Knife Crime: Stop and Search

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very happy to take up my noble friend’s suggestion, when time allows. As he knows, that mixture of education, youth hubs, wider support for parents and an understanding of the reasons why people are involved in knife culture is really important. Equally, this Government are focused on online sales and how we can take action to give the police better support, including the use of the new technology I mentioned earlier. A whole raft of measures is contributing to the Government’s commitment to halve knife crime over a distinct period. That is a really important point, and I will certainly look at lessons elsewhere to help inform the Government.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Stop and search is a vital tool for stopping those intent on causing death, injury and fear in our communities, and I can personally vouch for that. Policing response, and the successful detection of crime, is of course based on responding to local intelligence and victim statements. However, as we know, evidence suggests that the use of stop and search can negatively affect the relationship between police and ethnic minority communities, which is of course damaging. Can the Minister outline how the Government are working with the police—I am particularly thinking of training issues—and communities to strengthen trust and make sure that stop and search does not come at the cost of community confidence?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition’s spokesperson. It is important that stop and search, as with policing generally, has the confidence of the communities being policed. The Government have made a commitment to increase the number of neighbourhood police officers and to make them front line, and to have that front-facing community engagement through neighbourhood policing over the next few years. There will be an additional 11,000 to 12,000—possibly even 13,000—neighbourhood police officers by the end of this Parliament, which is a key commitment to ensure that we have community engagement at a local level.

Apple: Advanced Data Protection Service

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I acknowledge that the Home Office has already said, as has been endorsed today by the Minister, that it does not comment on operational matters, but it has been widely reported that this decision by Apple was taken in response to a government demand to view users’ encrypted data both in the UK and abroad. Of course it is right that the Government act to keep people safe, but they must do so while respecting people’s privacy. Can the Minister comment on how the Government intend to engage with Apple and other tech companies going forward to make sure that future discussions on security do not result in another unproductive breakdown of relations?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government take privacy extremely seriously. We have a strong international reputation for privacy, and we continue to work with companies to ensure that privacy is respected, but I cannot comment on the issue the noble Lord has mentioned concerning any ongoing issues or operational matters. I cannot confirm or deny any notices, and I will, I am afraid, have to repeat that again for the House today.

UK Resettlement Scheme 2025

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes his point again. We have set out our position on overseas aid through, and prior to, the Statement yesterday. We are setting out our position in relation to the UNHCR and the potential help and support that we can give now. We will address many of the points that the noble Lord has alluded to in a future immigration White Paper, which will be presented to this House and to the House of Commons in due course. We will debate this issue in due course. I think that we are meeting our obligations, and we will still, through our colleagues in the Foreign Office, support overseas aid and do so in an effective way, but that debate will undoubtedly continue.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The United Kingdom has a proud history of providing protection for those who genuinely need it through our safe and legal routes. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that we need to make sure that, when we commit to helping refugees, we have the capacity to support them, not only in housing but in schooling and healthcare too. It is right, however, that this support is given only if it does not disadvantage the taxpayers in this country who fund these services. I therefore ask the Minister: what other specific limited resources, besides suitable accommodation, does his department consider before allowing people using the UK resettlement scheme to move to the UK? How do this Government ensure that their commitment to support those using the scheme does not disadvantage the UK taxpayer?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point that is absolutely vital. Individuals who come here as a part of our international obligations put pressure on public services, and that needs to be taken into account in relation to the issues on which we are in discussion with the UNHCR. The noble Lord mentioned housing, transport, medical services and education; they are all considerations. That is why, to go back to the point by the noble Lord, Lord German, and indeed the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, the Government are assessing on an annual basis with the UNHCR what assistance and support we can provide for refugees coming to this country. We want to meet our obligations, but we need to do so in a way that allows us to provide the required services in support. That is why I cannot give a figure to the noble Lord, Lord German, and why I welcome the flexibility mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. It is an issue that noble Lords will continue to press me on, rightly, but this is important for the sustainability of the UK taxpayer as well as our international obligations.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister claims that this is an entirely inherited issue, the Government have, since taking office nine months ago, put up an additional 8,500 illegal immigrants in hotels, and the number of small boat crossings since 1 January 2025 is up 37.5% on the same period last year. These are shocking numbers that are careering in the wrong direction, and the taxpayer is picking up the tab while the Government fail in their election promise. Can the Minister say what new, concrete steps the Government are taking to deter those who are currently on the cusp of crossing the channel? How do they intend to terminate the use of hotels in housing illegal immigrants without reducing the number of homes that should be prioritised for British citizens and those who have travelled to the UK legally?

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I just remind him that, in 2016, there were no hotels in use; in 2023, there were 400. We have a manifesto commitment to end the use of hotels. That is because his Government failed in their process, did not manage asylum claims properly, allowed small boat crossings to increase and wasted £700 million on a Rwanda scheme which deterred nobody. We will have some discussions and lessons from that, but let us look at what we are doing. Between the general election on 4 July and 31 January this year, we have removed 19,000 failed asylum seekers, increased enforced returns by 24%, increased illegal working arrests by 38%, removed 2,591 foreign national offenders and had the four biggest return charter flights in the history of return charter flights. I hope I can look forward to his co-operation to pick up the mess that he left behind.

Immigration (Biometric Information etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, this legislation represents part of the Government’s ambition to use new technologies to significantly improve public services. There are four principal functions that will enable us to fulfil our commitments to transition from physical to digital documentation and to make full use of the biometric information that we collect during visa applications and at the border. If noble Lords will allow me, I shall outline what those changes are.

These regulations will allow: first, a new power at the border to enrol and retain biometric information from people arriving in the UK; secondly, for visa applications, measures to support the transition from physical biometric immigration documents to digital immigration status in the form of an eVisa for everyone who applies for a visa to come to the UK, including visitors; and, thirdly, the extension of the standard fingerprint retention period beyond 15 years for people who abscond from immigration bail and become uncontactable. Lastly, the instrument prevents abuse of the statelessness route.

I will take each of those changes in turn, starting with the changes at the border. The legislation will introduce crucial new border powers to expand the circumstances in which we can enrol biometric information from everyone at the UK border and retain it for non-British citizens. Biometric information plays a crucial role in our immigration system. It is an effective and efficient way of checking and confirming the identities of all arrivals to the UK, as well as the immigration status of foreign nationals who come into or live in the UK. This instrument will enhance current Border Force powers to refuse or cancel permission to enter the UK, and will empower officers to take robust action against non-British or non-Irish citizens who deliberately evade the requirement to provide their biometric information on arrival.

We are continually striving to improve how people cross the UK border, ensuring that we maximise passenger flow while maintaining security. We want to utilise biometric information further to trial new identity-verification and facial comparison technologies, known as contactless travel, in order both to build a border that can efficiently withstand future pressures and to ensure that our border remains secure. I know that noble Lords will share in that objective.

Contactless travel could enable a person to enter the UK without the need to routinely produce their passport at the border. Instead, we would compare the facial image of a person arriving in the UK with the biometric information that we hold from either their UK passport or their immigration application. Coupled with this, our universal permission to travel will prevent those without authorisation boarding a flight, ship or train to the UK; of course, everyone arriving in the UK will still need to travel with their passport and be prepared to present it at the border.

We are not alone in trialling new facial comparison capabilities. Other countries, such as the USA and Australia, are looking at introducing biometrically enabled automated border systems to improve passenger flow and maintain security. This instrument will ensure that we do not fall behind.

Our plan for contactless travel’s future use at the UK border is ambitious. However, as noble Lords would expect, we will take a cautious approach to the introduction of new border technology. These regulations do not commit the Government to introducing any new technology, so we can take the time to ensure that we get this system right. Our first step will be initially to test contactless travel on British citizens only, and we will move to further implementation only if this is a success. Our ambition is to start this trial by the end of this year, and we plan to announce further details shortly.

Looking now to the rollout of eVisas, the Government are pursuing an ambitious digital programme to modernise public services, including our visa system. These changes enable the UK to deliver a fair and firm immigration system that not only works in the national interest but is in line with the modern digital age. Businesses and customers alike expect a prompt and user-friendly experience in their transactions. I hope this instrument will enhance their experience by further supporting the transition from physical to online evidence of immigration status in the form of eVisas. Over time, physical and paper-based products and services will be replaced with accessible, straightforward digital products and services. Our overall aim is to ensure that people will have a secure and seamless digital journey when they interact with the UK’s immigration system. To support this, we stopped issuing biometric residence permits and cards on 1 November 2024.

Noble Lords will know that an eVisa is an online record of a person’s immigration permission in the UK and any conditions that might apply. It can be viewed by logging into the “view and prove” service using a UK Visas and Immigration account. As of 27 February 2025, more than 4 million people had created a UKVI account to access their eVisa, with a daily increase in this number as many more create accounts. Our aim is to ensure that the rollout of eVisas will improve foreign nationals’ experience of our border system, because eVisas are secure and cannot be stolen, lost, or tampered with, unlike physical documents. The fact that they can be accessed at almost any time and anywhere will give people with a valid immigration status in the UK an easy way to evidence their status and identity.

With the transition from physical cards to eVisas, the requirement for holders of physical immigration documents with settled status to apply for a replacement at least every 10 years has been eliminated. This is because an eVisa does not expire in the same way that a physical document would. This digital approach to our border and immigration system will streamline processes for people making applications or updating their details.

However, we acknowledge that a person’s personal information may change over time. In particular, facial images change as people age, so this instrument allows us to require eVisa holders to update their facial photographs at least once every 10 years. This mirrors the requirement we have for UK passports. I noticed from discussions of this that my passport is nine and a half years old now and coming to the end of its useful life, and I will have to update my passport shortly, as I would with an eVisa. It also mirrors what happens with driving licences. Having up-to-date images on eVisas will enable third parties, such as employers, to conduct their checks easily. Where an eVisa holder fails to update their photo within the required time, this instrument enables us to restrict their ability to share their status for verification. I emphasise that these sanctions will apply only to those who refuse to comply with the requirements, not those who are unable to.

We are particularly committed to preventing undue burdens on older people. We have drawn from the Windrush generation’s experiences. As older people are less likely to need to prove their immigration status in the UK, we will not require people aged over 70 to update their facial image or create a UKVI account. We will, however, encourage them to do so for their own convenience should they so wish.

Finally, we are now focusing on the change to our biometric retention approach for immigration absconders. The regulations clarify government powers to use and retain biometric information obtained from persons who abscond from immigration bail and avoid contact with the Home Office or the police beyond the standard 15-year retention period. This change will ensure that the person can be identified if they are encountered on a later occasion.

I will also briefly mention the statelessness route. This legislation closes a previous gap that enabled some people to avoid providing their biometrics. We now set out provisions that will ensure that we can capture biometric information from people who apply to stay in the UK as a stateless person. People who fail to enrol their biometrics as required without a reasonable excuse may have their application rejected or refused.

These changes are a fair and efficient way to maintain robust border control. I thank noble Lords for their attention and support in advancing these measures. This measure passed the House of Commons recently. Together, we are building a digitally driven immigration and border system that is fair and fit for the future. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by acknowledging the significance of these regulations in the context of the Government’s broader efforts to modernise the immigration and border control systems. The introduction of biometric data collection, along with the transition towards a contactless border system, represents a significant step forward in ensuring the security and efficiency of our borders. Although His Majesty’s Official Opposition do not object to the instrument in principle, we believe that it is essential to scrutinise its provisions carefully to ensure that they deliver the intended outcomes.

Let us consider the impact of these measures. The regulations, as outlined, facilitate the collection of biometric data from all entry clearance applicants, with a specific requirement for facial images to be updated every 10 years. Additionally, the retention period for certain biometric data has been extended, and new sanctions have been introduced for non-compliance. The aim, of course, is to ensure that the system remains accurate, secure and consistent, and I believe it is imperative that we continue to assess how effectively these measures meet their stated objectives.

The Government’s shift towards contactless border control is a key aspect of these regulations. Through allowing biometric checks upon arrival at the UK border, the legislation seeks to streamline the border process, reduce queuing times and improve identity verification. The use of biometric data at eGates and primary control points is intended to facilitate smoother passenger flows. Although the intentions behind these measures are clear, we must consider their practical implications.

His Majesty’s Official Opposition acknowledge the necessity of biometric data retention as a key aspect of modernising border control. However, it is important to note that there are several concerns, particularly regarding the adequacy of the measures in fully realising the vision of a contactless border system, so there is particular interest in the practical challenges of implementing such a system.

Questions have been raised about whether the current data retention period and infrastructure are sufficient to handle the demands of a fully digitalised border. The increased reliance on biometric data also raises important questions about the system’s progression and effectiveness as it evolves. As we continue to expand the use of biometric information, it is crucial that the infrastructure that is in place can support the necessary technological advancements without introducing new vulnerabilities.

Additionally, there is a call for greater clarity on enforcement mechanisms. The growing importance of biometric data in identity verification processes necessitates robust compliance measures. Concerns have been raised about whether the current sanctions for non-compliance are adequate to address potential risks, such as fraudulent activity or failure to adhere to biometric requirements. These are important considerations, and it is vital that any enforcement measures are proportionate, fair and effective in securing compliance.

I have several key questions for the Minister. First, how do these measures address concerns regarding the progression of infrastructure and enforcement as biometric data becomes a central element of the border control process? Furthermore, given the move towards a fully contactless border system, how will these advancements integrate into our existing security frameworks to ensure that security, privacy and compliance are maintained? On biometric data retention, does the Minister believe that the 15-year retention period is adequate to support a robust and sustainable database that aligns with the Government’s vision for a contactless border system? Can he clarify the timeline for testing contactless travel for British citizens, including the duration and expected sample size of the trial? Additionally, what steps are being taken to integrate biometric data with other data sources to enhance security and improve efficiency at the border? How feasible is this integration within the current system?

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, this Bill has its genesis in the evening of 22 May 2017 in the Manchester Arena, where more than 1,000 people were injured and 22 were killed in a terror attack—the sole responsibility of the terrorist involved. This Bill is a tribute to those victims and to the victims of other terrorist attacks. They will never ever be forgotten.

Noble Lords will be aware, of course, of the campaigning work of Figen Murray and her team. We would not be here today without her and her team, and I give them my thanks. This Bill will now be known as Martyn’s law in memory of Figen’s son, Martyn, who died in that Manchester terror attack. I also pay tribute to the security and intelligence services, law enforcement and others, who work day in and day out to protect this country from the ongoing threat of terrorism, and to the first responders who are on the front line, if and when the worst happens.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debates on the Bill. They have been astute and considered, and I am deeply grateful for their scrutiny. I hope that we have had a collaborative, constructive approach to this Bill, and it is important that such legislation on terrorism has cross-party support across this House and the House of Commons. I am proud to be one of the Ministers who have brought this to fruition on behalf of the Government.

I thank Minister Dan Jarvis, who led the Bill in the House of Commons, and my noble friends Lady Anderson and Lord Moraes, the Whips on the Government Benches who have worked to tight timetables. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower—and his colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Cameron of Lochiel—as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for their leadership on the Benches opposite.

I thank the policy, legal and Bill teams in the Home Office, which have worked under the previous Government and this Government; their tireless work has made this Bill possible. I also thank the team at the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for drafting the Bill. I extend my deep and perpetual gratitude to the parliamentary staff, doorkeepers, clerks and others for their professionalism and their continued support for the Bill and your Lordships’ House.

This Bill will help save lives. As it leaves this House now, I look forward to its final passage in the House of Commons soon and its continuance to Royal Assent in due course. I commend it to the House.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill forward for Third Reading. I express my gratitude to all noble Lords for their diligent scrutiny and contributions throughout the Bill’s progression.

I also extend my sincere thanks, once again, to Figen Murray—together with her team, as the Minister mentioned—whose tireless campaigning has been instrumental in ensuring that we make progress on stronger protection for premises. Without her dedication, the Bill would not have progressed as it has.

I am pleased that we had the opportunity for a thorough debate around the important issues contained in the Bill both in Committee and on Report. On Report, several crucial issues were raised; foremost among them was the concern that the Bill should not place an undue burden on smaller businesses and voluntary organisations. Indeed, I still have some concerns about that, and its eventual effect remains to be seen. We heard compelling arguments from my noble friends Lord Udny- Lister, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord De Mauley about the challenges faced by small enterprises, charities, events and community groups, particularly in implementing the necessary security measures without excessive financial or administrative strain.

Similarly, concerns were voiced regarding the potential impact on volunteers and organisations in the cultural, sporting and heritage sectors. We heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester on the potential issues for hundreds of church communities and how they will be affected. These discussions underscored the necessity of ensuring that the provisions of the Bill are not only effective but proportionate and pragmatic in their application. While I am disappointed that the Government felt unable to support amendments that sought to protect smaller businesses and volunteers, we acknowledge the importance of moving forward with a Bill that still represents a significant step forward in our collective security.

We also welcome the Government’s clarification on the Henry VIII powers contained in the Bill, an issue of legitimate concern that was rightly debated in detail. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for bringing amendments to refine these provisions. I commend the Minister on engaging seriously with these concerns and ensuring that the necessary clarifications were made. This is precisely the kind of constructive scrutiny in your Lordships’ House that strengthens legislation, and I am grateful to all who participated in this process.

I thank my noble friends Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Sandhurst for their support on the Bill. I must also mention our support team on this side, Henry Mitson and Max McGiffen.

As we move towards the implementation of the Bill, it is vital that those affected by its provisions—businesses, charities, local authorities and venue operators —receive clear guidance and support. The effectiveness of this legislation will be determined not by the words on the page alone but by how well it is put into practice. Adequate resources, training and advice must be provided to ensure that compliance is achievable and that security measures are implemented effectively without unnecessary complexity or confusion. To that end, a watchful eye will be kept on the performance of the Security Industry Authority.

Furthermore, we must continue to evaluate the impact of these measures once they are in force. Security threats evolve, and our responses must remain adaptable. I hope that the Government will remain open to reviewing and, if necessary, refining the legislation in the future to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of those it seeks to protect.

In conclusion, the Bill represents a significant and necessary step in our ongoing efforts to protect the public from the scourge of terrorism. While no legislation can eliminate it entirely, we have a duty to take every reasonable measure to mitigate threats and to ensure that venues and public spaces are as prepared as possible. The Bill is a tribute to those who have tragically lost their lives to terrorism, and a testament to our resolve that we will do all we can to prevent future tragedies.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, as has been said, thanks must primarily go to Figen Murray, Stuart Murray and their team. Not for a minute have they allowed us to forget the significance of the Bill, which Figen instigated. Their staying power is remarkable, but not really a surprise in view of their history.

In the absence of my noble friend Lady Suttie from these Benches, we thank the Minister and his team for their helpfulness, openness and, as he said, collaboration, which we have really appreciated. I thank my noble friend Lady Suttie for being so easy to work with and so clear about what we wanted to achieve. As ever, I thank Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ Office. I have often said to her that she works so hard on legislation that she should do the last bit and be here to speak to it.

The Bill will not stop terrorism but has a very important part to play in the response to it, and we are pleased that challenges to the Bill have been resisted. We look forward to following its implementation.

Iranian State Threats

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Statement to the House today and I welcome the Government’s recognition of the growing threat posed by Iran to our national security. The escalation of Iranian state-backed plots against UK residents and the targeting of dissidents, Jewish communities and journalists is deeply concerning. I join Ministers in paying tribute to our intelligence services and law enforcement officers who work tirelessly to thwart these threats.

While we welcome the measures outlined today, I must ask whether they go far enough. The danger posed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, is clear and escalating, as Iran has supported Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine. Are this Government acting decisively enough on proscription? The Foreign Secretary has ruled it out, despite overwhelming evidence of the IRGC’s involvement in malign activities. Does the Minister now acknowledge that proscribing the IRGC is a necessary and overdue step? If not, can he explain how the measures announced today will be as effective in tackling this threat?

I welcome the decision to place the entire Iranian state on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. However, given Iran’s well-documented use of proxies, how do the Government intend to enforce these requirements effectively? Can the Minister provide assurances that those who fail to register will be swiftly identified and prosecuted?

The role of Iranian-linked organised crime networks is another crucial issue. The Government have pledged further sanctions and action against these networks, but we need clarity. Will the Minister commit to a specific timeline for additional sanctions and further crackdowns on the IRGC’s financial networks in the United Kingdom?

Finally, while it is right that we strengthen our domestic resilience, we must work closely with our allies to counter Iran’s destabilising activities internationally. Can the Minister outline what further steps the Government will take to enhance security co-operation with our Five Eyes partners and European allies in tackling Iranian aggression?

The threats we face from hostile states require more than just words—they require action. The Government must match their rhetoric with decisive steps to protect Britain from Iranian intimidation and ensure that those responsible for such threats face the full force of the law.

[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.

Hong Kong Democracy Activists

Lord Davies of Gower 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.

Migrants: Indefinite Leave to Remain

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

1: Clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “from time to time” and insert “not less than once a month”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the other in the name of Lord Sandhurst to Clause 2 seek to remove the reference to “from time to time” and provide a benchmark by which the attendance at a premises may be measured.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to open this first group of amendments to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, who, unfortunately, is not in a position to be here today.

Although we do not wish to divide on Amendments 1 and 4, we have tabled them to seek further clarity and precision from the Government on this crucial area of the legislation. These amendments, proposed by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, replace the vague phrase “from time to time” with the more precise

“not less than once a month”.

This change is more specific and tightens up some of the language in the Bill. If, say, a venue has 200 people once a year for a Christmas party but has fewer than 200 at every other point in the year, under this amendment that venue would not be covered.

The logic of this amendment is to ensure that the SIA is given a clear benchmark by which it can measure venue capacity. This avoids ambiguity, and I hope the Minister will agree that it improves the quality of the legislation. I eagerly await his response and hope to see some movement from the Government on this issue. I look forward to hearing from my noble friends Lord De Mauley and Lord Udny-Lister. I am sure that this will be a constructive and positive debate.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, my amendment seeks to raise the qualifying premises threshold in this Bill from 200 to 500. This is a necessary and proportionate adjustment to ensure that the legislation is both effective and enforceable. At its core, this Bill is about ensuring that public venues take reasonable steps to protect the public from the ever-present threat of terrorism. This is a goal that we all share, but it is also our duty as legislators to ensure that any obligations that we impose are realistic, achievable and properly targeted. The current threshold of 200 is, in my view, too low. It captures far too many small businesses, community venues and organisations that simply do not have the resources to comply effectively with the security measures required under this legislation.

We must therefore ask ourselves what we are truly trying to achieve. If the Bill is about protecting high footfall venues that are most likely to be targeted, a threshold of 500 is much more appropriate. A venue that regularly accommodates 500 people is a significantly different proposition from one with just over 200. The former will have the infrastructure, resources and operational capacity to manage the enhanced security obligations that the Bill requires, whereas the latter will often struggle under the weight of compliance, detracting from the effectiveness of the legislation as a whole.

Moreover, this is a question of enforcement. By setting the threshold too low, we risk overburdening the enforcement agencies tasked with ensuring compliance. We should be concentrating our efforts where they will make the most difference: on larger, more high-risk venues, where the potential impact of an attack would be greatest. A threshold of 500 strikes that balance.

I also want to address the issue of fairness. Many small and medium-sized businesses are still recovering from the financial strain of recent years. The hospitality, entertainment and cultural sectors in particular have been hit hard. If we impose overly stringent requirements on smaller venues, we risk pushing them into further difficulties, leading to unintended consequences such as venue closures or reduced community engagement. This is not, therefore, about opposing security measures—far from it. It is about ensuring that these measures are appropriate for the size and nature of the premises they apply to.

I do not bring this amendment forward lightly. I support the principles of the Bill and I recognise the importance of making public spaces safer. However, legislation must be both proportionate and practical. The Government have not, in my view, provided sufficient justification for the 200-person threshold, and nor have they demonstrated that raising it to 500 would compromise security in any way.

On the contrary, I believe this amendment enhances the Bill by making it much more targeted and therefore effective. For these reasons, unless I hear a clear commitment from the Government today that they will reconsider their position, I will be dividing the House on this amendment. I urge noble Lords to join me in supporting a measured, proportionate and practical approach to this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester have said about Amendment 25. This needs consistency. The danger, as well as the fact that these things can change quite quickly, is that the SIA would struggle to respond to a potential wave of applications, when the certainty that people require is probably on whether they are safe in a venue and whether there is an invacuation plan or an evacuation plan. These things can be predictable and consistent, so it would not be helpful to tie them to the thresholds. These thresholds move predictably in the sense that we can see the threat rising and events happening, but sometimes they are based on intelligence that is not always open to the public, and therefore a rapid change could lead to quite a lot of uncertainty in the operation of premises. That is not wise, either, so I cannot support Amendment 25.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 13 and 25, both tabled by my noble friend Lord De Mauley, which introduce much-needed flexibility and proportionality into the Bill. They recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach is neither practical nor desirable when it comes to public protection measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 16, I will also speak to Amendments 17 and 24A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.

Amendments 16 and 17 are, as we debated in Committee, about the importance of training and guidance and ensuring the quality of that training. It is worth repeating that all the organisations we have spoken to about this Bill have stressed the importance of ensuring good-quality training; it was the one issue they all raised with us. This is perhaps particularly true for smaller events and premises, which have not necessarily previously had experience of drawing up plans for what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. As we discussed previously during the passage of the Bill, many larger venues have already put such training in place.

In Committee, the Minister gave some reassurances about training, but we have retabled the amendments to push him a little further on these matters. The previous draft Bill from the previous Conservative Government had a much more prescriptive approach to training. This has been removed, but it is vital that guidance on training is produced as soon as is practically possible, following consultation with the sector.

In Committee there was much discussion about the risks of expensive consultants—“snake oil salesmen”, as noble Lords referred to them. The sooner guidance is published, the less able such consultants will be to promote unnecessary or “gold-plated” training. Consultation with the industry affected by the provisions of the Bill will be key.

This brings me on to Amendment 24A. Consultation with those to be impacted will be the very best way to ensure that training is user-friendly, of a high standard and comprehensive, but not unnecessarily complex, and that guidance is written in plain, easy-to-understand English. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us further reassurances—he has already given some this evening—on full consultation with the sector to be impacted, including with small rural village halls, and the voluntary sector, as well as with big venues and the night-time and creative industries. Will he also commit, following that consultation exercise, to publishing guidance on training as soon as possible, and certainly well before the end of the rollout period of the Bill, which I believe is going to be two years? I beg to move.

[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.