Iranian State Threats

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, just last week in the Chamber we debated the unacceptable practice of the Iranian regime holding joint nationals in detention. My noble friend Lady Brinton spoke powerfully in that debate. Therefore, these Benches support what the Government are doing and how they are doing it. We join others in giving thanks for the work of our intelligence services and our law and order community, the men and women who work every single day to keep us safe.

However, we need constant vigilance. We have seen the unacceptable practice of the intimidation of BBC journalists, and individuals within this country who have been targeted by the Iranian regime, as it continues to do. Placing Iran on the enhanced tier scheme is welcome.

We are all aware that, given the economic crisis and tense political situation in Iran, it is likely that the regime will seek to export further attempts to destabilise and disrupt neighbouring countries, and countries such as the United Kingdom. The persecution of individuals in Iran is heightening, especially that of women and girls. As the Minister taking the Statement is from the Home Office, I ask him not to have a closed mind with regard to potential safe and legal routes for those who are persecuted within Iran, for whom we can provide refuge in the United Kingdom. There is currently no safe and legal route, but it would be a very strong signal of support for the human rights of people within Iran.

Of course, however, the first duty of government is to protect those within the United Kingdom. We have seen the use of proxies: we have seen the use of agencies and we have seen the use of other countries’ nationals. So I also wish to ask: when it comes to the implementation of the enhanced scheme, as well as the policing, how vigilant are we about those from other countries who are paid by the Iranian regime to carry out actions on its behalf? It is, of course, not the case that it will always be Iranian nationals who will be carrying out this work.

We have a country-wide Iranian sanctions regime, which is welcome, but the question I asked when we scrutinised that regime was about other bodies whom the Iranians are paying and who are nationals of other countries. That is a grey area when it comes to our legislation, so I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure us that nationals of other countries acting on behalf of the Iranian regime will also be covered by the enhanced tier element.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the questions from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Purvis of Tweed. I will try to answer them as best I can. First, it really sends a strong signal that His Majesty’s Government, the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats all broadly support the actions taken today. That support means that, actually, Iran is the first country we placed into the FIRS scheme which, as I said in earlier answers to an earlier Statement, will be operational from the summer of this year. The signals that we have sent by placing Iran on the enhanced tier and announcing that yesterday, via my right honourable friend Dan Jarvis, and today is extremely important.

I can give comfort to the noble Lord that those who subsequently are proved not to have registered when the scheme goes live in the summer will face the potential penalty of a five-year jail sentence for the failure to register. That is a stiff sentence which, again, is outside my gift—it will be for the criminal justice system to pursue—but it is a very stiff sentence which, I hope, will send a very strong message to those who wish to do this country harm and who are sponsored by the Iranian regime.

I should also say to both noble Lords that there will be significant new training for all front-line police officers. We are going to explore further sanctions against criminal groups linked to Iran, and this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, mentioned. The Zindashti criminal gang has already been sanctioned, and that has therefore sent a strong signal, but we will look at further sanctions against criminal groups linked to Iran. That could include a number of other potential measures such as travel bans, which are key. We want to make sure that not just Iranian interference in the United Kingdom, in whatever form it takes—be it by the state or by proxies—is examined and clamped down on. We will certainly be taking those measures. The points that the noble Lord has mentioned are certainly ones of which we are cognisant.

The noble Lord also mentioned safe and legal routes. There are safe and legal routes which, again, are potentially operational, but, again, this country is a haven for asylum, and if individuals wish to claim asylum, that will be considered along with the position that government asylum policy has in place as a whole.

We are also looking at the issues with Jonathan Hall, the terrorism reviewer. We have asked him to look at both counterterrorism laws and the question of proscription, which, again, is an option we never rule out but on which I cannot comment in detail today. It is always an option for government in these areas.

I welcome the broad support and hope that we will monitor this. Obviously, as this scheme goes live in the summer, we will be able to monitor its impact on both those who register and, in the event of anybody who does not register, those who do not. We can monitor the effectiveness of this, but it is put in place for the simple reason that we cannot accept the level of activity by the Iranian regime in the United Kingdom against both Iranian citizens here and British interests. That is why we introduced this measure yesterday and I am pleased it has the support of the two main Opposition parties in this House.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this Statement. I know that it will be particularly welcomed by my noble friend who, like me, was on the Intelligence and Security Committee when we produced our Russia report in 2020. The FIRS scheme was one of our major recommendations from that. My noble friend said he would work with local police forces to roll out information around the FIRS scheme, but what work is being done with the diaspora in the UK, which is based not only in London but throughout the UK, to make sure that they are aware of, and can be protected from, the Iranian influence that is out there?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. He is right that the genesis of the FIRS scheme came out of the investigations undertaken by the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I was a proud member from 2015 to 2019. We are now developing at pace the implementation of the FIRS scheme, which requires significant infrastructure investment. It was delayed under the previous Government, but has now been given added energy by my right honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Minister, and myself to make sure it is on stream for the summer of this year. It is, therefore, important that we send out two strong messages: first, that we are standing up to intimidation and criminal activity by the Iranian regime, and, secondly, that people in the diaspora need to know that the scheme is in place. We need to put some efforts behind ensuring that those who qualify for registration under the scheme are aware of it. That will be a major part of the communications strategy in the post-Easter period of this year.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest: the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and I are the two people proscribed by the Iranian regime, and have been for the past couple of years. I pay tribute to the authorities who have helped and advised us.

I welcome this important Statement. I do not speak on behalf of the Jewish community, but I want to thank the Government for their continued support for the protective security that the community needs.

The Statement says that the National Crime Agency will target those who assist the IRGC and others to launder their money. I fail to understand what more the IRGC needs to do to be proscribed. We have raised this many times: my noble friend on the Front Bench raised it today. I even voted with the Labour Party on the Trade Bill when the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, had an amendment to proscribe the IRGC, which he did in Opposition. I supported him, as did others. What does it have to do to be proscribed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. We keep proscription under review at all times. It is an option for the Government at any time, in relation not only to Iran but to other agencies and countries as well. It is not a silver bullet: the organisation does not disappear just because proscription has taken place. What we have done—I hope that the noble Lord will bear with us on this—is ask the independent reviewer of terrorism, Jonathan Hall, to look at the legislation generally and at issues to do with proscription in the wider context.

I welcome the noble Lord’s comments on the Jewish community. One of the drivers for this is to ensure that members of the Jewish community have security from any state threats that are made to them. He would wish to know that around £18 million is being provided up to 2027-28 for security measures where members of the Jewish community feel they need them for places of worship. That is, again, a secondary, but very important, measure that the Government are putting in place to ensure that people feel safe in their communities.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, it has been reported that President Putin has been making overtures to the Iranian regime to act as a broker in the relationship with President Trump. May I therefore urge him to talk to his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that our Five Eyes partners and all those who work together to defend democracy do not ignore this new threat?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, with whom I shared time on the Intelligence and Security Committee. The situation with President Putin is one that the Government continue to keep under review. I will draw her comments to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. It is extremely important not only that we understand the Iranian threat, but that we assess and understand the threat from Russia. Therefore, I take on board her comments and will feed them into the system.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, in asking a question of the Minister, I do so respectfully, and I commend the Government for the steps they are taking just now; it is a move forward. If we were to proscribe the revolutionary guard, would we not be able to maintain an embassy in Iran? Sweden, Canada, the United States and Bahrain—a whole set of countries—have proscribed the revolutionary guard. Is the reason linked to the presence of an embassy or to intelligence—the things Governments always have to think about? Secondly, if it is not possible for us, for all manner of very sensitive reasons, to proscribe—we may be the conduit for difficult conversations—can the leadership of the revolutionary guard not be placed on our targeted sanctions lists?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I assure her that the decision to undertake any proscription, at any time, is a matter for the Government at that time, based on intelligence, security threats and a range of other matters that they will take into account. I am not in a position today to confirm or deny that proscription could happen; it is a matter for us to make a judgment on. We have already brought charges against those conducting activity for, and on behalf of, foreign states acting within the UK. We are continually keeping this matter under review; it is not something we advertise ahead of proscription. I hope my noble friend can accept that point.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

May I make another point? Am I not allowed to? Do the rules proscribe me from—

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend raised the issue of safe and legal routes. One particularly pernicious act of the Iranian authorities is that they continue to go after the families of people they have executed. They are fleeing abroad as a result and now find themselves under extraterritorial reach. Can the Minister say whether people arriving after the execution of one of their family members will be given immediate support by the police and security services? It is clear that they are still being targeted.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will keep that support under review. We will certainly ensure that any evidence of threats against individuals resident in the United Kingdom will be examined by police forces. Any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated and will be thoroughly investigated. As the noble Baroness would expect, Home Office officials will work closely with other government departments to ensure that UK residents are safe and secure. Separately, we also have the Defending Democracy Taskforce, which is currently reviewing the UK’s response to the issues of transnational repression to develop our understanding and ensure that we have strong system-wide responses. It is vital that people are allowed to live their lives in peace. Safe and legal routes, as with other issues, are determined on a case-by-case basis. The Government will look positively at the circumstances the noble Baroness mentioned.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the Minister said that he cannot confirm or deny that proscription of the IRGC could take place. If he cannot confirm that it could be proscribed, what does “keeping it under review” mean?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

What I was trying to say to my noble friend—which I repeat now to the noble Lord—is that proscription is continually under review. It is possible to proscribe any organisation, and Governments have done that. If we do seek to proscribe, we bring orders before both Houses of Parliament to confirm that. The matter is under continual review. What I do not want to do is to give an indication to this House on whether or not the Government would take that step. However, with this Statement the Government have, for the very first time, sent a very strong signal to the Iranian regime that we will not tolerate its behaviour, by including it in the new FIRS scheme—the very first country to be included. When this scheme goes operational towards the end of the summer, there will be severe penalties for individuals who should register but do not. That is the general thrust, which, as with everything else, is still kept under review, and which I hope sends a very strong signal about the behaviour of the Iranian regime in the United Kingdom and internationally.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about the possible proscription of the IRGC, but can he give us any idea how long it will be before Jonathan Hall’s report reaches the Home Office—is there a timeline for that? On transnational repression, the Minister knows that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is working with the Home Office on examining examples of Iranian transnational repression, and we have received evidence from BBC journalists and others who have been personally affected, including pro-democracy advocates. Last week, the Iranian regime’s court rejected the appeal of Behrouz Ehsani and Mehdi Hassani, who were both at risk of imminent execution. Hassani is a father of three; he was arrested in 2022 and taken to Evin Prison ward 209, where he was subjected to severe torture. Following his death sentence, he sent a message to the people of Iran:

“This execution-driven regime knows nothing else. I will not bargain over my life. I am prepared to give my humble life for the freedom of the Iranian people”.


In combating this terrorist state, will the Minister liaise with his FCDO colleagues to ensure that we co-ordinate our efforts to raise those cases with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human Rights Council and the UN special rapporteur, in order to challenge the grossly wrong, unfair verdicts that have been delivered?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will draw his comments to the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I am not aware of whether representations have been made in the specific cases he mentioned, but it is a matter I will look into after today. I will write to him with a response from the Foreign Office on those matters; I understand that they are of an urgent nature, so I will do that for him today.

On transnational repression, let me be clear, as I have said already, that it will not be tolerated and it will not be supported. We will take action on these issues. If anyone is concerned for their safety in the United Kingdom, in the first instance they should contact the police, who have had training to ensure that they are aware of the potential threats and dangers. As I have already said, the police are raising both the awareness and capability of front-line officers and staff across the United Kingdom to include an understanding of how threats from foreign powers are presented and how to respond to reports made by members of the public to police forces about potential areas of local concern. The National Security Act, which had cross-party support, strengthened UK legal powers to counter foreign interference, including actions on what would amount to transnational repression. I assure the noble Lord that it is a matter of concern for the Government that we keep citizens safe in this United Kingdom, whatever their nationality.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to press my noble friend the Minister further on the question that has been raised repeatedly on the IRGC. It is clearly a bunch of clerical fascists and homicidal maniacs who specialise particularly in the rape, torture and murder of women, among others. They will not stop perpetuating their poison and using proxies to do the same, whatever we do. Further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, I realise that the Minister cannot make a commitment today, but what does the IRGC have to do to lead to it being completely proscribed—not just the proscription of individuals but complete proscription?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am afraid that I may sound like a broken record, but the Government keep under review, at all times, the option of proscription. We will not publicly speculate in the House about the line that needs to be crossed to have proscription. However, I hope that my noble friend can be reassured that it remains an option that the Government can consider and can bring before both Houses.

Irrespective of proscription, the National Security Act, which this House passed in 2023, specifically bans assisting foreign intelligence services, such as the IRGC. The Act also criminalises receiving material benefit—such as payment—from these types of organisations. The maximum penalty for transgressing that Act is 14 years in prison, the same maximum as a proscription offence. Although proscription remains an issue for the Government to consider, there are now specific powers to ensure that individuals who find themselves on the wrong side of the National Security Act face severe penalties and jail.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in working for freedom and democracy in Iran. I welcome the Statement made in the Commons on Tuesday on increasing Government action against the Iranian regime. In that Statement, we received information about 20 identified potentially lethal Iran-backed threats to British citizens and UK residents, and its targeting of dissidents, of which we are all aware.

I listened carefully to the Minister respond repeatedly to the questions about the proscription of the IRGC. I had a Written Question about this issue in January. I am delighted to hear that Jonathan Hall is reviewing the situation. We ask him to make it an absolute priority, given the appalling situation in Iran, with 800 executions since last July. Action is definitely necessary.

Finally, I ask the Government to engage directly with Iranian pro-democracy groups and dissidents, so as not to legitimise the regime by refusing to engage with them, and to support Iranian civil society and opposition movements advocating for a democratic, secular republic. In particular, I ask the Government to permit Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, to visit the United Kingdom? She currently lives in France.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On the first part, I will not repeat what I have already said on proscription, but it is helpful to say—as the Statement does—that Jonathan Hall KC was asked to review the parts of our counterterrorism framework which could be applied to modern-day state threats, such as those from Iran. This includes giving specific consideration to the design of a proscription mechanism for state and, importantly—going back to what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, said earlier—state-linked bodies, providing more flexibility than is offered under the existing powers. I cannot give a timescale for that review but we are encouraging it to happen speedily. We have Bills before the Commons and Lords that it could be added to downstream if required. I noted what she said about civic society and leaders. I will take that away and reflect on it.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, not only do we not proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist group, we allow Iran Air flights into London daily, which is astonishing. By all accounts, the Home Office has issued around 200 visas to Islamic clerics during the last 18 months, despite the regime’s involvement in the 7 October attacks on Israel. Can the Minister confirm to the House whether this is accurate information?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Statement said that we will strengthen the enforcement of our immigration laws and examine, on a case-by-case basis, the issues that the noble Baroness mentioned. For that very same reason, we need to examine who requires transport to the United Kingdom. We also need to look at people who we do not wish to enter the United Kingdom. That is why strengthening our immigration laws, irrespective of the other measures, is an important consideration.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

The leadership being shown by the Government on this is highly welcome, but I noted the approving reference in the Statement to the investigations by the Charity Commission. Does the Minister share my concern that the Charity Commission, despite having a staff of 500 people and a budget of £32 million, has so far been unacceptably reactive and slow in looking at these issues? I think there are 130-odd live investigations—some of which are into Iranian-linked charities—that are not moving quickly, firmly or proactively enough.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I share the noble Lord’s concerns around Iranian-aligned centres in the United Kingdom and the malign influence Iran might be projecting through them. I hope I can assure the House that that is on the Government’s radar. We are examining them and will continue to assess the potential threats to the United Kingdom.

The Charity Commission is undertaking inquiries into both the Islamic Centre of England and the Al-Tawheed Charitable Trust. Ministers are closely tracking progress. My officials and others in the Home Office are now reviewing whether any Iranian interference is being conducted in the United Kingdom. Crucially, I hope that the specification in the Statement that Iran is in the enhanced tier of FIRS will, when it comes into place in summer, shine a considerable light on the Iranian state and the UK institutions and individuals involved in it. In my final comment, I remind the House that breach of the FIRS legislation for Iran, when it is introduced in summer, will result in a potential five-year prison sentence.

Hong Kong Democracy Activists

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is a gross infringement of British sovereignty. The Chinese Communist Party and its repressive regime have arrested over 100 people in Hong Kong on politically motivated charges. In the other place, the Security Minister claimed that

“concerns have been raised at every opportunity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/25; col. 184.]

Can the Minister confirm whether this specifically has been raised with Chinese officials? Will he confirm whether the Government have made formal diplomatic representations to China regarding this blatant extraterritorial threat? Will he commit to placing China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

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

The answer to the noble Lord’s first two questions is yes. Representations have been made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary at the highest level, and Ministers who have visited China have also made representations. We will continue to make representations on this matter because it is a serious issue, and the Government need to ensure that the Chinese know that there is widespread concern among the populace and the Government. On FIRS, the noble Lord will know that we announced yesterday that the state of Iran is being included in FIRS. The scheme will become live during the summer. We will keep all nations under review but at the moment our announcement has only been in relation to Iran.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I have met someone who has a bounty on them. This is clear transnational repression because it not only seeks to intimidate the person who has the bounty placed on them, which is a clear breach of our law, but is designed to intimidate family members and the wider community back in Hong Kong. Transnational repression needs to be rooted out totally from the United Kingdom. Therefore, there should be no encouragement to any of the state bodies that currently could have preferential access to key parts of the British economy, especially financial services. Will the Home Office Minister make sure that those Ministers who will visit Beijing seeking wider trade and investment with China are fully aware that any state enterprises that have any involvement, especially in a potential new embassy in London, will be committing not only a domestic legislation offence but transnational repression, which is an international crime?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments. He will know that the UK Government will challenge the Chinese authorities where we think there are transgressions; this is one of those occasions. We will also co-operate with the Chinese authorities when we believe that we can work together and trade with them when we believe it is appropriate. However, his points are valid.

On the embassy, a planning application is in and will be determined under planning laws like any other planning application. It will be with my colleagues in the department for local government. The Home Office have already submitted a security note on it, as part of the planning application, and that will be considered in due course. I reassure the noble Lord that we take this matter extremely seriously and representations have been made, and will continue, at the highest level.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am patron of Hong Kong Watch and an officer of the All-Party Group on Hong Kong. The inconveniences and irritations experienced by the seven sanctioned parliamentarians, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, and me, are nothing in comparison with the bounties placed on the heads of pro-democracy advocates such as the young woman Chloe Cheung. Letters delivered to their neighbours offer £100,000 for information on the pro-democracy activists or their delivery to the PRC embassy.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights is currently conducting an inquiry into transnational repression. We are interested to know from the Minister what laws will have been broken if a dissident, or someone sanctioned or targeted by the CCP, is dragged into a PRC embassy or consulate. That has already happened in Manchester so this is not simply academic. What action, if any, would be taken? Would it be illegal? Would the diplomats be immune? What powers would be used to recover those who were seized?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reiterate what I said to the Liberal Democrat and Opposition Front Bench: we condemn this action. We have also seen the reports of letters being delivered to neighbours. We are trying to verify the source of those reports and of that information, but the police are certainly looking into this matter and are liaising with those who are in receipt of the letters. The police will assess, independently of government, whether action needs to be taken under any legislation we have to date.

I hope to reassure the noble Lord that, in the event of the circumstances he has described, the police and the Home Office would investigate whether illegal acts have been undertaken. It would be for the police, not the Home Office, to investigate independently in that event. I hope that our representations have been made very forcefully, and that the Chinese authorities will recognise them. We will monitor that situation accordingly.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I fully understand the balance that there has to be between protecting British citizens under British law and the need for good diplomatic and trading relations with China. It is a difficult balance and sometimes it leads to uncomfortable conclusions. However, in the event that, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has indicated, Chinese diplomats break the law and then hide behind diplomatic immunity, will this Government, through either the Home Office or the Foreign Office, make it abundantly clear to the Chinese Government not only that their behaviour is wholly unacceptable but that they will be publicly condemned by our Government so that our citizens know how much we disapprove of it, and that the individual diplomats from the Chinese embassy who misbehave will be promptly expelled?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord is tempting me to look at scenarios that may or may not occur. Any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass and harm individuals or communities in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. This Government will reflect on any actions like that, over and above the representations we have already made.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

But is there not a tension between the robust words that the Minister rightly uses and that the Home Secretary delivered to the Chinese nation and, for example, the Government’s decision, on returning from Beijing, to relax planning restrictions on China’s intended new embassy, which presumably houses and certainly plays a role in much of the malign activity that the Government are complaining about?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will already know—but I will tell him anyway—that a final decision has yet to be made on the Chinese embassy. The Secretary of State for Local Government has an independent quasi-judicial role in making the final decision. The noble Lord will also know that the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary sent a joint letter to the Planning Inspectorate on 14 January, and the Home Office has considered the breadth of national security issues in relation to the planning application. I cannot determine that application, but I assure the noble Lord that the points he raised are being considered in that mechanism by government officials who have to make the decision.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has been receiving evidence in relation to transnational repression. Is the Minister aware—it is widely known—that the lawyers acting for Jimmy Lai on the international issues that arise out of that case are receiving the most incredible intimidation? They are receiving threats of rape and threats towards their children. Caoilfhionn Gallagher, the King’s Counsel who acts for Jimmy Lai, has been exposed to the most appalling forms of intimidation. Is this something that the Government are aware of? If so, what are they going to do about the intimidation of legal representatives?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am concerned to hear what my noble friend has said. I reiterate to the House that any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the United Kingdom will not be tolerated. If my noble friend wishes to supply details, we will examine them.

Migrants: Indefinite Leave to Remain

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathcarron]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of migrants expected to apply for indefinite leave to remain over the course of the Parliament, and of the related cost.

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

Some 162,000 migrants were granted settlement in the year ending December 2024. The Government intend to produce a White Paper later this year on migration policy and will tackle high net migration by taking a different approach, linking migration and broader labour market policies together.

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the reply. Using ONS and OBR data, it is possible to project that over 800,000 recent migrants could apply for ILR over the course of this Parliament. Some 54% of those are on non-work visas, and those on work visas are predominantly non-net tax contributors. Furthermore, each ILR migrant will have full claim to all benefits, and the right to bring in more dependants on non-work family visas. Does the Minister agree that the coming societal and fiscal impacts are simply unsustainable? Will the Government consider revising the current five-year eligibility rules while there is still time to do so?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The five-year eligibility rule is currently in place, as the noble Lord has mentioned. I have to say to him that I am a sort of hors d’oeuvre ahead of the main course, which will be the net migration White Paper, which will be published very shortly and will address what we need to do in this Parliament in respect of net migration, skills development, producing local skills here and tackling illegal migration. I hope that the noble Lord will bear with me: there will be examination of all those issues in the White Paper, which will be before this House in relatively short order.

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

My son-in-law, Jair, came to this country more than 20 years ago. Since his arrival here and his obtaining right to remain, he has been permanently employed in various capacities, including as an assistant in a school for deaf children. Latterly, since he obtained UK citizenship 16 years ago, he has been serving as a police officer in Scotland. He has never been a financial burden on the state. Does the Minister agree that, in considering the cost mentioned in the Question, it is also essential to include the benefits that such migrants bring to our society in providing essential public services and giving us practical examples of the benefits of cultural diversity?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the noble and learned Lord. We need to value those individuals who come here legally and via legal migration routes. They make a contribution to our society and fulfil many employment roles. They pay their taxes, put a range of cultural improvements into our society and help to improve the mix as a whole. However, I think that the noble and learned Lord will still recognise, to go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, that that needs to be managed and examined. That is what the White Paper will do: examine the potential pressures and issues. But I want to emphasise that those who are here are welcome and contribute to our society positively.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, there are some 175,000 Ukrainian migrants in this country, who arrived more than three years ago and are running out of their three years’ leave to stay. What is their status now?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have recently issued a statement revising and extending the Ukrainian scheme, and anybody who is here currently under that Ukrainian scheme will have been notified of the requirements under that. Their status will be regularised as long as the illegal occupation and invasion of Ukraine by the Russian state pertains.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

What progress has been made in closing asylum hotels, in line with the Government’s manifesto commitment? How will the Government ensure that those granted indefinite leave to remain contribute to the economy, rather than becoming dependent on state support?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have closed a certain number of asylum hotels—it is in the low teens at the moment. The Government have a commitment to closing such hotels because they are a waste of taxpayers’ resource, and there are better ways to manage what we inherited from the previous Government. Since July, we have removed 19,000 people with no legal right to remain in the United Kingdom. Of those, 5,100 were enforced returns and, since July, we have also tackled 5,400-plus visits on illegal working, and we are improving the situation with removal of foreign national offenders. There is a record that the noble Lord has to defend, and we are trying to unpick that record—and those hotels are his legacy. We will meet our manifesto commitment during this Parliament.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, are the Government satisfied that UKVI is providing good or, at any rate, reasonable service to applicants for indefinite leave? If you are paying the standard fees rather than for priority or super-priority service, is that one of the services for which you have to provide your credit card details and pay to hold on the phone, listening to a robot—possibly telling you that “Your call is very important to us”—before getting a formulaic and uninformative reply about the progress of your application?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that that is not the experience—and if it is, I hope that the noble Baroness will send me details of the specifics of the experience that she relates. The Home Office does not make a profit from applications; where the fee is higher than the estimated unit cost, there is no profit element. The Home Office keeps all fees under review, and it is its principle to ensure that those who have a potential legal right to apply to stay in the United Kingdom have the facility to do so in a simple and effective way. I hope that the noble Baroness will supply me with the information if there is a specific case to which she wishes to refer.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, might my noble friend talk with his boss, the Home Secretary—I ought to declare an interest, because I am still involved with higher education—on whether we could in the White Paper at least discuss the critical issue of not getting into the farcical position of trying desperately to recruit full-time higher education students from across the world and then counting them in the net migration figures?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend tempts me to go into the main course rather than the hors d’oeuvre, which is today’s Question. I cannot trail for him matters that may or may not be in the immigration/net migration White Paper that we will produce in the very near future. We are intending to look at the inheritance that we had from the previous Government but also at the economic needs and training needs of the United Kingdom and how we can upskill the UK workforce, as well as at the impact of net migration students on university places—and the points that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, mentioned. I hope that my noble friend can have patience, as that will be before this House in relatively short order.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

The Minister will have seen the letter that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has sent to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary about the plight and fate of those children who went missing from asylum accommodation, overseen by the Home Office at the time. What can he tell us about the numbers still involved, their plight or fate, and what more is being done to identify their whereabouts?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. It is a priority for the Government to track down and provide safeguarding measures for those children who went missing under the regime of the previous Government. There are approximately 80 to 90 for whom we do not have records of where they are now. It is priority to understand where they are. The responsibility for that lies not just with the Home Office but with local authorities, such as Kent, which had initial responsibility and now has responsibility for safeguarding issues. It is a priority to find them, and I shall update the noble Lord in due course.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, will the Government’s White Paper abandon the doctrine proclaimed by Tony Blair, and to which subsequent Conservative Ministers, sadly, succumbed, that mass immigration is necessary to promote growth in this country, given that in the ensuing 20 years we have had the highest rate of immigration in our history and the lowest rate of growth? Will they go back and look at the record of Mrs Thatcher—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I spent most of the period from 1979 to 1990 trying to make sure that Mrs Thatcher was not in office, I cannot really give much comfort to the noble Lord on his request to endorse the policies she undertook. He will have to wait for the migration White Paper that will be coming shortly. Among its key aspects—I can give him a slight taster—will be the ability to develop homegrown skills, to look at skill shortages, and to look at how we upskill individuals to fill those vacancies. I very much value the people who, historically, over many years, before Mrs Thatcher and beyond, have come to the United Kingdom to work and to make their lives. They are valued members of our community, but we need also to look at how they can upskill to meet future challenges.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a useful if very short debate, and many of the issues raised in Committee have been repeated.

Most of these amendments would greatly increase the number of premises and events exempt from the provisions of the Bill. In particular, I want to speak against Amendments 2, 3 and 5 from the Conservative Benches. As has been described, they would increase the threshold to 500, or 300 for standard premises, or, in the case of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, from 800 to 1,000 for enhanced premises.

I will make two brief points, which are very much in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. First, it is worth recalling that the Bill, to quote from the Long Title, is

“to reduce the vulnerability of the premises or event to, and the risk of physical harm to individuals arising from, acts of terrorism”.

It is not a Bill that will prevent terrorism per se; it is about protecting individuals. It is about having a plan in place for what to do in the horrific eventuality of an attack and having someone responsible for ensuring that lives can be saved, so that people can be evacuated or invacuated as quickly and as safely as possible. Having such a plan, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others have said, is surely just common sense and good practice for any event or premises, no matter what its size.

Increasing the thresholds to such a degree as these amendments propose would, in our view, risk negating the very purpose and value of the Bill, as it would exempt so many additional premises or events. We cannot and should not necessarily make assumptions about the size of the venue or event that a terrorist or terrorist organisation would choose to attack. Being prepared, and having thought through an escape plan and what to do to save lives in the event of an attack, gives reassurances to the public and has to be good practice. I would even argue that it makes good business sense, if people, including potential customers, feel reassured.

Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the figure of 200 is already a compromise. The previous draft Bill produced by the former Conservative Government had a threshold of 100. My party and others, including the Home Affairs Select Committee, expressed concern that this would impact too many businesses and their premises, so the figure was raised to 200. As I said in Committee, I would have preferred 100, but I understand the reasons for the compromise.

For both these reasons, these Benches will not support any amendments this afternoon if they are pushed to a vote.

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

I am grateful to noble Lords for speaking to these amendments and I look forward to seeing the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, back in his place at an early opportunity to continue these debates in future.

There are, in essence, three sets of amendments before us in this first group. Amendments 1 and 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, look at stipulating that the threshold is met monthly rather than “from time to time”. There are other amendments, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Murray, relating to the threshold and, at the end of the group, there are some small, technical government amendments that I will move in due course. I will speak to each in turn.

First, I will address the main point that was very well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in relation to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned. The Bill is not about preventing terrorism. There are mechanisms for the Government to look at policing, intelligence-led activity and legislation in the Crime and Policing Bill—a whole range of measures to prevent terrorism. This Bill, as has been mentioned, looks at the vulnerability of premises and making sure that we do all that we can to put public protection measures in place.

I said this in Committee, but it is important to refer noble Lords again to the measures in Clause 5 on public protection. For the areas that we are looking at, they include

“evacuating individuals from the premises or event … moving individuals to a place on the premises … 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”.

All of those are good practice and potentially have no or limited cost.

Amendments 1 and 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seek to change how attendance is measured at premises by stipulating that the threshold must be met monthly, not from time to time. The case was made that there is a need for a revised basis to assess the number of individuals in attendance at premises at once within a fixed, regular time period. As I set out in Committee, the Government disagree with that principle—although I know and understand why it has been brought forward—because we want to make sure that, if we do that, the benchmark we are examining for the premises is consistent.

Changing “from time to time” to a standard of the number of individuals expected at a premises at least once a month, or any other form of benchmark, would alter the scope of the Bill. It would exclude many of the premises from qualifying, whether due to seasonal or irregular attendance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he give us the percentage figure? If it is 4% for the 500 threshold, what is the figure for 300?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can give the noble Lord the figure, if he allows me a moment to find it. I have the figure in this pile somewhere and I will await some dissection of the file to arrive shortly to give him a definitive figure on that, if he will allow me. If not, I will come back to that in a moment. From my perspective, the figures of 800 and 200 are correct. I have that figure to hand somewhere—here we go. See: I knew at the end of the day, with a little bit of diligence, no ambush and advance notice, I could find the figure. Raising the threshold to 300 would mean that only 92,288 premises—or 10%, down from 17%, of eligible premises—would be captured. The figure that we have currently is significantly higher than that.

Again, 92,288 is a significant number of premises covered by the Bill, but if I go back to Clause 5(3), those requirements are not what I would term onerous. They are good practice. There are things that a good employer should do. They are things that good volunteers should do. There are things that are applicable not to stopping terrorism but to providing security in the event of a terrorist attack being undertaken. Again, if this House were a premises covered by the legislation, which it is not, and an attack were happening now, the responsible person here would have to decide which exit we went from, whether we stayed under the table, whether we shut the door and who should we contact. Those are the requirements in Schedule 5 to the Bill. They are not onerous, and I think that, on balance, as wide a group of premises as can be included is the desired amount, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister, wishes to intervene.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that the percentage of premises is not the same as the percentage of audiences, and it is the audiences that we should really be concerned about?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I say to the noble Lord that the Government have made a judgment on the 800 figure, which we have estimated is just over £5,000 in cost, but this figure of 800, which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, would change to 1,000, is a figure that probably impacts the Wembley Stadiums, the big theatres, the big venues. A £5,000 cost for that, which is what we have estimated in the impact assessment, would be a reasonable cost and would probably be consumed in normal training for staff, because most of those arenas hold full-time staffed events. For the 200 to 800 threshold, again, we have been looking at the whole question of what is reasonable. I think that 200 is a reasonable figure to assess on that.

However, we are going to disagree and, if we disagree and if the noble Lord wants to move his amendment, we will test the will of the House. That is what this place is about. I will see him in the Lobbies—reluctantly —if need be but I hope that he will understand why we have settled on the 200 figure to date.

Before I sit down, I must speak to government amendments 6 to 11, which make small technical amendments to the Bill and which follow reflection we have had at official level and ministerial level. The amendments further clarify how the Bill is intended to apply to premises and events. They do not change anything in the scope of the Bill but simply increase certainty about the premises in scope of the Bill. For example, private events such as weddings attended by relations and friends, or office parties attended by employees or customers, are deemed private events that are not attended by the public. The amendments make it clear, even more so than they did previously, that they should be out of scope.

I hope the noble Lord will not test the will of the House. But if he does, I urge my noble friends and anybody else who wishes to join us to vote him down.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a relatively short but very good debate, and I thank my noble friends for their amendments in this group. Amendments 2 and 3 address the threshold for qualifying premises. My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s amendment proposes raising the threshold from 200 to 500, while my noble friend Lord Murray’s amendment strikes a balance by setting it at 300, with flexibility for the Secretary of State to make determinations in exceptional cases.

These amendments recognise the practical implications of compliance while ensuring that the duty to protect the public is both proportionate and effective. It is essential that this legislation targets venues most at risk while avoiding undue burdens on smaller establishments, and if my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister is minded to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.

Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord De Mauley, would adjust the threshold for enhanced duty premises from 800 to 1,000. This refinement aligns with the broader effort to ensure that security obligations are applied appropriately. Larger venues naturally pose greater security challenges. Amendment 5A, which similarly adjusts the threshold for qualifying events from 800 to 1,000, also makes sense to me.

The cost of compliance for events will be large and thus slightly raising the threshold will allow for greater focus and precision in what the Bill intends to remedy. If my noble friend Lord De Mauley intends to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.

On Amendments 6 to 11, tabled by the Minister, I acknowledge the suggested improvements, replacing “invitations” with “tickets”, and substituting “other” with “similar”. These amendments means that the public protection procedures will apply only when members of the public are in attendance and not at private events such as weddings. I am supportive of these amendments and thank the Minister for tabling them.

In conclusion, the amendments I have spoken in favour of today enhance the clarity, proportionality and practical application of the Bill. In the face of ever- present security threats, our legislation must be both robust and precise.

--- Later in debate ---

I also point out that although the Bill does not allow Ministers to increase the thresholds, it specifically does allow them to reduce them, so if a rationale suddenly appears that justifies a threshold of 700, 800 or 900 they can adopt it, but this amendment will give them flexibility which the Bill does not currently contain. Given that there seems to be very little science behind the decision to set the higher threshold at 800, with the Government’s approach seeming to be “because I say so”, I respectfully request that they think again. I beg to move.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will respond very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. With due respect, it is not because I say so; it is because we have had a consultation. We had consultations in 2021 and 2023, when his party was in government, we have had discussions with the Home Affairs Select Committee and public discussions on this issue generally, and a revised figure was part of the consultation to determine the lower figure. So the 800 figure is not because I say so: it was determined by the previous Government—his Government—and endorsed by this Government coming in. Your Lordships’ House should remember that that figure came out of discussion we had following the Manchester inquiry and inquiries into other similar recent events.

I do not want to test the patience of the House. We had a long discussion in Committee and on the amendments we discussed earlier. Following engagement with stakeholders, the security industry and the public at large, and with the recommendations of several sets of officials dealing with several sets of Ministers, we have come to the conclusion that there is no right number —I accept that—but that the number of 800 will ensure that we bring into scope a large number of premises that have a higher level of security but should be doing those things on the basis of good practice and as part of normal training and induction for members of staff.

The 800 figure applies to the Wembley Stadiums—large football stadiums and the larger venues. I believe they can accommodate the restrictions and requirements in the Bill. The cost that we have estimated for the higher tier is only just over £5,000 per establishment. A £5,000 opportunity cost that might not even be a physical cost is not a burden on that establishment, but it may help to save a life. In the event of a terrorist attack, which we will try to prevent downstream, the measures in this Bill may help to save a life. Had they been in place at the Manchester Arena when the attack took place, lives may have been saved. That is an important consideration. I commend the 800 figure to the House and I hope it will reject the noble Lord’s amendment if he presses it.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for what he said, but I respectfully point out that a threshold of 1,000 would catch events at the Wembley arena. His position on 800 will catch the event we discussed in Committee and that I talked to him about, which cannot possibly afford a figure of £5,000. It does not make £5,000.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, the figure of £5,000 is an opportunity cost. It may well be that it is in time given by volunteers. There is no cash payment up front by any organisation to any outside organisation to provide that level of assurance.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

It is impossible to know the answer. I think the Minister knows that and I do. Let us not waste any more time. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

6: Clause 3, page 3, line 8, leave out “invitations” and insert “tickets”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “qualifying event”.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

8: Schedule 1, page 35, line 30, leave out “invitations” and insert “tickets”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies references in the Bill to “visiting members of the public”.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

10: Schedule 2, page 36, line 26, leave out “invitations” and insert “tickets”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the definition of certain premises to which Part 1 of the Bill does not apply.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

12: Clause 5, page 4, line 19, leave out subsections (4) to (6)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 32.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that, in this case, the Government have listened to the arguments made in Committee calling for further constraints on the powers in Clauses 5, 6 and 32. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for pressing the Government in Committee on these matters. This issue was also raised by a number of other noble Lords, and I have certainly reflected upon it. As we know—particularly on this Bill—collaboration and cross-party consensus have underpinned much of the Bill’s development and progress, for which I have been grateful. In this spirit, having reflected on the points raised in Committee, the Government have tabled amendments to further strengthen the safeguards on the use of certain Henry VIII powers in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has done me the great honour of signing the amendments, post my tabling those. He cannot be with us today for other reasons, but I know that the House will note that he has added his name to these amendments and has taken a constructive approach accordingly.

The government amendments are very clear. First, they consolidate in Clause 32 the powers previously found in Clauses 5 and 6, which would allow the Secretary of State to add, omit or amend public protection measures or procedures in the Bill. Secondly, and more significantly, the amendments place conditions on these powers that the Secretary of State must satisfy, as well as the powers in Clause 32 to change the qualifying thresholds for the standard and enhanced tiers. These government amendments limit the use of the powers to lower the thresholds, or to add new procedures or measures, to where the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so for public protection—I put that phraseology before the House.

Conversely, the thresholds can be raised—or procedures or measures omitted, or have their descriptions amended —only if the Secretary of State considers that their retention is not “necessary for public protection”. Necessity sets a higher bar than the previous drafting did, and how the regime is functioning and the nature of the threat from terrorism at the time will be among the factors most relevant to the Secretary of State’s consideration, as will the availability of other means of public protection.

The House will know that the nature of terrorism is very often unpredictable, and methodologies may change over time. In tandem, so will the ways in which society can effectively respond. How certain businesses operate may also evolve over time, such as in the way that customers engage with them. The Government consider that this approach now strikes the right balance between ensuring that the Bill can be kept up to date, and providing in the Bill an important set of further safeguards to ensure that these powers, if used, are used appropriately and with proper consideration.

Furthermore, government Amendment 28 will require the Secretary of State to formally consult such persons as they consider appropriate before exercising any of the powers specified in Clause 32. This includes the powers previously contained in Clauses 5 and 6, which are now consolidated under Clause 32. One of the main demands of a number of colleagues in the House was that we undertook further consultation. Consulting relevant stakeholders is now integral to the development of the Bill, and it has been the Government’s clear intention that this will continue. In the light of the points made in Committee when we debated these clauses, the Government are content to put that wider consultation in the Bill, which I hope assists noble Lords in their deliberation on these issues.

So the Government have listened, and I hope that helps. I hope to have the support of the House for the amendments we have tabled. I will obviously respond later, if the House will allow me, to any points made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, in respect of their amendments. In the meantime, I beg to move government Amendment 12.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 13 and 25 in this group. Amendment 13 seeks to introduce a provision for exemptions to public protection procedures under the Bill. While I fully support the legislation’s intent to enhance security and preparedness in the face of the ongoing terrorist threat, I believe that a blanket one-size-fits-all approach is neither practical nor proportionate. This amendment introduces flexibility to ensure that obligations under the Bill are applied where they are truly necessary, without imposing undue burdens on venues where the risk is demonstrably low.

We must remember that security measures come at a cost, not only in financial terms but in administrative burden, operational complexity and resource allocation. Many smaller premises, community organisations and low-risk venues will struggle to comply with requirements that may be disproportionate to their actual risk profile. For example, a village hall hosting occasional gatherings, a small charity-run space or a low-footfall museum in a rural area does not face the same level of threat as a major city-centre venue yet, as the Bill stands, they may all be subject to the same requirements.

This amendment does not seek to weaken security; rather, it ensures that security measures are appropriately targeted. It would allow exemptions to be granted where a venue could clearly demonstrate that it does not meet a reasonable threshold of risk; that could be assessed based on factors such as size, location, historical risk data and the nature of the events that it hosts. The Government must consider whether it is justifiable to place the same regulatory demands on all premises, regardless of their individual circumstances.

The Bill must be robust, but it also must be fair. An exemption mechanism would ensure that security resources, both financial and operational, are directed where they will have the greatest impact rather than being spread thinly across venues that pose little to no realistic security concern. I urge the Government to consider the practical implications of this legislation and accept this amendment in the spirit of ensuring a proportionate, risk-based approach to public protection.

In Committee, the Minister helpfully said on 5 February that the responsible person would

“consider the appropriate procedures in the light of the cost and resources … Accordingly, no procedure is required to be put in place at unreasonable cost to the responsible person”.

His assurance is welcome, but the problem is that the Bill does not appear to allow the responsible person to consider appropriate procedures in the light of their cost. The Minister also said:

“What we are asking for in the Bill … is that he thinks … about the consequences and about whether there is a threat”.—[Official Report, 5/2/25; col. 794.]


Yet the Bill makes no allowance for the responsible person to think about the consequences and whether there is a threat—that is, assess the risk—as the Minister suggests. Instead it demands that, without consideration of the risks, the responsible person puts in place the costly rules that I am concerned about.

I am deeply concerned that, if we allow these rules to stop harmless, peaceful community events around our country like the ones that I referred to in Committee, as my noble friend Lord Murray so aptly said earlier, the terrorists will have won. The Minister’s encouragement to rely on the

“so far as is reasonably practicable”

wording is helpful—but the problem is that the term is subjective. Those enforcing the law are not the same people as those who make it, so phrases such as this are open to variations in interpretation.

Furthermore, one of the really important problems that the Bill creates is that it is, as Bills often are, very broad-brush in its drafting, especially in the public protection procedures and measures. It leaves the detailed requirements to be fleshed out in guidance and advice, so at this stage we have no way of knowing how difficult they are going to be to comply with.

On Amendment 25 and returning to the subject of thresholds, which we debated a moment or two ago, when the subject was raised in Committee there was much discussion of the level of the lower threshold—that at which premises became qualifying premises or an event becomes a qualifying event, as the case may be. This amendment approaches thresholds in another way, still seeking to address the concern that the selection of the level of the thresholds is based on very little science and, once the Bill is passed, they are set in stone effectively for ever—and they certainly cannot go up. The Bill would benefit from having an understandable framework under which the Secretary of State could vary thresholds upwards or downwards from time to time, which would also remove an element of doubt from the Bill as its stands, in that there is currently no clarity over how and when the Secretary of State may exercise his or her power to reduce thresholds.

The thing that is missing from the Government’s approach is a lack of any science to the question as to how the level of risk—for example, of a terrorist attack—changes from time to time. In Committee, the Minister mentioned the fact that the national threat level was then, as it is now, at substantial. As he knows, there are four other national threat levels—low, moderate, severe and critical. The setting of the national threat level is based on the assessment of risk by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. This amendment therefore seeks to allow the Secretary of State to vary the thresholds with the national threat level.

--- Later in debate ---

Taken together, these amendments introduce an element of flexibility that is sorely needed in this Bill. Security is, of course, paramount, but so too is ensuring that measures are targeted, proportionate and adaptable to real-world conditions. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to these amendments and to recognise the benefits of a more tailored and responsive approach to public protection procedures.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am always grateful for amendments because they generate debate, which is what this House is about, and because they create an opportunity to test the provisions in the Bill. I have tried to listen and I have moved on the government amendments in this group, but I cannot support Amendments 13 and 25 from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Let me explain why.

Amendment 13 proposes to allow those responsible for qualifying premises and events to apply for an exemption. All the way through the Bill, noble Lords on the Opposition Benches have talked about reducing both bureaucracy and the ability to put pressure on. Applying for exemptions and setting up the bureaucracy to manage those exemptions would be a major task. I remind the House that the potential exemptions are from the issues in Clause 5, and I am not sure which of them the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, wishes to remove. Is it the evacuating individuals from premises and events guidance? Is it the guidance on moving individuals to a place on the premises or at an event where there is less risk of physical harm? Is it preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises of an event and giving guidance on that? Is it providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event so that they can manage, in the event of a terrorist attack, the evacuation, invacuation or activity around that? I am not quite sure which of the public protection procedures in Clause 5 the noble Lord feels it is not appropriate to put in place.

I remind the House that, as set out in Clause 5, the sole objective of public protection procedures is to reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals present at premises or an event if an attack occurs. It is not about reducing the risk of an attack occurring; we will do that through many other means. Even with the public protection measures in Clause 6, the objectives are not to stop an attack or the threat that terrorism poses but to reduce vulnerability in the event of an attack.

Of those specific procedures—invacuation, lockdown, communication—which ones does the noble Lord think we should put to one side? I am genuinely interested, because I do not see the benefit of that. If premises number one in a high street applied for an exemption and premises number two—exactly the same type of premises—did not, this would create confusion and a patchwork. This does not achieve the objectives of the Bill, which are to provide immediate responses in the event of an attack and to ensure that volunteers or paid staff understand what to do when that attack is occurring, as at London Bridge and the Manchester Arena. That is the important thing. We will issue and put in place guidance, and the SIA will be there to provide support and advice, but Clause 5 meets the objectives, and I therefore cannot support the amendment.

I cannot support Amendment 25 either, for the very sound reasons given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I may be the only other person in this Chamber who has visited Buckley recently—it is five or six miles from where I live and is next door to my former constituency. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned the problems with the Buckley jubilee parade. None of those problems relates to the legislation before the House. If there are challenges being put down by the local authority about the range of issues she mentioned, they are not because of this Bill; nor would the measures in Clause 5 incur additional expense of a significant nature to examine variations in the threat level and the provision of evacuating, invacuating, moving or information.

I respect both the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, but the revision of the threat level would add another tier to the things we are trying to encourage, which in Clauses 5 and 6 are good practice and information about what to do in the moment of an attack. The national threat levels may change, but the acts of terrorists remain unpredictable. Attacks may happen any time, anywhere. We have seen attacks at a number of smaller locations in recent years. Changes to the national threat level are not directly aligned with the objectives of the Bill.

As for the premises and events that will be in scope, as we have seen from the recent past, those threat levels may change quickly but the level of a potential attack is still present for any of the areas in scope of the Bill. To have the threat level determined by whether something is in scope would make it a very blunt instrument, which would potentially create the very confusion and bureaucracy that many noble Lords have been keen to avoid with the Bill.

The Government have listened on this group of amendments, including to the serious points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, by those on the Liberal Democrat Benches and by His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, and we have made changes to the Henry VIII powers which I hope—and know—are welcome in this House. However, I cannot continue to listen to all representations. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the provisions in Clauses 5 and 6 are that line for the Government—as was the case, dare I say, for the previous Government. In that case, I urge the noble Lord and the noble Baroness not to press their amendments.

Amendment 12 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

14: Clause 6, page 5, line 12, leave out subsections (4) to (6)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 32.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

Amendment 15 seeks to enhance the efficiency of providing documents to the SIA. It was debated in Committee and offers a small but practical improvement to the Bill. I hope that I can be brief.

The amendment would introduce a clear requirement for the document to be provided to the SIA within six months of it being prepared, rather than

“as soon as is reasonably practicable”.

It would help to ensure timely and structured reporting and to prevent unnecessary delays in the implementation of security measures. A six-month time limit would simply provide a definitive timescale and an end date, which would bring clarity and certainty and be a helpful addition.

I will also briefly introduce Amendments 18 and 32, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower—without, of course, stealing his thunder. These important amendments address the need for greater oversight of the SIA. Amendment 18 seeks to establish an advisory board to support and guide its work, and Amendment 32 proposes an independent review panel to assess its performance. Both measures would help to ensure that the SIA remains accountable and thus responsive to emerging threats. More broadly, I hope that the Minister accepts that all the amendments in this group seek to improve the quality of the legislation, and I look forward to hearing his response in due course.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for moving his amendment, and I welcome him to the Front Bench. This is the first time we have had a debate with him as the shadow Home Affairs Minister, and I welcome him to his post and wish him as much success as I possibly can, given the Government’s position and his own position on these issues.

Amendment 15 is important, as it looks at the question of the timeframe by which the compliance document must be submitted to the Security Industry Authority. As we have had previous debates on this issue, there are a number of points for me to make to the noble Lord. The document being provided to the Security Industry Authority will detail, among other things, the procedures and measures in place, under the provisions of the Bill, to comply with the Bill’s requirements. It is an important document, as it will enable the SIA to make any initial evaluation of the security approach at the premises or event in question, to engage with the person responsible and to assess compliance with the Bill’s requirements. As such, the document should be sent to the regulator at an early stage, as the noble Lord mentioned.

However, we have not stipulated in the Bill a single deadline for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events in scope, because the Bill applies to a wide variety of such premises and events, from long-established department stores to potential pop-up events. Some will require little change to their security approach, whereas others might need to make a substantive change, or, in the case of certain events, may have long or short lead-in times. The Government therefore determined that the document should be provided as soon as is reasonably practical.

If we accept the noble Lord’s amendment and have an imposed blanket deadline of six months, following completion across enhanced duty premises and qualifying events, this could hinder the SIA’s ability to monitor compliance and provide advice. It may result in out-of-date or inaccurate documents being provided. Depending on the circumstances, the SIA submission may be delayed until very close to the deadline, which is not necessarily the best way to do business. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from—he wants to give that certainty—but I cannot accept the amendment today.

We had an extensive discussion about Amendment 18 in Committee. I refer back to the two public consultations on this legislation, the engagement that both the previous Government and the current Government have had with hundreds of trade organisations and industry bodies, and the work with relevant stakeholders, existing regulators, security partners and local government. That was all about how we can put this legislation in place effectively.

In its current role, the SIA already works with industry, local authorities and civil society. Those working relationships will not end with Royal Assent; the Home Office will build on its existing work to ensure that the SIA is fit for purpose. As I have said before, Royal Assent is the start of a process, of potentially two years or more, of implementation. The amendment would place the burden of a statutory duty on the Secretary of State and, for that reason, I cannot support it, although I again understand where the noble Lord is coming from.

On Amendment 32, I hope that I can assure noble Lords that Clause 12 has been drafted to ensure appropriate oversight by the Secretary of State, with checks and balances on the SIA to ensure that regulation is being delivered as the Home Office intends. The SIA produces annual reports, which will, following Royal Assent, both encompass its regulatory function and provide transparency.

The Secretary of State will continue to appoint board members when required and will be held accountable, in this House and the other place, for those board members. The Secretary of State will make sure that there is significant expertise in the SIA to ensure effective regulation and organisational change, and that it will work closely with business. The Secretary of State will have the power to give directions to the SIA when necessary if they so wish. The Government will therefore be able to ensure that the legislation is being implemented as intended. I know that both the noble Lord and shadow Ministers in the House of Commons will question the SIA and hold it to account, and potentially have debates about the progress of this legislation.

If we were to have, as is proposed, an independent review panel, it would add an extra level of bureaucracy. As I have set out, the Secretary of State has robust powers and oversight to ensure that the SIA manages its responsibilities accordingly. Therefore, I am ashamed to say that, yet again, I reject the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and ask the House, if he presses them, to reject them accordingly. If the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, wishes me to give way, I certainly will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I fully expect to publish the outcome of those reviews. I give the noble Lord an assurance that this Government will continue that practice and will publish those reviews in the event of them taking place in the timescale he mentioned for the SIA. With that, I hope that he can respond positively and that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very generous words of welcome. I look forward to working with him—and, occasionally, against him—in future. I listened very carefully to what he said, and I do not intend to take Amendment 15 further. However, it remains my view that accountability and oversight should not be seen as bureaucratic hurdles; they are fundamental to ensuring that security measures are properly implemented and continuously improved. I make it clear that I do not plan to press Amendment 15, so I respectfully beg leave to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to address this group of amendments, which touches on critical aspects of training, funding, economic impact and consultation within the framework of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. Although I cannot support Amendments 16 and 17, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, I express my strong support for Amendments 30 and 34 and will speak to Amendment 31.

Amendments 16 and 17 propose requirements for training in public protection procedures and would ensure that training providers meet high and competent standards. The importance of proper training in counterterrorism preparedness is self-evident. However, there are practical considerations regarding how such training is implemented, who bears the cost and how providers are accredited. Although these amendments highlight an important issue, further clarity may be needed to ensure that they are applied in a way that is both effective and feasible for those affected.

I fully support Amendments 30, 31 and 34 as they introduce essential provisions to ensure that implementation of the Bill is both fair and practical. Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, calls for additional funding for local authorities. This is absolutely necessary. Local authorities will play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the new security measures, yet they are already under considerable financial pressure. Without adequate funding, we risk imposing responsibilities on local government without the means to fulfil them effectively. Security cannot be done on a shoestring budget. If we are serious about protecting the public, we must ensure that local authorities have the resources to do so.

Amendment 31, in my name, seeks to review the impact of the Bill on the night-time economy. This is a crucial safeguard: bars, clubs and entertainment venues are vital to the economic and cultural life of our towns and cities. Although security is of course paramount, we must ensure that the measures imposed by this legislation do not have unintended negative consequences, leading to excessive costs, closures and job losses. A structured review would allow us to monitor these effects and make adjustments if necessary.

Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, proposes that businesses be properly consulted. This is a matter of both practicality and fairness. Businesses, particularly those in hospitality and events, will be directly affected by the Bill, and it is only right that they have a voice in shaping how its provisions are implemented. Engaging with businesses will not only improve compliance but will ensure that security measures are designed in a way that works for all stake- holders.

In conclusion, I urge the House to support Amendments 30, 31 and 34, which would provide essential financial support, ensure careful economic consideration and guarantee meaningful engagement for those most affected. A well-crafted security framework must not only protect the public but be practical, proportionate and sustainable.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the amendments before us today. I hope I can give some comfort on at least one of the amendments during the course of our discussion.

Training is extremely important. I have been supportive of the need to make sure that those who have to have a role in the legislation—and the premises and events within scope of the legislation—are given sufficient training and guidance, so they understand how to follow the procedures and measures in the event of an attack. Such training will be imperative to ensure that procedures and measures are adequately implemented and that the Bill’s public protection objectives are met. However, the Government assesses that a one-size-fits-all approach to training would be inappropriate, due to the different types and wide variety of premises and events that fall within scope. The most important factor is that the public protection procedures are effective and that they will be able to be carried out at any particular event.

We have tried to ensure that the public protection procedures are suitably in place and that the responsible person ensures that relevant workers, or volunteers, are adequately instructed as to how to carry out a procedure. The procedures in Clauses 5 and 6 are relatively straightforward. We have been through them in a number of stages, in Committee and on Report. I do not wish to repeat them today. They are designed to be simple and low cost. It is about putting in place appropriate procedures that could help protect people from harm and ensuring that staff or volunteers are properly trained in those procedures and how to follow them.

For the overwhelming majority of venues, this should not require specialist training. As I mentioned previously, free guidance will be available. Given that the procedures and measures will need to be tailored to the relevant premises, the content of any staff training will also be very much venue-specific. A generalised scheme for certifying training providers, as proposed in Amendment 17, is unlikely to be helpful in the circumstances. Premises and events should not have to pay for any specific training and the relevant legislation should be easily understood and put in place without detailed training. The Government will ensure that free, digestible guidance, advice and training will be provided. I hope that helps with the first set of amendments.

On Amendment 24A, in the name of the Liberal Democrat Front-Bencher, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, much of the debate throughout the Bill has rightly focused on ensuring that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have both the time and information needed to ensure that they can plan and prepare for, and ultimately implement, what is reasonably appropriate for them under the Bill. I put on the record today that the Government will publish guidance well in advance of commencement the new regime. The Government will determine the exact timescale for this in due course, ensuring that we strike the right balance between publication and making the guidance as robust as it can be through a period of proper consideration and engagement. I would expect that to last for a few months prior to implementation.

The Government are therefore happy—I hope this helps the noble Baroness—to support Amendment 24A, from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, which will place a statutory duty to consult as appropriate before publication of the guidance under Clause 27. I hope that demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we get the guidance right, by having a consultation, which will be well in advance of the implementation date and give an opportunity for colleagues across the sector to comment on the guidance that, potentially, is being published. I hope that is of further reassurance to the House.

Further amendments have been tabled. Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, was spoken to by the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench. I know that we are mindful of cost. We have discussed the cost issue on several occasions. Because of the Bill, there will be pressures on local authorities. It is not the Government’s intention for the Bill to frustrate the vital work they undertake. Our intention is to keep the public safe. I would like to reassure the House that the requirements for appropriate procedures and measures to be in place, as far as is reasonably practical, are designed to ensure that the relevant factors, including costs, are considered. Throughout our debates, “reasonable”, “practical”, “relevant” and “considered” are words I have used from this Dispatch Box and wish to re-emphasise today.

As we have discussed on a number of amendments today, it is envisaged that the requirements will be simple and low cost. Those in the enhanced tier will tailor the procedures and measures they implement to their particular circumstances. This includes consideration of the resources available to them. As a result, I do not believe that the Government should be looking at financial assistance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Murray.

I turn briefly to the amendments. My noble friend Lord Murray dealt with the treatment of volunteers and spoke eloquently about the principle that volunteers acting in good faith should not be subject to financial penalties, criminal liability or civil liability. He made the point that volunteers play a vital role in many public and community settings, often stepping forward to help in times of crisis. To penalise those who act voluntarily and in good faith would be both unfair and counterproductive. If the Bill is to encourage a culture of shared responsibility for public protection, it must also offer reasonable protections to those who contribute to that effort, and volunteers should not be deterred from assisting by fear of punitive measures. Those amendments strike the right balance by ensuring that only those who act negligently or with ill intent are held responsible.

On Amendment 19, respectfully, I do not accept the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that this creates an additional court process. The Bill already contains a mechanism in Clause 16(6) and (7) for rendering a notice as having no effect, and Amendment 19 would simply add another scenario to that. Taken together, I suggest these amendments improve the Bill and I urge the Government to accept them.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the amendments. I will try to run through them and do them justice in as short order as I can.

On Amendment 19, first, I do not consider it necessary to require in the Bill that the tribunal consider suspending a notice where it has been unable to determine an appeal within a reasonable time. The tribunal is already subject to relevant tribunal procedures. The Bill makes provision for the tribunal to consider whether a notice of variation should, in effect, be put in place pending the outcome of an appeal. The Bill gives the right of appeal to such a notice, which, while not automatic, allows the tribunal to make an order to suspend its effect pending the appeal’s determination. I hope that addresses the issues in Amendment 19.

Amendment 20 talks about the penalty period being within 28 days from the date of a penalty notice being issued. I reassure the House that the period of 28 days, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, a is minimum period that the SIA may specify, and it may therefore specify any number of days post that 28-day period. I hope, on that basis, that the flexibility for the SIA on the 28-day period is acceptable.

I fully understand why we have had this debate on a number of occasions: we have been round this at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report. It is because it is a valid issue to raise. We want to ensure that we encourage volunteers to continue to meet their responsibilities, and I understand that there are concerns, which have been expressed today by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, about the liability of voluntary officeholders and unpaid trustees. The Government are mindful of the pressures that voluntary and community-run organisations face. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester endorsed those pressures, and I understand, having been voluntary trustee on a number of small bodies myself, where noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate are coming from. Again, I go back to the requirements of Clause 5. The requirements are there to achieve public protection outcomes; they are not there to put disproportionate burdens on trustees or, indeed, organisations.

As to the consultation, the Government have increased the threshold from 100 to 200 to ensure that we take out a number of smaller bodies. An estimated 13% of village halls and 10,000 community centres have been taken out of scope by that change to the threshold. We are trying to ensure that these are voluntary, simple measures that will require no specific expertise. I understand and accept that in some cases, that could put people off, but would it do so more than any other legislation? Health and safety legislation, for example, could put people off. This is meant to be a simple measure in Clause 5 that allows individuals to undertake, and to do so in a way that meets the obligations but does not discourage volunteering.

Turning to Amendments 21 and 22, under the Bill, penalties can only be issued for non-compliance with the requirement, and daily penalties can be issued only where a penalty notice for a contravention has been issued. Again, I would hope that, in the first instance, if there is any contravention, the SIA will be there to provide guidance, support and help for individuals and organisations to meet their responsibilities, which, I reiterate, are relatively low under the provisions of Clause 5.

Turning to Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, there are limited circumstances in the Bill where an individual would be liable for an offence committed by a body in connection with failure to comply with a requirement. That will happen and apply only to certain persons in control, and again, it is an offence to fail to comply with compliance or restriction notices only in relation to enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. The offence is therefore less likely to be implemented against village halls or community premises in any event. Again, it is our intention, as it has been all the way through the Bill—and I reiterate that in respect of Amendment 26—that a civil claim for breach of statutory duty may not be brought against an individual. I hope the House will accept those reassurances.

There are limited proposals in Clause 5. There are responsibilities for a responsible person, but they are not ones on which we do not seek guidance and advice from the SIA in the event of non-compliance. Prosecution would be the very last resort in any particular instance. That applies equally, as I mentioned, to other amendments, including Amendment 23. I hope those reassurances will allow noble Lords not to press the amendments.

The implementation period of, potentially, two years, the guidance issued by the SIA, the reviews we have put in place, and the assurance I gave the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on the last set of amendments—that any review of implementation would be published and open to scrutiny—will, I hope, give noble Lords the reassurances they sought in tabling the amendments.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

Having been prematurely enthusiastic, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 19.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

27: Clause 32, page 23, line 3, at end insert—
“(ba) amendsection 5(3)(public protection procedures) so as to—(i) specify a further procedure, or(ii) omit, or amend the description of, a procedure for the time being specified;(bb) amendsection 6(3)(public protection measures) so as to— (i) specify a further measure, or(ii) omit, or amend the description of, a measure for the time being specified;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment moves to clause 32 of the Bill the powers left out of clauses 5 and 6 by my amendments to those clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We on these Benches agree that this is an extremely important matter. Perhaps this is not the appropriate piece of legislation to put it in but, as we said in Committee, it is an extremely important measure that in the longer term will save both time and money.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Udny-Lister, for raising this matter both in Committee and on Report. The amendment today is a late addition but it is welcome none the less, because it allows me to put on the record a couple of very key points.

I will not revisit the debate we had in Committee, but I did say then that the national policy framework for England and its equivalent in the devolved Governments already contains provision on the need to promote public safety and take account of wider security arrangements during the planning process. That requires local planning authorities to take information from the police and other agencies and to consider steps that could be taken to reduce vulnerability, increase resilience and ensure public safety and security.

There is also associated planning practice guidance providing greater detail. But I get the sense, and I understand where both noble Lords are coming from, that it is far better to design out that challenge in future new build than it is to put in place other measures downstream. As was mentioned in Committee, there is the National Protective Security Authority, and counterterrorism police will continue to serve as valuable advisers on these issues. But since Committee, and this is where I hope I can help both noble Lords, we have reflected on this as an important issue. My officials have discussed the matter further with their counterparts in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we want to consider how we can reinforce planning authorities with the existing arrangements and requirements to consider security and its importance as part of planning regimes.

It might be helpful for me to say very quickly that the Government are updating their National Design Guide and National Model Design Code, which provide guidance on the very issues that the noble Lords, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned on safety and security in public spaces. The plan is that they will be published later in the spring.

The Government intend to consult on changes to the national planning policy guidance, to make it clearer and to introduce a more rules-based approach, in spring 2025. The consultations will specifically include policies for addressing security—the very points that both noble Lords have brought to the attention of the House in this amendment, and on which we had a full debate in Committee.

To conclude, I will say what the noble Lord said I would say, which is that this is not the appropriate vehicle for this legislation. That is what Ministers say occasionally at Dispatch Boxes and it is the right thing to do in this instance. But I hope the reassurance that I have given to both noble Lords, that this is on the Government’s agenda and that there will be a consultation that noble Lords can feed into, addresses the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and by the two noble Lords who spoke on this matter in Committee and today. So I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I thank noble Lords for such a generous response to such a late amendment. I appreciate it, and I am reassured by what the Minister has said. I heard the timeline, and I can see why these things need to be considered carefully. With that reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

33: Clause 35, page 25, line 13, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clauses 5 and 6.

Theft of Mobile Telephones

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

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

Tackling mobile phone theft is a priority for this Government. The Home Secretary has brought together law enforcement agencies and the mobile phone industry to see what can be done to break the business model of mobile phone thieves, and the Government have included measures in the forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill. The Home Office will ensure that all parties work together so that technical innovations, policing and government efforts reduce this crime.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. It appears that the resale value of a stolen mobile phone is in the order of £400, depending on the model stolen. Clearly, something is not working if that resale market is so great. First, can my noble friend indicate whether arrangements have been made with mobile phone operators and companies to ensure that, once a mobile phone is identified as stolen, not just the account but the phone itself can be locked, using the IMEI number? Secondly, what does he think the lessons are for other local authorities of the initiative taken by the Labour Westminster City Council, reversing the policy of its Conservative predecessors, of increasing by 100 the number of CCTV cameras monitoring central London, which it has just announced?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I certainly congratulate Westminster City Council on its initiative on CCTV funding and the additional cameras in place. CCTV provides a deterrent and critical evidence in the event of criminal acts such as mobile phone theft. On the first point, when the Home Secretary met mobile phone companies recently, she charged them with reporting back on what measures can be taken. Phone companies such as Apple, Google and others are currently looking at what they can do to ensure that mobile phones are not used again and can be blocked, or that their parts are not compatible for the future. The key issue, which we are working with mobile phone companies on, is to determine whether phones that are broken up and used for parts are resold in the United Kingdom or, as is increasingly the case, are sold to a number of foreign countries, where they are used with impunity. We have set mobile phone companies the task of looking at how we can work together to tackle all those issues.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, a few Saturdays ago I took Lady Evans to theatreland. Between Shaftesbury Avenue and Leicester Square, she had her mobile phone stolen. We very quickly saw that she did not have her phone and managed to track it on an app called Find My iPhone. I tracked Lady Evans’s phone as it disappeared down Whitehall, through the Embankment, over Westminster Bridge and ended up at a premises in Brixton. We notified the police and were given a police incident report number. When we inquired about getting the phone back, they said—very much as the Minister just said—that it will be have probably been broken up and exported, and that the organised crime groups that take these mobile phones are very difficult to prosecute.

Can the Minister, notwithstanding Labour-run Westminster City Council, track these vehicles that go down over Westminster Bridge? It would be very easy to ascertain them. Would it also be possible to look into what the police are saying to members of the public, that this is very difficult to stop?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

First, I am very extremely sorry for that incident. It is an awful, threatening crime that worries people, and which can also access personal data, so it needs to be reduced and stopped wherever possible. One of the measures that we have in the Crime and Policing Bill, which was introduced into the House of Commons recently, ensures that police can take action quickly and speedily on the very point the noble Lord mentions.

At the moment, if a phone is tracked to a property, let us say, in south London, a warrant has to be issued for the police to enter that property. The proposals in the Crime and Policing Bill will ensure that, on the authority of an inspector, the police can enter those premises immediately. So in the case that the noble Lord mentions of his own family, if that were reported, a crime number logged and the phone tracked to a property in Lambeth, the inspector in Lambeth could immediately authorise a police visit and potentially either recovery or arrest. I hope the Opposition will support that when it comes before this House.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, mobile phone thefts are almost out of control and are taking up a huge amount of police resources, but these could be dramatically reduced if smartphones were fitted with advanced device locking technology. This technology—unlike kill-switch technology, which is used by some of the companies that the Minister has mentioned—is integrated at the operating level, resistant to factory resets and, crucially, is activated automatically without user setup, which is a major breakthrough. Will the Government consider mandating its implementation in all new smartphones?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very interesting suggestion. As I have already said, we are working with mobile phone companies to look at what is in the interests of preventing crime, while at the same time ensuring that users and consumers can use their phones in an appropriate way. I will look at that suggestion. We have a further meeting with the phone companies in around three months to report back on what action they have taken to date in relation to those issues, and we will certainly examine that for her.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, is right, that design is the way to prevent the thing, once stolen, being valuable, so that there is therefore no point in stealing it. This morning, I was out with the excellent cycling enforcement team in the City of London, who were enforcing cycling legislation. More importantly, they told me about having recently arrested a mobile phone thief who had 24 phones with him. Given that the thieves are getting rid of them very quickly, either abroad or because they do not want to be caught with them, I wonder whether the statistics that show how many phones are getting stolen are accurate.

In the City, there are probably two phones stolen per day, according to the crime stats. This is one indication—but there are many—that the crime stats are not representative, because people are not reporting it, perhaps because they are not sure they are going to get a reaction from the cops, but sometimes because they just do not need to. However, how much of this crime is out there, and that we are not able to stop it, is a worry.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One of the first things that anybody who is a victim of crime should do is report that crime, because we cannot act unless we know the level of crime and the impact of it in the first place. That is important. The noble Lord is also right that designing out the potential for this activity in the building of resilient phones that cannot be used post crime is the best way forward. There have been innovations by a number of phone companies on that, but certainly there is more that can be done.

We want to help to support CCTV, and to take measures such as the incident warrant and on neighbourhood policing. In the long term, we will work with companies to ensure that we design out crime, and we will look at the market for broken-up, exported or resold phones in the United Kingdom. That intelligence-led policing will help to have a great impact on the current 146,000 thefts from a person last year, up 22%, of which mobile phone thefts were approximately half that figure.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

Is there not a lesson to be learned from what the Israeli intelligence service did with pagers? I am not suggesting that we should do that, but the principle is most appropriate. I cannot understand why the companies producing mobiles are not prepared to move quickly so that when their owners lose them they can disable them. That will stop the stealers.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I note what my noble friend thinks about the Israeli example, but if that happened, it might mean that half of south London did not have access to a phone on any given day. The key thing is that I, and the Government, welcome innovation in mobile phone protection. The mobile phone companies are looking into that, and we have to work with them in tandem. The idea of a kill switch or a stop in any way, shape or form is certainly welcome, but it is in technology that that is developed. It is in everybody’s interests, including those of the mobile phone companies, to develop that technology speedily.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, we have heard a lot about technological solutions and issues after the theft, but is there not a more analogue issue about the prevention of theft? Of course it can happen to any of us, but what focus are the Government putting on messaging and communications, perhaps even in schools, about simple tips on how to avoid mobile phone theft where possible, by being more careful about when and where phones are used?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a very salient point. I have heard this from my own family, who have said to me, “Don’t walk down the street in London with your phone out, Dad”. To be honest, I had never thought about that—but I do now. That level of public awareness is extremely important. But, actually, citizens should be able to walk down the street on their phone, so we need to tackle the perpetrators. That means people riding fast on a bike—CCTV can help with that —and it means tracking the phone when it has been stolen, in which the measures mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, can help. It also means giving people proper penalties when they are caught—and in the first part of this year the Metropolitan Police has made 200 arrests and recovered 1,000 phones, by focusing on street-level policing, in which the extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers that we are funding over the next three or four years will certainly assist.

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

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Orders laid before the House on 9 and 21 January be approved.

Relevant documents: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument) and the 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 February.

Motions agreed.

UK Airports: British Passport Holders

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that UK airports have dedicated lines for British passport holders.

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

The Home Office has previously reviewed the potential for the introduction of UK-only queues, most recently during the period when the UK left the EU. Analysis conducted has found that it would have a negative impact on border fluidity. However, we keep our border systems under review.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for that. It might be helpful if we could all see how that assessment was done; perhaps that could be put into the Library. I wonder if he agrees that it is not really about length of queues and waiting times; it is a principle about people coming back into their own country, just as happens all over world. Will he look again at this? UK citizens coming in should be given their own British entry point, unlike what is happening at the moment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I said to the noble Baroness, it would lead to longer queues. Perhaps that is symptomatic of the impact of Brexit as a whole. The noble Baroness needs to recognise that British and Irish citizens, citizens of the Commonwealth and citizens of reciprocal countries can use border gates and border entry accordingly. In doing so, they are helping to reduce queues. If we had a British-only queue, we would have longer queues for British citizens. That is not what I want to see.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister has said, the converse of the proposal is that other lines would get longer. Does he agree that growth for this country requires us to be welcoming to both businesspeople and tourists? Is it not about capacity and organisation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

One of the Government’s key objectives is growth. We will look again with European nations and others at how we can ensure that Britain remains a welcoming place to individuals to come and do business and tourism. Some 55% of the people who come through any of the points of entry into the United Kingdom are UK citizens. The proposal from the noble Baroness would mean that that 55% had a longer queue if there were specifically British-only lines.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, since the noble Baroness who raised this Question was one of the principal advocates of Brexit, does the Minister not agree that she has got a bit of a brass neck raising this Question? She is appropriately wearing the right jewellery to show it.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I know that my noble friend will reflect on his comments and understand that the politics that may divide us do not go down to what individuals wear in the Chamber. I hope that he can accept that. The noble Baroness took a principled stand on Brexit. It is a stand that I disagreed with. I voted and campaigned for remain, but she took that stand and won. There are consequences to that Brexit agreement that the Government are currently looking at. There are issues to do with how we can reset the relationship nine years after the referendum on things such as security and on the issues mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, around growth, but there are still fundamentals of that Brexit settlement that we have to maintain and that is what the Government will try to do to ensure that we get the best for Britain, as we have always done. The differences between the noble Baroness and me are stark, but I hope we can deal with them in a civilised manner.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, leading on from the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, can the Government confirm that they will seek to renegotiate arrangements with EU airports to ensure reciprocal fast-track access for UK citizens similar to that provided for EU travellers? Can the Minister outline what investment is being made in staffing and technology at UK Border Force to reduce waiting times for British citizens at peak travel periods?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The answer to the noble Lord is yes. We will continue to look at how we can get reciprocal arrangements with our European partner nations. We do that on an individual basis, and it is a matter for each nation as to whether it wishes to have that reciprocal arrangement. We will continue to work to achieve that in the interests of co-operation.

This Government are investing significant amounts of resource in border security, and that includes access gates and other things at airports such as Heathrow and Gatwick and around the country. That resource being invested in extra border security is money that we have saved from the wasteful Rwanda scheme that the noble Lord supported. We are going to put that resource into protecting our borders. I will certainly come back to him in due course with specific numbers and amounts of investment in respect of the particular issues that he has raised.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness asked about people coming into this country. We are one of the few countries that do not have exit checks; in most other countries, you scan your passport when you leave the country as well. Would that not be a good idea from a security point of view in having control over our borders and immigration and, for example, students coming in and out? It would help us to be on top of the figures.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is an extremely sensible suggestion and one that I advocated 15 years ago when we were in government in 2009-10 and looking at that issue. I see my noble friend Lord West nodding; he was in the Home Office with me at that time. It is important that we know who comes in and goes out. One of our current migration challenges is people overstaying, so a main focus for the Government is how we can reduce that impact and make sure that people are in the UK legally at all times.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend comment on the proposed new arrangements governing travel between the UK and the EU? Can he say a bit more about when those arrangements will come into force? Are we ready to meet the bureaucratic and other difficulties that will follow from introducing them?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The European Union, as is its right, is introducing an ETA for non-European Union members. One of the consequences of Brexit is that we are a non-EU member, so citizens of the United Kingdom will have to face that challenge in due course. As of now, there is no specific date for the introduction of the European transit arrangements, but that is coming downstream, so we need to examine it and take cognisance of it and its impact on a range of issues in relation to the United Kingdom.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s Question had very little to do with Brexit and a great deal more to do with the Schengen arrangements, of which we were never actually a member. However, I have my own question, which is this: when I fly from an Irish airport into Heathrow, I do not get asked to present my passport on arrival, in compliance with the common travel area arrangements of which we are a member. However, when I take a direct flight from a British airport to an Irish airport, I am required to queue up and show my passport. Has the Minister recently had discussions with the Irish Government about whether they are fulfilling their obligations under the common travel area in a fully reciprocal way?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My understanding is that for movement between Ireland and the UK there is currently no border control. I know as a former Northern Ireland Minister—but it also relates to the settlement that the noble Lord’s previous Government made—that that is part of what was established to make sure that we meet our obligations under the Good Friday agreement. If he wishes to give me outside this Chamber an example of where the Irish Government have checked passports, I will certainly look at that, investigate it and report back to him and, if need be, to the House in due course.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, before any decisions can be made about dedicated passport routes, it will be necessary for Doncaster Sheffield Airport to reopen. Can my noble friend the Minister, when he is next in discussion with Transport Ministers, raise the issue of Doncaster Sheffield Airport and emphasise how important it is for growth and tourism, as he mentioned earlier?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I know that my noble friend has made the case for the airport in Doncaster and Sheffield—and other places which I forget—on a regular basis. It was once called Robin Hood Airport—whether there is still a discussion around that is important. I assure her that I will discuss it with Transport Ministers but that, however and whenever that airport develops, it will have strong borders along with every other airport in this United Kingdom to ensure that we control our borders firmly and effectively.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, as a former chairman of VisitScotland and ex officio member of the British Tourist Authority, I regularly saw research which showed that tourist visas to this country were both very expensive and complicated to obtain. Various Governments have made various promises about trying to do something about that. What progress have the Government made in looking at both the complexity and the cost of visas for tourists to this country, who provide so much wealth for us?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to the noble Viscount that the figures I have given to the House today show that 55% of passport usage through gates in the United Kingdom is from British citizens. That self-evidently means that 45% is not, and that 45% is a significant number of people. There are 130.9 million arrivals in the United Kingdom, so 45% of 130.9 million is around 65 million arrivals. That is an important growth element for business and tourism and one that we should encourage. I certainly want to make sure that we have integrity on our borders but also that we are welcoming and open to business, tourism and the spend, and the international support that gives when people return from this United Kingdom to their own country and extol the virtues of this country that we are so proud of.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Rowlands (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Rowlands (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

Motion agreed.

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

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

What about the individuals?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

Motion agreed.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

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

Motion agreed.