Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Specified Purposes Related to Policing) Regulations 2026
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that description of what appears to be a fairly technical set of regulations—one that closes a loophole in the operation of the system for trailer registration data. It is clear that this instrument will close that loophole so that data can be shared for the full range of operational policing activities. On that basis, we are pleased to support these regulations.
However, I have three questions to pose to the Minister; they relate to what he said about how these measures will be operational. I presume that, when we talk about them becoming operational, there will be operational guidance, instruction or advice—whatever is given to police forces and those who are responsible for the issues about which we are talking.
My first question is: how will access and onward disclosure be controlled and audited, so that we know what information is being passed and flowing one way or the other? My second question relates to the broad final category—the one the Minister stated just now—of any other police duty or responsibility arising from common or statute law. Clearly, I would describe that as a broad context, and it is a broad context. How will such a context be applied in practice if it becomes all-encompassing: is it designed so that there should be no areas that are out of bounds, as it were, in what it applies to? That of course is of particular importance as far as common law is concerned.
Finally, what assurance can we in Parliament have about implementation, given that the detailed operational guidance will not be published and there is no statutory review clause? If we wish to continue to understand in general terms how these regulations are being implemented now and what will happen, how will Parliament be able to deal with that matter? On that basis, I and the Liberal Democrats are prepared to support the regulations.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for setting out the background and context of these regulations. The Opposition support the regulations, the principles behind them and the rationale for them. The only comment I will make briefly today is a procedural rather than a substantive one, given that the regulations are uncontroversial and fit into an existing framework, and the power exists in the Act to create them.
The procedural point I will make is purely to observe that it is quite a cumbersome process to use secondary legislation here for outlining specified purposes when the purposes could have been placed in the Act itself as primary legislation. As the Minister himself said, these are well-established policing functions and it seems cumbersome to spend a year consulting to produce a list that I think anyone could have come up with relatively briefly. I raise these points purely to make an observation about what appears to be a serious problem about current legislative practice and leaving too much to secondary legislation.
With those observations, there is nothing negative in these regulations and these Benches support the underlying sections of both the primary legislation and the regulations themselves.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their questions and certainly I welcome the support for these regulations from noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon. Of course, the reason these regulations are here is that Parliament insisted on it, so I will not go into too much detail about that. But, in relation to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord German, I will say that we are very clear that these regulations do not lead to wider information sharing than Parliament insisted on. The categories of information that may be shared remain unchanged and the bodies with which information may be shared remain unchanged. The legal gateway established by the primary legislation remains unchanged. Let me just reassure the noble Lord about that.
There is an important issue about safeguards on proportionality and privacy. These are important considerations, whatever legislation a Government bring forward involving sharing information. The trailer registration information covered by these provisions contains no biometric information. The provisions also remain subject to the existing legal framework governing the handling of personal data and public authority decision-making. That includes the Data Protection Act 2018, the UK GDPR, the Human Rights Act 1998 and wider public law obligations. The regulations do not disapply or diminish any of those protections. Any use of onward disclosure of information must continue to be lawful, necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances.
The noble Lord also talked about the practical implementation. I can confirm that these regulations are intended to operate through existing operational and information-sharing arrangements. No new IT systems are required, no new databases are being created and no new registration obligations are being imposed on citizens. Instead, the instrument enables existing trailer registration information already held within the statutory registration system to be shared and used in the manner that Parliament intended when enacting the 2025 Act. I hope that that enables noble Lords to support the instrument.
Licensing Act 2003 (Permitted Temporary Activities) (Amendment) Order 2026
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I hope I am allowed to address a few remarks and questions to the Minister from this far away. I very much welcome the order. I was delighted to serve on the committee with my noble friend when we looked at the review of the Licensing Act 2003.
A number of concerns have been raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on which I should welcome the opportunity to press the Minister. In particular, is there any reason why the changes have been made at this late stage? Is it just administrative? Obviously, it is good that they going to be in place before matches take place, but it is a source of concern that, with any changes made, there is sufficient consultation with the licensed premises and the police in that regard. Has the Home Office considered whether a minimum notice period for the police might assist their planning and thereby reduce public safety risks? This approach may at the same time also help licensed venues themselves, for example in planning their staffing.
There is nothing too critical in what I am saying on the order, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments in regard to the timing and allowing sufficient preparation for all the parties concerned in the instrument before us.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I again thank the Minister for setting out the rationale and purpose of this order. Somewhat unusually, I find myself in complete support of the Government’s policy in this regard. The overall impact of the order, as the Minister said, is to expand from 15 to 20 the number of events that licensed premises can hold each year under a temporary event notice. That continues the trajectory that began with the temporary expansion of TENs during the Covid pandemic, a policy implemented to help hospitality businesses that were struggling so much from the impact of lockdowns.
As my noble friend Lord Hayward said, the struggles experienced by the hospitality sector have not abated. Here, I fear I am more critical of the Government, because hospitality businesses are suffering under the collective weight of this Government’s hike in employers’ NI contributions, the increased minimum wage and the increase in business rates. Perhaps the most revealing fact about this statutory instrument is the Explanatory Memorandum, which admits that hospitality businesses continue to face
“challenging trading conditions, including high input costs, low margins and wider financial pressures”.
With the greatest respect to the Minister, the Government might want to ask themselves who is responsible for those pressures. If the Government are truly committed to easing the burden on the hospitality sector, they might consider scrapping business rates entirely for most high street hospitality and leisure businesses, as my party has advocated.
I note that the consultation undertaken by the Home Office saw 70% of public health stakeholders and 51% of local authorities strongly opposed to this measure. I find that deeply troubling. I ask the Minister which health stakeholders were consulted? For example, was it mostly NHS trusts and ICBs or was it the health sector more widely—health charities, NGOs et cetera?
It is concerning that we appear to have so many people opposed to measures that will not only help struggling businesses and boost the economy but allow a wider variety of events to go ahead, with all the social benefits they bring. I therefore welcome the fact that the Government have taken the decision to proceed with this measure none the less; I commend them for standing by their policy. The Explanatory Memorandum also sets out the benefits of this policy change, as envisaged by the Government, and establishes that the entire purpose is to try to help out struggling hospitality businesses.
To conclude, although we agree with this order and welcome the fact that the Government persisted with it, there is clearly much more to be done to help our struggling hospitality sector.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that we have seen in today’s Budget a clear focus on how we can support businesses—in particular, our high street businesses—and ensure that they can respond to decades of neglect from the previous Government.
I hear the compassion and understanding from the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, concerning last night’s result. I would say that, actually, Fleetwood has plenty of places where fans can celebrate. It is a fantastic town and I wish the team all the best for their future games in the League Cup.
I will echo the noble Lord’s point and address some of the issues that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. We have given careful consideration to the concerns, and this is a limited increase. It is a sensible approach, ensuring that the safeguards that govern the TENs regime remain effective, while supporting businesses and communities. Of course, as I said in my introduction, a licensing authority may issue a counter-notice to stop a TEN, and the recommendation for this change came last year from the licensing taskforce, which was led by the DBT. We held a call for evidence to understand a wide range of views, which took time, but the new limits will be in place in January. That addresses that point.
It is not unreasonable to consult, particularly on health issues. This Government recognise the significant harm that alcohol misuse can cause to individuals, families and communities. Those health responses are not surprising. Addressing alcohol-related health harms remains a key priority for this Government: in Fit for the Future: 10 Year Health Plan for England, we have committed to crucial first steps to support people in making healthier choices about alcohol, as well as setting out a multiyear funding settlement for drug and alcohol treatment through the public health grant.
There is, I think, a clear consensus on the importance of these relatively small changes, which will help and will contribute not only to our businesses, pubs and hospitality sector but to community activity, which the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, referred to. I welcome the support from noble Lords.
Chinese Embassy
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, it is deeply regrettable that this Urgent Question was not answered by the Security Minister in the other place, given that it was asked by the shadow Security Minister. In light of her significant experience in your Lordships’ House, the noble Baroness the Minister is of course aware that, here, Ministers answer for the whole Government and not just their department. Accordingly, when I go on to ask a question about security issues, I am sure that she will not disappoint us by saying that this is a live planning matter that cannot be commented on.
With that in mind, the United States has said that it is deeply concerned by the new Chinese mega-embassy, given its now-revealed secret rooms and its location. Can the Minister say whether our allies, including the United States, back the approval of the embassy?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to disappoint the noble Lord, so I will say that it would not be appropriate to comment on a live planning application. He would expect me to say that and I say it on behalf of the whole Government, not just MHCLG. National security is the first duty of government more generally. All relevant planning considerations will be taken into account when making a decision in this case.
As the noble Lord knows, the Government regularly engage with representatives of foreign Governments, including the United States, to discuss a broad range of issues. Details of those discussions are not made public.