Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Davies of Gower

Report stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Davies of Gower

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate. As I say, my Amendment 33 seeks merely to create an advisory board for the SIA, so that we can have some form of independence—

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Davies of Gower

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 32 in my name would require the Security Industry Authority to notify all local authorities when guidance under the Act has been published. This amendment is a sensible and practical addition that enhances the effectiveness of the guidance regime established by the Bill. Local authorities, as the key regulators of many of the premises affected by this legislation, must be fully informed and equipped to act on the guidance issued by the SIA. Without clear and timely notification, there is a real risk that local authorities may be unaware of updates or new requirements, leading to inconsistencies in enforcement and, ultimately, undermining the policy aims of the Bill.

The Security Industry Authority will no doubt invest considerable resources in developing detailed guidance, taking into account the needs of various sectors and types of premises. However, guidance can be effective only if those responsible for its implementation are fully aware of it. Local authorities play a pivotal role in licensing, regulation and compliance, particularly in environments where security is a key concern. Whether dealing with entertainment venues, public spaces or other licensed premises, their ability to respond quickly and efficiently to new guidance is essential for maintaining public safety.

Ensuring that local authorities are promptly notified will support the smooth implementation of the Act and strengthen co-operation between central guidance bodies and local enforcement agencies. It will reduce the risk of delays in adopting best practices and foster a stronger sense of collaboration between stakeholders at the national and local levels. Ultimately, this measure will help create a more coherent and streamlined regulatory environment, benefiting businesses and the public alike.

Furthermore, this amendment underscores the importance of clarity and communication in regulatory frameworks. Given the increasing complexity of the legislative landscape for public safety and licensing, clear channels of communication between central bodies and local authorities are more critical than ever. We must not assume that guidance, once published, will automatically reach all relevant parties without a formal notification requirement. By adopting this amendment, we would take a simple yet effective step to close that potential gap.

I respectfully suggest that the adoption of Amendment 32 would represent a constructive and pragmatic step toward strengthening communication between national and local regulatory bodies. It is a practical measure that will enhance the effectiveness of this legislation and support its successful implement- ation. I urge the Government to give it serious and favourable consideration.

Pedal Cyclists: Insurance

Debate between Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Davies of Gower

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to require pedal cyclists to have insurance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Davies of Gower) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government considered this matter carefully as part of a comprehensive cycling and walking safety review in 2018. The Government have no plans to require cyclists to have insurance, because the costs and complexity of doing so would significantly outweigh the benefits, and because it would be at odds with the Government’s aim of getting more people to switch to cycling for their everyday journeys.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, on the department’s own figures, over the last 20 years injuries of pedestrians hit by cyclists have drastically increased—more than doubling. Every day, we see people ignoring one-way signs, going across pedestrian crossings, through red lights and across pelican crossings while pedestrians are on them. Cyclists are not even governed by speed limits in the way that motor vehicles are. Has not the time come for the Government to consider insurance to compensate people for the damage that cyclists can cause, and for registration marks to identify those who have committed an offence and deter those who might? Finally, where a cyclist commits an offence and has a driving licence, their licence might be endorsed with points for the offences which they have committed as a cyclist. Many may consider this to be a vote loser, but I think it is a vote winner.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, dangerous cycling puts lives at risk and is completely unacceptable. Like all road users, cyclists are required to comply with road traffic law in the interests of their own safety and that of other road users. This is reflected in the Highway Code. If road users, including cyclists, do not adopt a responsible attitude or if their use of the highway creates an unsafe environment or causes nuisance, they may be committing a number of offences. The department has considered issues such as a mandatory registration and licensing system for cycle ownership as part of a comprehensive cycling and walking safety review in 2018. In light of the review, the Government have no plans to introduce a mandatory registration system, as the cost and complexity of introducing such a system would far outweigh the benefits.

Low-traffic Neighbourhoods

Debate between Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Davies of Gower

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I take on board what she says, and I cannot disagree with it. There is nothing wrong with driving. Most of us use a car, and for many, life would not be liveable without one, but I take on board exactly what the noble Baroness says.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I add my own congratulations to a retired detective who has been put in charge of traffic, which is truly a remarkable promotion. What plans do the Government have to ensure that cyclists do not exceed 20 mph in the low- traffic zones or, frankly, anywhere else that they choose to break the law?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. He makes a very good point, and it is something, perhaps, that the Metropolitan Police should take good note of.

Public Order Bill

Debate between Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Davies of Gower

Report stage
Tuesday 7th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

And how is an officer to know?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this is Report stage and they have one opportunity to speak.