E-scooters

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for educating me in the use of mobile fridges; I saw on my local regional television service that the Co-op is trialling them in the north-west of England. I am not aware how widespread that is, and to be honest from the Dispatch Box, I am not aware of what current legislation will cover that issue. But, as ever, I will take it away, examine it and make sure that I respond to the noble Baroness, and I will certainly look with interest at the impact of those mobile vehicles on pavements. My view is—this is a long-standing view—that pavements are for people, not for cars, bikes or e-scooters. But I will examine for the noble Baroness how that aspiration goes into legislation.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, further to the point on criminality made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, quite apart from the nuisance value and the danger that is attached to the use of these e-scooters, there is strong evidence to show that they are being used in connection with crime and anti-social behaviour, such as the increasing level of mobile phone thefts. Can the Minister perhaps outline what action is being taken to tackle this problem in conjunction with the Home Office?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord may be aware—if he is not, I will certainly send him information on it—that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary convened a meeting last week with police chiefs and the Metropolitan Police to look at ongoing concern about mobile phone theft, and as a result of that discussion, several areas of work are being commissioned to look at how we can reduce it. It is completely unacceptable for any criminals to use bikes, e-scooters or other potential means of movement to steal mobile phones. It is a growing crime that we want to crack down on, and it is distressing to people. It is not about the loss of the phone; if the phone is unlocked, it can lead to wider fraud issues, such as bank fraud and the use of Apple Pay, et cetera. The noble Lord raises a really important issue, and I will update the House when we have had further discussions with the police about what actions can be taken.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I will speak to Amendment 37A to Clause 31, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. This amendment proposes to remove Clause 31 and replace it with a new provision, stating that:

“Nothing in this Act or regulations made under it affects any right of action in civil proceedings”.


The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill represents a critical step in strengthening the security framework for public venues and premises across the country. The increasing sophistication and unpredictability of terrorist threats demand that we establish robust and effective measures to protect the public. By setting out clear responsibilities for operators of certain premises, the Bill aims to ensure that the tragic events that we have seen in the past are less likely to be repeated in the future.

As we consider Amendment 37A, it is essential to examine whether the proposed changes will support or potentially undermine the Bill’s objectives. At its core, this amendment seeks to clarify that the Bill will not interfere with the right to pursue civil claims. Such a provision could be seen as a safeguard, ensuring that individuals and organisations maintain access to legal redress if they believe that negligence or a breach of duty has contributed to harm caused by a terrorist incident.

This is a significant consideration. Civil liability serves as an important mechanism for accountability and justice in our legal system. It encourages responsible behaviour, provides a pathway for compensation and often plays a complementary role in reinforcing public safety. Ensuring that individuals retain this right can provide reassurance that public security measures do not come at the expense of fundamental legal principles. However, there are important questions that we must address.

First, is this amendment necessary? It is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that civil liability is not displaced unless explicitly stated in the legislation. Therefore, some may argue that this amendment is redundant and risks introducing ambiguity into the Bill’s interpretation. If the existing legal framework already protects the right to bring civil claims, we must carefully consider whether including an explicit provision could inadvertently complicate matters rather than clarify them.

Another practical consideration is the potential impact on compliance with the Bill’s requirements. Premises operators, many of whom are already facing financial and operational pressures, may view the introduction of this provision as increasing their exposure to litigation. This could have the unintended consequence of discouraging proactive security measures if operators become overly concerned about the risk of legal action. It is essential that the Bill strikes a balance between imposing reasonable obligations and supporting those who are making good-faith efforts to comply.

Furthermore, we must assess whether this amendment could lead to increased litigation that detracts from the primary purpose of the Bill. Legal disputes can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, diverting attention from the urgent task of implementing effective security measures. We should be mindful of the potential for unintended consequences that may hinder the Bill’s objectives. It is also worth considering the impact on the insurance market. If the inclusion of this provision is perceived as creating greater uncertainty or exposure to liability, it could lead to increased insurance premiums for premises operators. This may place an additional financial burden on businesses and organisations that are already navigating a challenging economic environment.

That said, the Government must also be mindful of the importance of maintaining public trust and confidence in counterterrorism measures. Ensuring that individuals have access to justice when they have been wronged is fundamental to our legal system and to public confidence in the rule of law. If stakeholders, legal experts or civil society organisations believe that this amendment is necessary to provide clarity and reassurance, their concerns should be carefully considered. Ultimately, the key question is whether the amendment strengthens the Bill by providing clarity or whether it introduces unnecessary complexity that could hinder its implementation. I look forward to hearing the Government’s view on this matter and the perspectives of other noble Lords.

As we deliberate on this amendment, let us remember the importance of striking the right balance: ensuring robust security measures that protect the public, while safeguarding access to justice and upholding the legal rights that are fundamental to our democracy. We must strive to create a framework that achieves both security and fairness in the face of evolving security threats.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling this amendment, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. We have had discussions outside this Committee to examine these issues. I am genuinely sorry that I was not able to allay the concerns expressed in our discussions, but I hope to be able to do so today, formally and on the record. I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which I think were supportive, and those from the Opposition Front Bench made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.

The purpose of the Bill, as we have discussed, is to mitigate the effects of physical harm arising from acts of terrorism. My starting point, which I know will be shared by everybody in this Committee today, is that the people responsible for such heinous acts that might be inflicted as a result of terrorist activity are the terrorists themselves. The purpose of this potential Act, if it is approved downstream, is to ensure that there are requirements on the duty holders under it which make a real difference to the physical harm caused by potential acts of terrorism. For this reason, there is both a set of conditions to put in place, under Clauses 5 and 6, and robust regulatory and enforcement provision in the Bill.

However, the duties should not impose an actionable right for someone who has suffered loss or injury to bring a claim for a breach of statutory duty. I will try to explain why I think that is the case in due course. I may or may not convince the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, but I will attempt to do so.

Clause 31(1) puts this principle beyond doubt and provides valuable reassurance for responsible persons who, fearing they may face civil proceedings, could otherwise feel pressured to overcomply with the Bill’s requirements. These points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. They might, as the Liberal Democrats have previously spoken about, drive people who have those statutory responsibilities to start to engage expensive consultants to overworry about the provisions or to make alterations to their premises that are disproportionate to the risks they face.

Throughout the Bill, the Government have tried to make the provisions as simple and clear as possible and to not put concerns that would lead to potential costly litigation on the face of the Bill. Clause 31(2) makes it clear that it does not affect any right of action which exists, apart from the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill. I know the noble Lord is aware of this because we have discussed it but, for example, a claim for negligence could still be made under the provisions of Clause 31(2). That provision is precisely in line with existing legislation, such as the health and safety legislation in 2013, which ensured that no civil right of action was available for breach of statutory duty unless provided for specifically under the Bill.

It is right that the Bill makes it clear that existing rights of action, such as negligence claims, are not affected, while providing what I hope—again, this is for noble Lords to assess—is clear reassurance to all that a civil claim for breach of statutory duty may not be brought. Therefore, I hope it helps the true purpose of the Bill: to require reasonable, simple and effective steps to mitigate the harm that could be caused by an act of terrorism, for which the terrorist is solely responsible. It should be achieved appropriately, proportionately and without overcompliance flowing from a fear of costly litigation.

I may not have succeeded, but I hope I am finding the balance point between the concerns expressed by Members of the Opposition, and the genuine concerns put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I hope that balance point is achieved by what the Government say. I will listen again if the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, wishes to make any further points based on what I have said. That is —not with my legal training but the legal mind of the Home Office lawyers behind me—the position I put before the Committee in response to the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 40, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. This amendment proposes the insertion of a new clause after Clause 34 to establish tax relief incentives for security investments by businesses covered under this Act. The purpose of this amendment is to encourage businesses to strengthen their security infrastructure voluntarily by offering tax deductions of up to 25% for qualifying security expenditures. These investments would include, but are not limited to,

“surveillance and monitoring equipment, … physical barriers and access control systems, … staff training on counter-terrorism measures, and … cyber-security infrastructure for venue security”.

The security landscape we face today is increasingly complex. The threat of terrorism has evolved, targeting not only traditional public spaces but also a wide variety of venues where people gather for work, entertainment, and everyday life. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly places obligations on certain premises to implement security measures to protect the public. However, it is essential that we consider the financial burden this may place on businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, which form the backbone of our economy.

This amendment offers a constructive and forward-thinking solution by incentivising security investments through tax relief. Such an approach would have several key benefits. First, by offering financial incentives, we encourage businesses to take proactive steps to enhance their security infrastructure. Many businesses want to do the right thing but are constrained by budgetary limitations. Tax relief would help alleviate these financial pressures and empower them to invest in modern, effective security measures that reduce the vulnerability of their premises to acts of terrorism.

Secondly, the amendment recognises the importance of innovation in counterterrorism technologies. By incentivising investments in advanced surveillance systems, access control solutions and cybersecurity infrastructure, we create a market environment that encourages the development and adoption of cutting-edge security technologies. This not only benefits individual businesses but strengthens the broader security landscape of our nation.

Thirdly, security is a shared responsibility. While the Government have a duty to protect its citizens, the private sector also plays a critical role in safeguarding public spaces. By incentivising private investment, this amendment helps reduce reliance on public funding for security infrastructure, ensuring that taxpayer resources can be allocated more efficiently. Fourthly, providing a financial incentive makes it more likely that businesses will not only comply with the requirements of this Bill but go above and beyond to implement comprehensive security measures. This contributes to a safer environment for the public and demonstrates a collaborative approach to counterterrorism efforts.

Critics may argue that offering tax relief for security investments could reduce government revenue. However, this must be weighed against the potential costs of a terrorist attack, including the loss of lives, economic disruption and the subsequent expenditure on emergency response and recovery. Investments in security are not merely costs; they are investments in resilience and stability. Additionally, by incentivising security investments, we send a strong signal that the Government recognise the challenges businesses face and are willing to support them in meeting their obligations under this Bill. This builds good will and fosters a sense of partnership between the public and private sectors in the collective effort to protect our society from terrorism. Furthermore, the scope of this amendment is deliberately broad, allowing the scheme to cover various types of security investments. This flexibility ensures that businesses can tailor their security measures to their specific needs and circumstances, rather than being forced into a one-size-fits-all approach.

The amendment strikes the right balance between enhancing security and supporting economic growth. It encourages businesses to invest in vital security measures while reducing the financial burden they face. By incentivising innovation and collaboration, we create a more secure and resilient society, so I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment. It is a pragmatic, forward-thinking proposal that strengthens the Bill, promotes public safety and supports businesses in playing their part in counterterrorism efforts. Security and prosperity are not mutually exclusive; they can and must go hand in hand. This amendment embodies that principle and deserves the full support of this Committee.

I now speak in support of Amendment 41, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. This amendment proposes the insertion of a new clause after Clause 34 to ensure that local authorities are adequately supported and properly co-ordinated in their role under the Bill. The amendment has two key components. First, it calls on the Secretary of State to provide funding and resources to local authorities to support their expanded role in overseeing compliance with the security requirements outlined in this legislation. Secondly, it requires the Government to issue clear guidelines for local authority co-ordination with the Security Industry Authority. The importance of this amendment cannot be overstated. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly seeks to enhance security measures at public venues and premises across the country. However, it is clear that local authorities will play a critical role in ensuring the effective implementation and enforcement of these measures. If we are to succeed in making public spaces safer, local authorities must be properly equipped to carry out their responsibilities.

Local councils are already under significant financial and operational strain. Many are grappling with stretched budgets, increased service demands and a shortage of skilled personnel. Adding the responsibility of overseeing complex security compliance requirements without additional support would place an unsustainable burden on them. This amendment recognises that reality and ensures that councils are provided with the funding and resources necessary to carry out their new duties effectively. By investing in local authorities, we not only empower them to fulfil their role under the Bill but enhance the overall security infrastructure of our communities.

The Security Industry Authority has a vital role in regulating private security services and ensuring high standards across the sector. However, effective security co-ordination requires seamless co-operation between local authorities and the SIA. This amendment addresses the need for clear and consistent guidelines on how such co-ordination should be conducted.

Providing clarity on roles and responsibilities will prevent a duplication of effort and reduce the risk of confusion or gaps in enforcement. It will foster stronger partnerships between local authorities, the SIA and other stakeholders, creating a more cohesive and effective security framework.

Terrorist threats are complex and multifaceted, requiring a co-ordinated and collaborative response at all levels of government. Local authorities are often best placed to understand the specific security challenges within their communities and to engage with businesses, venue operators and the public in implementing tailored security measures. However, this localised approach can be effective only if councils have the necessary resources and clear guidance from central government; without this, we risk creating a fragmented and inconsistent security landscape that leaves communities vulnerable.

Some may argue that councils already have extensive responsibilities, and that security should remain the domain of specialised agencies. However, the evolving nature of security threats requires a whole-of-society approach. Local authorities are on the front lines of public service delivery and community engagement; they are uniquely positioned to play a key role in implementing the security measures under this Bill, provided they are given the tools and support to do so. It is worth noting that investment in local authority capacity will have broader benefits beyond security: strengthening council capabilities can enhance their ability to deliver other services more effectively, creating more resilient and well-managed communities.

This amendment represents a practical and necessary step to ensure the successful implementation of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. It acknowledges the vital role of local authorities and provides the support they need to fulfil that role effectively. By ensuring proper funding, resources and clear co-ordination with the SIA, we can create a security framework that is both robust and locally responsive. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment; it strengthens the Bill, supports our councils and, ultimately, contributes to a safer and more secure United Kingdom.

Amendment 42 calls on the Secretary of State to establish a financial support scheme to assist businesses with the cost of implementing the security measures required under this legislation. The proposed scheme would include low-interest loans, grants or tax relief for businesses facing costs ranging between £3,000 and £52,000. While we all recognise the necessity of strengthening security measures to protect the public from the ever-present threat of terrorism, we must acknowledge the financial burden these requirements may place on businesses—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—many of which are already grappling with rising costs, from energy bills to supply chain disruptions.

For a small business, an unexpected £3,000 security expenditure can be a significant financial strain, let alone costs in the tens of thousands. Without support, some may face difficult decisions, including delaying essential security upgrades or, in extreme cases, closing their operations altogether. This would not only harm local economies but could inadvertently weaken the overall security framework that the Bill seeks to strengthen. A financial support scheme, as outlined in this amendment, offers a practical solution. By providing low-interest loans, grants and tax relief, we can alleviate the financial pressures on businesses, while encouraging compliance with those security requirements. This is a prudent investment in the safety and resilience of our commercial sector and the communities it serves.

Finally, Amendment 45 addresses the equally important issue of financial support for voluntary and community organisations, including village halls, which are often at the heart of rural and suburban communities. It calls on the Secretary of State to provide grants or funding schemes to cover the costs associated with compliance under the future Act. Voluntary and community organisations face unique challenges; they often operate on shoestring budgets, relying heavily on donations, grants and volunteer support. These organisations provide essential services and spaces for social engagement, education and cultural activities. Village halls, in particular, are vital hubs for community life, hosting everything from children’s playgroups to senior citizen gatherings.

The imposition of costly security measures, while understandable from a public safety perspective, could deter community engagement and even lead to the closure of some of these cherished institutions. That is a price that we cannot afford to pay. By providing targeted financial support, we ensure that voluntary and community organisations can continue to thrive while meeting their security obligations. This amendment is not just about compliance; it is about preserving the social fabric of our communities and recognising the invaluable role that these organisations play in society.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments, and I hope that I will be able to respond to them fully.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for her plug for the service she mentioned; I take it in good heart. She will know that the purpose of the Bill is to give the Security Industry Authority the power to give advice and for the Home Office to enable that. I will take away her suggestion and feed it to officials. If it can be done, we will look at how it can be examined by the Security Industry Authority to be a helpful contribution to resilience for local groups and organisations. I thank her for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 43, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. This has been a very interesting debate. The amendment seeks to introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to

“consult with local authorities on integrating counter-terrorism measures into the planning and design of new buildings which are likely to be designated ‘qualifying premises’ for the purposes of this Act”.

It further calls for the introduction of measures to ensure that anti-terrorism design principles are incorporated into building projects, particularly those in high-risk areas.

The importance of designing safer urban environments from the outset cannot be overstated. In an era where the threat of terrorism continues to evolve, our approach to public safety must also adapt. The integration of counterterrorism measures into the planning and design of buildings offers a forward-thinking solution that enhances security while reducing the need for costly and disruptive retrofits. By embedding security principles into architectural design, we can create spaces that are both functional and secure. Measures such as blast-resistant materials, secure perimeters, control access points and natural surveillance through open and well-lit layouts can significantly reduce the vulnerability of public spaces.

Many countries have already embraced the concept of designing out terrorism. For example, in the United States and parts of Europe, urban planners and architects routinely incorporate security features into the design of transport hubs, commercial centres and public venues. The United Kingdom should not lag behind in adopting similar best practices. This amendment encourages a collaborative approach between the Government, local authorities and the construction industry to ensure that new developments are designed with security in mind. Local authorities are uniquely positioned to provide insights into the specific risks and needs of their areas, making their involvement in this process essential.

Incorporating counterterrorism measures at the planning stage is not only more effective but more cost-efficient. Retrofitting existing buildings to meet new security requirements can be expensive and disruptive, often requiring extensive modifications that compromise the original design and functionality. By contrast, proactive design reduces long-term costs and creates environments that seamlessly balance aesthetics, functionality and security.

I must stress that this amendment does not seek to turn our urban landscapes into fortresses. Good design can enhance both security and public experience without compromising the openness and accessibility that define vibrant communities. By working closely with architects, planners and local authorities, we can ensure that security features are thoughtfully integrated and do not detract from the usability and beauty of public spaces. I fully associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on this issue.

The amendment rightly prioritises high-risk areas where the likelihood of terrorism incidents is higher due to factors such as foot traffic, symbolic importance or previous threats. By taking a proactive approach in these areas, we would not only protect lives but bolster public confidence in the safety of shared spaces. In conclusion, the amendment would strengthen the Bill by embedding security into the very fabric of our built environment. It demonstrates a pragmatic and forward-looking approach to counterterrorism that balances safety, efficiency and community needs. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment as it represents a vital step forward, creating a safer, more resilient United Kingdom.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for raising the important issue of how new buildings—his amendment mentions “new buildings”—and development should consider security in their design where it is appropriate to do so.

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lords, Lord Elliott and Lord Empey, for bringing to the Committee their experience of Northern Ireland—with which I have a small element of familiarity but not as much experience as they do.

I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and particularly his invitation for CT advisers to be incorporated into an advice mechanism, whatever that might be. I will give him the same answer I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. I reassure him that we want to have this simple advice, focused via the Security Industry Association, and I hope that I can at least refer his helpful suggestion and see how it can be incorporated into the advice given. I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for his contribution, and the Liberal Democrat and Opposition Front Benches for their comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling the amendments today. I hope I can respond to them in a positive and reassuring manner.

First, I will look at Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst. All through this debate, at Second Reading, in Committee, and in discussions that we have had outside of this Chamber, we have been keen to reassure noble Lords that we are trying to strike the right balance between public protection and burdens on premises and events. In fact, I prefer the word “standards” to “burdens”; a burden is something that is difficult. What we are trying to put in place is a number of basic standards which it is important for businesses and organisations to meet.

I have said throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee and at Second Reading that, following Royal Assent, we expect that there will be a period of at least 24 months to give us the time to ensure that those responsible for premises and the events in scope understand the new obligations, that they have time to plan and prepare, and—to go back to previous discussions —any training required of volunteers or staff is undertaken.

The proposed timetable in Amendment 46 of 18 months would, with respect, be before any detailed action has been taken under the provisions of the Act. It would assess the preparations generally, as opposed to the actual impact and implementation downstream. Ministers, including myself and my right honourable friend Dan Jarvis will keep legislation under review, including its effectiveness, impact and implementation. Should unintended consequences be identified, the Bill provides powers, which have been subject to debate, to adjust the regime as appropriate. I hope the noble Lord will reflect on Amendment 46 and, when the time comes, withdraw the amendment.

On Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, there will be a 24-month implementation period before the Act is commenced. The Government intend to issue guidance under Clause 27, published before commencement. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord seeks to put some timeframes on that. I think it is best to leave that to judgment, both in the guidance and in the consultation on that guidance with key partners.

Again, the 24-month period covers Amendments 48 and 49, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sandhurst. The implementation period will allow those in scope to prepare for and comply with the new obligations. It is important that the SIA, particularly, is operating as soon as is practical. The Government must be certain that it is ready for its new role. We anticipate that this will take at least 24 months—it might take slightly longer—in the light of previous timeframes for other regulators introduced under previous legislation.

I do not anticipate any delays in commencement, but I want to keep the flexibility and appropriate ability for the Government to pick an appropriate commencement date when the Government assess that the SIA has fulfilled its duties, as we anticipate them under the Act, and that the organisations impacted by the Act at that stage are fully prepared and cognisant and are able to implement. Again, I gently suggest to the noble Lord that it would not be sensible for the Secretary of State to be driven by a tied provision in the Act, as opposed to the judgment that, as I have said to the Committee, will look in due course at whether or not we put those provisions in place.

Generally, in relation to Amendments 48 and 49, the 24-month period is what I would hope to be a realistic time to establish the set-up of the regulator and for those in scope of the Bill to prepare. If the Bill achieves Royal Assent, which I hope it will, the noble Lord, this House, the House of Commons and the court of public opinion—that is, the people in businesses and pubs and others who will be impacted by this legislation—have the opportunity to feed into both the Government for their guidance and the SIA for its guidance, as well as into the debate generally about implementation, about how they think the Act is going and what measures are being put in place. A formal consultation or review, as outlined and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, would inhibit that process and set formal timescales that would not be helpful. This House remains the first port of call for any concern or points that noble Lords may want to raise about the implementation downstream. I hope that reassurance means that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken, including the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—who talked about the unintended consequences of the Bill, which are a worry—and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I thank the Minister for his response, particularly about striking the right balance. I am pleased to hear that he will keep its effectiveness under review and revisit it. On the issue of 24 months, the Minister assures me that he does not anticipate delays, and I will keep his words in mind. For the time being, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Citizenship Applications

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

People entering the United Kingdom or applying for asylum using a viable and legal route are not affected. Individuals who come here through illegal routes will be subject to the criteria in the guidance, which are that they can apply for British citizenship, but the presumption is that it will be refused unless they bring forward mitigating circumstances, which can be considered.

The noble Lord will know that the Bill introduced in another place on Monday repeals the Rwanda Act, on which we have already spent a wasteful £700 million. We will come to this House in due course to say that it was not a deterrent for illegal migration, and we should be looking at legal, safe routes, which I know the noble Lord supports.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, earlier today the leader of the Opposition in the other place asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will appeal a decision to allow a family from Gaza to stay in the UK, after applying through the Ukraine refugee system. The Prime Minister declined to answer. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will indeed appeal this decision?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Like the Prime Minister, I am not going to discuss individual cases over the Dispatch Box. The noble Lord will know that there are general principles, which we apply, for the provision of asylum. If those principles are broken or if the courts uphold a decision that the Government do not support, they will self-evidently appeal that decision. Today’s Private Notice Question from my noble friend Lord Blunkett is about the specific guidance issued on Monday, which is available to this House. In answer to a point from the noble Lord which I did not cover, it is guidance which does not require legal back-up or consultation. Self-evidently, he and my noble friend can make representations to the Government at any time, as can any Member of this House, about the implementation of that guidance.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 21 and 23 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. These amendments propose the removal of Clauses 5(4) to 5(6) and 6(4) to 6(6), which currently contain Henry VIII provisions granting Ministers the power to amend by regulation primary legislation relating to public protection procedures, including the ability to make them more onerous.

These are important amendments and I support them for several key reasons. First, they uphold parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. The inclusion of Henry VIII clauses in the Bill would, in effect, bypass the scrutiny of Parliament by allowing Ministers to unilaterally change key aspects of public protection procedures. Such powers should be granted in only the most exceptional circumstances, where there is a clear and pressing need for flexibility.

In this case, however, the procedures in Clauses 5(3) and 6(3) have already been carefully considered and subject to full scrutiny, and will be endorsed by Parliament upon the Bill’s passage. It is therefore difficult to justify granting Ministers the ability to unpick these provisions without returning to Parliament for proper debate and approval.

Secondly, granting such sweeping powers undermines legal certainty. The security landscape is undoubtedly complex and may evolve over time, but that is precisely why legislation must provide a stable and predictable framework. If Ministers can alter public protection procedures by regulation, it will create uncertainty for the businesses, public authorities and other stakeholders that will implement these security measures. This uncertainty could hinder the very objective that the Bill seeks to achieve in enhancing public protection.

Furthermore, the inclusion of Henry VIII clauses risks undermining public trust. Effective public protection measures require the co-operation and confidence of the public and stakeholders alike. If these measures can be altered without consultation or parliamentary oversight through the proper primary legislation process, it may lead to perceptions of arbitrary governance and erode confidence in the fairness and transparency of security regulations.

I am not blind to the Government’s need for flexibility in responding to emerging security threats. However, existing mechanisms allow for swift and proportionate responses without the need for unchecked ministerial power. Maintaining proper parliamentary scrutiny is essential to preserving the legitimacy of any regulatory framework. The amendment strikes a necessary balance between security and democratic accountability. It ensures that any future changes to public protection procedures remain, as they should, subject to the robust oversight of Parliament. I urge the Government to accept this amendment and demonstrate their commitment to parliamentary sovereignty, legal certainty and public trust.

I will now speak to the important amendments to Clause 32 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. They address the regulatory powers granted to the Secretary of State regarding the thresholds for qualifying premises and events under the Bill. Amendment 38 seeks to require that any reduction in the thresholds for qualifying premises and events be justified by a change in the threat level from terrorism. While I appreciate and respect the intention behind this amendment, I must approach it with some caution. The need to ensure that security regulations are proportionate to the prevailing threat level is, of course, essential. However, linking regulatory changes exclusively to a shift in the formal threat assessment may create unnecessary rigidity.

Security risks are often multifaceted and not always captured by changes in official threat levels. Local intelligence, emerging patterns of behaviour or other factors may necessitate adjustments to security requirements even when the formal threat level remains static. For this reason, although I appreciate the noble Lord’s desire for transparency and justification, I am somewhat hesitant to fully support his amendment. None the less, I commend the focus it places on ensuring that regulatory changes are evidence based and justified.

I am more supportive of his approach in Amendment 39, which would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders before making regulations under this section. This is a measured and sensible proposal that aligns with the principles of good governance. The wording, adapted from the Fire Safety Act 2021, provides a strong precedent for such consultation requirements.

Consultation is essential not only for ensuring that regulatory changes are practical and effective but for fostering buy-in from those directly affected by these measures. Venues, event organisers, local authorities and security experts are on the front lines of implementing public protection measures. Their insights and experiences are invaluable in shaping regulations that are both proportionate and workable. Moreover, consultation promotes transparency and accountability, helping to build public trust in the regulatory framework. In a democracy, it is only right that those affected by significant changes to security requirements have the opportunity to contribute their views and understand the rationale behind decisions.

In conclusion, while I take a cautious approach to Amendment 38, Amendment 39 takes a better approach. I urge the Government to look at this proposal as a possible safeguard for ensuring that regulations are both effective and democratically accountable.

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

My Lords, the Dispatch Box can sometimes be a lonely place, but such is life. I hope I can give some comfort to noble Lords who have contributed on the points that they have raised, while also explaining where the Government are coming from.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for his amendments and his constructive approach to the Bill’s proposals. It was good to talk to him outside the Chamber as well as having this debate. He has had support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey also made strong comments on the use of Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from His Majesty’s Opposition Front Benches broadly speaking supported the bulk of the noble Lord’s amendments, with some concerns over Amendment 38. Ironically, it is on Amendment 38 that I can potentially offer the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, most warmth today. I shall try to give the House some comfort on these points and, hopefully, some explanation.

I welcomed the scrutiny of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and of the Constitution Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is a member. The Government carefully assessed each of the delegated powers in the Bill so as to draw them as narrowly as possible and to find alternative mechanisms which remove the need for secondary legislation where possible. Our view, and this is consistent with what we said in opposition, is that Henry VIII powers should be included only where they are necessary to ensure that the legislation continues to operate as intended and where there is a justification for those changes. I believe that is reflected in the scrutiny of the two committees, as the only concern raised was about the linked powers in Clauses 5(4) and 6(4). For the reasons I will set out, the Government still consider the powers covered by these amendments to be necessary.

On Amendments 21 and 23 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I take everything he says to the Committee—and to the Government outside the House—as important and serious. His amendments seek to remove powers that would enable the Secretary of State to add, remove or otherwise amend the public protection measures listed in Clauses 5(3) and 6(3). Members of the Committee will remember that Clause 5 covers a number of measures, such as evacuation, invacuation, preventing individuals leaving premises or providing information to individuals on premises or at an event. They are reasonable measures that can be taken, but the changing nature of terrorism means that over time methodologies may change.

As the ways in which acts of terrorism are carried out change, so too may the many ways in which we need to respond to them. The Government want to keep the legislation under review to ensure that it effectively deals with the terrorist threat while being—this goes to the heart of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said—appropriate, proportionate and done in a reasonable way. These powers better enable the Government to respond to changes appropriately and maintain this balance.

The measures in Clause 5(3) are already constrained. They can be used only to achieve the public protection outcomes of the future Act. The Secretary of State may add further procedures only if it is considered that they would reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals. Similarly, the power to remove or amend the existing public protection measures may be exercised only where it is considered that such changes would not increase the risk of physical harm to individuals. The powers in Clause 6(3) are similarly restricted. The Secretary of State may add further measures only if it is considered that they would reduce the vulnerability of premises or events or reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals. Similarly, the power to remove or amend the existing public protection measures may be exercised only where it is considered that such changes would not increase the vulnerability of premises or events.

There are limited, straightforward proposals in Clauses 5 and 6, which set down a number of potential measures that are in place. Any change under those Henry VIII powers would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Before any regulations under these provisions are made, both Houses of Parliament would have the opportunity to debate and scrutinise changes to the public protection procedures and measures through these powers. Those limitations will help safeguard against unnecessary use of those powers by any future Secretary of State, in line with making sure that the public protection measures in Clauses 5 and 6 are met.

I believe, although I may be in a minority of one among today’s speakers, that the proposals in the Bill are sufficient for any Henry VIII power used in this circumstance to be brought back to the House for affirmative resolution and for the House of Commons to have a similar potential vote in due course. I do not have sympathy with those amendments, although I understand where they are coming from.

However, I will be honest; when I first saw Amendment 38, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I said to colleagues that I thought he has a point—and, if the Committee will bear with me, I think he does. Amendment 38 proposes to look at how we can reduce the qualifying threshold figures, saying that regulations can be made

“only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the reduction is justified by a change in the threat from terrorism”.

There is potentially room there for discussion with the noble Lord outside this Chamber before Report, which is not too far hence, to look at whether we can reach an accommodation to agree that broad principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and to Amendments 24A and 24B in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. Amendment 24 seeks to remove subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 8, probing the implications of this clause for commercial agreements, as highlighted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s note on the Bill.

The amendment rightly seeks to probe how these provisions will affect contractual relationships between private sector actors. There is a genuine concern that the current wording could place undue financial and legal burdens on businesses by interfering with existing agreements. This could lead to significant commercial disputes and unnecessary litigation, ultimately hindering the smooth operation of commercial partnerships.

While public safety is undoubtedly a priority, we must ensure that our approach to security does not inadvertently create a minefield of legal uncertainty for businesses. Subsections (5) and (6) appear to grant broad and potentially disruptive powers that may override established contractual terms. In doing so, they risk undermining commercial stability and discouraging investment in venues and events that play an important role in our social and economic life.

Furthermore, these provisions may disproportionately impact small and medium-sized enterprises that lack the legal and financial resources to navigate complex contractual adjustments. Removing subsections (5) and (6) would encourage a more co-operative and practical approach, allowing businesses to work with public authorities to achieve security objectives without unnecessary interference in their commercial arrangements.

The independent reviewer’s concerns highlight the need for clarity and a balanced approach. Instead of imposing rigid requirements that disrupt commercial agreements, we should be looking to develop guidance that promotes collaboration between duty holders and security authorities. With this amendment, this House can signal our intention to maintain security measures that are both effective and commercially workable.

Amendment 24A in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst is a simple amendment which seeks to establish the Government’s reasons for requiring one senior individual to be responsible for the duties under the Bill for those premises and events with an enhanced duty. This should be something that the Minister can resolve with a clear answer today, and I hope he will be able to give that answer today.

Amendment 24B, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, seeks to establish the timeframe in which decisions by the tribunal have to be made. Clearly, events will need swift decisions from the tribunal if the decisions are to be made before the events themselves are held, and it is surely right that all organisations deserve timely determinations from the tribunal. Can the Minister tell us what his expectations are in this regard? Can he confirm that the Government have assessed the impact of this new duty on the tribunal on waiting times for determinations?

I urge the Government to reconsider the necessity of these subsections and to work toward a more proportionate and practical solution.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for their amendments. I will try to deal with both in due course.

First, Clause 8(5) and (6) introduce a co-operation requirement between persons responsible for those premises under the Bill and those with any other form of control of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. I make it clear to the Committee that this clause relates to the enhanced tier of premises, not the standard tier, so this would be responsible for the very top end of the arena-type premises. The responsibility for implementing the Bill’s requirements will always remain with a responsible person. Nevertheless, for reasons that have been outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, there may be areas where they require permission, support or co-operative steps from other parties to have some level of control of the premises or the event, in order to comply with the requirements of the Bill.

The noble Baroness gave an example which I can repeat back to her, in essence, where the person is a leaseholder who might identify that in order to put in place public protection measures, some changes are required to the building, such as replacing glass or providing alternative exit routes. In order to do that, the lease agreement may specify that permission must be obtained from the freeholder before any alterations are made. The purpose of this would be that if the freeholder were to refuse, or fail to respond to, such a request, this would compromise the responsible person’s ability to take forward reasonably practicable measures and frustrate the potential protection afforded to the premises. Clause 8(5) and (6) have been designed to require in such circumstances the freeholder

“so far as is reasonably practicable”—

the key phrase in the legislation—to co-operate with the leaseholder for the purposes of allowing the Bill’s requirements to be met.

I re-emphasise

“so far as is reasonably practicable”.

The clause does not require those subject to Clause 8(5) and (6) to habitually co-operate; they must co-operate so far as is reasonably practicable. What is reasonably practicable are the very issues that the Committee has already referred to, such as costs, benefits and the difficulties in making the respective relevant change, including considering the longer-term use of the premises.

I should also emphasise that Clause 8 does not automatically override commercial contracts or agreements. There is the co-operative principle that where there are parties with control of premises or events, there will be parties who will work readily with those responsible to take forward appropriate requirements. However, where that is not the case and where there is a dispute, Clause 11—which we will come to in a moment—gives the persons the right to apply for determination at a tribunal. The tribunal may be asked to determine

“whether a person is required to co-operate with the person responsible”

for the duty. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will recognise that there is a reasonable test in the clause as determined, and that the safeguard of the tribunal is there for where there are disagreements in due course.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“heightened risk of a terrorist threat”.

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

Extremism Review

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syrian Asylum Applications

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

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

The Home Secretary said that there will be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Have a statutory inquiry.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments to Clause 1 put forward by my noble friends on this side of the House.

First, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth that seeks to replace “must” with “may” in Clause 1. This amendment is a vital adjustment to ensure that we uphold the principles of good governance, maintain flexibility in policy-making and safeguard our national interests. First and foremost, this amendment reflects the importance of retaining the Government’s discretion in managing immigration policy. Whichever Government are in power, immigration is an ongoing and rapidly changing issue to which the Secretary of State at the time must respond with pace. The word “must” imposes a rigid timeline and an obligation on the Secretary of State to act within six months, regardless of the evolving circumstances. Replacing it with “may” will preserve the Government’s ability to assess, prioritise and implement policies based on the prevailing domestic and international context. This flexibility is especially important in a world that is increasingly uncertain and unpredictable.

Amendment 2, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes replacing the six-month timeline for laying changes to the Immigration Rules with a more appropriate one-month period. This amendment is about ensuring that Parliament retains proper oversight of a Bill about which we have serious concerns. Reducing the timeline to one month ensures that any changes to the Immigration Rules under the Bill are brought back to Parliament swiftly for scrutiny. It would prevent the Government from allowing extended periods of uncertainty to shield decisions that could fundamentally undermine the integrity of our immigration system. The amendment highlights a critical point that, while we respect the intention behind the Bill, we oppose it because it fails to address the complexities of immigration policy.

Amendment 3, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes replacing the 21-day implementation period with a more measured three-month period. This amendment reflects our belief that significant changes to our Immigration Rules, such as those concerning refugee family reunion, must not be rushed through without proper consideration of their implications for the UK’s immigration system, resources and public confidence. The original provision for 21 days is, frankly, far too short a period for such substantial changes to be introduced and implemented. We believe that it risks creating undue pressure on our immigration authorities and undermining the orderly processes that we have worked hard to maintain. Extending this period to three months would therefore provide the necessary time for proper evaluation, preparation and control. Family reunions must be managed in a way that ensures that we are not inadvertently incentivising illegal migration or creating vulnerabilities in our immigration system.

Amendment 4, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, seeks to amend Clause 1 by extending the period for implementing changes to the Immigration Rules for refugee family reunion from 21 days to one year. This amendment is both prudent and necessary, as it would ensure that any changes were introduced with the care, preparation and thoroughness that they deserve. The practical implications of significant policy changes must be carefully managed to avoid unintended consequences that could undermine the very outcomes that we seek to achieve. This amendment would provide the Government with the time required to conduct a comprehensive and detailed review of the potential impacts of these changes, including their effects on public services, local communities and the integration of refugees. A rushed implementation within just 21 days would fail to account for the complex and interconnected challenges of housing, healthcare, education and social cohesion that arise from any significant adjustment to our Immigration Rules.

Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, seeks to introduce critical safeguards ensuring that any changes to the Immigration Rules for refugee family reunion are made responsibly with due consideration for their impact on local communities, public services and our broader immigration system. This amendment strikes to the heart of the practical realities of governing. It is our duty as legislators to ensure that our policies are sustainable and do not place undue strain on local communities or public services. By requiring the Secretary of State to assess the projected impact on local support services, housing and integration arrangements, the amendment would introduce a much-needed layer of accountability, which acknowledges that housing, schools, healthcare and community resources are not infinite and that we must carefully manage the arrival of new residents to ensure that they are properly supported. Overburdening the systems not only will undermine the successful integration of refugees but could erode public confidence in our immigration policies.

Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, seeks to introduce a new level of transparency and accountability to the Bill by requiring detailed information on costs, capacity and prioritisation in housing before implementing changes to the Immigration Rules. This amendment is both practical and prudent, ensuring that any changes introduced under the Bill are grounded in a full understanding of their financial and social implications. It reflects core Conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, public accountability and fairness, ensuring that we balance our humanitarian commitments with the needs of our communities and the sustainability of our public services.

Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, seeks to reduce the age threshold from 25 to 21 concerning the eligibility of siblings for family reunion. This amendment is a vital correction to a clause that, as currently drafted, risks broadening the scope of family reunion far beyond what is reasonable or necessary. By lowering the age threshold, we can better align this provision with the principles of fairness, practicality and public confidence in our immigration system. The age of 25 is unnecessarily high and creates significant challenges for the effective management of family reunion cases. An individual in their mid-20s is, by any reasonable standard, an adult capable of independence. Extending family reunion rights to siblings up to the age of 25 dilutes the focus of the Bill.

The proposed age of 21 strikes a more appropriate balance. It avoids creating a system that is overly broad and difficult to administer. This amendment would ensure that family reunion remains a process based on need, not convenience. Moreover, the broader implications of maintaining the 25 year-old threshold must not be ignored. Such an expansive definition risks placing additional strain on already overstretched resources, including housing, social services and immigration officials. It could undermine the public’s trust in our ability to manage migration in a controlled and responsible manner—a trust that is critical to maintaining support for genuine humanitarian efforts. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment and to reject a Bill that, in its current form, risks eroding the principles on which our immigration system is built.

Amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would require a medical health assessment for each applicant under Clause 1 before their application for family reunion status is approved. This amendment is a practical and necessary addition to the Bill. It would ensure that the process for granting family reunion status is not only compassionate but thorough, responsible and mindful of the broader implications for public health and welfare. First and foremost, the amendment would strengthen public confidence in the integrity of our immigration system. By implementing a medical health assessment, we would establish a robust framework that considers the physical and physiological fitness of applicants while addressing potential public health concerns. This is particularly important to ensure that we meet our obligations to applicants and the communities that welcome them. The amendment also aligns with the principles of good governance and accountability. It would ensure that decisions regarding family reunion are made with full knowledge of any health factors that may affect an individual’s ability to integrate and thrive in the United Kingdom. It would prevent rushed or uninformed approvals that could create challenges down the line for both applicants and public services.

I commend my noble friend for proposing this amendment, which demonstrates a commitment to compassion balanced with prudence. I urge the Committee to support this sensible and measured addition to the Bill to ensure that our family reunion policies remain fair, humane and effective.

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

Well, we have had some fun with the Bill and the amendments. I start by reiterating what I said on 18 October when I responded to the Bill’s Second Reading on behalf of the Government. For ease, I refer noble Lords to cols. 371-74. It is worth taking that as a starting point because the amendments and their impact on the Bill are relevant. I said very clearly at that stage:

“I reassure all noble Lords that the Government fully support the principle of family unity and share their concerns regarding families who have been separated by conflict or persecution. It is for precisely that reason that the Government support what has been referred to already: an existing comprehensive framework for reuniting refugees with their families in the UK”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 371.]


That is the principle of the Bill. At the same time, I said:

“Expanding the policy to extended family would—undoubtedly, in my view and in those of my colleagues across the Home Office—have a significant and difficult impact on stretched public resources. It would also mean that we have to bring more people into scope of the policy, including those who may not necessarily need international protection themselves”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 373.]


On 18 October, I found myself supporting the Bill and the principle of it in part, but not its extensions without further consideration. I now find myself addressing amendments which are, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said—let us be generous—somewhat contradictory in parts. There is no coherence from the Conservative Back Benches or Front Bench in relation to all those points, and different places and policy principles are put onboard.

I find myself looking at all the amendments and thinking that these are not designed to help the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, they are probably not designed to help the Government come to sensible suggestions on these points, and they are certainly not designed to help those who might face persecution or refugee status and need those supports. Can I support the amendments? No, I cannot. Can I support the noble Baroness’s Bill in its current form? No, I cannot. I find myself in the very strange position of being the Government of the day and coming to a sensible position, perhaps; Members will judge that in due course.

Asylum Seekers: Accommodation

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is vital, as my noble friend says, that we ensure continuity. The key point is that we get people out of asylum hotels and into dispersed accommodation as quickly as possible and, ultimately, speed up the asylum system so that people have a decision on whether they can stay or have to leave. If they can stay, that stability is there and, as the noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned, they can contribute to work and potentially help fill some of the labour shortages this country faces.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, in the 2024 Labour Party manifesto there was an announcement that new measures to clear the asylum backlog would be taken, through caseworkers, returns and the enforcement unit. It also pledged to hire 1,000 new staff for this unit. What progress has been made on this and how many staff have been hired?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I remind the House that there were no hotels in 2015 and 400 when the noble Lord was in office. We are recruiting those 1,000 staff and have improved the return rate, the assessment rate and the efficiency rate. Although I do not have the numbers in this brief, I have them in another brief; I will send them to him and put them in the Library, and he will see improvements over when he had tenure over this job.

Immigration: Human Rights

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The total number of asylum claims waiting for an initial decision has fallen by 22%, from 125,173 at the end of September 2023 to 97,170 at the end of September last year. That figure of 97,170 cases, which relate to approximately 133,000 people waiting for an initial decision, is down 22% on the previous year but is 13% higher than in the previous quarter. We are trying to get the number down for the very reason mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord German: that a large number of those cases will potentially go to appeal. That number includes individuals in hotels. The problem is that the previous Government put a moratorium on dealing with those issues. We are now trying to clear that backlog and give people a decision. Whether it is to stay or go, a decision is needed.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Can the Minister reassure the House that any increased prioritisation of human rights claims will be accompanied by rigorous checks to ensure that individuals who pose a risk to national security are not admitted under such provisions? Furthermore, what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that prioritising certain asylum claims does not place undue strain on local communities, public services or housing availability?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government want to secure a decision on asylum claims. In doing that, we also want to ensure that the security of the United Kingdom is paramount. Therefore, security checks will take place. It might be of interest to the noble Lord to know that 16,400 people have been removed from the United Kingdom since July of last year. That figure is up by 24% over the previous quarter, when he had stewardship of this office in his Government. We will ensure that, as he says, we look at the issues that successful asylum claimants and refugees experience in relation to work and employment. As my noble friend mentioned, it is important that, when those individuals are successful, they can get into work and contribute to some of the jobs required to be filled by people in this country today.

Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry: Recommendations

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord brings tremendous experience to this area, and I share exactly his sentiment and intention. Child abuse is a vile crime. We have to take criminal action against individuals who commit it, but we also need to ensure that we support the victims of such crimes. The noble Lord makes an extremely important point that, whatever the gender, sex, colour or race of any perpetrator, they should be held to account by government and the criminal justice agencies, and pay penalties. Their victims should be supported by the forces encompassed by this House and the House of Commons.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in thanking Professor Jay for her tireless work in leading the independent inquiry into these abhorrent crimes. Inquiries are extremely informative and benefit society as a whole. Taking this into account, can the Minister explain why his Government are refusing so vehemently an independent inquiry specifically on the topic of child sexual exploitation? Does he agree with me that victims are the most important group of people in any criminal investigation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will certainly answer the noble Lord on those points. First and foremost, the report that was managed by Alexis Jay, and set up by the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, in 2015, has produced a large number of recommendations to government, which were published in 2022. The then Government, of which he was a supporter, responded to those recommendations in May 2023 and took no real action between May 2023 and when we took office in July at the general election.

We intend to take forward those recommendations, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on Monday three specific measures: first, a mandatory reporting recommendation, as in the report; secondly, a report to ensure that we have an aggravated offence for people involved in grooming; thirdly, that we will take action on child sexual abuse online. Those are three important issues. A further inquiry would not necessarily add anything to what Alexis Jay has done. There are independent local inquiries, which we have supported and allowed to continue, and that is fine. But what we are really interested in is putting in place the action on the recommendations made to date, which is what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said she would do and what the focus of this Government is going to be.

Independent Office for Police Conduct

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend will know that in the King’s Speech there was a proposal to establish greater accountability for the police, improve standards and review the work of the College of Policing. That will be brought before this House in due course and within this Session of Parliament.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister elaborate on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the appointments system for senior roles within the Independent Office for Police Conduct is transparent, robust and free from any perception of bias, so as to maintain the much-needed public confidence in its impartiality?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Independent Office for Police Conduct is accountable to Ministers, as it was when the Opposition were in Government. There has been a recommendation from a review of the Cabinet Office’s public bodies review programme. That review was published in March 2024, when the noble Lord’s Government were in office. It looked at the whole question of the IOPC’s governance, accountability, efficiency and efficacy. There were 93 recommendations in that report, 73 of which have been accepted by the IOPC. The remaining recommendations were in his Government’s in-tray. They are now being reviewed and will be implemented shortly by this Government. Included in them is the method by which the IOPC is accountable to Ministers and therefore to this House and the House of Commons.

United Front Work Department

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have recently decided to pivot back towards closer ties with China, with the Prime Minister saying he intends to pursue a “pragmatic” relationship with it. The advice from the security services has been clear: the foreign influence registration scheme, which has been delayed by this Government until next year, will deter Chinese spying only if China is designated in the enhanced list of threats to the UK. First, will His Majesty’s Government commit to placing China on the enhanced list of threats when that scheme arrives next year? Secondly, will they do so regardless of the new Prime Minister’s increasing desire to have close relationships with China?

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

The first answer is that the Government will take a long-term, consistent approach to China and the dealings we have with it. It is important that we co-operate where we can on international matters such as climate change, and compete where we need to on business and on trade. When UK national security is at stake, it is really important that we challenge robustly any influence or actions by the Chinese Government on security matters. This House needs to understand that.

The noble Lord mentioned FIRS. We inherited the Act that passed in 2023, which was jointly supported by the then Official Opposition and His Majesty’s Government. That scheme is under development now. We anticipate having it in place by summer next year. Within that, we will take action accordingly to designate specific countries if the United Kingdom’s security is threatened. We will make decisions on that and announce them to the House in due course. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom takes all threats seriously and will be robust in its actions on those threats, including from any nation state that seeks to advance its aims in a subversive way versus the interests of the United Kingdom.

Respect Orders and Anti-social Behaviour

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, a return to proper neighbourhood policing, with officers who know and are known to the communities that they serve, is absolutely essential to tackle the misery caused by anti-social behaviour.

The part of the Statement about respect orders raises a number of issues, which we will return to, no doubt, when we look at the policing Bill. For example, what burden of proof will be required for the courts to approve such an order, and how will police work with communities to ensure that repeated reporting and gathering of evidence has the desired effect? How will the courts deal with applications in a timely manner, given the enormous backlog of cases already before them? What will be the bar for anyone who breaches these orders to find themselves in jail? It is an easy headline to say that offenders will end up in prison, but there is currently such an acute shortage of prison spaces that the Government are already having to release people early. What safeguards will be in the Bill to ensure that these orders do not inadvertently reinvent the Vagrancy Act, in effect, criminalising homelessness?

I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to removing the de facto threshold of £200 for attracting any action on goods stolen from shops. Last week, one of my friends went into a local pharmacy, where she was picking up a prescription. A few minutes later, a young man walked in, carrying a very large bag, and set to clearing the shelves of all the over-the-counter medication. When somebody who was standing there mentioned the police, he just laughed. Afterwards, the staff said that he comes in on a regular basis but that they are too scared to try to stop him.

Sadly, this is not an isolated story: it is part of a rising tide sweeping the country. The numbers are staggering. In 2023, the Association of Convenience Stores recorded 5.6 million incidents of shoplifting—more than a fivefold increase from the previous year. That is 46,000 thefts every day.

Can the Minister say anything about how the Government intend to deploy technology to make it easier for retailers to log crime by repeat offenders, thereby helping to build a picture that can be used to prosecute? I took a quick look at the Met’s reporting tool over the weekend. The website estimates that it takes 15 minutes to report a non-violent shoplifting offence. I cannot imagine that many shopkeepers, particularly those with small shops, will spend 15 minutes reporting a crime that almost invariably will not end in a prosecution. Will the Minister look at introducing a national scheme for reporting shoplifting, where retailers can quickly access a dedicated platform and report crime in just a few minutes? No one wants to watch people walking out of a shop without paying for goods or, indeed, racing down the footpath on an e-scooter. It unsettles everyone, leaves the most vulnerable feeling unsafe and chips away at our collective sense of security.

I hope the Minister will welcome suggestions and inputs from all sides when we come to discuss the Bill.

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

I am grateful for the contributions of both His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I reassure the House that we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss these matters because this Statement, in effect, trails legislation that will come into effect at a later date, if passed by both Houses. So we will consider it over the next few weeks and months.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, is against anti-social behaviour. I would expect nothing less of him. It is a shame that when in office his party reduced the number of PCSOs by 55% since 2010. It is a shame that confidence in policing fell by 65% when he was at the Home Office and his colleagues were in office. It is a shame that trust in policing fell by 69% over the same period. It is a shame that shop theft, which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised, has risen by 29% over the past year. It is a shame that the former Minister refused to implement suggestions that we will bring forward in the Bill on shop theft and attacks on shop workers. It is a shame that he took 14 years to reinstate the number of police officers in service when he took office in 2010. When I was Police Minister—

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I was not the Minister.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I do not blame the noble Lord personally. He carries the collective weight of the Conservative Government of the last 14 years on his shoulders. He may not like that, but he is in front of me now and he has to account for the Government he supported in Parliament, in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as I have to account for this Government.

I will be helpful to the noble Lord. He talked about respect orders. The respect order will be introduced through the crime and policing Bill when it comes before this House and the House of Commons in the new year. We expect to pilot respect orders once the legislation is passed so that we can learn lessons from them. We expect that they will be introduced for persistent adult offenders involved in public drinking, drug use or other anti-social behaviour—that goes to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. The orders will be targeted at individuals involved in persistent anti-social behaviour as a whole.

I will answer the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, then return to those of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, shortly. The courts must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that an offence has occurred. The same legal tests will be in place as those that are in place now for civil injunction policies. The police and local authorities can apply for respect orders. The pilot scheme will be a chance to look at and, I hope, iron out some of the issues that might be raised. It is for the courts to determine how to handle someone who breaches an order; that could mean a community sentence or a jail sentence. We are trying to look at prison places generally; I will return to that point.

The noble Baroness asked the important question of whether this will criminalise homelessness. I hope I can genuinely reassure her that being homeless in itself will not be treated as anti-social behaviour. That would be the case if there were aggravating factors, such as alcohol or misbehaviour of some sort, but simply being homeless would not be a qualifying factor for a respect order.

Respect orders are different from civil injunctions because they are aimed at higher levels of anti-social behaviour. The important point is that the police will be able to undertake those orders very quickly—if the Bill is passed by both Houses. Again, there will be an opportunity for us to debate these matters in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the early release of prisoners and asked whether respect orders would be effective if a prisoner committed a further offence. Let me tell the noble Lord: if a prisoner on licence committed a further offence, they would not need a respect order; they would be back in prison very quickly as a result of breaching the licence conditions for which they were released early.

If the noble Lord reflected carefully on this he would know that, were he was standing where I am standing now, he would be defending a government policy for limited early release of prisoners to give space. Dare I say it, the noble Lord’s Government did not build prison places during their time in office. Again, I do not wish to hang 14 years of policy and decisions entirely on his shoulders but he has to take responsibility. When he asks for things from this Government, he has to reflect on the fact that there were things he and his Government did not do when they were in office. Indeed, they left us with a black hole to deal with, as well as these issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, welcomed our proposals on shoplifting actions and shop theft, as I prefer to call it, and the change to the £200 limit. She may be interested to note that, when I was the shadow Minister in another place 10 years ago, I opposed the order that introduced the £200 limit for the very reasons why we are now removing it. It sent a signal that low-value shoplifting and shop theft can be tolerated. That will not lead the police to look at the issue she mentioned. The 29% rise in shoplifting in just the last year of the previous Government is an indication that we need to take action, and we will.

We will also take action on the important issue the noble Baroness mentioned of protection for shop workers, and the creation of an aggravated offence in the event of shop workers being attacked. Shop workers deserve our respect. They often uphold legislation on alcohol sales, solvent sales, knife sales, tobacco sales and other sales. When they are subject to anti-social behaviour, there should be consequences for those individuals who engage in that behaviour. Her suggestion on how we record those incidents is interesting; we will explore that during the passage of the legislation.

The 13,000 neighbourhood police officers that the Government intend to put in place will be funded by additional resources. Half a billion pounds was announced last week, so the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will now be aware of the extra funding that he asked about. Again for the benefit of the noble Lord’s checklist, another £260 million was announced last week. More money will be announced during the first two weeks of December for a proposed police settlement, which will be out for consultation for the year after. It is extremely important we take action on shoplifting.

Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned e-bikes. One plan in the legislation—so it has to go through both Houses—is to give police powers to seize e-bikes and other bicycle-type machinery involved in anti-social behaviour. I regard riding an e-bike on a pavement as anti-social.

I want to make noble Lords aware of an important difference in this legislation regarding the police’s ability to take action. At the moment, police can take action on these issues but they have to give a warning. The proposals in the legislation will remove the need for a warning, so that if somebody is riding an e-bike or, indeed, an off-road bike in an anti-social way, that bike can be seized immediately, with consequences for the individual.

I welcome the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I hope that, in due course, the House will scrutinise but welcome these proposals.

Asylum Seekers: Wethersfield

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the question. We are cognisant of the pressures on individuals at the site. There is a regular meeting between the police, agencies, local councils and others to assess the needs on site, and we had some external reports which the Government have responded to positively. I take on board his points; the Government’s position is to try to resolve those. Individuals spend a maximum of nine months at the centre before being dispersed, and I hope that will help with the issues raised by the right reverend Prelate.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is deeply disturbing that the Government have broken a manifesto commitment by opening new asylum hotels, such as the one in Altrincham. Can the Minister tell this House how many new asylum hotels are being opened, or are scheduled to be opened, and how local concerns are being addressed in decision making?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question; there is a net increase of seven so far. The Government’s manifesto commitment is to reduce the use of hotels and get rid of them in full during this Parliament. We are doing that by increasing the volume of asylum processing. There were 10,000 processed this month, compared with 1,000 a month when the noble Lord was in office. Since July 5, we have removed 9,400 people by deportation—a 19% increase since the noble Lord was in office. I think he needs to reflect on the fact that we have had four months in office and we have made an impact. We have closed “Bibby Stockholm”, decommissioned Scampton, put in place a £700 million saving on the Rwanda scheme and put in place new border security to stop boats in the first place. Please will noble Lord reflect on that and give credit to this Government for their actions?

Counter-Extremism Strategy

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, my noble friend tempts me to produce the outline of the review’s conclusions. But we genuinely take this issue seriously. When I was a Member of Parliament, a constituent of mine in a small village in north Wales was badly attacked and injured by someone with a machete who was radicalised by Nazi philosophy online. That radicalisation is extremely important, and we need to look at how we build up the stability of individuals to resist that radicalisation and, as my noble friend said, stop that radicalisation at source. If it comes from outside this country, we need to take effective action through the security services and others to close it down. I will give my noble friend further information once the review is complete.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Following on from the last question, what steps are being taken to address the growing threat of online radicalisation, particularly among young people, and to hold tech platforms accountable for extremist content? In the context of online radicalisation, how are this Government ensuring effective co-ordination between departments, including the Home Office, the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice, in delivering the counter-extremism strategy?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the question and the way in which the noble Lord put it. Again, I am slightly constrained in outlining the conclusions of the review before it has been completed. But let me say to him that online extremism and online radicalisation, whatever forum they come from, are extremely important issues and will be a focus of government. Going back to the point my noble friend made earlier, we have to look at a cross-government strategy on this; what happens in communities through local government departments, for example, is as important in preventing radicalisation as what the Home Office and the security services do, and we need to be aware of that. When the conclusions are published and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced and opined on them, I will be able to report back to this House in more detail.

Istanbul Convention: Article 59

Debate between Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Hanson of Flint

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, under the previous Conservative Government, we passed the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021. If I may, I suggest that the Government should now build on our work to tackle this issue. In that context, can the Minister tell us what is being done by the Government on the wider issue of combating domestic abuse, both here in the UK and abroad?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I welcome the noble Lord to his post as a shadow Home Affairs Minister. I have been here for only four months, but I already feel like a veteran. It is a pleasure to see him on the Front Bench. He will know that the Labour manifesto, which is now the Government’s manifesto for change, included a number of key points on tackling violence against women and girls. We have set an ambitious target to halve that violence against women and girls over the course of this Parliament. That includes help and support for police officers and for individuals who are victims of violence, and the issues to do with education mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, a moment ago. We will be judged on that target in the course of the programme the Government have set.