mechanism in place for any of the instances noble Lords have raised concerns about today. Are those two mechanisms currently satisfactory, given the nature of the changes in the threat and the activities? Well, the Government have done two things since 4 July. We organised what we called a sprint to review counter-terrorism legislation. There was a leak of some discussion this week. That is not government policy—I put that on the record—but we have asked Jonathan Hall KC to look at current legislation and I think it is important that this debate can form part of assessment for the Government. He will make that assessment and produce a report on current terrorism legislation, by which I mean Section 12 of the Terrorism Act, Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 or indeed some potential new legislation to cover any issues raised today and elsewhere. He will present that report to Ministers at a date to be determined, we will make an assessment and either accept or reject any recommendations, and we may or may not bring forward new legislation during the many opportunities we have this year.

I am pleased, again, to see the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in his place because I am grateful to him as he has accepted a commission from the Government to review the current operation of Prevent. It largely does not deal with the Northern Ireland situation, I accept that, but it deals with some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and other noble Lords in this Committee have mentioned. So, without wanting to influence the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, he has a mandate independently to review this and make recommendations, which, again, the Government can reject or accept, that will be brought to this House in due course.

I say to all noble Lords here today that I understand the pain seen by the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord McCrea and Lord Bew, and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, and my noble friend Lord Austin. I particularly understand the sentiments of the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. However, those issues are, in a sense, up for review. If the legislation is not sufficient or appropriate, then that will be reviewed, and recommendations will be made. We will respond to that in due course.

I will refer to a couple of other points that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, raised a series of questions effectively about marching, parades and determinations. There is legislation on the statute book, and I have referred to it in the Chamber of this House recently. Legislation about marches is there. It gives powers to police officers and Gold Command to determine marching routes and whether they are suitable or if they cause difficulties. It is not the Parades Commission, but it a determination.

As a Government, we are currently looking at number of issues relating to the position of legislation. We have already publicly announced that there is legislation coming this year in a police and crime Bill that will look at the issue of war memorials and people who abuse them or stand on them. That is an issue. There are a number of other challenges that are on the radar. I am not in a position to announce policy today, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that we are working on a number of policy options that will address some issues to do with the management of parades and marches in due course. When we are in position to announce them, we will do so in the police and crime Bill.

The Government are committed to ensuring that police have appropriate powers to maintain order. There are a range of powers already on the statute book for the police to do that. We are keeping all that public order legislation under constant review. Where there are gaps, we will identify them. I will look at the points that the noble Lord mentioned, and I will write to him in detail in response to them.

My time is up. I could add a few more points, but I want to touch on the contribution from His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front Bench. It is important that we look at the internet. It is important that we look at radicalisation on the internet. Again, that forms part of reviews that are taking place currently. Also, the Government are committed to reviewing that with the platform companies to make sure that we remove content that is encouraging terrorism or, indeed, encouraging the abuse of children or sexual abuse in other ways. That is all on the agenda as well.

Given that I am one minute over, I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue. I may not have answered all her points, but she has a right to raise those issues. She has done in that in an effective way that has left a legacy on this Committee in terms of its discussion. If I have not picked up points made by noble Lords today, I will do so and respond according. I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues from Northern Ireland and beyond to ensure that the next generation of children has a peaceful and productive future in a society that respects differences and rejects violence.

Committee adjourned at 4.54 pm.

Syrian Asylum Applications

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to process the outstanding asylum applications of Syrians in the UK.

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

Following the fall of the Assad regime, the Home Office has withdrawn the country policy and information notes guidance for Syria and temporarily paused interviews and decisions on Syrian asylum claims. This was and remains a necessary step which several other European countries have also taken. The pause is under constant review. When there is a clear basis on which to make decisions, we will resume.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will understand that, for asylum seekers and refugees, uncertainty exacerbates the problems that they have in any event. Will the Home Office consider processing claims that are not based on persecution from the Assad regime? Can the Minister give the House any information on whether the pause applies to Syrians applying for settlement, having been here for five years, and with their initial leave expiring?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On the latter question, everything is paused at the moment for the simple reason that we do not yet understand what has happened in Syria on a permanent basis or know how stable Syria is as a whole. For those who have applied and for those who have had their leave to remain agreed, those issues are paused. As for the first part of the noble Baroness’s question, although there is a strong case to say that those who came here prior to the fall of the Assad regime were fleeing the Assad regime, we still have to examine all the circumstances pending the resolution of what happened in Syria prior to Christmas.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will recall that, on the collapse of the Soviet Union, we, in concert with others, introduced a Know-How Fund to try to improve governance and the economy within the former Soviet Union. Is there not a case, in concert with the European Union and other interested countries, most notably in the Middle East, to contemplate introducing a Know-How Fund for Syria? That might reduce the flow of migrants in the future.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Viscount tempts me into areas which are not my direct responsibility, but I take his point that stability in Syria and its reconstruction are extremely important international global objectives to ensure that the region remains safe and stable, stemming the flow of refugees and asylum seekers to the United Kingdom. I will refer his comments to the appropriate Minister, but I share his objective for stability in the region, and whatever the UK Government can do to achieve that is something that we should consider.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, I was somewhat surprised to read that one in five of the children who entered care in this country in 2023-24 were unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Will the Minister tell the House what special arrangements are made for these children who are particularly vulnerable?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. He makes a valid point. Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, including those from Syria, will continue to be supported by local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales and by health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland, where appropriate, in line with the statutory duties of those authorities. We are trying to ensure that, if unaccompanied children are here now, that level of safeguarding is in place, for the reasons that I know the noble Lord is committed to and which previous safeguarding measures have somewhat failed.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, granting asylum is a very precious thing, and this country’s reputation with regard to that is something about which we ought to be very proud. Will the Minister comment on the basis of granting asylum? Are the Government still committed, as I believe is right, to the two main principles of the 1951 refugee convention, and are they implementing them strictly and properly in the granting of asylum applications?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord yes, and I hope so. I can only be as open and fair to him as that. For the simple reason that we know what has happened in Syria, there is an assessment to be made of whether individuals wish to return to Syria or to seek asylum, and for those individuals who may seek asylum, what their status is. It is a very complex, moving situation. Therefore, in the Syrian context, the Government, along with their European partners and others, have to have a pause. I will take the points that he has made, and I hope I have answered them to his satisfaction.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

How are the Government ensuring that those granted asylum are effectively integrated into British society? In respect of applicants, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that thorough security checks are conducted before asylum applications are approved, particularly given concerns about individuals potentially exploiting the system?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In the context of Syria, there is a pause, as I have already said to the House. In the event of individuals applying from Syria after any lifting of the pause, rigorous checks will be undertaken. One of the areas of refusal could well be if there are criminal tendencies among individuals who are applying for asylum. Those rigorous tests are in place. The noble Lord raises integration. It is important that we have integration and that people respect our cultural differences, because a lack of integration leads to potential conflict, and neither he nor I wish to see that. At the moment, in relation to this Question, for the 5,500 or so Syrian refugees who have currently applied for asylum, that decision will have to wait; no further applications will be processed, although they can be accepted, until we review that pause.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, Syria has a turbulent past, and no one can see but darkly the future of Syria. If the promises of the new regime are honoured over a period of time, surely it will be very difficult for many to find a plausible case for asylum.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is not for me to determine or judge whether an individual wishes to apply for asylum from their country of origin to the United Kingdom or any other country. Our job is to assess such claims against the criteria that we have about persecution and the need for refugee status to be granted. There may be individuals who, in a future Syria, feel that they need to seek asylum from that regime— I do not know. That would be for those individuals to determine and apply, and for this Government to adjudicate accordingly.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Government of Syria are a proscribed terrorist organisation under British law. The Minister suggested, if I heard him correctly, that the pause will be in place until there is clarity about a permanent, stable Government of Syria, which may not be for a considerable time. Given that we have already seen instances of the persecution of women in Syria in certain geographical regions, I hope that the Home Office is not making a decision now that Syria is a permanently safe country.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I assure the noble Lord that people can still apply for asylum from Syria; what they cannot do is have a decision. There is nothing to stop people applying, but they cannot have a decision. That is because we need to review the situation in Syria, partly for the reasons the noble Lord has mentioned and partly because we need to look at the long-term situation in Syria. There may be individuals who currently have applications and who wish to return, and there is a mechanism for them to apply for support from the UK Government to cease their applications and return. There may be other individuals who wish to leave Syria for a range of reasons. This is not a unilateral action by the UK Government; it is one that is supported by Austria, Belgium, France and other European countries, and the pause has the support of the United Nations Refugee Agency. It is a serious assessment of the situation, and I hope the noble Lord will bear with us until we can resolve that.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, if I may, I will build on the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, regarding asylum-seeking children. Of course there is protection, but I really want to better understand the number of children who have gone missing from our institutions and what the Government are putting in place to safeguard them.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not wish to, and am not trying to, make a political point, but when we came in on 4 July last year we discovered that there were approximately 90 unaccompanied children still missing. One of the first priorities of the Government is to try to find out what has happened to those 90 children who we were told, on 4 July, had gone missing. We are trying to track down those unaccompanied children. To go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, we are trying to beef up the arrangements to ensure that local authorities and health trusts, and indeed the Government, know about unaccompanied children, be they from Syria, in the context of this Question, or not, so that the safeguarding process can be put in place.

Extremism Review

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we must, of course, remain resolute in protecting our democratic values and the security of our nation. As the horrific attack in Southport has shown, the evolving nature of threats requires us to remain vigilant. However, I urge caution against diluting the focus of counterterrorism efforts. Islamists and far-right extremism remain the most pressing dangers; shifting attention to behaviours devoid of clear ideological intent risks overstretching our already pressured security services. Will the Minister commit to retaining the changes to non-crime hate incidents made by the last Government? Does he agree that the police should not be looking into matters or recording personal data where there is no imminent risk of criminality? To do so would waste police time and infringe freedom of speech.

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

This Answer arises because of the leak of a document. I just want to place on record what was said in the Answer by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my honourable friend the Minister of State for Security. The leaked documents were not current or new government policy.

With regard to the incidents of hate crime that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned, I say to him again that if he thinks back, I am sure he will remember that this Government have said, on a number of occasions to date, that there was a review of non-recordable hate crime incidents where we have now asked the National Police Chiefs’ Council to look at those incidents to try to ensure that we reduce the use of non-crime hate incidents and focus on what should be the case in relation to the original intention of non-crime hate incidents.

The noble Lord also mentioned the focus of the Answer and policy as being extremism in relation to Islamist extremism and extreme right-wing neo-Nazi extremism. I can assure him that that is the case. That is the Government’s main focus. However, we have asked the interim Prevent commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, to review where we are with Prevent legislation in the light of the incident—terrible that it was—in Southport. There is also a request on the table for the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to look at whether terrorism legislation needs to be reviewed in the light of not just the recent incident but others as a whole.

I reassure the noble Lord that any changes in policy brought forward by the Government will be presented in this House in a way in which they can be understood, debated and accepted by both Houses of Parliament.

I reiterate that this was a leaked document. We do not normally comment on leaks, except in this case to say that it is not government policy.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, it is very pleasing to hear the Minister’s answers. Clearly, the review, even though it was a leak, was not coming up with the right answers; the Home Secretary has made a similar point. One of the key issues to getting this right is proper, early and deep engagement of the communities which will be affected across the length of the country. What will the Government do to ensure that communities are deeply engaged right from the outset of any review or strategies that are required, and that they feel ownership of these, rather than that they were forced upon them?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, makes a very important point. Rather like policing generally, it is important that any aspect of legislation or policy relating to prevention of terrorism, or understanding and taking action on extremism, has the support of the community for which it is designed and which it serves. Embedded in what we do will be discussion and consultation on the way forward.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary determined that we needed to have a quick sprint on terrorism legislation. The leaked document was part of that sprint but was not government policy. The examinations of both Prevent and terrorism legislation are ongoing. At the moment, the Government’s commitment is that the two main focuses of our policy have to be extreme Islamist action and extreme neo-Nazi right-wing action.

[Lord Godson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as director of Policy Exchange, and I had the pleasure of publishing this document which cast an important light on government policy. I welcome the Minister’s reaffirmation of Islamism and far-right extremism as the highest priorities.

In respect of the definition of extremism, both the Minister’s colleagues, Mr Norris at the MHCLG and Mr Jarvis at the Home Office, have given apparently contradictory statements—first on 21 January and, secondly, Mr Jarvis on 28 January—on the disapplication of the previous Government’s definition of extremism, which Mr Norris said would be disapplied. Mr Jarvis, in an Answer to a Written Question yesterday, stated that there were no plans to change the previous Government’s definition of extremism policy. Can the Minister please shed some light on the matter?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Of course I can. Might I suggest to the noble Lord that the next time a leak finds its way to him, he puts it in an envelope and posts it back to the Home Office? That would be extremely helpful. I put that on the record for any noble Lord who receives in the post a document marked “Private: not yet government policy”; it is good to send it back to us.

There are no plans to change the definition of extremism, which was set out by the previous Government in March 2024. It sets down three points, which are: negating or destroying the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; undermining, overturning or replacing UK systems of liberal parliamentary democracy; or intentionally creating a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in either of the first two points. That is the definition of extremism. It has not changed, and was not going to be changed. The leaked document did not include a change and it is not government policy. I will buy the noble Lord some envelopes for the future.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that Ministers have a perfect right to reject documents that are placed before them, wherever they come from, and that this is not a matter for journalistic surprise? Does he agree that we should do nothing to dilute the considerable effectiveness of counterterrorism policing, which involves a number of authorities and public bodies? Does he also agree that Parliament and even the media should await patiently the two reports by experts in the field, to which he referred earlier, and confirm that we will then enjoy informed debate rather than wild comment?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I agree with all three points that he has mentioned. The key point is that Governments consider a range of advice. I give a commitment from this Dispatch Box, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would from the House of Commons, that when any change or development of policy is made it will be reported to this House and to the House of Commons. That is the right and proper thing to do. As for speculation on leaked documents and advice given to Ministers: Ministers decide. They receive advice, commission potential papers and deliberate on them. The two reviews we have established are designed to create debate and bring forward suggestions that Ministers will ultimately decide on. I thank the noble Lord for his comments, with which I agree, and welcome his support.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the national police ethics committee. In your Lordships’ House next week, we will begin Committee on the very important Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. Would the Minister agree that this is a time when we have to be absolutely clear what we mean by terrorism, so that we in this House can give that Bill the clear, in-depth scrutiny it requires?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree, and I look forward to spending potentially several days debating that Bill with noble Lords. It is important that we have a definition of terrorism. It is currently set down in legislation. The Government have asked again for a review of that as part of the review the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to, but there are no outcomes to it yet. Until it brings any outcomes, that is the definition of terrorism in place for this legislation.

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords, as part of the work that the department is doing, could the Minister look at the intersection of extremist ideology, whether that is Islamist or far right, with other important issues, such as misogyny and examples of mental health issues? Will they also look at what technology companies are doing? If you have a fragile mind and are being fed a diet of awful, grotesque violence and extreme pornography, that will contribute to these problems as well.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend mentions other sources of issues that may lead people to extremist or terrorist behaviour. The Government are cognisant of that and will not ignore that approach. However, the two main threats are from Islamist terrorism or extreme right-wing neo-Nazi terrorism, so that is where the focus of government action is. We will still examine incidents on a case-by-case basis when they arise.

On the reviews that are being undertaken, we have to learn lessons from issues such as Southport. If there are issues that need to be updated when Prevent and the terrorist legislation are reviewed then so be it. How we deal with materials placed on the net and the responsibility of tech companies for that material is one of the issues that may need to be updated in due course. Self-evidently, individuals are being radicalised in a range of ways, including in the ways my noble friend has mentioned, from Islamist, neo-Nazi and other material they have seen on the net. There is a need to ensure that we examine that new framework, which was not in existence the last time I was in the Home Office 14 years ago, but which is in place now. Therefore, the Government’s response needs to be cognisant of that. We will take all of those points into account and report to this House in due course, when appropriate.

Southport Attack

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to discuss the Statement on the Southport attacks that was made in the House of Commons last week.

It is hard to find the words to describe the truly awful brutality that resulted in the violent and shocking deaths of Alice, Bebe and Elsie last summer in Southport: three little girls who set off to enjoy the innocent pleasure of dancing—something which so many children enjoy—only never to return. My heart goes out to their families and friends left behind, as well as to the many left physically, emotionally and mentally scarred after the barbaric events of that day.

From these Benches, we welcome the announcement of the inquiry. A public inquiry is necessary because the Government have a duty to the families to learn the lessons from what happened. An extremely violent young man was identified, by many different people and organisations, yet he was still able to carry out these abhorrent attacks.

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements exist to enable the police and other relevant agencies such as youth offending teams and social services to manage the risk presented by violent offenders, but many are underresourced and lack experienced or qualified participants. Can the Minister say whether the inquiry will aim to establish whether the risks presented by such cases are best managed through MAPPA teams? What are the Government doing to ensure that MAPPA teams are properly staffed and resourced?

Last September, the Committee on Statutory Inquiries of your Lordships’ House published its findings. Paragraph 46 of that report says:

“Ministers should keep in mind the option of holding a non-statutory inquiry (given its relative agility) and then converting it if witnesses fail to cooperate. Ministers should also consider selecting non-judge chairs or appointing a panel. Ministers should meet and consult victims and survivors’ groups before publishing the terms of reference”.


I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this is in line with the approach that the Government intend to take on the public inquiry.

The announcement last week of the introduction of greater checks on age before buying knives online is to be welcomed. As the Home Secretary said last week, it is truly shocking that Axel Rudakubana was easily able to buy knives on Amazon when he was only 17. However, can the Minister clarify what is the current situation for buying knives online from an outlet based outside of the UK? Can he confirm whether it is the intention to introduce age verification for the import of knives to this country?

A great deal has been written and said about the effectiveness of Prevent and the definition of terrorism since the Prime Minister’s and Home Secretary’s Statements last week. It is welcome that there is to be another review of Prevent. I believe the Prime Minister’s Statement raised some important questions. Is a lone attacker—unfortunately, usually a young man—who is obsessed with terrorism and previous terrorist attacks but who is not ideologically driven or working within a recognised terrorist organisation, a terrorist? It is important to consider what would be the consequences of changing Prevent’s engagement in such cases.

Does the Minister agree with Neil Basu, the Met’s former head of counterterror policing, when he said last week that a “Prevent for non-terrorists” is now necessary and will require a “big bill” if we want to be safe? Will the Home Office carry out an assessment of the risks of diverting counterterrorism officers from their core task if the definition is expanded to include extremely violent, physiologically disturbed people who are clearly a danger to society but not necessarily a threat to the state?

The brutal murders in Southport raise questions about dangerous individuals and the internet, as Rachel Reeves acknowledged yesterday and as is made clear by the Home Secretary’s letter to the many tech companies appealing for a change in their attitudes. There have always been dangerous and violent individuals who pose a risk to society, but society now faces an additional threat from individuals who have easy access to radical, violent and extremist views on the internet, which can provide an incentive for attacks and sometimes an utterly misguided sense of identity and justification. Do the Government intend to take further measures to remove such dangerous content and to work with search engines such as Google to divert searches to more positive content, with signposting to organisations that can help such individuals?

The misinformation spread on social media after the attacks last summer in Southport, including from Elon Musk, was truly sickening and shocking. It did absolutely nothing to help the victims and survivors, and had much more to do with identity politics and a right-wing agenda. These are not simple matters with quick-fix solutions. We should be wary of knee-jerk reactions which result in bad legislation. However, the victims’ families deserve to know that we will ask the difficult questions and try to find workable solutions, and, most importantly, learn from the mistakes.

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

My Lords, in addressing the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the House of Commons, our first thoughts have to be with the victims of this horrendous incident: Elsie, Bebe and Alice. Our thoughts are also with the people who were attacked, their parents and the brave people who ran to the defence of those young children, both those at the playgroup event and, later, the security forces, the police, the fire services and others. All of them showed that this horrendous crime will remain with us for years to come.

I will try to answer in detail the points from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. So the House is aware, the Home Secretary’s announcement last week ensured that we will have an independent public inquiry which will look not just at what happened in Southport but at the issue of rising youth violence and extremism. It will look at the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in relation to the Online Safety Act and the importance of taking action to remove content. Members will wish to know that, on 17 March, illegal content removal comes into effect. We have written to online providers to ask them to speed up their response, as is their statutory responsibility, prior to that date.

We will undertake a learning review of the organisation of Prevent generally, which has now been in operation for well over 20 years. The situation within the terrorist community and the areas that Prevent relates to have changed in that time and we need to make sure that it is up to speed. We have appointed the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, as independent commissioner of Prevent and to review this case on a temporary basis.

We will look at knife sales in the police and crime Bill which will come before this House shortly. I will reflect on the points that the noble Baroness raised in relation to overseas sales, as well as the verification of sales that have been brought to the door.

We must remember that the individual who committed these crimes faces a life sentence, given down last week, with a 52-year minimum sentence. The issues that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned about the whole-life sentence are tempered by the fact that the UK Government have signed up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which means that we cannot currently give a whole-life sentence to somebody under the age of 18.

The House should not be confused by this regarding our commitment to the victims of this crime, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, spoke of. We will give them full support. That is why, taking on board the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, we will take some time to appoint the chair of the inquiry and to consult with the coroner and the victims’ families, and to look at the terms of reference for the inquiry. All the points made from both Front Benches are important to be considered by the public inquiry.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned integration. That is key to the assessment of Prevent and to how we tackle those issues generally. I remind him that the perpetrator of this crime was a British-born, British citizen. There are multilayered complexities in the issues that led to the appalling incident in Southport.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness made points about the review of legislation generally. We have asked the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to see whether we are up to speed at the moment. That again will be a considered process, but one which I hope will add value to the work that we need to do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned a range of issues regarding multi-agency teams and their determinations. These are all extremely important. I assure her that we will be examining all this in relation to the response as a whole.

I hope noble Lords will recognise that, for those of us who were Ministers in the first few weeks of office, this was a tremendous challenge. We have to look in slow time at how we best respond to this challenge. We have looked at the incidents that have been referred to and at the sentencing that has now happened in relation to Southport, but we have also had a review of the consequences, post-Southport, of the disorder that took place in the light of that event. As Ministers, it is important for us to get to the stage of looking at what we can do to help prevent incidents like the one that happened in Southport occurring in the future.

I hope that, as a start, the points that my right honourable friend mentioned in the Statement last week and in this updated Statement, post-sentencing, give this House the assurance that this Government will be looking at how Prevent is operating, the incidents surrounding this crime and why the multi-agency support mechanisms did not identify interventions earlier, the Online Safety Act and how we can improve those issues, and at all this as a whole, to ensure that if there are things that we can do in the future to prevent this type of atrocity, we will do them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question and for the work that he has done in this field. He will know that 33 of the 34 recommendations from the Shawcross report have already been fully implemented. We have one outstanding recommendation. We have already launched new statutory guidance and new training for front-line professionals, including on Islamist extremism. We are overhauling our decision to take in non-Prevent referrals that enter the system. We have launched pilots to tackle online radicalisation, to support those that do not meet the Prevent thresholds. We have recruited, as I mentioned in my initial comments, the first independent Prevent commissioner.

Everything will be kept under review, but I hope that the Shawcross recommendations that are implemented will make a difference. Self-evidently, failings have happened and, therefore, we need to review those failings independently of ministerial action and, in doing that, bring forward—sadly—further recommendations to tighten and improve the system.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the Intelligence and Security Committee showed in its 2022 report, Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism, the toxic nature of how online extremism is affecting young minds. I accept what the Minister said, that there rightly has to be a threshold for something to be deemed terrorism, but does he agree that the real gap is that, for those individuals who are affected by these images and propaganda online, there is nothing currently in the mental health services that they are referred to for dealing with that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an important issue. This is an important part of the process that we need to review now: if individuals are being radicalised in their bedrooms in whatever way—right-wing, Islamist or just for the purposes of enjoying killing—we need to try to find a mechanism to remove the content that is leading to that radicalisation. Equally, if people come into contact with social services, the police or other agencies—as indeed the perpetrator did in this case—that needs to be sensitively picked up and support, whether mental health, directional or another form, needs to be given to help change that behaviour. That is the purpose of Prevent and of the regime that both Governments have had in place over a long period of time. Self-evidently, in this case, it failed. The purpose of our public inquiry is to look at why it failed and at the interventions that happened, why they did not work and why they were not picked up and developed further. We need to ensure that, from whatever background violent behaviour is being directed, we take action to mitigate against it.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I accept what the Minister is saying but, on this Holocaust Memorial Day, the Times reports the findings of a Channel 4 survey which found that 52% of young people aged 13-27 said that they thought

“the UK would be a better place if a strong leader was in charge who does not have to bother with parliament and elections”,

while 47% agreed that,

“the entire way our society is organised must be radically changed through revolution”.

Not only did the internet apparently incentivise or motivate the Stockport murderer, it is producing wider, very worrying, attitudes. What will the Government do to counter these dangerous ideas; for example, by supporting the production of positive content?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have to do two things. First, we have to look at where there is material online that breaches criminal thresholds and then work with the hosts of that material to take it down. That is what the Government are trying to do with the Online Safety Act. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the DSIT Secretary, Peter Kyle, will be looking in the longer term at that type of illegal material which fosters, for example, ideas of using ricin, promoting potential attacks or encouraging violent behaviour. That has to cross a criminal threshold.

There is also a wider point about promoting a decent society and the values of tolerance, understanding, respecting differences and allowing people to live their lives with tolerance. My parents’ generation saw great loss fighting fascism in the Second World War—members of my family died. I grew up in the knowledge that my family and their generation had fought fascism in the Second World War. The Holocaust memorial services today remind us of where fascist ideology leads. We need, in my view, to gain an open, tolerant society. That is the second half of what I hope all of us can do to make sure that we respect and celebrate our differences.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Does the Minister agree with me that, leaving aside our obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it would be unwise of us to use an incident as extreme and horrifying as this as a ground for changing the law to enable a judge to impose a whole-life sentence on an individual aged under 18? The problem is that if the law is changed, it is changed generally, applying over a wide range of cases. It would not capture, without a very difficult definition, a case as extreme as this. It would be wiser to leave the matter as it is and of course go along with what the convention tells us.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord speaks wise words. He will also note that Justice Goose indicated in his sentencing that it was likely to be a whole-life term, even though he could give only a 52-year sentence. The perpetrator will not be considered for any form of parole, at any stage, until he is 70; he is currently 18. That is a severe sentence, for which I am grateful for the work of Justice Goose and the judiciary in dealing with this difficult case in a sensitive way.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on the Statement’s points on contempt of court, will the Minister comment on the CPS’s refusal to release full background details about Rudakubana, even after his guilty plea? This led the Crime Reporters Association to note

“a worrying pattern whereby forces wanting to provide information to the press have been instructed to stay silent”.

I raise this because I want to know what the Minister thinks about the information vacuum that followed the incident. Yes, some bad-faith players stirred the pot, but most of the people who were speculating and asking questions about, say, terrorism were parents who were just sickened by the carnage of those little girls, and I think felt resentful, frankly, at being called out as either far-right or somehow the problem themselves. Can we have more openness and information, not less?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have tried to be as open as possible at every stage of this process, which is why we made Statements to the House of Commons when the incident occurred, on sentencing and now. I hope the noble Baroness will recognise that the Government have a duty also to make sure that information does not prejudice a trial and/or a sentencing result, even after a guilty plea.

If information that the Government held, or were party to, or had already prepared to begin to promote ideas that we are acting on now, had been put into the public domain at a time when the Government either became aware of that information or acted upon it, we may have had a situation whereby a trial would not have been a fair and open trial; a conviction may not have happened in the way it has happened; and, even after the guilty plea, which the Government were not expecting on that day, we may have had the sentence subject to potential appeals because of anything the Government had said.

Certainly, the Government’s role is to now have an inquiry, for all the reasons I have mentioned, and to look at all the issues that noble Lords and noble Baronesses have raised today. But the Government also have a responsibility to make sure that members of the judiciary fulfil their job appropriately.

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

Further to the answer that the Minister has just given, Jonathan Hall, the Government’s independent reviewer of counterterror legislation, said, in the aftermath of these heartbreaking killings, that

“if there is any information you can give, put it in the public domain, and be really careful that you don’t fall into the trap of saying ‘we can only say zilch, because there are criminal proceedings’”.

He continued:

“Quite often, there’s a fair amount … that can be put into the public domain”,


and that

“just saying ‘there’s a charge, we can’t say any more’, is not going to cut it these days”.

I appreciate, as the Minister says, that the position is very difficult, and one does not want to prejudice a trial. But will he reflect on what the independent adviser said, and did he agree with it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has put his question. We have now charged the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to examine the lessons from this case. He is responsible for the comments he has made. But he will present a report, which this Government will publish and present to both Houses in due course, on the issues that he thinks are relevant; we will respond, and that is the right and proper way to do it. I am not about to make policy now at the Dispatch Box, nor is my right honourable friend, on issues which demand and need reflection, and I hope the noble Lord understands the reasons I have responded in that way.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg the indulgence of the House, as I missed the opening statement from the Minister. I recognise the difficulties that he faced. Although, obviously, as the previous speaker said, a fair amount can be put into the public domain and, equally obviously, everyone wants as much as possible, nothing would have been more disastrous than if Ministers had put information into the public domain that put the trial in jeopardy and this man got off completely. May I say to the Minister in solace that whatever criticism he and the Government have had for the actions they have taken or not taken, it is as nothing to the criticism that he and his colleagues would have received if they had put that trial in jeopardy and this murderer had gone scot free?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend has faced decisions such as those that we have faced in these past few months, and he knows the difficulty of dealing with incidents such as the one that happened in Southport in the summer of last year. I understand and take his point, and I am grateful for his support. I hope the House will understand that the Government not commenting on certain issues is not about them trying to cover up or be secretive or not divulge information; it is about ensuring that that information is divulged at a time when it is most effective to secure convictions of individuals such as the one responsible for an atrocious act that took three lives.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I have two quick questions for the Minister. First, obviously, the state has failed with horrific consequences here. The Minister mentioned a review. Can he set out what the timeline is? How fast can it be done? How thorough will it be? Will the Government undertake to accept any recommendations or changes that are suggested? Secondly, there have been a few comments about the rights of a child, which are obviously important, but there are also the rights of the victims to consider. If there are, sadly, future incidents such as this, and if the Government go ahead and lower the voting age to 16, does that then mean—and this is not a political point—that a 16 year-old is considered to be an adult, or is a 16 year-old who is able to vote still a child?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On that latter point, the Government’s legal binding for this potential area of policy is signing up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We are determined by the convention that is signed, so that any change in the voting age would not impact on the convention unilaterally by the United Kingdom as a whole.

The noble Lord mentioned the inquiry. I hope he understands that this relates partly to the speed of the events of last week, with a guilty plea and the sentencing on Thursday. With the sentencing having taken place, we want to establish the inquiry that my right honourable friend has mentioned, but we want to take time for three reasons and in three areas. We want to take time to consult the families to ensure that they understand what is happening and that they are brought onboard, because the victims are not just the children who died but their relatives. We have a coroner’s inquest, which is ongoing, and we need to consult the coroner on these matters. We have to ensure that the chair has the right skills for this inquiry, and that is not going to be a quick, easy fix. Therefore, much as I would like to give the noble Lord an easy answer on the timescale, I say to him that I will bring back to this House at some point, in a Written Statement or on the Floor of the House, the details of that inquiry, but as yet we are working through those things. We want to make sure that we get it right. We want the families not only to feel ownership of the inquiry but to understand its objectives and terms of reference, to have contributed to them and to have confidence in the chair that we ultimately select.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I pay tribute to the victims of child sexual exploitation who, for too long, have been treated as miscreants themselves, including by police and social workers, thus repeating their victimisation. Their bravery in continuing their fight over many years of not being listened to is quite extraordinary.

My first question is about them. What support and recompense will the Government provide for these victims? While it is good that the Government have accepted all the IICSA recommendations, the Statement says that the Government will lay out a timetable for taking forward these recommendations before Easter. A timetable is welcome, but does the Minister actually have any idea of timescales for the possible start and finish for the discussion, consultation and implementation of these recommendations? I ask this with experience of speaking on many of the other inquiries and recommendations, and know how easily things can get bogged down in paperwork, to put it politely.

The Home Secretary said that there will be

“new action to help victims get more investigations and prosecutions”.

However, I cannot get the answer to my question of why the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which incorporates an enormous amount of legislation to support victims, has not yet been commenced, other than for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

The HMICFRS inspection on police and law enforcement bodies’ response to group-based child sexual exploitation in England and Wales, published in December 2023, made nine recommendations. Can the Minister say how many have now been fully implemented by government? It is not clear whether the previous Government had accepted them in full, let alone implemented them. I realise that three have not quite reached the deadline by which that should have been done—only one of those goes beyond March this year—but that leaves six where the deadline has now passed. If the Minister cannot answer that question now, I would be grateful if he could write to me.

It is encouraging that the Government want to do a rapid audit of the current scale and nature of gang-based exploitation, but can he say what “rapid” means, not least as the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has other roles to fulfil? Will her taking up this role slow down the other important work that she is doing?

It is also encouraging that the Government will start collecting better data and evidence. One of the problems here is that a lot of the evidence has never been collected. Can the Minister say whether they will review the various local inquiries—Oldham, Rotherham, Telford and other towns? I have raised this with him before, and I got a positive response, but it would be useful if the Government could lay out all the various inquiries that have happened so that it is possible for their information to be included; otherwise, we may miss some important things.

It is good news that Tom Crowther KC has been appointed to develop a new framework for victim-centred locally led inquiries. The Statement mentions the drawing up of a duty of candour. We on these Benches have stood alongside Labour when it has raised this is the past. Can the Minister give your Lordships’ House some idea about when this might be published? There is clearly an urgent need for it.

I end by expressing my disappointment at the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He talked about the national emergency, but his Government did not accept all the recommendations made by Alexis Jay, it is not clear whether they have implemented the recommendations from HMI, and, more importantly, his Government did nothing to start to implement those that his party now says should have been implemented.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for both Front-Bench contributions. I say at the outset that I am disappointed by the tone of the first few words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He seems to imply that this problem occurs only in authorities that have Labour control. If he thinks that is the case, he is sadly misguided. When he reads back what he has said today, I think the tone of his contribution is one that he will think about, reflect upon and regret.

I am trying to look at a programme of activity to ensure that we stop the vile crime of child abuse, that we respond to the reports that have been published already, and that we put a detailed programme in place to affect change. I am disappointed by the way that the noble Lord has approached this. If he wants to politicise things, let us politicise the Alexis Jay report, rightly commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May, when she was in the House of Commons. It took seven years to achieve its objectives and produce recommendations, which were given to the previous Government in May 2023. By 4 July 2024, not one single action in the recommendations had been started, never mind completed. So if the noble Lord wants to politicise this matter, I will certainly politicise it, but I appeal to all Members of this House to focus on the real issue: child abuse and prevention of that child abuse.

That is why I will focus on the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I can tell her that there will be a clear timetable. There will be a clear programme of activity. We have said that, unlike the previous Government, we will respond to all 20 IICSA recommendations by Easter of this year. We have already put in place three recommendations announced recently by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. Those three steps include: mandatory reporting, which we debated in depth on Friday; making grooming an aggravated factor, which I know the noble Baroness will welcome; and introducing police performance frameworks, which again I know the noble Baroness will welcome.

The noble Baroness asked about the Victims and Prisoners Act. I have consulted my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the Justice Minister, and we are working on that; we will bring forward proposals to implement that in due course.

The noble Baroness asked about deadlines, the Casey report and our response. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has been commissioned to do a short report for three months to take us up to April. She does not commence the longer-term work on other departments’ activities until April this year. The three-month audit is about looking at the issues, which are important in all local authorities, of the ethnicity of people who are committing child abuse, what preparation is available and what support is on hand.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about all inquiries. She knows that I have given a commitment before that we need to look at the lessons from all inquiries, but I say to all Members of this House that we have laid out a clear timetable for implementing the IICSA recommendations; we have appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to improve the understanding of the scale and nature; we have extended the remit of the IICSA report to look at other areas now; we have given support to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to look at further action that could be taken on historic child sex abuse reviews; we have put finance in of £5 million, not just with Tom Crowther but with others, to look at local inquiries; we have put an undercover online help and support line in place; we have included the three mandatory duties; and we will be taking measures on the Online Safety Act, which will come into effect next year, to make sure that we tackle child sexual abuse, which very often is now on the dark web and online.

I offer the noble Lord the hand of friendship and ask him not to politicise this in the way that he has and to look at the positives that have been done.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Have a statutory inquiry.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

A statutory inquiry, for which the noble Lord heckles me from a sedentary position, would mean a further five or six years before recommendations took place. Clear action was set down by Alexis Jay in the IICSA inquiry.

Believe it or not, we have been working on this from last July to January this year. We have announced measures now because parties have commented, often based on false information, about what has not been happening. Things have been happening. Those who have served or worked in government know that Governments do not just announce things at one day’s notice. A lot of work has been put into this between July and January to achieve those objectives—and in fact we have put an awful lot more work into this than the previous Government did over the 19 months when those recommendations were there.

So my hand of friendship goes to the noble Lord, Lord Davies. He should work with the Government, with Members of the Liberal Democrats, with this House and with the House of Commons to do something now, in the next few months, to help to reduce the dreadful activities of child abuse online, in person and elsewhere. If we do that, we can make a real difference in the near future rather than waiting for some mythical inquiry and trying to pin the fact that we cannot do that on the Government because of political shenanigans. We are not doing that because we want urgent action on this issue. I commend my right honourable friend’s Statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness has committed a large part of her professional life to tackling this issue, and I take very much to heart her support for the Government’s stance on a statutory national inquiry. We are not doing that for the reasons I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Davies: in essence, we would waste time looking at a problem in respect of which we already have 20 recommendations from IICSA, and other recommendations from earlier reports, which is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has accepted all the Home Office recommendations for implementation now. The remaining recommendations for other parts of government will be brought forward prior to Easter. We have given a clear timetable. I will be held to account by this House, as will my right honourable friend by the House of Commons. We are here to deliver on the recommendations. I say to the House again that the recommendations were delivered in May 2023. On 4 July, when this Government came into office, not one single inch had been moved towards those recommendations. That is this Government’s focus. By all means let us have a political debate about it, but I am more interested in taking action which will help prevent there being future victims.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the focus on the victims, which is critical; sometimes we forget about the victims when we debate points of process. At the end of the Statement, the noble Lord’s right honourable friend referred to undercover online networks and the need to engage on that, because we know that what happens online, unfortunately, quickly moves into reality. Reducing the number of online pathways that accelerate harm should be a priority as well. There are plenty of priorities, I accept that, but surely this has to be one. Will the Minister commit to working with experts in this field—including the former head of CEOP, Jim Gamble, who he will be familiar with and who did some excellent work with the former Government—to really take on this issue? It concerns me that it becomes a reality when it starts online.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, knows that I have great respect for Jim Gamble and his work. She will also know that addressing the movement to online presence, the dark web, fake images, AI, and the future development of child abuse in that sphere is extremely important for the Government. That is why two things are happening as a result of my right honourable friend’s Statement. The first is action on the Online Safety Act to try to look at how we tighten up laws on the use of child images and child abuse images online. Secondly, we are recruiting a large number of additional online undercover police officers. I do not need to talk to the House in great detail about that, but the purpose of those officers is to capture people who are committing criminal activity online and bring them to justice in order to stop them exploiting young people and children, and to stop young people and children being exploited through providing images that those people will seek to use. They are both extremely important areas that the Government are focused on.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I had the duty to give evidence to IICSA in my time as a Minister, and then served on the Select Committee that looked at statutory inquiries. We came up with a recommendation that was in line with what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said about enacting recommendations. We heard evidence, though, that, in addition to its recommendations, a really important part of IICSA was the Truth Project. Of some 7,000 victims who took part, about 6,000 were within that project, which was nowhere near being a core participant. Can the Minister outline how reviews of local inquiries will not lose sight of the fact that victims really valued that process, which was very cathartic and not part of the judicial process of the inquiry?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for those comments. I think she will know that the Government want to put victims at the heart of the response to the recommendations. We debated mandatory reporting on Friday in this House, and it was clear that victims carry the pain of their victimhood through into adult life and beyond. It scars individuals. My noble friend Lord Mann mentioned the many victims who do not reach adulthood because they self-harm and commit suicide. We need to address how we involve the experience of victims to ensure we do not create future victims. I see the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, in her place. The inquiry she established had a number of recommendations on how we can help support victims, and we will look at those between now and Easter. It takes time, but we will look at how we can respond to those recommendations in the best way, so as not to lose the knowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, mentioned.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, process is clearly very important in relation to statutory inquiries and to giving the recommendations some kind of parliamentary scrutiny and holding them to account. On Friday, the Minister identified that the Home Office was responsible for “four” of the 20 recommendations. Which member of the Cabinet will be responsible for leading on this inquiry and its recommendations? Will the Minister take it from me that there would be a lot of delight—widely across the House, I suspect—if he were to take responsibility among Ministers in this House for leading on reporting back progress on this inquiry?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister takes a keen interest in the progress of these reports, and he will monitor and hold to account Ministers in government on that delivery. But the very fact that I am standing here today, and that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was standing in the House of Commons, shows that we are responding on behalf of the Government to the IICSA response. That is where the lead and responsibility lie: with the Home Office. But we do not have the direct implementation of a number of recommendations, which require the engagement of the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and other departments. We have set out the timetable to meet those 17 other recommendations; we have accepted the four, and we are already implementing some. Very shortly, other legislation will be published by the Home Office that will give effect to the recommendations we have accepted. It is our job to see that through and to do so, I hope—putting out the hand of friendship—with the support of the Opposition Front Bench.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on taking this robust approach in order to make a real difference and change for our children’s lives—the victims will carry that pain through childhood and beyond. The introduction of any duty to report child sexual abuse and exploitation must be accompanied by funding for services and training to support practitioners working with children across the country. Essential services like the NSPCC Childline and the Shore service play a vital role in supporting children who have suffered child sexual abuse and exploitation. How will the Government ensure that these services will be able to continue their valuable work?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s support for mandatory reporting. She participated in the debate on Friday and will know that I said from this Dispatch Box that this is an urgent issue for this Government. We will bring forward proposals on mandatory reporting in very short order. She raises the issue of funding. Any implementation of any recommendations requires a consistent government approach and a review of how we are funding those approaches to those issues. I cannot give her a detailed answer now, but, as part of the review on what we do with the 17 other recommendations, we will put meat on those bones so that she and others in this House can see what resources the Government are putting into this area.

The noble Baroness raises the issue of the very important support of the voluntary agencies. It is important that, politically—I mean that in a non-party-political way—we give support to Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and other organisations, which are doing great work in both highlighting this terrible abuse and very much supporting development work on the ground. This is helping the Government’s case to reduce the amount of child abuse as a whole. So I cannot give that answer now, but I will return to this in due course.

[The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]

My Lords, I also pay tribute to victims and survivors in this regard, recognising that the failure to respond perpetuates and prolongs their suffering, and recognising—as noble Lords will all know—that the Church of England is facing significant challenges in putting its own house in order in that regard. I want to ask, therefore, a wider question on faith communities, all of which provide places of gathering and moral and social influence, and all of which strive to make those places as safe as possible. What conversations are continuing with leaders of faith communities to support them in that vital work?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I welcome the right reverend Prelate’s contribution. I think I can say to him that the Church has had difficulties, which he has acknowledged, and those difficulties might well have been resolved had some of the measures in the IICSA report been in place at the time. For example, had mandatory reporting been in place seven or eight years ago, it is very possible that some of the concerns that have arisen in the last few weeks and months in relation to the reporting of sex abuse in the Church might have been resolved.

I reach out to the right reverend Prelate, as I reach out to teachers, social workers and others who have a place of responsibility for the safeguarding of children, to say that the measures in the IICSA report, following the helpful inquiry led by Alexis Jay, are in areas where I hope we can work in co-operation with any authority, be it the Church, teachers or others, to see whether they impact upon the areas where the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues have had concerns.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has the whole House with him when he agrees that we must do very much better in preventing the sexual abuse of children. That is the challenge. We actually know how to do it and we could do it very much better. Much on my mind is the list of local authorities, published yesterday and again today, that are on the verge of bankruptcy. That means that services are being withdrawn at the very time when we want services to be outward-looking and more engaged, especially in preventing children being abused in this way.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord has experience far beyond any that I could bring to this House, so I am grateful for his contribution today. He raises an extremely important point. We have established a fund—it is of only £5 million, but it is available to all local authorities to draw on to establish the work that needs to be done. That was in the initial announcement from my right honourable friend in the House of Commons last week and will be kept under review for the future. We have given the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, a remit to look at the existing areas of concern within local authorities. No doubt she will come back with an audit and further recommendations for the Government to consider.

I recognise that the noble Lord has concerns about long-term funding for key services that are about interventions. I can say to him only that we are going to keep all that under review. I know I will have his support, and that of others with great experience, in implementing the IICSA recommendations and when we bring back proposals on the other recommendations, in what might be only 10 weeks’ time.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, although I am speaking in a personal capacity today. About a week ago, when the Minister and I engaged on a similar but different Statement, I asked him two questions and he said he would need to go away and think about them. One was about data. I do not know whether he has seen the reports, based on freedom of information requests, about backsliding. I very much welcome the emphasis on ethnicity data collection and demographics, as the Statement says. Has he seen the statistics? I will give him only three examples. In Hampshire, in the past five years, 58% of offenders sentenced for all sexual offences involving children were recorded as having an unknown ethnicity. In West Mercia, it was 55%, and in Leicestershire, it was 52%. If the police are already not recording identity for fear of being accused of either racism or Islamophobia, what are the Government going to do, before we get the full gamut of actions under the Jay report, to ensure that the current requirements are met?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness had a conversation with me, both in this Chamber and outside. She will know that there are occasions when Ministers can absorb views but cannot necessarily give definitive answers, because policy is developed outside of just the discussions in this House and in government as a whole. I hope she will welcome that one of the policy initiatives in the second Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was the collection of data—the very point she raised with me before we made that announcement. I could not give her assurances then because we had not made the announcement; now we have. That data will be collected by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. If it shows matters that need to be addressed, they will be addressed, to try to reduce this curse.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the culture of denial and cover-up that has led to this scandal has over recent years often happened by attacking people’s tone. Can the Minister comment on the row in Wales, where, last week, the Presiding Officer of the Senedd denied that Wales had a grooming gangs problem and accused Darren Millar, who raised it, of being overly graphic and using the wrong tone when describing one girl’s ordeal, leading to that victim saying that she feels her experience was downplayed? Surely tone is not the problem at all—though the Minister started off by saying that it was. Can the Minister explain how five local inquiries can deal with ongoing problems in at least 50 towns in the UK and why witnesses cannot be compelled to attend? It feels inadequate, and that is what many victims are saying.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am responsible for many things in this department but I am not responsible for the comments of the Senedd Presiding Officer or any spat that they may have had with the leader of the Conservative Party in Wales in the Senedd. That is a matter for them. I can say that tone is important. I have tried to have an inclusive tone in this House in response to the recommendations. I put down my disappointment at the initial comments and tone of the Front Bench of His Majesty’s Opposition, which, in my view, tried to politicise what should be a contribution from all parties and none in this House to implement the recommendations of the IICSA report.

The noble Baroness mentioned the five authorities we have looked at. Those are the five where there have been reports to date. We are doing what I have been asked to do by Members of this House, which is to see whether all recommendations have been implemented to date. I have been asked by Members to look at ethnicity and other issues around who is undertaking this, which is why we have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, a Member of this House, to do a very quick deep-dive audit of what is happening. We are trying to address that. On top of that, we are still trying to get to the key point: what do we do about the 17 recommendations that the previous Government did nothing about? That is what I am trying to focus on today. I will take any contribution from any part of this House to set a tone to deliver on those recommendations.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, to what extent are these failings the result of victims of child exploitation and abuse not being believed? With the case of Jimmy Savile, for example, we saw that victims were not believed by the police. There is a lot of emphasis on the ethnicity of the perpetrators, but would the Minister agree that there is not enough emphasis on the police not believing victims because of their background, age and lack of education?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That very point, which was well made, is why, on Friday, the Government accepted the principle of mandatory reporting and will bring forward legislation shortly. Mandatory reporting means that, if a member of the Church, a teacher, a social worker, or somebody in a position of authority has a report made to them by anybody, be it a perpetrator or a child, about a suspicion of child sexual abuse, that has to be referred to the appropriate authority. Therefore, the police will have a greater impetus to investigate such reports than perhaps some forces or officers have undertaken in the past. It is not now just about the belief of a child; it is about the belief of a report being made by an individual in a position of authority to say that this needs to be investigated. That does not imply guilt or innocence, but it does imply clarity of investigation.

Asylum Seekers: Hotels

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for giving us an opportunity to debate this issue. We have had a number of Questions on it, but it is worthy of a debate in this short time we have. I will try to answer the points that noble Lords mentioned in their contributions.

If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will start with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, who asked whether we have a plan to look at blue Monday five years hence. I hope it will help him and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, if I mention some points very briefly, which I hope will satisfy the noble Lord, at least in part.

First, we have to speed up asylum claims, because they are taking too long to be determined. As my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned, we have a proud record of accepting asylum claims, but we have to adjudicate them. The longer we take to adjudicate them, the longer people need to be in hotels and dispersed accommodation. So the first task the Government have to undertake is to ensure that we complete and assess asylum claims as quickly as possible. To do that, we have put in an extra 1,000 staff, deployed from different parts of the department, in part from the savings from the Rwanda scheme which was scrapped.

Secondly, we need to speedily remove those who do not have a claim for asylum. Since 4 July, the Government have taken 16,000-plus people who have failed the asylum system from hotels and returned them to a place of safety—a country that they have been deemed able to return to.

Thirdly, and this is the nub of the discussions we have had so far, we need to look at how we close hotels, because they are a costly way of operating asylum accommodation. We have already closed the “Bibby Stockholm” and scrapped the use of Scampton in Lincolnshire, and we have plans to reduce the number of hotels over the course of this Parliament. It will take time, but by March this year we will have nine fewer hotels than we inherited in July last year. The noble Lord will expect me to say this, but I find it strange that under his jurisdiction and his Government, the number of hotels went from zero in 2015 to a peak of 400 in 2023 and is now just settling at the 260-270 mark. There is a record that we have to pick up on and work with, which I am trying to do in a constructive and positive way.

To answer some of the points mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Green, we have put in place the new Border Security Command—which will require legal back-up in a Bill later this year—with Martin Hewitt as its head. That is designed to try to take some of the pressure not off asylum accommodation, which is legitimate, but the illegal entry to the UK by criminal gangs organising for people to make dangerous crossings to potentially seek asylum, who in some cases have no basis for asylum but still come across in illegal gangs. The Border Security Command will be part of the plan to try to overturn that.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about what we are doing with our international partners, and we have some international policy objectives. We do not have a phobia about talking to Germans, Italians or the French. We have a Calais Group in place to look at the issues there. Our Border Force control is looking at what is happening in Germany, working with Germany upstream to reduce the pressures there and to ensure that people claim asylum legitimately in their first port of call, rather than coming to the United Kingdom.

We have scrapped the Rwanda scheme, which was a disincentive and a waste of money. We have put that money into the areas I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, such as speeding up asylum claims, finding places to reduce the use of hotels and commissioning good, dispersed accommodation. I take the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, that we want to get people through the system as quickly as possible, so they are determined to be legitimately here and able to work, or not legitimately here, and a way is found to deport them. That process needs to have integrity and speed.

There are issues arising from and discussions about the levels of migration, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Green. The Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill, which is a Liberal Democrat-inspired Bill, not a Government Bill, has legitimate objectives at its core, which I accept and understand. A big migration White Paper is due shortly; it will look at the very pressures that have been talked about in this House by my noble friend Lady Lister and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, and at how we deal with integration and the potential shortfall in skills. It will consider how we deal with asylum issues generally, all the questions that are dealt with in the family reunion Bill, and how we create a wider 5-year plan—going back to the noble Lord, Lord Patten—to ensure that we can deal with those issues over that period. Those are all key issues.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and others who have mentioned it, I say that the hotel costs which are the focus of this debate are simply eyewatering and not a good use of taxpayers’ money. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned, they are not even a good way of ensuring the safety and security of the people in those hotels, particularly women fleeing persecution. The costs were £8 million per day under the previous Government. They have dropped to £6 million per day following the work we have done to reduce them. It will take time but, I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, it is part of the plan to get that figure right down and, over a period, end the use of hotels, but we have to deal with the demand issues first. These include legitimate asylum claims, which my noble friend Lady Lister mentioned; we should be place of sanctuary, somewhere that accepts people who are fleeing persecution, and do so in a proper and effective way without hotels.

We have to be cognisant of the fact that we still have to deal with the continued demand, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Empey. We need to focus on reducing the pressure on the system from those who are seeking to come here illegally.

We have increased dispersed accommodation by 8% in the past few months of this Government’s tenure—the first time that we have been in office to do so. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money had already been spent on large sites at Scampton and Bexhill, and the “Bibby Stockholm”, by the previous Government, and we have tried to row back on that. We have reviewed asylum spend, and it is important that we look at the bigger picture. In 2023-24, when the noble Lord’s party was in office, the Home Office spent £4.7 billion on asylum support, the vast majority on hotels. We are continuing to explore how we can save taxpayers’ money, and we are on track to save £4 billion over the next two years. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that it is part of the plan to reduce the amount of money spent on asylum accommodation by speeding up the claims, scrapping accommodation such as the “Bibby Stockholm” and ensuring that the Rwanda policy is changed, so that we can use that resource to clear the backlog of asylum decisions.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for securing this debate. This Government inherited an asylum system under exceptional strain. When we came into office, there were tens of thousands of cases at a complete standstill, and a growing a backlog. In reference to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, asylum seekers were therefore living in limbo, accommodated in hotels which not only cost exorbitant sums but are profoundly detrimental to the wellbeing of vulnerable individuals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield highlighted that there is real pressure on hotels from collections of individuals, which has led to forces that are not conducive to integration, security and acceptance. The focus has been on hotels rather than on dispersed accommodation, where people go about their daily lives in a dispersed way.

For all those reasons, the Government are actively working towards a more sustainable and cost-effective solution to accommodate asylum seekers away from hotels. I have to be honest with the House: it will take time. It is a challenge, and it cannot be done straightaway, but the Government’s objective is very clear. In the manifesto, we said that we would end the use of hotels for asylum accommodation and, at a date to be determined, that we will do. I will be accountable to this House, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be to the House of Commons, in ensuring that we do that in future. The resource that is being eaten up by asylum hotels is the very same that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, mentioned, can be used elsewhere for more positive activity. I will look at the detail of what she mentioned and drop her a note.

I will check on my noble friend Lady Lister’s lost letter. I thought I had sent it, but maybe it got lost in the system over Christmas and the new year. We will find out where it has gone, and if it does not have a stamp on it yet, it will have one shortly. She may even find that I use the new method of email, as a matter of some speed, to get the correspondence to her in short order. I will look at that as a matter of urgency and get back to her.

I hope that today’s debate has been useful. There are challenges. On all sides of the House, we accept that we have the challenges of wider migration, hotel accommodation and its cost, making a plan and illegal migration into this country. In the short time that I have had, I hope I have set out the Government’s prospectus. With that, I hope that the House can hold me to account in due course on the delivery of that proposal.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Before the Minister sits down—

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

There is some time.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Before the Minister sits down—again—could he respond to my point about the 1951 refugee convention. He talked about demand. This is part of the legal framework and our international obligations, which I think need revision, with our partners across the rest of the world who were party to it in the first place. If he cannot give me a response now, he can write to me—or email me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will uphold our international obligations. We have an international obligation, under international law, to accept and assess refugees. That does not decry the fact that we have to look at, with our European and United Nations partners and others, how we reduce the pressures that lead to refugee status in the first place. I will certainly reflect on what the noble Lord said and look at Hansard in due course, but this Government will keep to their international obligations.

I am grateful for the debate and do not wish to test the patience of the House. Having had my 12 minutes, I commend the debate and hope that I have been able, at least in part, to answer some of the important questions raised.

Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill [HL]

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, child sexual abuse is a despicable crime. This Government are committed to taking action to keep children safe online, in our communities and around the world. In line with our commitment to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, this Government will also work to improve the response to, and outcomes of, child sexual abuse for women, children and girls.

In that spirit I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing forward the Bill. Through her, I also thank a range of voluntary organisations including Mandate Now and Barnardo’s, which were mentioned, for their support for the Bill and the proposals brought forward today.

Timing is all. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, will know that I can give notice that the Government are reflecting very seriously on these matters. I stress again that this Government are firmly committed to tackling all forms of child sexual abuse, whether it happens online or in the community. That is why we want to take swift action on delivering against the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, about which I will talk in a moment.

I want to start with the really important points mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Some 3.1 million adults have been subjected to child sexual abuse, according to the figures she brought forward today. The consequences of that were ably outlined by my noble friend Lord Mann and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, in relation to the impact on people not just at the time but throughout their lives.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, mentioned resistance to reporting, which is extremely important as well. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, showed how in sport, in the health service and in healthcare, child abuse is prevalent and needs to be tackled. This mandating of reporting will have a great impact on our ability to reduce that.

My noble friend Lord Rooker mentioned that he has done a good trawl of what has happened since 4 July last year. I hope to reassure him by saying that not all that happens in government is public at any particular point in time. A great deal of work had been done by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and by the Minister, Jess Phillips, up to the time when external forces—as I shall call them—put out comments around this issue over the Christmas and new year period. My noble friend will note that yesterday, through my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the Government set out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations from the final IICSA report. We will report to both Houses of Parliament before Easter, including on the issues mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, in her contribution.

Four of the recommendations in the IICSA report were specifically for my department, the Home Office. Yesterday, again, we gave a commitment that we have been working on these issues—having been a Minister, my noble friend Lord Rooker knows what these things are like—not just in the past 10 days but for many months. We have accepted the four recommendations specifically for the Home Office, which include mandatory reporting—the subject of today’s Bill—and disclosure and barring. Work is under way to deliver those commitments in a legislative form, which will come before the House shortly.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned gangs. I want to respond to him on that issue. In the Statement made yesterday by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary—I suspect it might be repeated in this House shortly, if the Opposition so wish—there were clear commitments to take forward work on gangs and grooming, including funding and inquiries. It also included the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, taking forward further examination of data issues, which have been mentioned in today’s debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—I pay tribute to the work that she has done—shared with me an amendment that she brought forward some 10 years ago. It shows great foresight, as I would expect from someone born in the same part of Liverpool as I was. She brought forward a checklist. Again, we will bring forward our proposals in due course; she can then check her list against the proposals from the Government. The international work informed the work of IICSA, which she mentioned. My noble friend Lord Browne talked about the intention of this legislation, and his points are worthy of consideration in relation to this Bill.

I fully appreciate the work that has gone into the Bill. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on her tireless efforts in bringing this duty forward, which I fully appreciate. As I have mentioned, the Government are committed to delivering the inquiry’s recommendations on mandatory reporting. I hope we can agree that any new duty must ensure that the words of children who are seeking help are heard and that we must apply the strongest possible measures to anyone who seeks to cover up this type of abuse.

I pay tribute to the work of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, both previously and today, in raising the importance of public awareness of individuals’ ability to bring forward recommendations and undertake mandatory reporting provisions. The Minister for Safeguarding, my friend Jess Phillips, is committed to working closely with survivor and expert groups on bringing forward legislation, and will continue to do so. I hope we can draw on the noble and learned Baroness’s expertise in that final commitment. I give her the commitment that I have just given to my noble friend Lord Rooker. She asked, “When?”, and I say to her, “Very soon. Watch out in the next few weeks. When it comes, recognise that the work has been ongoing and was happening prior to any contributions from individuals who talk about this, with not much knowledge, from places outside the United Kingdom”.

The 20 recommendations made by the inquiry’s final report were referenced by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin, Lady Brinton, Lady Nicholson and Lady Berridge. They will be taken forward and reported to both Houses by Easter this year.

My noble friend Lady Blower made some extremely important points about training, support and back-up for the people who will deal with this issue. This requires some long-term work. I know that Members of this House are impatient and want things to happen but I also know that they want things to be done correctly, with this Government addressing these issues in a way that makes intervention effective. So I say to my noble friend—and to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who mentioned funding, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, who discussed how we can enact these things—that there will be an impact assessment with the legislation that we bring forward. Therefore, there will be a delivery mechanism and delivery plan behind the legislation that we bring forward.

In developing their recommendation on mandatory reporting, the Government will consider very strongly all the issues that have been brought forward in this House today. The 20 recommendations are complex and require long-term work but, again, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said yesterday that there will be a clear timetable for progress against the inquiry’s recommendations by Easter. I hope that is helpful.

I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London that we are happy and content to work with the Church in looking at its experiences, about which she spoke openly and honestly today. We want in particular to look at how mandatory reporting can be undertaken in the context of the Church, where, as with Members of Parliament and others, confidences are often expressed and comments made. It is not just in teaching and other capacities that this is undertaken: the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, mentioned family and parental support, which is an interesting area in terms of how we look at these issues in a realistic way.

I want to touch on the issue of false allegations, which has been a seam through these discussions. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley, Lady Berridge and Lady Featherstone, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, all mentioned false allegations. Although they are thankfully rare, the experience of our former colleague Lord Brittan and others have shown that they have a devastating effect on the accused individual, as well as harming how we approach genuine victims and survivors. I will be very clear with the House today: when the Government bring forward a duty of mandatory reporting, sharing information with the appropriate agencies will be part of it. However, it will be for the agencies to determine guilt or innocence accordingly, and it will be for the agencies to take forward appropriate action to support and safeguard the child involved.

The contribution that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has made today is timely, important and on the button in relation to the absolute requirement of Parliament to help safeguard children in the future. As she knows, her Bill will progress and potentially go into Committee at some point in the future. It will have its discussions in this House and potentially progress to the House of Commons at some point. However, I give her this clear assurance, and I hope she accepts it as such: this Government will introduce measures that the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Brinton, and others can test. They will be introduced in legislation shortly, and we hope will be put on the statute book, and they will meet the obligations of the IICSA recommendations in their potential impact and the desire of this House to ensure that we safeguard and protect children.

Those measures will be introduced soon. Whatever happens to the Private Member’s Bill, I hope that the House, whatever its views and considerations on the clauses brought forward in the Government’s wider legislation, gives the government Bill a fair wind to ensure that we protect children. The one clear message from the House today has been that we want action to ensure that mandatory reporting takes place. I give your Lordships the assurance from the Dispatch Box that action will happen.