Muslim Brotherhood

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is an interesting question from the noble Lord. I do not wish to give him an answer today, but I will examine that issue for him. The appointment of the individual concerned is a matter for a ministerial colleague, so I will get back to the noble Lord on that issue.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has been responding to questions about the proscription of a particular group, as well as other groups, but what assessment have the Government made of the effectiveness of proscription per se in dealing with extremist groups of one sort or another? Quite frequently, they migrate and suddenly change their name and reappear in another guise. Also, the process of proscription is often a very blunt instrument for dealing with specific offences that might otherwise be pursued.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There is a range of offences on the statute book on which the security services and/or the police can take action in the event of potential terrorist or criminal activity. The purpose of proscription is to say that an individual cannot support an organisation, and that gives additional power to the state to protect citizens who are subject to potential terrorist or criminal activity. Proscription is defined very clearly by the Terrorism Act 2000, and therefore there are strict criteria where proscription can take place. But that proscription is done for a purpose: to secure an end to what could be perceived to be legitimate support for organisations that foster terrorism.

Pensioners: Shoplifting

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree strongly with the noble Lord that it is extremely important that all offences are registered. That is a responsibility on shops as well as on the police force and on us as a community as a whole. We need to know the level and scale of the problem. I am pleased to report that there has been an increase in the number of arrests and prosecutions for shop theft over the past six months, and that is a direction of travel that I hope we can continue, because it is important that we address criminal gangs. However, if individuals are stealing because of alcohol or drug misuse or because of not being able to afford to live, those are other issues that we need to register, address and work with the rest of society to resolve.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, there was a lot of public concern about the policy, which it seems that the previous Government were complicit in, that there would be an arbitrary threshold in terms of shoplifting before proceedings would take place. Can my noble friend confirm that that is totally against current government policy and that we will encourage police forces to prosecute in all such cases?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In 2014, the then Government introduced a £200 threshold, which meant that police forces were, in effect, told to disregard shop theft below £200. I was the shadow Police Minister in 2014, and I opposed that measure. I am pleased to say that in the Crime and Policing Bill that will be coming before this House very shortly that £200 threshold will be scrapped. It might have taken 11 years to get to that position, but it is 11 years that have changed because there was an election victory on 4 July last year.

Police: Stop and Search

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

There is plenty of time for both questions if noble Lords are quick.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are so supportive of neighbourhood policing that we have put an extra £1 billion into that fund this year. We are employing around an extra 3,000 neighbourhood police this year and will employ 13,000 more over the course of this Parliament.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister gave us a series of statistics about the successes of stop and search in terms of items seized, charges made and so on. But, of course, the other element of stop and search is its deterrent effect. Could he tell us what work has been done to quantify whether stop and search has a deterrent effect and what its extent is?

Apple: Advanced Data Protection Service

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises issues that I know he has an interest in. Decisions made by Apple are a matter for Apple, and the removal of any features is a matter for Apple. Again, for reasons of national security I cannot confirm or deny any conversations that we have had or any issues that are undertaken.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that my noble friend cannot comment, obviously, on any notice issued to Apple in this regard, but what he could, I am sure, comment on is the nature of the assessment made by His Majesty’s Government of whether or not such a notice might be issued. Can he confirm that the consideration will include a trade-off between the general weakening of security and the position of confidentiality, against the gains that will be obtained by the security services in any opportunity to de-encrypt materials? In so doing, can he comment on whether or not such an assessment also looks at what other capabilities the security services may have in respect of individuals on whom they wish to obtain information?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes interesting points. The Government take privacy very seriously and have a strong reputation internationally for protecting human rights. Access to data can happen only under specific circumstances and with strict safeguards, and it is taken, when it can be taken, against child sexual abusers or terrorists. I come back to the point that I cannot comment on the operational issues relating to points made in this House today, including neither confirming nor denying the existence of any notices, and that is the position that I will have to advise the House of during the course of this Question.

Theft of Mobile Telephones

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress is being made in addressing the theft of mobile telephones.

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

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

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful that we are debating the amendments in this group. I declare my interest, having lots of churches in Manchester that fall under the terms of the Bill.

I am drawn to the important reminder from the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, that we must not let the terrorists change the way we live our lives —I have said that myself on past occasions—so this is all about proportionality. I am drawn to his more subtle balance between 200 and 300 people, but I fear that, if we were to raise the threshold as high as some of the amendments in this group propose, it would take out many premises. We know that terrorists do not go for only very large events; they go for medium-sized events and buildings, as we have seen, sadly, with mosques and churches, not necessarily in this country but around the world. On the whole, the Bill as it has arrived to us is in the right shape, but there is considerable merit in the noble Lord’s proposal to have some flexibility in that 200 to 300 people range, and I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on that matter.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, it is extremely welcome that the House is now in the mood of trying to build consensus on the Bill. Despite the occasionally scratchy discussions we had in Committee, it is clear that people are accepting the main principles of the Bill. What we are now talking about is the quantum and the number of visitors who will trigger the threshold. I am very conscious that the Bill is not just about the legal requirements being placed on premises; it is about setting the tone with which all premises will respond and consider the threats they face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak, briefly, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I do not want to repeat everything I said previously, but it is important. I know the Minister will say that this is not the appropriate Bill, but the trouble is that there is never an appropriate one, and therefore we keep on missing the opportunities of starting to design out terrorism and crime from the very start. So I would hope that, after this, the Minister will at least take this on board with his colleagues and try to push hard for people to start thinking seriously about doing this for new developments, particularly larger ones.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether we are actually debating this or not, because I do not think the chair has put it to us. However, I will say in one sentence that both the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, have a point that this is an important provision. We should be building into planning legislation —into licensing legislation—arrangements to design out terrorism and, I would go further, to design out crime.

I hope that the Minister will be able to say in reply that that is something the Government will bring forward in another way, at another time.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)]

The noble Lord has correctly picked up on my error. The matter is before the House and the amendment has been moved.

Emergency Service Network Programme

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Given the overspend, I do not know whether the noble Lord was the left hand or the right hand in the previous Government. But whichever he was, I declare an interest: I was the Police Minister in 2009-10, and this had not started then. The delay, obfuscation, overspend and costs happened entirely on the previous Government’s watch. However, let us put that to one side. The key thing is ensuring that our police forces, fire services and others have appropriate services. The Home Office will provide some masts because there are some security implications, which we need to examine and deliver on. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that the Home Office will have a grip on this and will deliver, and that it has a three to five-year plan to get the basics in place, with a handover as soon as possible.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my policing interests as listed in the register. I am pleased that the Minister acknowledges the grotesque excess expenditure and delays that are clearly the fault of the previous Government. What consideration is being given to the resilience implications of the emergency services using a mobile phone network? At the moment, if the Airwave network goes down, the police and other emergency services can use mobile phones to communicate with each other. If something affects the mobile phone network, what will be plan B?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Plan B is part of plan A, which is also to provide the 292 4G mobile phone sites that the noble Lord mentioned in his question. We have picked this up. We have made a decision to terminate the previous contract; we had a court case to do that. We are now putting in place a revised contract—we have to exit the former contract—and resilience will be built in to make sure that this is the most important service that can be provided, because this is how police, fire and other emergency services communicate with each other in times of difficulty. It is an absolute priority for the Home Office to get this right, and I hope that we will do so in the course of the next few years.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Finally, the Minister said that he was accepting plugs, so I will make another—it is always a mistake to open a door—concerning the police counterterrorism security advisers, who are based not only in London but in our regional police counterterrorism units. The Minister mentioned that the Government will look at resourcing for local authorities, for example. I hope that he considers this idea. They are relatively few in number. We are talking about, potentially, 180,000 venues, and perhaps not all of them will need this, but there will be a significant start-up volume. Will he at least consider that group? It is part of police funding and is the forward-facing part of the group that the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, mentioned. This idea deserves consideration, at least.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I associate myself the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about counterterrorism security advisers. They are part of this defence mechanism; they certainly need to be better resourced and could do a great deal as a consequence.

The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, are extremely important and have great value; they reflect the comments that I made in my two reports on prevention of terrorism in London. A great deal can be done to design out different sorts of crime, or, as in this case, to make it more difficult for terrorists to act, or to make it easier to respond to a terrorist incident. I do not wish to prolong the discussion, because there is an issue as to whether this is the right legislation. Clearly, it needs to be considered in the context of the planning system, but I also take the point about that perhaps taking an inordinate amount of time, rather than trying to move this forward at this stage.

If I may inject a slightly partisan point at this stage, I do recall, at a lower level, the issues around designing out crime. At one stage, a whole series of recommendations were in the building regulations to make crime more difficult—for example, making it more difficult for burglars to kick in doors. The previous Government dismantled all that, which was extremely unfortunate.

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. I wonder whether the Minister and the advisers have been to Northern Ireland, where, for a long time, buildings have been designed for the exact threats he is talking about. I am not sure of the system, but I do not think that those designs originated from planning control or building control; they were brought on by the organisations themselves in order to provide protection. There must be lessons to be learned there on how best to stop these sorts of attacks; after all, although I hesitate to say it, we were under them for 40 years.

On the subject of the various organisations, including the SIA, we can point people in the right direction and get advice to them, but resources will have to be put into the communications between people and those organisations. The advice may be there but currently, there is not the manpower to communicate to the extent that will ward off terrorist attacks.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has put forward an important group of amendments. When I think about this, I am guided by two principles. The first is that anything the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, says about terrorism is probably worth listening to extremely carefully.

Secondly, I strive to be consistent in your Lordships’ House. I appreciate that that is not something that all noble Lords, particularly some who were recently in government, have necessarily embraced, but I cannot forget the number of occasions in the last 14 years when I have trooped through the Lobbies against Henry VIII clauses—for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, highlighted. I look forward to my noble friend’s response on precisely that point of why Henry VIII clauses might be needed in this case. If he is not so minded, perhaps he might give us an indication of the alternative.

The other point—again, I hope it is consistent with what I have already said—is that I am aware that the Bill has been through a large amount of consultation in reaching this House. That consultation has led to a series of compromises. I said earlier that my preference would have been for the limits to be set at lower levels and for the provisions to kick in at venues of 100. It is the Government’s judgment, from listening to that consultation, that 200 is a better figure to go for. I would be uneasy if we were saying that these major provisions, having been through such extensive consultations, could be changed without a consultation process and certainly without a proper process of parliamentary endorsement.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has been very careful in the drafting of this amendment and I respect the work he has done, although, like the noble Baroness, I do not agree with the amendment. It seems to undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to place responsibility on those people who control premises. To create a box-ticking exercise of this kind, which is what it would amount to, would simply facilitate the payment of an annual subscription and leave it to some other company to take that responsibility.

The noble Lord will be aware, I am sure, that, when somebody employs an independent contractor to carry out part of the work they are contracted to do—for example, a floor layer to do part of a construction contract—the person who engages that independent contractor has at least a common-law responsibility to ensure that they take reasonable steps to ensure that the independent contractor is competent and does the work properly. This amendment would appear to remove that potential responsibility. All of us who have been involved in cases involving questioning the work of independent contractors will know that sometimes such claims can be successful because the employer has not carried out proper scrutiny of the independent contractor.

I also draw to the House’s attention paragraph 8.106 of Manchester Arena Inquiry Volume 1: Security for the Arena. Sir John Saunders recommended that

“consideration is given to amending the SIA legislation to require that companies which carry out security work which may include a counter terrorism element are required to be licensed”.

He recommended, therefore,

“that only fit and proper companies carry out this work”,

under an amended SIA licensing procedure similar to the procedure that the SIA already operates for security companies carrying out door security work and similar activities. If the aim of the Bill is, as I believe, to place clear responsibility on those who operate property to take reasonable steps to secure the public against terrorist acts, that responsibility should not be shuffled aside by an amendment of this kind.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I am slightly concerned about this amendment. We have had, in previous stages of the Bill and in previous debates in Committee, concerns about the number of private contractors—the snake oil salesmen whom the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, talked about—who will crawl out of the woodwork and offer advice to people that they do not need, because either it will be common sense or there will be perfectly clear guidance issued by the Home Office and the Security Industry Authority that will make clear the sorts of things they need to do.

I am worried that, after all the discussion we have heard from His Majesty’s Opposition in Committee about the costs and burdens that will be placed on village halls, small enterprises and so on, they will now be encouraged by this amendment to go down the route of employing contractors who will seek to make a profit out of the arrangements, which will in fact add to the costs, when the reality is that they could do this themselves using the advice and guidance that we expect will be provided by the Security Industry Authority.

I am reminded of those companies that used to advertise themselves as being able to secure you a European health insurance card. I am not trying to raise any issue about the EU, Brexit or remain. This was, as noble Lords know, a system whereby all you had to do was put into the Department of Health’s website your name, address and national insurance number and you then got your European health insurance card, which would help defray the costs of falling ill within the EU. There were companies that would charge £15, £20 or more, simply for filling in the details you would provide them. I wonder whether the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, might inadvertently create a market in which companies would recycle the guidance and advice issued by the Security Industry Authority and charge people for it.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I have listened to this amendment with some interest, and I understand the noble Lord’s reasoning for tabling it—sometimes such things require expertise. But I do not accept taking it away from public finances into the private sector, because the private sector will probably be financially burdened enough by this legislation.

My concern is that it might provide the opposite of the noble Lord’s intended idea. It might be very costly, as has been outlined, and you might not get the expert advice you need. But I do not disagree with the principle of allowing outside advice. That could be done through a training system for each individual company rather than being provided by an independent company. If there was a terrorist incident, one of the first things that might be asked is “What advice and what training did you take in respect of securing your premises and ensuring public safety?” So I understand the basis of the amendment, but I am not so sure that it is entirely there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

Having heard the opening speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the one thing that seems clear to me is that there will be different bodies out there with different responsibilities and we will have the SIA coming in. It is important that, before Report, it is clear who will sit at the top and have the last word, because there may be competing interests from different authorities. I do not know what all the details are, but the noble Baroness has set this out. If it is to be the SIA, so be it, but there may be other bodies which know much more about important matters. There needs to be thought within government about how that is to be addressed with specialist knowledge and so on.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, there is enormous advantage in the various regulatory frameworks being consistent. That is a very basic principle. If you are looking for a holistic approach to protective security—which is what this Bill is about—there is the element of personal responsibility involved in making sure that sensible precautions are taken at a local level, but there will also be responsibilities on licensing authorities. It is my view that the various licensing authorities should proactively put in proportionate requirements for the various organisations concerned. In many cases they do that already, but I am not sure that it is a consistent process because each licensing authority is technically separate. While I am not sure that it is in the scope of this Bill to try to regularise the position of different licensing authorities, a holistic approach to protective security would ensure that licensing authorities behave in a consistent fashion.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, has hit on a good point, particularly when you consider that at least four bodies would have a view about evacuation—the Health and Safety Executive, licensing authorities, the SIA and the fire regulators. Each has its own inspection regime, which means that there could be four inspections in one year about the same event. They would all want to make sure that this does not cause more cost but does cause more effectiveness. Whether it is in the Bill or something to reassure the people operating these premises, I think it worth considering at this stage. Nobody is saying that it should not happen, but it is about how it works together. This would be one more body in a similar area if we considered evacuation only, but I suspect that there are other overlapping areas.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very keen on Amendment 33 although I have not put my name to it—it is in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst. It suggests an advisory board for the SIA with the intention of ensuring a collaborative approach to regulation.

I am keen on the amendment because one of my fears about the Bill is that it could be one of those laws that, in effect, means the state abdicating responsibility for public protection and outsourcing it to businesses and community organisations with very much a “You’re responsible for that” attitude, and it is then policed by the regulator. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, I am worried about the damage that might do to civil society.

I really like the idea of addressing some of the issues raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about how we ensure that there is a more collaborative approach. I would like civil society not to feel that it is being done to, dumped on or put in charge of public protection on its own. This strikes me as a good way of approaching that.

I put my name down specifically on Amendment 34 because one of the important things about it is a review that considers all the implications of the Bill some way down the line. We need to be able to consider trade-offs all the time. It is wrong to suggest, as I think was suggested in a debate on an earlier group by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that those of us who were trying to consider cost-benefit analysis and trade-offs were being somehow glib about the possibility of people being killed in a terrorist bomb and that we somehow have a “higher-risk appetite”—the phrase used—or a higher threshold for risk-taking, whereas the important and responsible thing to do would be to ensure that we always considered safety first.

I think we have to acknowledge—

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness is misinterpreting what I said. I said that in making these judgments, you had to have a risk appetite and that you needed to do that explicitly. I was not saying that any particular risk appetite was right or wrong; I was saying it should be made explicit. I certainly was not suggesting that the noble Baroness was therefore glib about people being killed. I was merely saying that that is the trade-off, and anyone making those decisions has to be clear about the trade-off they are making.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification and I am relieved to hear it. I think it was the bit where somebody asked, “How would you answer the situation where 199 people were killed if the limit was 200?” All I am saying is there is often a conversation like this when we talk about safety, risk and responsibility.

I like this amendment because it introduces into the debate about the Bill the opportunity—some months down the line—to have a cost-benefit analysis of whether it has worked. I first came into this House at the height of the lockdown period. On a number of occasions—rather tentatively at the time, because I was new—I, along with others, called for a cost-benefit analysis. I kept asking, with lockdown and all those measures in the name of safety, whether we could just assess whether they were the only way that we should proceed. I was told that we had to be very careful because old people were going to die, and so on and so forth—you are familiar with the arguments.

The reason I mention that is that we can now look back and say that many of those old people were locked up in care homes and greatly suffered. We can say about young people—when some of us argued that we should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of closing schools—that we now have a crisis of worrying about pupils and the impact that lockdown had on them. There is a discussion that the Government are initiating about the cost and impact of lockdown on employment people’s habits as we speak.

It is sensible with a Bill such as this to introduce a review that will give us the opportunity to do a cost-benefit analysis. This is particularly important because a regulator is introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, explained that we need to be able to see whether the regulator is the appropriate way of getting what we would like, which is more public protection, or whether, in fact, it undermines some of the important aspects of local regulatory interventions.

We debated a very interesting group just before the break, when the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, raised the point about the number of regulatory regimes that each venue already apparently has to adhere to in terms of licensing, and so on. This amendment gives us an opportunity to see whether the central regulator is the appropriate way of ensuring that we keep people safe with respect to premises and terrorism.

--- Later in debate ---

On Amendment 36, on taking into account the views of the local authority in determining the amount of a penalty, I am unclear what the local authority would add: the history of an organisation’s compliance with licensing, perhaps? The clause in the Bill allows matters that are considered relevant to be considered. So I am not sure where Amendment 36, with its proposed new paragraph (d) in Clause 20(2), is heading. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, if I have should have heard that from him: I am afraid that I did not.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who, on the first day of Committee, suggested that we ought to have subheadings for groups of amendments to tell us what they were generally about. This may or may not be an issue worth pursuing. If we had a subheading for this particular group of amendments, it would be “The quango-fication of Martyn’s law”, because we are talking about two not-quite-superfluous extra bodies that would be created as a result of these amendments.

Normally, the position of His Majesty’s Opposition would be to say that we had too many quangos and public bodies being set up, rather than to suggest some entirely gratuitous ones. For example, Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talks about an advisory board which shall “guide” the implementation and enforcement of the Act. Now it is a strange advisory board that “guides”. This again raises questions about the organisational structure of the Security Industry Authority, its governance structure and its relationship with the Home Office. It seems an unnecessary requirement. If it wants to take advice or consult widely with different sections of communities or organisations affected, that is something it can do. The same applies to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, which talks about setting up a review panel to monitor the Security Industry Authority. What, then, is the purpose of the Home Office?

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I agree. I am surprised that the Opposition suggested more bureaucracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was right about the advisory board: if it is a good idea, and it could be, it is for the SIA to decide. Otherwise, if it were a separate body, there would be even more cost.

I have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on many things about Europe, but I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was entirely right: you cannot say that it is bureaucracy in that context but not in this, because it is. It would confuse rather than clarify. Surely the purpose of the SIA board is to do the very thing that he described under the supervision of the Home Office. If it gets it wrong, I presume there would be a change in the legislation. He made a stronger argument for more clarity in the law and that it was the wrong solution for a problem that may materialise.

Finally, this reminded me that, post 9/11, the Americans concluded they had too many intelligence agencies. I think they had 19 at the time, and the result was that they were not communicating. Their solution was to put things called fusion centres outside the major cities—big warehouse buildings in which all these bodies would work together. Instead of reducing the number of intelligence agencies or finding a better solution, they built a place where they could meet better. I did not see the sense in that, so I cannot agree with either of these amendments.