Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

15: Clause 7, page 5, line 41, leave out from beginning to “prepared” and insert “within six months of it being”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the document prepared under this clause to be provided to the Security Industry Authority within six months of it being prepared.

[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.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

19: Clause 16, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(8) Where the Tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time the Tribunal must—(a) consider ordering that the notice or variation (as the case may be) is of no effect until the appeal is determined or withdrawn, and(b) notify the applicant of the outcome of the Tribunal’s consideration under this subsection.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Tribunal to consider whether a notice should be ordered to be of no effect in circumstances where the Tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 19, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, I will speak also to Amendments 20 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 19 would require the tribunal to consider whether a notice should be ordered to be of no effect in circumstances where the tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time. That is the context for the amendment.

The fundamental background behind this amendment is that the SIA will issue notices; we do not know how many, at this stage, but there is a strong likelihood that they will be appealed in significant numbers. This will likely be a major additional burden on the First-tier Tribunal, raising questions on capacity and speed of response. It is also right to say that many of the regulated persons are responsible for events with a hard deadline, which carries with it financial and operational consequences. How will events deal with a situation where their appeal is lodged with a tribunal but no determination has been made in a reasonable time?

Amendment 19 seeks to prevent people being left in limbo. It would follow Clause 16(7), which allows the tribunal to decide that an order is of no effect until the appeal concludes, and it should be read in that context. In that sense, Amendment 19 is simply an additional protection for those organising events if, for whatever reason, the tribunal has simply not been able to determine the appeal within a reasonable timeframe. I hope the Minister understands the reasons behind this amendment, and I am keen to hear his response.

I will speak more briefly on Amendments 20 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 20 seeks to extend the grace period from 28 to 42 days. This is a practical adjustment: compliance with new regulations takes time and, while security must remain a priority, we must recognise the operational realities faced by businesses, charities and community groups. A slightly longer grace period provides a fairer timeframe for implementing necessary measures without imposing undue pressure. An additional 14 days is a reasonable and fair addition of extra time.

Finally, Amendment 23, again tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, calls for local authorities to be consulted. Local authorities are on the front line of implementing security measures under the Bill, and their insight and expertise should be taken into account. Consultation will ensure that security policies are practical, properly resourced and, critically, aligned with local needs. Effective counter- terrorism measures require co-operation at all levels and this amendment strengthens that collaborative approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister in reply.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26. I am sure we all know how important volunteers are in the way our society works. Across the country, many vital community venues are run on our behalf by volunteers who give up hours and hours of their time to help run community enterprises—for example, village halls and community centres. I am also sure that noble Lords will have found that it is getting more and more difficult to persuade people to take on voluntary roles and responsibilities. It is very much harder to persuade people into senior voluntary roles, particularly if those roles carry with them personal risk to that volunteer, either of financial liability or criminal liability.

As I have made clear in previous debates on this legislation, I am very concerned that this Bill will unintentionally have a significant negative impact on members of our community volunteering. By Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26, I seek to ensure that voluntary unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees are exempt from the personal and criminal liability under Clauses 24, 25 and 26 of the Bill, provided, of course, that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence.

As I observed in Committee, when this Bill was considered in draft by the Home Affairs Select Committee, it heard evidence about the impact of these proposed measures on community volunteering. The committee, under the then chairmanship of Dame Diana Johnson, reported in July 2023 and said this in paragraph 39:

“However, we are concerned that the capacity figure of 100 for standard tier premises, which will capture some small and micro-sized businesses, and community-run and voluntary groups, could be disproportionate and burdensome. This category is particularly troubling because it would include many smaller venues that may not have sufficient resources to cover costs of what is proposed. It would also cover village halls, places of worship and similar amenities that provide vital community support, often on low budgets. If such places are forced to close down, this represents a win for terrorism, rather than an effective means of combatting it”.


I could not have put it better myself.

In light of this and other representations, the present Government increased the threshold from 100 to 200, and I commend them for doing that, but that increase is no sufficient answer to the problems that have been raised. I remain concerned that, with the effect of the measures in the Bill—on top of the other measures facing volunteers across our community, which we heard so ably outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in an earlier group—there is a risk that we will have fewer volunteers and volunteer leaders, which may mean wide- scale closures of village halls and community centres up and down our country.

It is clear to me that the effect of the measures in the Bill as it presently stands runs the serious risk that the new liabilities in the Bill will reduce the appetite for members of the public to step forward and volunteer. This is, in any event, in an era when public involvement in these sorts of institutions is waning. It is important that the Government do not make it harder and harder to be a volunteer or a trustee of these institutions.

The amendments that I propose here are directed to removing the worst of the disincentives for people to volunteer. The way Amendment 21 works, as the House will have seen, is to remove the risk that a volunteer or unpaid trustee would be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed under Clause 17, provided that they were acting at all times in good faith and within the scope of their duties.

Amendment 22 would exclude a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee from the daily penalties, described in the Bill as being up to £500 a day. I suggest that that sort of measure is a powerful disincentive to people to volunteer, due to the risk of their own personal liability for these sums.

Amendment 24 would exempt volunteers, unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees from criminal liability, provided again that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence. I hope the House will agree that it is a significant disincentive to volunteering to think that you face, on a cursory reading of the Bill, the risk of up to two years in prison for failing to adhere to the strictures of the regulations made under the Bill.

I appreciate that, as the Minister will no doubt tell the House, these criminal powers will be used only rarely and are a maxima, and I am sure all that is right. However, the fact is, if it is in the statute, it will act as a disincentive to volunteers. People will not want to be the responsible person, because they will not want to take the risk of going to prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I was surprised at the last stage by the amendment requiring the tribunal to issue a determination within a reasonable time, as defined by the Secretary of State, because it seemed to me that that was an inappropriate combination or eliding of the roles of the judiciary and the Executive. That was not pressed, but this amendment seems to me to be on the same page.

Others will have experience of the courts staying an order—I mean professional experience—but I understand that to be part of proceedings in a lower court. As I read Amendment 19, it would require an extra stage in the proceedings, presumably a hearing on an application that the time before determining an appeal is unreasonable, and so a further addition to the tribunal’s load and further delay. We cannot support that amendment.

On Amendment 20, having to pay within 28 days does not seem to me to be excessive penalisation, which is the wording used in the Member’s explanatory statement. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talked of a grace period being aligned with similar penalties. The Minister disagreed and made the point that 28 days is a minimum.

The penalty will not come out of the blue in most cases, as I understand it. The SIA has to be satisfied that there has been, or will be, a contravention. Unless the responsible person has refused, or completely failed, to engage with the SIA, there will have been a dialogue.

With regard to volunteers, of course we are with the noble Lord on not disincentivising volunteers, but I do not think this is the first or only time that volunteers have been faced with or have had to think about the responsibilities laid on them as volunteers, particularly if they are trustees of charities. There are a lot of rules that have to be observed by them.

The Bill, in any event, is about taking precautions appropriate to the premises or to the event. The distinction between the operators—volunteers or paid—is surely irrelevant. I doubt terrorists would make that distinction. As we have been reminded today, the Conservative Government were proposing 100 as a threshold. That would have meant a greater problem, as the noble Lord defines it. We are, I am afraid, not able to support those amendments.

With regard to Amendment 23, Clause 20(2) allows for the SIA to consider “matters it considers relevant”, which presumably will include the local authority’s view. Having specifically to obtain the local authority’s view seems to be another bit of bureaucracy in certain cases. If it is relevant, it will be considered, and provision is made for that.

[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.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

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

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

Emergency Service Network Programme

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

Domestic Abusers: Reoffending

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

County Lines Drug Trafficking

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Cameron of Lochiel Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I suspect that the answer to quite a lot of the points that have been made lies in the term “reasonably practicable”, which is seen throughout the Bill. I asked some questions about that on the previous day of Committee, in particular whether reasonably practicable was limited to physical considerations or included financial ones and was a mix. Fair enough, my amendment was about the meaning of “immediate vicinity” and that is what the Minister answered, but I do not think he answered that question. If he is able to do so today, I think it might help us quite a lot. The financial implications are specifically referred to in Amendment 22.

I first heard the term “invacuation” about 20 years ago and I heard it from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I am very doubtful about Amendment 20A. I do not think it can be dealt with by advice. Taking the example of Grenfell, it seems very harsh to say this, but bad cases make bad law. I really doubt that the example we have heard could be answered by the change in the Bill proposed by this amendment.

With Amendment 21A, I suppose the question is whether reasonably practicable encompasses proportionate. I think, in the context, it does. Conversely, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and I think he is right to question in Amendment 23A whether it is appropriate that a copy of the document dealing with procedures is provided to the SIA as soon as reasonably practicable after it is prepared. It would be helpful to have a specific time limit here to ensure that the documents are prepared quickly, in a timely manner. That may be something for the SIA to be able to indicate was required, but it would be right not to have an entirely open-ended arrangement that could mean that some people who should be preparing documents do not get on with them as quickly as they should.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower’s amendments in this group, specifically Amendments 21A and 23A, and I hope to do so very briefly. It strikes me that Amendment 21A is a crucial brake, as it were, on the power of the Executive. It introduces a test of reasonable proportionality to the creation by the Secretary of State of further procedures by regulation.

I know that there are some later amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and others on the totality of the Henry VIII clauses in this clause and ensuing clauses. But, in the event that these specific provisions, namely subsections (4) and (5), remain in the Bill, Amendment 21A represents a crucial limit on the powers of the Government. In the age-old phrasing relating to proportionality, it is important not to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Insisting that “further procedures” meet an additional test of being reasonably proportionate imposes on the Secretary of State a duty to consider the question of proportionality in a measured and proper way.

Finally, Amendment 23A, as others have said, would provide an express and definitive timeframe for ensuring documentary compliance. The legislation would thus avoid uncertainty and vagueness by creating a specific time period. That strikes me as being in the interests of the person responsible for the enhanced duty premises or qualifying event and in the interests of the SIA. In short, everyone would know where they stand, and I suggest that that kind of awareness is to be commended. I look forward to hearing the Government’s clarification of all the points made.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

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

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

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

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