Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Hanson of Flint

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and other contributors to this debate that I have been on a few demos myself. I have quite enjoyed them; they are part of the democratic right to oppose certain things. Although my demo days have gone for the moment, because, as a Government Minister, I support government policy, there may be occasions in the future when I want to go on further demonstrations. I do not anticipate this Bill or any other legislation—apart, perhaps, from the legislation put in place by the previous Government—curtailing that democratic right to protest.

I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that none of the Bill’s provisions are intended to interfere with people’s rights, which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act, including the right to protest. To be clear, the Bill aims to protect the public, not to infringe their rights. The noble Lord will note that something that I never expected to happen to me again happened with this Bill. On the front of it are the words:

“Lord Hanson of Flint has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998”,


and, for the benefit of the House, I will repeat what it says:

“In my view the provisions of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”,


of which the right to protest is at the heart.

The noble Lord referred to a number of points around the undergrowth of the legislation and some of the clauses and schedules that he has concerns about. However, the front of the Bill says—and I put my name to it—that it is compatible with the convention of human rights. In my view, the measures are carefully developed to ensure it appropriately and proportionately captures the places and requirements of qualifying premises and events. In the development of the Bill, we have been mindful of its application to protests and demonstrations.

The expectation is that most demonstrations and protests will not fall within the Bill’s scope at all. They will not constitute “qualifying premises” under Clause 2, as they are not qualifying activities under Schedule 1. Even if they were, it would be unlikely that the premises would be wholly or mainly used for those purposes.

Some large demonstrations and protests may be qualifying events. However, many will not have to put in place the specific measure to check entry and, as a result, will not satisfy the criteria to be a qualifying event under Clause 3. An open access event, which is how I would term some of the demonstrations that I have been on, might have more than 800 attendees at a time—that number would be a good demonstration—and will not be within the scope of the Bill. Where demonstrations or events are within the scope of the Bill, it is right that the relevant provisions will apply. In some cases, large numbers of people will be gathered in a location where the organiser must have adequate control to consider and take forward appropriate security measures and procedures, so far as is reasonably practical.

I hope to reassure the noble Lord, His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that, within the Bill’s scope, we are required to act compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. I can say from this Dispatch Box that nothing in the legislation interferes with that.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for teasing out the discussion. I look forward to perhaps joining him on a demonstration, if we ever find shared common ground. But, for the moment, his pressing is valuable as it gives me the opportunity to say that he can undertake protests without worry about the Bill’s provisions—unless, of course, his protest falls within the scope of the Bill, in which case it is treated no differently from any other aspect of life that falls within the scope. I hope he will reflect on that and withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the Minister. Obviously, the Section 19 declaration on the front of the Bill is a statement that, in the Minister’s view, it is compatible with the Act. As one of the very small number of Ministers who has signed a Section 19(1)(b) statement, which is to be signed in different circumstances, where you are not so confident, I can assure the Minister that such a statement of opinion is not conclusive. The courts regularly find that measures in Acts of Parliament—for example, in the recent litigation about the Northern Ireland legacy Act—are in fact incompatible, notwithstanding statements or declarations of compatibility on the front of the Bill.

Be that as it may, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I obviously agree with much of it, but I still wonder whether he might go back to the department and consider whether it is appropriate to put in just a short clause along the lines I suggested, to make crystal clear that the right to protest is not to be interfered with indirectly and unintentionally by the measures in the Bill. For now, of course, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Hanson of Flint

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by re-emphasising the purpose of this legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that she is unconvinced of the need for it. This legislation will save lives. There are people who died because people did not know what to do when a terrorist attack occurred, and there are people whose lives were saved and who are walking the streets today because people took action when a terrorist attack occurred. The purpose of this legislation is to put in place a framework so that individuals know, if a terrorist attack occurs, what their responsibilities are in that moment; it is not to stop terrorism per se, or to worry about what happens afterwards to the perpetrators, but to stop terrorist activity damaging individuals’ lives in that moment. That is the purpose of this legislation.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has brought this amendment forward constructively, but I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Elliott, that it will dilute responsibility, because there is a named person and that named person is a named person whether or not they subcontract to a security consultant. It will increase the very cost that the noble Lord has been seeking to reduce during the passage of the Bill to date. It will add potential burdens, on small organisations in particular. It will create a market for the very snake-oil salesmen that this Committee is trying to avoid engaging with. It will set standards which are unrealistic when compared to the standards being set by the Home Office and/or the Security Industry Association. It will sow confusion, and it will put burdens on the very people who the noble Lord, deep down, wants to make sure do not have such burdens.

The Home Office’s whole approach is to try to make sure that the provisions in Clause 5 for the smaller tier, and the provisions in Clause 6 for the enhanced tier, are in place and can be simply understood and embedded in good practice. That is certainly true for the enhanced tier, because, by and large, it is made up of professional organisations that will embed the requirements in their day-to-day activity. For smaller organisations, it is about a simple level of guidance and support, which has a legislative component in that someone is responsible. Someone needs to make sure that measures are in place, such as simple evacuation, invacuation, shutting windows or hiding under a desk—whatever is appropriate for that local provision—without the need to have expensive tailored security provision on top. The cost estimate we have put in the Bill is around £330 for the standard tier, and that is in time, not necessarily in cash.

The noble Lord’s proposal would create confusion. Someone would undoubtedly say, “I have to have a consultant”, and someone would undoubtedly pay a consultant, and then the next village would say, “They’ve paid a consultant. We have to do the same”. The next village would say the same, and the costs and the burden would rise on those businesses, when the requirements of the Bill are actually simple and straightforward.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Does the Minister not think that, for example, a village hall that has developed a terrorism action plan along the lines of that required by Clause 5 will want to test that to ascertain whether it meets the requirement before the Security Industry Authority comes to inspect it? In the event that it is inspected and its plan is found wanting, it becomes liable for the heavy penalties that we see later in the Bill. It is surely a natural human reaction to want to test that, and they will do it by going to the private market. Is it not sensible to build into the Bill a measure that allows them to do that? It is simply going to happen. People are going to want to test their plans. Surely he must understand that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I would argue that the way to test those plans is to test them against the Home Office guidance and the security industry guidance. It is not potentially to go out and say to Mr or Mrs security consultant, “Please come in at an exorbitant cost to check that the five exits that we’ve got in this village hall and the plan I’ve put down to work on them meet the requirements of the Act”. The Bill has been determined in such a way that the Home Office does not believe that the requirements are onerous for the standard tier organisations, and even for the enhanced tier the anticipated cost is around £5,000. That will be standard practice for a large arena or large organisation, without the requirement to have those further security consultants test it accordingly. In my view, though the House will determine this in due course, the amendment would dilute the responsibility on the responsible person for bringing forward those plans in the first place.

I say to the noble Lord that I know why he has done this. All the way through the Bill, he has argued to reduce the burdens on small organisations, but this amendment would simply increase those burdens. It would create uncertainty, jealousy and cost, and it would not achieve the objectives that he said. I hope that he will not at any stage, either now or on Report, bring this amendment back for this House to determine.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate on the amendment, particularly the Minister. I might just address one or two of the points raised. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, yes, the accreditation referred to in my amendment is the same as the certification.

I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Of course, I do not seek to replace the contingent liability on a contractor in contract law for faulty advice or workmanship in the floor example that he provided. I am suggesting more that the contractor would share the liability under the statute—the daily penalties and the financial penalties that can be imposed by the SIA and the criminal liability under the Act, which I think is separate from ordinary contractual liability, which would be recoverable under a civil action in the courts.

However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out and reminding me of the passage in the Saunders report saying that the advice provided needs to be clear and to assist the parties that receive that advice. That is exactly what my amendment seeks to achieve. The reality, as I sought to argue to the Minister a moment ago, is that bodies subject to duties under the Bill will look for advice because of the penalty regime, particularly the contingent criminal offence, which would fall upon the responsible person. One therefore expects that there will be a market for advice, and it is important that it is regulated to prevent the snake-oil salesmen that noble Lords across the Committee have expressed an intention to avoid.

I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies for his support for my amendment, and to all other noble Lords for contributing to the debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and that in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.

In the Manchester Arena Inquiry report by Sir John Saunders, the Security Industry Authority came in for considerable criticism. I refer particularly to paragraphs 3.25 to 3.38 of volume 1 of his report. In particular, the inquiry found that there was a lack of effective enforcement measures by the SIA, and this gives rise to considerable concerns about the readiness of the SIA to undertake this task. In previous groups, the Minister has said that one of the purposes of the two-year implementation period is to get the SIA ready for this much greater task. One of the points raised by the amendments in this group is that the SIA is compelled to consider other aspects of information which may be provided by local authorities. I suggest to the Committee that that is a useful and beneficial thing for the Bill to consider.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments and contributions to the Committee. I think I have said already that guidance will be produced by the Home Office and by the Security Industry Authority. I do not need to go into the detail of that, as I have already covered it.

In relation to that, importantly, on Amendment 30, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, besides investigations and enforcement, a primary function of the Security Industry Authority will be to advise, educate and support those who fall within scope of the legislation. That is part of its role. As well as the general overarching role, the SIA’s guidance will look at how it can exercise those new functions. It already plays a significant role in safeguarding the public, through the regulation of the private security industry. We believe that it has a wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation which better protects the public.

I accept that the regulator implementation programme, which is the nub of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, is in the early stages of development. However, the Government are clear that we expect the SIA to engage in work with existing public safety bodies—this goes to the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, endorsed—before this new regime comes into effect.

It is important that the provisions under Clauses 5 and 6 are set down, but they have a crossover of responsibility in certain areas, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness indicated. Ultimately, the SIA has a responsibility to regulate the functions of this Bill. The guidance will ensure that that aligns with existing requirements, so far as is relevant to the SIA carrying out its regulatory functions. Therefore, while the amendment highlights this area, I hope it is one that is not developed further, because existing proposals in the Bill, and in the intention I have given, mean that the SIA has responsibilities which I hope are clear.

Amendment 31 would place a statutory duty on the SIA to consult with stakeholders in different sectors. The amendment would require the SIA to consult in relation to requirements at contiguous premises, premises within other premises, and areas within the vicinity of buildings. I hope I have already set out that we recognise the importance of communication and that understanding the impact on affected sectors is pivotal to ensuring effective implementation. This includes the operational guidance to be issued under Clause 12 by the SIA and the statutory guidance I have referred to several times issued by the Home Office under Clause 27. The Government do not expect that the SIA’s operational guidance will address matters specifically set out in the amendment, such as premises within premises, as it will relate to its functions.

Furthermore, it is already the Government’s clear expectation that the SIA should engage with relevant stakeholders on its guidance, where appropriate. “Relevant stakeholders” means a whole range of bodies, potentially including local authorities. Again, I hope that we do not need to place a statutory duty on the SIA, because that will be part of its core business, as directed by the Government under this legislation, in the event of it becoming law downstream.

Amendment 32 has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I hope I have given sufficient reassurance that the Home Office and the SIA recognise the value of engagement on the implementation of the important legislation before us. The department has already worked with local authorities as key stakeholders, and we expect that to continue. I know what the noble Lord’s intention is with this, but the question is whether we place a statutory duty on the SIA to notify local authorities of the guidance, as opposed to the SIA doing it as part of the general consultation.

The guidance will be published and will be publicly available. I am hoping that the SIA will give appropriate communications to accompany publication. This publication should be no surprise to local authorities, because, two years downstream, when it is potentially implemented, there will be plenty of opportunity to have that discussion.

Amendment 36A is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I understand that the intention is to clarify the purpose of Clause 27(4). As I have already set out, the Government are acutely aware of the need to provide help and support in complying with the requirements of the legislation through guidance under Clause 27.

Clause 27(4) applies where it is alleged in proceedings that a person has contravened a requirement imposed by Part 1 of the Bill. In such a case, the clause provides that the person may rely on proof they acted in accordance with this guidance as tending to establish that there was no such contravention. The intention of the clause is to provide comfort and reassurance to those responsible for qualifying premises and events, as it allows the person to rely on proof that they acted in accordance with the guidelines as showing them to have likely met the relevant requirements. It will not provide absolute proof but will be given the appropriate weight in proceedings, as the circumstances and other evidence must be. All of those things will be taken into consideration.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 36A would put beyond doubt only that a person may adduce evidence to that end. The effect of this would be to provide a lesser level of protection to someone faced by allegations than is provided for by the current drafting. I do not believe that is the intention she had in tabling this amendment. Furthermore, the clause has precedent in other regulatory regimes, namely, the Building Safety Act 2022. Its inclusion recognises concern about the implementation of what would be a novel regime.

I hope that, with those explanations, noble Lords will not press their amendments at this stage and accept the comments I have made from this Front Bench.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Hanson of Flint

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Sorry, I left north Wales at 7 am, so it has been a long day already. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned the figure of 800. Why have we come to our figure? I can make all sorts of justifications. Two hundred takes into account the greatest number of large premises, so it is a figure that we have determined accordingly. We have to set the figure at a certain level and we have done so following the wide range of consultation that has taken place.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

To what extent has the department made an evaluation of the impact on volunteering of the measures as they are currently proposed, with a threshold of 200? Does the Home Office have a threshold for the number of trustees that they think will go unfilled, or the lack of volunteering in community ventures and village halls, as a consequence of the threats and burden imposed by these measures?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The measures that we have accepted are part of the consultation that we have undertaken. The noble Lord was a Minister standing at this Dispatch Box in this department during the genesis of this Bill, so he will know that there has been wide consultation on these matters. Again, I point him to Clause 5 on public protection measures. Clause 5(3) refers to

“evacuating individuals from the premises … moving individuals to a place on the premises … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.

Are those onerous issues? Or are they things that, even in our own assessment, are relatively low cost in terms of training? That relatively low cost is, essentially, in person hours when determining what those requirements are.

Again, we could fix a number. If I fixed the number at 300, 400 or 500, we would take even more premises out, but that would dilute the purpose of this legislation, which is to set good practice for the prevention of an attack when an attack is occurring and the steps that can be taken to save lives. People’s experiences—not mine, but those in the consultations of the public inquiry—mean that the 200 figure we have now settled on is the right one. I commend that figure to the House and hope that noble Lords will support it in due course when it comes to the final decision by this House before Third Reading.

Defending Democracy Taskforce

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Hanson of Flint

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I hope I can assure my noble friend that the Government take the issue of deepfakes, AI and misrepresentation extremely seriously. We will be looking at that as part of the task-force remit. There are also powers within the Online Safety Act, and we are certainly reflecting on the points mentioned by my noble friend because it is important that we have integrity in our elections. People need to understand what that integrity means. It does not mean deepfakes purporting to be somebody or something they are not.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, we are told that the Defending Democracy Taskforce will report in due course. Can the Minister guarantee to us that that report will be provided in good time for the May elections?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is a continuing process and, as the noble Lord will know, the task force was established when his Government were in office and continues now. It is an ongoing process; we are looking at this and will produce lessons whenever they are forthcoming. In relation to the local elections in May, we have extended Operation Bridger, which gives support, if required, to Members of Parliament and Members of this House and key individuals who face elections in May. That operation, Operation Ford, is available to give support to individuals who face election at any time when parliamentary elections are not forthcoming.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Hanson of Flint

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I second my noble friend’s welcome for Christmas and new year—in fact, I third his welcome, because I think we are all ready for that break in due course.

He mentioned the contribution of many people who came to this country from our Commonwealth partners abroad, and who have contributed to building the Britain that I grew up in. It is important that we recognise their contribution. People from both the Sikh community and the Windrush community have helped make the Britain that I am proud of, and I wish them well. I cannot commit to a statue today, but I note his representations and will certainly reflect on them. We hope that, however it is done, the recognition will be made.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, when I was the Minister responsible for the Windrush compensation scheme, some of the best of the Home Office’s staff worked for it. It is a very impressive team based in Sheffield, and I recommend that the Minister visits its office and sees its work. On that basis, I also welcome the decision to have a single point of contact; I was keen to try to achieve that, so I am very glad that they have managed to do it. What is the current average time for processing a new claim to the Windrush compensation scheme?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord has got me there—if he allows me, I will reflect on that. Before I go on the welcome Christmas and new year break, I will make a telephone call to Sheffield and encourage the team to inform him, via me, of that delay in due course. I hope that, between us, we can have a very merry new year and resolve these issues for the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the others who deserve that recognition and resolution.

Police Act 1997 (Authorisations to Interfere with Property: Relevant Offence) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Hanson of Flint

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome and support both these orders. The first statutory instrument adds offences under the National Security Act to the list of relevant offences in the Police Act 1997, enabling the use of counter-drone powers by police and other authorised officials. This means they will have the power to use counter-drone technology and to take action against unmanned aircraft or drones which are being operated in an area around a prohibited place or a cordoned area without authorisation.

As has already been noted by noble Lords, we have seen an exponential increase in the use of drones in crime. It makes perfect sense to empower the police to tackle this rising threat. It is consistent with the evolving threat reflected in the debates on the National Security Act, which passed through this House last year.

I turn to the draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025, which are also supported on this side of the House. As the Minister explained, this is a consequential amendment to the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019. One can understand how these incidents occur, and it is clearly appropriate to make the order that is sought.

The National Security Act was a landmark achievement for the previous Conservative Government and passed with a good measure of parliamentary support across both this House and the other place. It reflected the evolving national security threat that our country faces. It places Britain at the forefront of efforts to protect our citizens, businesses, institutions and defence establishments from the ever-changing threats posed by hostile actors, cyber threats and covert intelligence measures. The only question I have for the Minister is: when does he estimate that the National Security Act will be fully in force?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the contributions from His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for both orders, which are relatively straightforward and, I hope, totally uncontroversial. I hope that this House today, as well as the House of Commons in due course, will support them.

I will start with the extremely important and valid points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. The first relates to the potential for individuals not to know about a site or for the site sensitivity not to be obvious. The Government have considered that, where appropriate, steps should be taken to ensure that all prohibited places are clearly signposted for the benefit of the public. They will remain discretionary for a time, because it will not always be appropriate or practical for security reasons, but the prohibited places offences under the National Security Act 2023 take account of this. Whether or not signage is in place depends on the circumstances, and that would then determine whether or not an offence has been committed. For most places, signage is in place. There will be a limited number of places where there is no signage—but, again, it is not appropriate, even today, to talk about what types of prohibited places they may be, for reasons that are obvious.

The National Security Act 2023 protects our most sensitive sites against activity, which is why we welcomed it when it was introduced by the previous Government. Section 7 of the Act sets out what the prohibited places are, including certain Crown land in the UK, the sovereign base areas, defence establishments, and areas for the defence of a foreign state or the extraction of material for UK defence purposes, as well as sites owned or controlled by the UK intelligence services and used for their functions. Such prohibited places are inherently sensitive and therefore may be at risk. An offence might be committed under Section 5 if a person carries out unauthorised conduct in relation to that prohibited place. As has been mentioned, there would be a defence under legislation for that.

The noble Baroness asked, quite rightly, who has the responsibility of dealing with unidentified drones around these sites. The police forces play a major initial part in protecting UK defence sites from drone misuse, but responsibility for that misuse will depend on the site and its specific circumstances. The Home Office is trying to support the development of the national police counter-drone capability, which has taken place over the last five years. The SI provides greater assurances and outlines circumstances where action can be taken in relation to cordoned-off drone areas.

The noble Baroness specifically mentioned Chinese matériel. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is looking at, and collaborating with, military partners and other state drone operators to make sure that we align security standards. That means that we are looking at a national procurement framework that includes drones as part of this, and we are engaging with police forces to ensure that the suppliers added to the framework meet the required security standards.

Again, that will determine whether drones of any particular provenance are allowed to be used by UK police forces and others. That security assessment will, I hope, reassure the noble Baroness.

The final question, from the noble Lord, was about the full implementation of the National Security Act. I have to say to him: when parliamentary time allows and when government decisions have been taken. I will inform him when that moment is due to arrive.

Police Officers: Recruitment

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Hanson of Flint

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what steps they are taking to recruit 13,000 additional police officers, and (2) what assessment they have made of the impact of a proposed reduction of Metropolitan Police officer numbers on this commitment.

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

As part of our safer streets mission, the Government will restore neighbourhood policing by putting police back on the beat, with 13,000 additional police officers, police community support officers and special constables in neighbourhood policing roles across England and Wales, including in London. Last week, the Prime Minister announced a £100 million fund which will be made available in 2025-26 to support the initial delivery of the 13,000 additional neighbourhood police and details of delivery for the coming year will be confirmed at the provisional police funding settlement later this month.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, the media report that the Metropolitan Police is going to cut 2,300 officers and 400 staff next year because of a £450 million funding shortfall. This clearly will be devastating for the service. Does the Minister agree that the Government will therefore struggle to hit their target of 13,000 new police officers? Does this news put the Government’s mission-led strategy at risk?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government’s target of 13,000 police, police and community support officers and special constables will be met to ensure an increase in neighbourhood policing by the end of this Parliament. We have put the funding of £100 million in place next year to ensure that resource is in place to meet that initial mission which we will complete and be judged on by the end of this Parliament. The police settlement has not yet been determined. It will be announced next week, before Christmas. It will be consulted on between Christmas and January and it will be a matter for approval by Parliament by February. As yet, much of the discussion is speculation. I simply say to the noble Lord that his record still needs scrutiny and he needs to remember that his Government reduced police officer numbers by 20,000, reduced the number of PCSOs from over 16,000 to 8,000 and reduced the number of special constables from 20,000 to 8,500 in the course of their term of office. We will meet our targets. We will meet our mission statement and he will judge us on that.

Guns Manufactured by 3D Printers

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Hanson of Flint

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am not aware that the Government are relying on a Private Member’s Bill. There is a Private Member’s Bill coming forward, but it is not a Government-sponsored Bill; it is being undertaken by a Back-Bencher in the House of Commons. We will reflect on that legislation, look at what is needed and make sure that, if there are loopholes, we tie them up. Ultimately, legislation is there to say that firearms are illegal, and there are severe penalties for the ownership and distribution of those illegal firearms. If there are gaps in the legislation along the lines that noble Lords have mentioned, we will review that in due course next year.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords have heard the strong view of the House, from the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Hogan-Howe, among others, that there is a gap in the criminal canon for the downloading of software to make 3D-printed firearms. Clearly, it would be appropriate for the Home Office immediately to launch a consultation on making it an offence to download the software to create 3D-printed firearms. Will the Minister commit to initiating such a consultation immediately?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will take that as a representation to the Government about their proposals for next year. The Government are exploring all legislative options to criminalise the possession and supply of 3D-printed firearms templates. We are looking at that now; I hope the noble Lord will have patience in this matter.

Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Hanson of Flint

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, there were 213 hotels in use by the Home Office at the time of the election; there are now 220. That is an increase of seven which have opened under this Government, notwithstanding the commitment in the Labour manifesto to “end hotel use”. When does the Minister envisage reducing the number of hotels again and when does he envisage ending the use of hotels, as his party promised?

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

The Government have closed 14 hotels since July; there have been additions, so there is a net increase of seven hotels. The key point that the Government are trying to undertake—I know that the noble Lord will know this—is to reset the agenda on this issue. That means putting money into a secure command at sea to ensure that we do not have those small boats coming in the first place; speeding up asylum claims; encouraging deportations of those who do not have a right to be here; and looking at the long-term issues of hotel accommodation.

In answer to the noble Lord’s question, it remains the Government’s ambition to exit hotels as soon as possible, because he left us with a bill of £8 million per day and with £700 million of expenditure on a Rwanda scheme that sent four people to Rwanda, all voluntarily. We inherited a scheme that would have cost billions of pounds and would not have deterred or stopped the use of hotels. We need to speed up asylum accommodation. We will do that and, at the appropriate time, exit hotels and save the taxpayer resource by doing so.

Non-crime Hate Incidents

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Hanson of Flint

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, this week the Prime Minister urged the police to concentrate on what matters most to their communities rather than being drawn into investing resources in tackling non-crime hate incidents. What steps does the Minister plan to take to send the pendulum back towards investigating real crime?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

How about the half a billion pounds that was announced today by the Home Secretary? How about the focus on neighbourhood policing, with 13,000 police officers? How about the record levels of investment in policing, which were cut under the Government in which the noble Lord served? How about getting back to the levels of police officers that existed when I was Police Minister in 2009-10? That might help to deal with some of the issues the noble Lord addresses. He knows the serious issues that this Government have pledged to address.

Small Boat Crossings

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Hanson of Flint

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum in the other place failed to say whether the Labour Party would honour its manifesto commitment and not open any more asylum hotels. This weekend in Altrincham, we saw a new hotel repurposed, with many local people angry with this decision. Does the Minister share their concern? Does he agree that this breaches the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment?

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

I am grateful for the question. No, it does not breach the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment. As the noble Lord will know, we do not comment routinely—as did his Government—on the location or content of particular asylum hostels. But he will know that this Government are resolutely committed to restarting the asylum process and to saving an estimated £7 billion for the taxpayer in doing so. We are going to deliver a major uplift in returns, and we have already returned people. We will scrap the Rwanda scheme, which the noble Lord was an architect of. We will save several million pounds in doing that and we will put that towards speeding up asylum claims and ensure that we put this matter back on track. We will revisit the Labour manifesto in due course, but I give him a firm “no” in answer to his question today.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Hanson of Flint

Monday 11th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this amendment order, which proposes to adjust the fees in relation to certain immigration and nationality services, and in particular the English language qualification process. It is one of the features of the complexities of the system that these kinds of situations arise, and I am not going to be critical of the Home Office for laying an amendment order in these circumstances. It is obviously right that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has picked up on a perception that Explanatory Notes did not set out in enough detail the purpose of the instrument. Perhaps the Minister could let us know whether it is proposed to provide revised Explanatory Notes and, if so, when. Perhaps he could also reassure the Committee on the quality of Explanatory Notes, which I know officials in the Home Office strive hard to ensure are accurate and detailed. I am sure that the Minister will take back to the department the message that crystal clarity is required in Explanatory Notes.

Of course, the fees structure is essential in maintaining a secure system of immigration control, and indeed provides an element of being self-funding. That, of course, itself achieves the kind of immigration system that we wish to see and strengthens British immigration policy. Therefore, I welcome the order and would be grateful for an answer in relation to Explanatory Notes.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to both opposition Front Benches for their comments. I find myself in the genuinely strange position of moving an order to rectify something that happened when we were nowhere near the legislation that is being rectified. I hope that both opposition Front Benches will recognise the fact that my honourable friend Seema Malhotra bringing forward this order in the Commons and me doing so in in the Lords are attempting to rectify an issue that was spotted prior to the general election, which would have been brought forward had the general election not been held in July.

I genuinely cannot say with any certainty why the fees for the services were not regulated when they were first set out. The rules relate to the historic nature of the issue and potential changes in a complex interaction of regulations at the time. I do not know why that happened but I am grateful that previous Ministers, with the advice of civil servants who have reviewed this as part of the procurement exercise that commenced earlier this year, have noticed a gap and therefore have asked Ministers to sign off the measures that will close that gap. Minister Malhotra, who is the lead Minister for this area in the Commons, and myself as the responsible Minister here in this House, have both agreed to take this order through accordingly.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that there are no issues on the quality of the education and training provided under the orders. I am not aware of a slew of complaints about the fee levels in the past. This is simply an order to rectify what was seen to be an illegality. The Committee should welcome that and understand that that is why this order is being brought forward.

The regulations are being laid at the earliest opportunity to begin the process of rectifying the issue that has been identified. I want to assure this Committee that structures and processes are in place to ensure that the fees for new visa routes and requirements are captured in the immigration and nationality fees regulations when associated changes are made to the Immigration Rules. As has been mentioned, we are hoping to bring forward at an early opportunity, we hope before Christmas, the revised fee structure to rectify where we are currently. That will, I hope, set those fees on a proper legal footing and rectify the challenges that we have had to date.

Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned the sharing of information between Administrations. I find that hard. I was in Parliament in 2008. I was in the Ministry of Justice then, not the Home Office, but to be honest with her, I cannot really answer on what happened in 2008 in the Home Office with this order and its background at that time. I can simply say to her again that it is unusual for previous Administrations’ paperwork to be passed to a subsequent Administration. It did not happen in 2010 and it is not happening now. I can ask questions of officials and get good responses about issues but there is not an automatic assumption of access to previous papers. That might be something to be considered but that is a far greater sandwich display than we have before us today, if I may put it that way.

I note and take the noble Baroness’s point. However, we have to reflect on the fact that this measure is brought forward as a joint enterprise between two Administrations handing over a baton to rectify a particular problem identified previously, which this Administration are now taking forward.

Both noble Lords asked about the Explanatory Memorandum. Again, it is important to recognise that it was not the best Explanatory Memorandum in place. It is what it is now. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about a review. For the Home Office, and for other departments, given the view of statutory instruments and the importance of SIs to both Houses of Parliament, the new Government have asked for a Minister to be appointed in each department with oversight of the statutory instrument process. I am that Minister now in the Home Office, and I have to look at, clear and be held to account for the SIs that come through any part of the Home Office department. They will have to be cleared and signed by myself. That does not guarantee—because we are all human—that something that I see and clear is going to be perfect. But I hope it gives oversight to that process, which we have not had before. The Leader of the House of Commons, Lucy Powell MP, has been clear that both Houses of Parliament need to up their game on the Explanatory Memoranda, the oversight and the accountability of SIs to both Houses. Four months into the job, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to give me space but to hold me to account in due course, as I know she will, on the performance on SIs particularly.

If there are further points that I have missed, I will reflect on them with colleagues and respond in writing, certainly to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I hope that we can agree this order today and rectify the gap that has been identified. I look forward to bringing forward future SIs to continue that process in relation to the meat of this order.

Police: Junior Cadet Schemes

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Hanson of Flint

Monday 11th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, the last Government met their manifesto pledge to recruit another 20,000 police officers. Does the Minister agree that to build on that record of success, it would be useful to improve the conversion rate of police cadets into recruited police officers? What steps will he take to do that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I welcome the noble Lord to his new responsibilities. On behalf of myself and my team, I ask him to pass on my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for the work that he did. He was very welcoming to me in my first four months in this House; I will try to be welcoming to the noble Lord as well.

The noble Lord says that the last Government met their objectives of recruiting 20,000 police officers. That happened after a reduction of 20,000 from when I was Police Minister in 2010, and it happened under the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition. Only latterly did the Government recognise the folly of that cut and slowly build those forces back up to their right size now. I agree with him that it would be very good to try to encourage police cadets to join the force. We want to build on the neighbourhood policing model, but I think it is a bit disingenuous on his first outing at the Dispatch Box to claim 20,000 new officers, when this number in fact replaced officers cut by his Government.

EU Settlement Scheme

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Hanson of Flint

Thursday 24th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have been aware of both the court cases and the challenges that have taken place—that happened under the previous Government. We believe that we are now legally meeting the obligations of High Court judgments and of the status scheme that was implemented following the withdrawal agreement. However, obviously we keep that under review. We are also aware of the challenges mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on digitisation and we are working through to, I hope, meet our obligations to those citizens who have a right now to live, work and indeed in some cases vote in this United Kingdom.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will have discovered that, among his officials, one of the most efficient teams is that which deals with the EU settlement scheme. To what extent are the Government committed to retaining the status review unit, which we set up under the last Government to ensure that those who had obtained EU settled status by deception or had not otherwise met the requirements were dealt with in the appropriate way?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord has said, and although that is not directly my responsibility within the Home Office, I will refer that to my colleague who works in the House of Commons and who has direct responsibility for this area. However, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord by saying that there have been 8.1 million applications to June of this year, 7.9 million applications have been concluded, and the overall refusal rate is only around 9%. Very often, those are for reasons which this House will accept: due to criminal records or criminal behaviour. So, I hope the scheme is working well. We need to monitor it, it will be ever-changing, and I will certainly take back the points that the noble Lord made.