Knife Crime: West Midlands

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call Sarah Coombes to move the motion, I ought to explain that this is my first time chairing a debate in Westminster Hall, so I expect you to be very gentle with me. If you are not—well, I am in the Chair.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the prevention of knife crime in the West Midlands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your first chairmanship, Sir John. I want to open this debate by talking about a knock on a mother’s door—the kind of knock that too many parents have experienced and too many more dread. Last week, a woman from my area told me her story. She had already heard through friends that something had happened that night. Her sister was out searching the local hospitals. She had rung the police and been told someone would be there soon. Then she heard a knock on the front door. She said:

“What happened to my son was what I was always worried about. He was the kind of person who always protected his friends. That’s what happened—he stepped in front of his friend to protect him and he was stabbed.”

The loss of a child in this way feels too enormous to comprehend. She explained to me the ways it had affected not just her life but those of her other children:

“My daughter is so angry, but she won’t talk about what happened. She feels there is no justice for her brother. She’s only in primary school but she’s self-harming.”

We are here for this debate because we have got to stop this happening—families being shattered and communities destroyed by knives. It is my duty, as the MP for West Bromwich, to do everything I can to work with the police, schools, constituents and my community to stop this nightmare happening in the first place. In the west midlands, we have the highest rate of knife crime per capita of any region in England. But I do not want to talk about stats today. I want to talk about the stories of the victims, of those who live in fear, and even of those who have committed these terrible crimes. This debate is focused on prevention, so I will talk about the role that policing has to play in that, as well as intervention by schools, communities and families to keep young people safe.

Last year, I went to a football tournament in memory of one of the young players, who was stabbed to death. I spoke to some of the teenagers there and was truly shocked by what I heard. They were angry and distrusted the police, but they still felt there should be more of them around. They felt trapped in places where crime was all around them. They felt they had no opportunities for a different and better life. One teenage boy said to me—I will never forget this—that he did not think he would live to the age of 22.

This past week I got in touch again with the coach and asked for the young people’s thoughts on what the Government need to do to tackle knife crime. Here is some of what they said:

“The gang violence and knife crime is getting worse in my area. We need more youth centres and funding to help stop this.”

“Could we do more to stop youths from buying knives on the internet?”

“Why aren’t there more police patrolling the town centres that are known for knife crime or gang violence? Our local area is getting worse and no one seems to care enough to do anything to help it.”

“Education around knife crime should happen at a much younger age. A majority of young people don’t take it seriously because it has not happened to someone close to them, so maybe education needs to be by someone who has really suffered as a consequence of knife crime.”

The mother I mentioned earlier felt similarly:

“There is no support, no prevention—not enough youth clubs…It’s too easy to access these weapons. You can go and buy them online with no proof of ID. There’s nothing for young people to do now. My youth club provided experiences—things like white-water rafting. Now the youth clubs are all gone, social media has come in and crime is through the roof.”

After years of cuts to policing and youth services, it is no surprise that we have not been able to turn the tide on knife crime. Our new Labour Government have shown important ambition in committing to halving knife crime in a decade. I would appreciate the Minister going into detail about how we plan to achieve that. The young people I mentioned identified some themes that get to the heart of the matter: visible policing as a deterrent, reducing access to knives, and early intervention and education. How are young people being involved in policy design to ensure that the action the Government take is effective?

The police service in the west midlands was slashed in the austerity years. We still have 800 fewer police officers and 500 fewer police community support officers than we had in 2010. The knock-on effect of that is obvious. It is not just seeing police walking around our town centres and crime hotspots that keeps us safe, but police and PCSOs having the time and space to build key community relationships and gain the trust and vital intelligence that can stop crime. One of our most important pledges during the election was to restore neighbourhood policing, and I look forward to us having 13,000 extra officers and PCSOs across the country. As well as wanting to see police on our streets, people often raise with me the need for strong sentences to deter people from carrying a knife. Fundamentally, we have to reduce access to these legal weapons.

On the rates of knife crime per capita, West Brom has the highest rate for possession of weapons in Sandwell. We had a dreadful incident before Christmas when young people were running round West Bromwich in broad daylight wearing balaclavas and wielding machetes. That was terrifying for the people who were there and has a huge knock-on effect on local businesses and the entire area. West Midlands police has set up the Life Or Knife initiative, which provides education in schools and allows people to anonymously report when someone is carrying a knife. Our police and crime commissioner has also funded weapon surrender bins across the region. But we have to cut this off at source.

My local paper, the Express & Star, ran an award-winning campaign with a Wolverhampton mother, Pooja Kanda, to ban zombie-style knives and machetes. I applaud the paper for that important work and I fully support the Labour Government’s commitment to ban them. As the victim’s mother I talked about earlier said to me, online retailers must be held to account. Now that the ban has been in place for a few months, will the Minister say whether it is proving successful? In particular, what enforcement action is being taken against online retailers who deliver zombie-style knives straight to people’s homes?

Police presence and reducing access to lethal weapons are important, but perhaps the most important thing of all is education, early intervention and constant support for young people who could get caught up in violence. Research shows that young people who are excluded from education are at greater risk of getting involved in violence, which is why it is so important that we do everything we can to keep young people in school. In the last few years, there have also been important programmes with organisations such as St Giles Trust that have supported young people at teachable moments, such as when they are in custody or A&E.

But in too many cases the intervention comes too late—as in the next case I will talk about. This might be slightly unusual, but I will read the words of someone on the other side: a constituent of mine who went to prison for 14 years for his involvement in the murder of a man using a knife. His words are powerful and important, because, as we have heard, young people respond to others’ lived experience. When I asked him how he feels now about being involved in a knife attack that took someone’s life all those years ago, he said:

“I feel so many emotions. I feel ashamed, I feel embarrassed, remorseful, unequivocally. It doesn’t matter that it wasn’t my plan and I didn’t wield the knife. Ultimately decisions I made that night led to that and if I hadn’t made certain decisions he would still be here. I feel dirty for that...I don’t dream often but when I do they are bad dreams, violent, people trying to kill me...Whenever I see knife crime stories about mothers losing their sons it takes me back. It’s the ripple effects...the people whose houses back on to the park where it happened, the first responders, the guy who was walking his dog who found the body. All these lives are changed forever.”

Having spent so much of his life so far in prison, he now wants to work with young people to stop them following the same path of violence. I asked him what would make the difference for young people now to stop them committing such a terrible crime, and he said:

“It’s more than what to say, it’s what I’d do. The authenticity and realness and empathy is so important.

You need somebody like me who has the life experience. So you can openly talk about their home life, parents, friends, family, hobbies, hopes and dreams. And build the trust and rapport. And show love…Take them on positive trips—take them places they’d never usually be able to afford and show them that this could be your life.

It has to be a 24/7 thing, support all the time.

That night of the offence when I would have reached out—it would have been late and you need someone to be there then. Not office hours and then they turn their phone off. You need someone to say ‘Where are you, I’m coming to you, stay where you are.’”

There is so much more of my conversation with him that I think it would be useful for Members to hear, but there is not the time, unfortunately. I hope the Minister will address the importance of wraparound and consistent support for young people, and the need to make interventions and offer mentoring from a very young age, not just at the point when a child is suspended or already in trouble. My constituent’s key message about what will reduce knife crime is that we need

“education from an early age, in the right way, delivered by the right people.”

Knife crime does not just destroy families. It destroys communities. It destroys towns centres when people are afraid. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) could not attend this debate, but she asked me to reflect on the impact that knife crime also has on schools such as Wodensborough academy, where a pupil who was killed will forever be remembered. I am proud that this Government are so committed to stopping the nightmare of knife crime in our communities, and I see it as my role as the local MP to do everything I can to be part of that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that if they want to attract my attention, they need to bob. But I can see they know that already.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I can see that a lot of people want to contribute on this important subject. Before I call the next speaker, I therefore suggest that you restrict yourselves to speeches of about five minutes. We will then get everyone in and have plenty of time for the spokesmen to speak and for the mover of the motion to say a few words at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. Because of the character of the debate, I will prioritise Members from the west midlands. I hope hon. Members from other places will understand that. I think it is reasonable and fair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I have got two more west midlanders, and I am relying on them to make time for the Members for Strangford and for Worcester to get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I extend my deeply felt thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) for bringing forward this important debate. Before I continue, I want to express my deepest condolences to the victims, their families and everyone who has been affected by this devastating crime.

My constituents and I often ask why we have come to this: a situation where we have children murdering children. We have young people who feel they cannot carry on with their everyday lives without carrying some kind of weapon. We have easy online access to such awful, graphic, extreme violence. Tragically, in the west midlands—the knife crime capital of the UK, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss)—that is the reality we face.

In my former role as a deputy headteacher, I saw how schools are in the eye of the storm. I will never forget the devastating impact on our community when two young men were murdered near a school where I worked. It was incredibly sad. Their names were Ronan Kanda and Shawn Seesahai. Innocent lives were taken due to senseless violence. Shawn was only 19 years old. He was walking through a park with his friend. He saw two 12-year-olds sitting on a bench, and they murdered him. It is senseless. Ronan Kanda was mistaken for someone else. At the age of 16, just a few steps away from the safety of his home, he was cruelly murdered. I have seen the courage of Ronan’s mother and sister, Pooja and Nikita, as they fight for change so that no family endures what they endure day in, day out. Their strength humbles me, and I stand with them and with every family affected by these senseless tragedies.

Staff in schools have a motto: “It can happen here.” We are always on high alert, as we know that knife crime can happen anywhere. But we should not be fooled by stereotypes; this is not just about street corners and gang culture. This problem has not been dealt with, so it has diffused into wider society. All communities are at risk and affected to some degree by the dangers of soaring knife crime. We must act not just with stronger enforcement, but by addressing the causes of knife crime. I welcome the new Government’s commitment to prevention, education and engagement, alongside robust enforcement.

When it comes to prevention and education, we all know that education is often the first line of defence. I personally saw the power of programmes that brought mentors with lived experience into schools to show students the real consequences of knife crime. We will invest in early intervention, helping those at risk through targeted support for families, schools and communities.

Secondly, there is the issue of engagement. We know that knife crime often stems from a feeling of utter hopelessness—of being stuck in a rut, with a lack of opportunity, and therefore being vulnerable to the grip of negative influences. I welcome investment in programmes such as the Young Futures programme—a version of Sure Start for teenagers—in youth centres and youth workers and in bringing local services together to offer young people a safe space and better opportunities.

There is also the issue of enforcement. Police must have the resources they need to crack down on knife crime—curfews, enforcement of penalties, drug and alcohol interventions, mental health treatment, and stronger action against the criminal gangs that are drawing young people into this crime. This Government have acted to close the loopholes and get ninja swords, machetes and zombie knives off our streets, but I continue to call on Ministers to work at pace.

Victims of knife crime and their families deserve our unwavering commitment to prevention and change, to create a society in which no young person feels the need to carry a knife.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

The winding-up speeches will begin at 3.30 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I recently met the young people representing our county in the Worcestershire Youth Cabinet, and they shared with us their priorities, the highest of which, to my shock, was crime and safety. They are very concerned by the issue, and knife crime was at the top of their list of concerns. They suggested actions, and we discussed all the things my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) raised: visible policing, prioritising the restriction of access to knives, and early intervention and education, including restoring youth centres and youth services. However, their key ask was that we do the work to understand the root causes and motivations behind knife crime among young people.

My first takeaway from that conversation was how keen young people are to collaborate on this issue as we start to tackle it. My second takeaway was how important it is that we do not work from assumptions, but really try to understand, from the perspective of young people, what is driving this problem—that we listen to, involve and empower young people. That is all the more important when we realise just how fuelled this issue is by fear, apathy and disenfranchisement.

Young people care deeply about this issue. They are ready to engage, and they deserve a voice. On behalf of the young people in Worcester, I want to echo their call and their offer: let us act urgently at all levels of policing, disrupting and preventing knife crime, but let us, as we do that, put young people at the very heart of that response. We will tackle this issue most effectively when we put our influence, power and resources in their hands, so let us put young people at the centre of what we do as we tackle and end the problem of knife crime.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I thank hon. Members for their brevity and their co-operation in making sure that all colleagues contributed. I want to leave some time for the mover of the motion to speak at the end.

Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of re-opening hotels for asylum seeker accommodation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and a privilege to speak in this Chamber on an issue that is important to the British public and that needs to be urgently addressed by the Government. It is great to see that colleagues from both sides of the House have made time to discuss an issue that is emblematic of the failure in our current immigration system. The failure is, I concede, one of both sides, but it is worsening under the latest Government.

This issue cuts through to the public because it is so visible. These are not—

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but there are Divisions in the House. We will suspend for 15 minutes for the first Division and an additional 10 minutes for each further Division. There are to be three Divisions, so we will return in 35 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

The sitting is now resumed and can continue until 6.5 pm. I will call the Front Benchers to speak at 5.43 pm.

[Jack Rankin]

It is a privilege to speak on an issue that I know is important to the British public and needs to be urgently addressed by the Government. It is great to see colleagues here from all sides of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. My comments today need to be viewed in the context of my interest as a local councillor.

My constituents in Broxbourne have borne the brunt of this policy in recent years. I hear loud and clear on the doorstep how angry they feel. The Home Office took control of the Marriott hotel in Cheshunt in 2022. It was just one of three hotels in my constituency at the time. In my general election campaign, I said I would fight daily to ensure that the hotel was closed to asylum seekers; and when I was leader of Broxbourne council, I fought tooth and nail to prevent another two sites within my constituency being used as asylum accommodation. The hotel in Cheshunt has since supported one of the highest numbers of asylum seekers in the east of England, while Hertfordshire as a whole was the individual council with the most hotels housing asylum seekers in 2023.

The situation we are discussing is plainly unsustainable, with millions of pounds a day being spent on these hotels across the country. My constituents have been feeling the impact on already overstretched public services. You cannot get your child into the school you want and you have to wait longer to see a GP locally.

I welcomed the actions that the last Government took to reduce reliance on asylum hotels, but there is no getting around the fact that my party made mistakes. However, it is definitely getting worse under this new Labour Government. Ultimately, it is only by deterring people from coming to the UK illegally in the first place that we will be able to get a grip on the asylum system and the immigration system. The Labour manifesto promised to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers, but the Government have been more focused on delivering promises that were not in their manifesto: increasing national insurance on business, imposing the family farm tax and stripping winter fuel payments from pensioners.

I am seriously disappointed that, in January 2025, we are discussing the reopening of hotels for asylum seeker accommodation. There were 35,651 people in hotel accommodation at the end of September, up 21% from the end of June 2024. That is a 21% increase since Labour was elected on a manifesto commitment to end the use of asylum hotels. The downward trend that was started by the last Government has been reversed, and since the general election, 14 more hotels have been taken over for the purpose. Hotels were supposed to be a temporary measure, but they are starting to feel anything but temporary to my residents in Broxbourne. The Minister has said that nine hotels are scheduled to close by March, but I have my doubts that the Government will meet that commitment.

The Government have failed to take the necessary steps to deter the number of asylum seekers coming to this country illegally in the first place. Small boat crossings are up since July, and so are the number of cases awaiting a decision in the asylum backlog. I urge the Minister to put the words “smash the gangs” into action by getting a proper deterrent in place, ensuring that every failed asylum seeker is removed, closing all the asylum hotels and significantly cutting immigration.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I should have said before the previous speaker that if Members wish to speak, they need to bob.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I will call the hon. Gentleman, although he has not bobbed throughout the debate despite the fact that I said that was the appropriate thing to do. With the exception of the Minister, the shadow Minister, myself and Sir Gavin, we are all new Members here, so it is important to respect the conventions and courtesies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the important issue of reopening hotels to accommodate asylum seekers. Despite repeated ministerial promises, we continue to see the result of a broken system—a system that has caused immense hardship for asylum seekers and communities and has placed a significant burden on taxpayers.

Let us be clear that this debate arises only because of successive Conservative Governments having failed to deal efficiently with the growing backlog of asylum claims. According to the Migration Observatory, the number of outstanding asylum applications under the Conservatives soared from 27,000 in 2018 to 132,000 by 2022. As of September 2024, Home Office data indicates that over 97,000 cases involving 133,000 individuals still await an initial decision, with a further 127,000 in the appeals and removal process. Despite repeated assurances, most claimants still wait beyond six months for any clarity on their status. During that process, asylum seekers are trapped, unable to work, unable to integrate and forced to depend on Government funds.

The reliance on contingency accommodation, whether in the form of hotels, barges or former military barracks, is an expensive sticking plaster to cover a deeper wound. It provides neither dignity for asylum seekers nor value for money for the taxpayer. We have heard Ministers assert that these hotels are only a short-term measure, yet Home Office figures show that there were over 35,000 individuals in hotel accommodation as of September 2024. Successive Governments have spoken of reducing dependency on this provision, yet the number of people in hotels remains persistently high. Worse still, the backlog remains alarmingly large and we are left grappling with new, reactive announcements rather than a cohesive plan.

The situation benefits no one. The fundamental problem is the time it takes to make decisions on asylum claims, coupled with the ban on working. It is the worst of both worlds: forced inactivity for those seeking safety and to pay their fair share, and an unnecessary bill for the public purse. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimates that granting the right to work would generate £1.3 billion in additional tax revenue and would reduce expenditure by as much as £6.7 billion each year. We could address the backlog more effectively and reduce the public cost if we ended the rigid prohibition on work, yet time and again Governments have resisted such a solution.

The Liberal Democrats have advocated a clear, sensible plan. First, we propose creating a dedicated, well-resourced processing unit that is separate from the Home Office, with a singular mission of resolving cases quickly. Secondly, we propose reinstating a six-month service standard so that claimants receive an initial decision quickly. Finally, we would grant asylum seekers the right to work after a set period, allowing them to pay their fair share instead of languishing in costly Government-funded accommodation or on street corners.

As we consider whether to reopen asylum hotels for asylum seekers, we must remember that no one genuinely wants this. Asylum seekers deserve dignified conditions, local communities deserve to feel safe from people loitering with nothing to do and taxpayers deserve an end to the wasteful spending brought on by Government’s incompetence. I urge colleagues from all sides of the House to support practical reforms as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which will finally clear the asylum backlog, end the expensive overreliance on temporary accommodation, such as asylum hotels, and allow those who are seeking refuge to stand on their own feet and contribute to society.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I would like to call the Minister at 5.53 pm, which will give her 10 minutes.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir John, for chairing your third debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for proposing this discussion on an important issue for many MPs and their constituents across the country.

If we need to provide accommodation for those who arrive in the UK seeking asylum, it is critical that we do all we can to ensure that that accommodation is cost-effective and does not unduly burden our communities. Unfortunately, we know all too well that hotel accommodation for asylum seekers fails to meet either of those criteria. Despite the disagreements that have been expressed today, this is an issue on which all Members of the House can and should agree.

As the Minister is aware, significant steps were taken by the last Government to reduce the number of people housed in hotel accommodation, which went from a peak of 56,042 in September 2023 to 29,585 at the end of June 2024. That is a 47% decrease. That was accompanied by the closure of many hotels from their peak number. It was therefore welcome to see this Government’s manifesto promise to close asylum hotels entirely. The pledge was clear: the Government would “end asylum hotels”. That is a goal that we all hope they will achieve, as it would undoubtedly benefit communities across the country.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that since this Government took power, we have gone in the opposite direction. Official Home Office statistics show that as of 30 September, 35,651 people were in hotel accommodation, an increase of 21% since the general election. Instead of hotels being closed, we have seen the contrary: the Minister informed the House last week that there has been a net increase of six hotels since the election. We have heard from MPs that announcements about new hotels are often made with little notice, leaving minimal time to prepare and a lack of clarity. Although the Government should undoubtedly improve that process, surely the most impactful approach would be to reduce the reliance on hotel accommodation altogether.

Sometimes it is too easy to focus on statistics. Although they provide an important part of the picture, it is through speaking to residents that we hear about the very real consequences for communities. In November, Councillor Nathan Evans invited me to visit Altrincham to see the huge impact of such a hotel on his community. I spoke to residents, business owners and the local chamber of commerce about the direct and indirect effects of Labour’s decisions. They emphasised the need for safety, security and clear communication. Those were reasonable requests that they felt had fallen on deaf ears at both the Home Office and the local authority.

As well as the concerns about security, there was a very evident impact on the local economy. In Altrincham, the loss of nearly 300 hotel places in the local hospitality sector was huge. Families who had worked day and night for years to create incredible small businesses, operating in an already challenging environment, now had to deal with another huge and unpredicted blow to their footfall. I suggest that the Minister considers visiting Altrincham, not only to see some incredible small businesses with a unique offering, but to see the impact of the decisions she makes.

Too often, places like Altrincham receive information at the last minute, leaving them unable to prepare and taken aback by the sudden loss of normal business generated by these hotels. That lack of warning undermines trust and further fosters animosity towards the system. I understand that this is a complex issue, but will the Minister consider the suggestion that the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), made in November: that greater notice be given to MPs before a hotel opens in their constituency? I also ask the Minister how sites are chosen and what consideration is given to proximity to local schools, care homes and centres for the vulnerable, as well as the impact on the local business community.

I recognise that the Minister and other hon. Members will point out that the number of people housed in hotels was too high under the last Government. They are correct, and my party does not shy away from that fact. The Leader of the Opposition has been clear that mistakes were made regarding immigration. Nevertheless, the last Government were taking steps to rectify these issues by closing hotels and attempting to halt illegal immigration. Since the election, however, we have seen increases both in contingency accommodation and in dispersal accommodation.

Ultimately, the Minister, like the rest of us, knows the root cause of the problem: the illegal and dangerous channel crossings. As of 19 January, 24,132 people had crossed the channel in small boats since the election, a 30% increase on the same period in 2023-24. What is more, the number of those being deported is actually going down.

We need a deterrent. If people arrive here illegally, they should not be allowed to stay. Until that is the case, they will continue to arrive in ever increasing numbers. Despite pledges to “smash the gangs”, it appears that the gangs remain active and evasive. This behaviour underscores the importance of deterrence, as highlighted by the National Crime Agency and reportedly by the head of the Government’s Border Security Command.

Policing alone is insufficient. The rise in small boat crossings illustrates that scrapping the UK’s deterrent policy before it had even started was a short-sighted decision; in fact, it was a decision of national self-harm. The deterrent approach has been successfully implemented in other countries such as Australia, which managed to resolve similar issues through decisive action. We have even seen it working here in the UK, with the Albania returns agreement reducing arrivals by more than 90%. Given the increasing numbers and the failure to reduce small boat crossings into this country, will the Government reconsider whether their approach to illegal migration has been effective thus far?

On costs, the Government’s policy is to expedite asylum decisions. Consequently, the costs associated with accepted migrants risk being obscured within the welfare system. The Home Office has previously acknowledged that it has no estimate of the potential cost of benefit claims and council-housing bills for those individuals. Will the Minister commit to recording and publishing the costs for migrants whose asylum claims are accepted?

I know that the Minister has previously stated that hotels are a temporary measure, not a solution. While she may be well intentioned, the continuing small boat crossings suggest that the need for contingency accommodation is unlikely to subside without decisive action. Can the Minister therefore explain whether there is a contingency plan should small boat crossings persist? Additionally, will the Government ensure that every possible policy option is explored to reduce the number of people in hotel accommodation in a cost-effective manner?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister of State for Border Security and Asylum. Minister, I hope that you might finish at 6.03 pm to allow the hon. Member for Windsor to say a few words at the end.

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Having sat in the Westminster Hall Chair many a time, I can report that in this Parliament it seems to be much warmer in this room. It used to be freezing, but perhaps my complaints about the heating when I was in the Chair have had a positive effect in this Parliament—for the comfort of us all, I hope.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I’m going to take all the credit.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) on securing it and thank all Members who have contributed.

I remind hon. Members of the strained asylum system that this Government inherited. Listening to all the contributions, I had to pinch myself and think about the reality: we had 14 years in opposition; we have had six months, getting on for perhaps seven, in government—yet everything is somehow our fault. There was a slight nod in some of the contributions, including those of the hon. Members for Windsor and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), towards the mistakes that were made in the running of the asylum system during the past 14 years. Mistakes certainly were made, and they leave legacies: messes to clear up and difficult things to do.

We inherited a system with massive backlogs. There was an attempt to introduce a completely different system, the so-called Rwanda deterrent and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which distracted the Government from the day job, as I have called it. Because of the design of the Illegal Migration Act, we also had a huge build-up of those who had arrived in the system from March 2023, when the switch was meant to be being arranged. They were put in hotels with absolutely nowhere to go, with no prospect of having their claims looked at and awaiting a theoretical trip to Rwanda. No trip ever happened.

To those who say that the Rwanda scheme was a deterrent, I gently point out that from when it was first announced in the Bill to when it was scrapped, 84,000 people crossed the channel in small boats. If that is a deterrent, it is a very peculiar one. Deterrence is difficult to achieve when people are desperate. We have to look to see whether that worked, and I do not think it did. It led to a huge build-up. The hon. Member for Stockton West hinted at that when he pointed out that the previous Government had more than 400 hotels open at one point. That was because of the build-up in the old system and the build-up in the new system. In the old system, people were in huge queues. With the new system, the previous Government’s idea was that they would not even process any of them: they would just hold them in hotels until the new system was up and running. In essence there were two backlogs.

The previous Government then decided that they would make a massive attempt to clear what they called the legacy backlog: the people who arrived before the Rwanda scheme was designed and announced. They did that for first asylum decisions in 2023. Those who were granted asylum left the system, and many ended up homeless, but those who were not granted asylum appealed. Those who were not granted asylum in that gallop to deal with the legacy backlog are still in the appeals system. The number of people in the appeals system doubled as a result of the previous Government’s work on the legacy backlog. We then had the legacy backlog dealt with at first hearing, with half of those cases going into the appeals system, and a growing number of asylum seekers who had arrived after March 2023, with no prospect of being dealt with at all, just filling hotels. That is why the previous Government had more than 400 hotels.

We can disagree about whether the Rwanda scheme would have worked. Personally, I do not think it was a deterrent—that so many people crossed the channel while it was in prospect demonstrates that it was not a deterrent. It also cost a great deal of money: the National Audit Office said that the payments the Government agreed to make to people who were going to be deported to Rwanda amounted to around £156,000 per person over five years. In theory, they were going to deport 250 people a week. I do not think that was realistic or that it was ever going to be deliverable. Opposition Members are entitled to a different view, but the view of the Government is that the scheme was not going to work.

We are dealing with an issue with no easy answers. There are international agreements that we have signed up to, including the refugee conventions that give protection to people who are fleeing danger and were put into place after the second world war. We are now in an era where we have more people on the move because of events around the world than we have had since the second world war, which has put pressure on the asylum systems of all countries.

There are asylum seekers and there are economic migrants. When listening to the hon. Member for Windsor’s contribution, I was a bit distressed that he did not distinguish between the two; he seemed to think that everyone who arrives is automatically an economic migrant who ought to be deported. That is his view, but it is not the view of the law. The previous Government, under his party, had a system that tried to see whether people who were claiming asylum were actually asylum seekers or were failed asylum seekers—there is a difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Please finish just before 6.05 pm, to leave time for me to put the Question.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

This legislation is a fitting tribute to Martyn Hett and the lives of 21 others that were tragically cut short in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack. It is also a testament to the tireless efforts of Martyn’s mother, Figen Murray, who has campaigned with such dignity and determination to ensure that no family endures the pain that hers has suffered. This Bill is about increased resilience for us as a country. It seeks to make our public spaces safer by requiring premises and events to take proportionate, practical steps to prepare for and mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack. It is about ensuring that if the unthinkable happens, lives are saved and harm is reduced. I speak with personal conviction on this matter. Having served in a counter-terror role, I have seen at first hand the devastating consequences of terrorism and the critical importance of the prior preparation that this Bill lays out. It is essential that our laws and systems keep pace with an ever-evolving risk.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Manchester, in a way, stimulated or catalysed this legislation. It is bigger than that, but it is no more tragic, for it could not possibly be, as he has described. He is also right to say that terrorists are becoming more adaptable, so we have to adapt the way we deal with them. Legislation is part of that. It is difficult, because legislation takes a long time to perfect, if properly scrutinised in this House. The amendments that have been tabled today are an attempt to improve the Bill, not to frustrate it. Does he agree that the Minister and the Government will need to regularly review the provisions of the legislation—there is reference in the Bill to reviews, guidance and so on—and that that will become an ongoing part of how we deal with that increasing adaptability on the part of those who seek to do us harm?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. Any threat that this country faces is continuously reviewed by the Ministry of Defence, MI5, the police and the Government, and we adapt our approaches to suit.

That brings me to the fact that since 2017, MI5 and the police have disrupted 43 late-stage attacks, yet we have seen 15 domestic terror attacks in this country. These incidents underline the ongoing and difficult nature of the threats. I am sure the whole House will agree that we have the finest intelligence services in the world, and we owe it to them to enable their work as much as we possibly can from this place. This Bill is another step towards achieving that. The approach it proposes is both practical and proportionate for small and large venues. I commend the Government for engaging widely in the development of the Bill and for working with businesses, local authorities and security experts to ensure that it is both effective and proportionate. It is right that we in this House support the Bill, and in doing so, we send a clear message that we will not only remember those we have lost but act decisively to protect those we serve.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Mention has been made during the course of this debate of cross-party consensus and what a good thing that is. In some senses that is absolutely right. We should have absolute cross-party consensus on honouring the memory of Martyn Hett and all those who were killed and injured in the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017, but I raise a note of caution because sometimes when we stop being adversarial in this place, we create legislation that is not as good as it could be. That is particularly the case where we have a very emotive issue such as this, and where there is a huge amount of personal sympathy across all the parties in the House. There is a risk that extreme circumstances provoke a natural reaction of saying, “Something must be done. This has to be prevented from ever happening again,” and we end up with bad law.

There is a good example of this risk in the Bill’s progression from its development under the previous Administration, through the election and out the other side. The initial intention of clause 2 was that the standard duty would apply to premises with a capacity to welcome 100-plus people. In my view, this would have had a wholly disproportionate impact on the kind of community buildings that I represent as a church warden, as well as on the village halls that we have already discussed. Pretty much every village hall has the capacity to accommodate 100 people. Every church, bar the very smallest chapels, can expect to welcome 100 people at a wedding or funeral from time to time. There is a tiny, infinitesimally small risk of terrorism in these typically rural areas, yet the previous Administration’s Bill would have imposed very significant costs and time commitments on volunteers. I have already mentioned a couple of times that I am a church warden and, again, I emphasise the risk of unintended consequences when we are all so keen to get on that we do not challenge each other.

[Sir John Hayes]

To reassure my hon. Friend on that subject, he will understand that those of us who have served on the Intelligence and Security Committee are fearless in holding Ministers to account, as this Minister will no doubt find out, and similarly fearless in challenging the agencies, which do such a wonderful job for us. He is right that the agencies need to be questioned appropriately and scrutinised fully.

On my hon. Friend’s second point, about proportionality, it is, of course, right that our response to risk measures the real character of that risk and is proportionate to it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention, and I am reassured by his comments.

In a previous life, I was a barrister specialising in health and safety risk and risk management, and I was later the managing director of the leisure company Go Ape—Members might not have heard of it—and was responsible for the risk management of over 1 million customers a year. We could have killed every single one of them, so I am deeply familiar with the appropriate mechanisms for risk management. One risk that has to be taken into account is that, if the response is too great or too onerous for the assessed risk, people might not think it is reasonable, leading to omission.

Effective risk management requires mitigations to be put in place that bear some relation to the severity of the anticipated adverse event multiplied by its likelihood. I am very concerned that the previous Administration’s initial proposal that these duties should apply to premises with a capacity of as few as 100 people would have broken that association between a reasonable response and the assessed risk.

I am therefore grateful and impressed that the Government have listened and changed clause 2(2)(c) to raise the standard duty threshold to a capacity of 200. To my mind, that seems a reasonable compromise to protect smaller facilities, which are, of course, most likely to rely entirely on volunteers, and are unlikely to have the financial capacity to undertake the kind of paid-for training suggested by the Liberal Democrat new clause 2 or to have enough volunteers who are prepared to accept this additional burden on their free time. I think this strikes the right balance. However, I am concerned that paragraph (a) in clause 32 introduces a power, through regulations, to reduce the figure back down to 100 without giving a reason. Why is that?

I therefore support new clauses 25 and 26, which would set minimum thresholds of 200 for the standard duty and 500 for the enhanced duty. A cross-party approach has taken the Bill this far, and it is important that that approach is maintained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the most humbling parts of this job is meeting those who have been the victims of terrorism and their families. I think of people like Figen Murray, Brendan Cox, Travis Frain, Dr Cath Hill—all people I have spoken to recently. We are working across Government to progress this important work, and I intend to meet victims and survivors in the new year to hear more about their experiences and say more about what we will do as a Government to support them.

The Bill will improve protective security and organisational preparedness across the UK, making us safer. We heard about the excellent work that many businesses and organisations already do to improve their security and preparedness. However, without a legislative requirement, there is no consistency. The Bill seeks to address that gap and complement the outstanding work that the police, the security services and other partners continue to do to combat the terror threat. As a result, qualifying premises and events should be better prepared to respond and to reduce harm in the event of a terrorist attack. Additionally, certain larger premises and events will have to take steps to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

The public have a right to feel safe, and that is what this legislation seeks to deliver. I am grateful for the considered way in which the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) approached the debate. It is clear that the focus of the Opposition’s amendments and concerns is on, among other things, the impact on business and smaller organisations. I assure him that that has been a central consideration for the Government, informed by extensive engagement, as well as pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee and two public consultations under the previous Government. As a result, the version of the Bill that this Government have brought forward includes important changes to ensure that we can achieve public protection outcomes and that there are no undue burdens on businesses and other organisations.

The Government have, of course, raised the standard tier threshold from 100 to 200, which creates a more appropriate scope. We have also added a reasonably practicable standard of requirements for the procedures required under both tiers. That concept is in line with other regulatory regimes, such as health and safety, and is designed to allow procedures and measures to be tailored to the specific circumstances of a premises or event.

[Sir John Hayes]

Mindful of what the Minister said about consulting and acting in accordance with the consultation, and of what I said earlier about the changing character of the threat, I ask him to commit from the Dispatch Box to considering, as the legislation begins to have effect, changing the guidance and improving regulation where necessary, sensitive to those circumstances.

[Dan Jarvis]

If the right hon. Gentleman bears with me for a moment, I intend to say more on the matter, but I assure him that if he is not satisfied, I will give way to him again.

We have introduced a fairer basis for calculating whether a premises or event is in scope. Replacing capacity with the “reasonable expectation” of the number of people who may be present will reflect the actual usage of premises or attendance at events. I am confident that this version of the Bill strikes precisely the right balance.

I turn to amendments 25 and 26 tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West for the Opposition. Clause 32 will allow the Secretary of State to increase or decrease the qualifying threshold for either tier. We anticipate that the thresholds would be reduced to either floor only in very limited circumstances, such as if the nature of the threat from terrorism were to change significantly. That will enable the regime to maintain an appropriate balance between being able to protect the public and managing the burden on those responsible for premises and events. The amendments proposed would remove that ability.

Furthermore, the power is narrowly drafted, and regulations made under it will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In requiring the approval of both Houses before they are made, parliamentarians will be able to scrutinise any proposed changes. The Government therefore do not support the amendments.

I thank the hon. Member for amendment 27. I thought he made his points in a reasonable way, as he often does. While I understand the sentiment, the Government do not support the amendment, but let me explain why. It is intended that the Security Industry Authority will rely on advice and guidance in the first instance. However, a credible enforcement regime with suitable monetary penalties is necessary to ensure that the regulator can secure compliance, particularly where the regulator identifies serious or persistent non-compliance.

The maximum daily penalty amounts are set at a level to counter financial gain from non-compliance, recognising the breadth of organisations in scope as well as the potentially more serious consequences at larger venues. It is important that the Secretary of State has the power, by regulation, to change those maximum amounts, including to increase them if necessary—for example, if the amounts were to prove ineffective in ensuring compliance, or the figures needed updating to reflect changes in economic circumstances in the longer term.

Critically, when determining penalty amounts, the Bill requires the SIA to take into account a range of factors, including the seriousness of the contravention, any action taken to remedy or mitigate its effects, and an organisation’s ability to pay. That will ensure the penalties are effective but proportionate. I reassure Members that changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure, unless they are simply to reflect inflation.

The hon. Member raised concerns over the role of the SIA as the regulator, which I believe is the motivation for tabling new clause 1. There are several reasons why the Government do not support the new clause. The Government are confident that the SIA is the right delivery option for the Martyn’s law regulator, owing to its years of experience in increasing security standards and ensuring public protection. It already plays an important role in safeguarding the public through its work regulating the private security industry. The SIA has long-established inspection and enforcement functions that ensure compliance with its licensing regime, and it already works with security partners to promote best practice around counter-terrorism protective security.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

The right hon. Lady makes two profoundly important points. The first is on the metamorphosis of terrorism and how we need to be persistently clear about how we respond to it in the event of the changes we have seen. The second is about how the whole House comes together on these matters; as the right hon. Lady knows, I have had an interest in this subject for some time and I entirely endorse what she says.

The particular point that I want to make is about anticipating events. The right hon. Lady has spoken a great deal about how we deal with events in the moment, as it were—the training of staff is critical, as she said—but of course we could be talking about a timed device that is planted long before a large event takes place. How does she see the legislation having an impact on a plot that is made well in advance, as I am sure the one in Manchester was?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Member makes an important point and I thank him for his long-standing interest in the issue. Those responsible for premises and events in the enhanced tier will be required to provide the regulator with a document that sets out all the public protection measures and procedures they have, and how they expect those processes to reduce their vulnerability and risk of harm from terrorism. The first category is about monitoring for risks and indicators. That might include monitoring prevention measures—for example, if there has been some kind of security breach a week before or some days before—or assessing what the risks might be. The third measure is about physical safety, which might include the physical arrangements that can prevent somebody from being able to take action in advance of a major event to create that risk and threat. There are ways of having those checks in place.

The Bill ensures that there is a new regulator to oversee compliance through a new function of the Security Industry Authority. We expect the SIA’s primary role to be supporting and advising businesses to implement the legislation’s requirements. Even though the SIA will have a suite of powers and sanctions, including the power to issue fines for non-compliance or to shut down events in the enhanced tier, in fact those sanctions are primarily civil. I reassure the House that those responsible for premises and events will be given time to understand and that the SIA’s approach will be to support venues to adopt the new measures. A range of factors will be taken into account so that penalties will be used only to address the most serious or repeated failings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for bringing the Bill forward with such pace and alacrity. I pay tribute to Figen Murray for her tireless campaigning; I know that she, her husband and other campaigners join us in the Chamber. It is also appropriate that we pay tribute to her son, Martyn Hett, who was murdered, alongside 21 other innocent victims, while going to the Manchester Arena in 2017 to watch a concert. It is of course in that tragic context that we find ourselves considering this legislation.

As the Home Secretary said, the Bill enjoys cross-party support, and the Opposition support its aims and aspirations. I am grateful to her for recognising at the Dispatch Box the work that was done, particularly in pre-legislative scrutiny, to ensure that the Bill has the best chance of navigating its parliamentary stages and concluding in a manner that achieves the dual purpose of keeping people safe while supporting the music and entertainment industry, of which we are so proud.

When I met Ms Murray ahead of the general election, I said, perhaps rashly, that I was confident that, irrespective of the outcome of the election, the Bill would be brought forward. I am glad that the Home Secretary did not put me in an awkward position having made such a commitment. I felt confident at the time that I would be proved right, and I am pleased that, on this one occasion thus far, she and her Ministers have done so. Martyn’s law was in both our parties’ manifestos at the last general election, and it is important that this measured and well thought through piece of legislation is properly scrutinised legislation and makes it through the House.

As the Home Secretary said, the threat picture is complex, evolving and enduring, and terrorists choose to attack a broad range of locations. As she also stated, they choose to attack in a manner and in locations that maximise the detrimental impact on our way of life. The protection of our way of life is in many ways just as important as the protection of life itself. As there is a range of potential targets, it is right that the Bill proposes that a range of premises be better protected and ready to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. At the same time, the Government have to think very carefully when regulating in this way, to ensure that we recognise that we cannot regulate away all risks. We should regulate when and where it provides greater safety to the public, ensuring that we do not create a false sense of security or impose a cost so high that venues are unable to comply and therefore fail to reduce the risk.

It is appropriate that we look at the impact assessment produced by the Government, and recognise that the new regulations will affect an estimated 155,000 small businesses with a venue capacity of between 200 and 799 people. That will impose an average cost on them of around £330 a year. The regulations will also impact around 24,000 larger venues with a capacity of 800 and above, imposing an average cost of around £5,000 each year. When I was the Home Secretary, I looked at ways of reducing the burden on the industry as much as possible, while ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders, as it were, could bear the largest load, protecting smaller venues. I therefore welcome the lighter-touch approach that has been put forward, particularly in the standard tier.

While in government, we also looked at the case for raising the standard threshold beyond 200 to around 300. I see in the Bill that a capacity of 200 was settled on. Clearly, as the Bill goes through the scrutiny process, questions will be asked about whether 200, 300, or a lower or higher figure is appropriate. It is right that those questions are asked, and Members across the House should feel at liberty to probe the Government on the rationale, because this is about balance, and ensuring that people are safe and venues stay viable.

In recognition of the important but novel approach that is being taken, what thought have the Government given to a feedback process whereby the implementation could be assessed and thresholds adjusted if needs be? The Government might consider implementing the enhanced tier in a staged process and learn lessons before implementing the standard tier fully. I would certainly be more than happy to discuss that with the Home Secretary across the Dispatch Box, in Committee, or elsewhere.

Turning to the establishment of the new regulator, I welcome the Government’s intention that the regulatory function of Martyn’s law will be delivered as a new function of the Security Industry Authority, but what assurances has the right hon. Lady had from the SIA regarding its readiness for this? As I said, including the standard tier, we are looking at nearly 200,000 venues. We want to ensure that the legislation is effective, and not just on the statute book gathering dust.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am mindful of my right hon. Friend’s earlier point about how small businesses can cope with the new requirements. Part of that involves increasing their staff’s awareness and understanding of the threat. The training that the Home Secretary spoke about will be vital in that respect. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of minimising costs will be for umbrella organisations to co-ordinate some of that training, in organisations big and small, to improve staff understanding of the risk and how it can be countered?

[Mr Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Given that so much legislation of this nature enjoys cross-party support, there are opportunities to discuss the most effective way of implementing our universal desire to get good and effective, but not overly onerous, legislation on the books. Members may feel a bit reticent about asking challenging questions for fear of coming across as seeking to undermine the work of legislation, but I know from the conversations that he and I have had that the opposite is true here. There are opportunities to do as he suggests, for example with the requirement for the enhanced tier venues to get their house in order. That could be done in close co-ordination with local venues in the standard tier, and the relevant training could be done hand in hand without the full financial, time or other burden falling on smaller venues. That kind of detail could make a fundamentally sound Bill increasingly effective.

We need to look at what else can be done to ensure that the plans for premises cannot be used against them, and that if those plans are disclosed, they cannot be utilised by would-be attackers as part of their preparation. Of course, there is a balancing act between having best practice made public—something that would benefit smaller venues—and ensuring that we do not give advantage to those who would do harm.

I also ask that Ministers ensure that the regulator is supportive and constructive. The Home Secretary made that point, and it is important to say it at the Dispatch Box, but making sure that it is really embedded in the organisation is key. The regulator’s desire should be to help venues to stay safe and viable, rather than looking for opportunities to rush in with fining powers, which could either put businesses out of business or introduce such a fear of fines that they decide to take the easy option and close their doors. That is not something that Members on either side of the House want.

Organisations will, of course, need time to adapt and familiarise themselves with the new guidance. On that point, I note that the new legislation is unlikely to be implemented for around 24 months after Royal Assent. If that is the case, will the Home Secretary commit to engage with the industry via the Federation of Small Businesses, Live music Industry Venues and Entertainment, the Greater London Authority and other bodies to ensure that we do not have a one-size-fits-all approach that might, perhaps inadvertently, squeeze sensible changes that could increase compliance without increasing risk?

What mitigations or exemptions will the Home Secretary consider to protect voluntary and community venues, such as churches or places of worship, particularly those that have already said that the new regulations will be burdensome for them? It is vital to keep the thresholds and guidance under review as the legislation is implemented. Fear of regulation often incentivises owners and organisers to take the most cautious point of view rather than the most appropriate one, and that would be counterproductive.

As the Home Secretary said, terror threats are constantly evolving, and we must evolve with them. In doing so, we must be alive to the threat that new regulations and protections have on our everyday lives—on gatherings, on places of worship and on business—and we should keep proportionality at the forefront of our minds. She has made a commitment to do that, and I am grateful that she has done so. In that spirit, I offer the Opposition’s support in ensuring that the legislation passes promptly through the House and is implemented in the best form possible, and that we do what we can to ensure that tragedies such as we saw in the Manchester Arena never happen again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I thank the Home Secretary for her comments. Debates such as this concentrate all our minds and thoughts on how we must work together. It is so sad, but many of the Members here have spoken about Sir David and Jo, and in fact great security measures have then been enacted. Indeed, I pay tribute to Mr Speaker, staff members and everyone who has stepped up to do so. However, there is a threat here, which is the suffering, the loss and the pain, and as has been said in the debates thus far, the Manchester Arena tragedy will live with so many of us for so long.

I set up the inquiry when I was Home Secretary, and many of the findings of the important work of Sir John Saunders were absolutely shocking. The families had to sit through and participate in the inquiry, and they were retraumatised to a certain extent while giving evidence and listening to some of the failings, which was deeply painful. This is very much about the lessons we can learn collectively, and not just across Government but as a society. This Bill will always be in memory of Martyn, of course, but it is also in memory of the many others affected.

[Sir John Hayes]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for setting up the inquiry, but those recommendations did not stop with this legislation. While it is important that we welcome this in the spirit that has imbued the debate so far, the recommendations on co-ordination and some of the failures in communication between different agencies—those recommendations were mentioned by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand)—do need to be acted on. Notwithstanding the spirit that I have described, it is important that that scrutiny continues and that we learn the lessons to which she has alluded.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He will know very well from his own time in government, given the roles in which he served, that we have been privy to the details of some awful plans, plots and issues that could have inflicted a lot of problems on our country. We must always have these policies under review.

I want to pay tribute to the work of our security and intelligence services. Their work behind the scenes is just outstanding, and we are blessed in so many ways with the level of scrutiny, the work they do and the resources that come from Government. I want to pay tribute to the team that set up the counter-terrorism operations centre—a new organisation established by the previous Government during the last Parliament—which focuses on the integrated approach of our security services for a lot of the operational work that takes place. We should not just pay tribute to it, but recognise that this work always has to be kept under review, because the threats change. The nature of the threats evolves and changes constantly and, as we know, terrorism is not just domestic but takes place outside this country.

The Bill has had extensive consideration and consultation. It has taken into account the recommendations and details contained in reports and inquests from the Manchester Arena attack, and from the attacks at London bridge and here in Westminster, and other incidents, as is absolutely right. During my time at the Home Office, we gave a commitment to introduce a protect duty, which was welcomed across the House and by campaigners and many businesses, and that consultation was undertaken in 2021. We had to consult and consider carefully how best to implement that and improve public safety protections while being mindful of the many impacts on businesses to which the House has alluded—the need for those impacts to be proportionate and for burdens to be minimised—particularly on smaller businesses and venues, and contemplating the role and responsibilities of the regulator. The Home Secretary touched on some of those points.

Since then, the draft Bill was published last year and was considered by the Home Affairs Committee, and this year the standard tier consultation took place. The results were published last month with the Bill and, importantly, the provisions have been built on and some changes made. It is right that the details have been scrutinised. It is important that we recognise the patience of the campaigners who wanted the Bill to come forward much earlier, but we needed to get the technicalities and the details right. There is no point in bringing forward legislation if we cannot operationalise it.

The Home Secretary has spoken about the role of the SIA. We need to consider how the SIA will be equipped adequately. It was resourced heavily during the covid pandemic, with new duties and responsibilities, but again it is the practicalities that are important, because the Bill brings an estimated 179,000 premises under the scope of the requirements of Martyn’s law, with a distinction in place—some have a standard duty, as we have heard from the Secretary of State. It is right that the provisions are proportionate to the scale and size of premises and businesses, and that there is a link to the risk, but we do not want to see issues with the enforceability of the provisions, so I want to ask the Home Secretary and her team some questions in that regard.

The Home Secretary touched on the whole issue around the SIA, the regulator and the potential to enforce civil penalties, but we need to understand the practicalities, because she also highlighted that we do not want to put additional burdens on businesses through the work that has taken place already. If businesses are not stepping up—not learning from past mistakes and the recommendations of other inquiries—how will that be picked up? Penalties are one thing, but they should be the last resort; we need these institutions and organisations to put public safety and the practicalities first.

I hope that the Minister responding to the debate will talk about the impact on local authorities, including local councils and town parishes. What assurances can be given about the work under way with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support local authorities to meet these obligations, including through training, and considering the implications, practicalities and scope? Will there be financial support for them? What support will be given to schools and educational institutions on their standard duty?

Given the existing measures that some premises have in place to ensure compliance with fire safety, health and safety, and crime prevention requirements, will the Minister look carefully at the interplay between those responsibilities so that the guidance is not complicated but consistent and comprehensive, and that we assist premises in minimising cost burdens while allowing them to work in an integrated way? One big lesson from Manchester, and Sir John’s inquiry and the reporting— we know this, as it was in the public domain—was that there was a lack of integration between the various services working together. That absolutely has to be recognised. We must ensure there is a golden thread running through all the services locally, so they know how to integrate and work together. The impact assessment gives an estimate of the overall cost of the standard duty and the enhanced duty over a significant period, but there is again the question of the practicalities: what does this really mean for the many organisations and institutions that will be involved?

I seek clarity from the Minister about the role of planning policy in delivering Martyn’s law. This is important; with changes in planning policy, we might be able to make changes to the way in which buildings are shaped and designed, and to what local authorities take on board. We might be able to ensure that the relevant authorities receive advice and guidance from the police on how to design out some of these issues and put in safety measures, and bring in developers to introduce good designs and new concepts, future-proofing many institutions, buildings and developments.

I will touch on the nature of terror incidents and the premises that need to be considered, because we need procedures to examine how best to prevent incidents from taking place and places from becoming targets. Monitoring and surveillance is second nature to our institutions, but there is also the question of how premises hosting events should respond to a particular threat or even anticipate an incident—what kinds of processes and procedures will such premises be undertaking? Perhaps the Home Secretary or the Minister could talk a bit about some of the discussions they have had with key sectors. Live venues and events were discussed earlier, but have they been consulted not just on how they will design these incidents out but on the practical measures—the kind of work that will be undertaken or the drills that will be put in place?

There are a lot of lessons to learn just from recent incidents. We saw what happened at London bridge in 2017, which differed from the Finsbury Park attack, the Manchester Arena attack and the Reading Forbury Gardens attack as well. It is important that the SIA, the regulator and the Government work to ensure that those responsible for premises and events have the full duty, and can go into their own planning and preparations in the right way.

I will mention one particular inquiry that is taking place, as it is in the news today: the inquiry into the 2018 Novichok poisoning in Salisbury of Dawn Sturgess, chaired by Lord Hughes of Ombersley. The Government will naturally be considering the harm and damage that that caused, because the actions of a hostile state led to the most atrocious and appalling deaths of innocent people in our country. It reminds us all that incidents come in all shapes and guises, and that we need to find better ways to protect the public and put public safety first.

I conclude by asking the Minister about support for victims of terrorism. The Home Office has been conducting an internal review into the support package available to victims of terrorism, and considering the introduction of a national day of service and tribute to victims of terrorism. Travis Frain, whom the ministerial team will be familiar with and know of, has been a long-standing and deeply passionate campaigner for that. Ministers prior to the election were looking at this matter as well, so we would welcome even a small update on the Government’s thinking regarding support for victims of terrorism and on some of the work that Travis was leading.

I note from the programme motion that the Government are keen for the Bill to complete its Committee stage by mid-November. To ensure it progresses quickly, I hope that Members across both Houses will ask the right questions and work in a practical way with the industry—we have not even touched on the insurance industry but I am sure that will all be covered in Committee—and look at how we can start providing public protection and safety sooner rather than later. I say this in my concluding remarks, particularly recognising that Figen Murray and others are here today watching the debate, because we owe it to them, to their families and to so many who have suffered and who have been waiting in anticipation for this legislation. We owe it to them to enact these measures in a practical way: to give them and the public confidence, as they look to us all to drive this legislation forward with positive outcomes, sooner rather than later.

Immigration and Home Affairs

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve in the Chamber with you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish the new Government Front-Bench team well. They know that I have high regard for many of them, including the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who are in their places.

As a patriot, I wish the Government well, because they are in a position to run our country and there will be many matters on which we can agree. I have worked with a number of Government Members on the kinds of matters that go well beyond Punch and Judy politics, if I can call it that, particularly on national security. However, those good wishes are not the same as wishful thinking. Too much wishful thinking pervades the Government Benches. Having made change itself the brand, the risk they face is thinking that change alone is enough. CS Lewis said:

“If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.”

Nevertheless, I wish the Government well.

We are debating a number of challenges in this aspect of the King’s Speech today, but none more challenging than that of lawlessness. Too often when we debate crime, lawlessness and order in this Chamber, we give too little regard to the victims of crime. We simply must end the culture, which has pervaded for most of my lifetime, of believing that crime is an illness; to be treated. It is not an illness; it is a malevolent choice made by those who are careless of the harm they do. When we understand that, we understand why the principal objective of the criminal justice system must be punishment. A justly retributive response to that malevolence is necessary not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is the component of the criminal justice system which maintains the public’s faith that justice will be done and be seen to be done.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am listening intently to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. Does he therefore believe that people are born wicked? I believe that, with good education at a very early age and early intervention, crimes can be prevented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

I imagine you will not allow me to talk about the fall from the state of grace and the character of sin, Mr Deputy Speaker, but let me say briefly to the hon. Lady that human beings are capable of the greatest wickedness and the greatest good. When they choose to do good, they can do immensely joyful things. I hope that the people in this Chamber all seek to do good, which is why I began my speech by wishing the Government well. My experience of this place is that people, regardless of party, are here because they want to make their constituents better off and the country they live in a happier and more agreeable place. Of course people have the capacity to do good, but we know too that people can do the most dreadful things, and when they do so it is absolutely right that law-abiding decent patriotic people see that they get their just deserts. That is not a strange or curious idea; it is one that has informed most criminal justice systems in all civilisations for all of time, and the most obvious way of ensuring that people who do harm get their just deserts is to incarcerate them.

That brings me to the second principle of the criminal justice system, which is that we take people out of harm’s way. The best way of doing that is to imprison those who seek to do harm. I am shocked, as are my constituents, that the Government now intend to let more of those dangerous people on to our streets. We are now told that people will be released—including people who have done violent things, who have hurt and damaged other people’s lives—after they have served 40% of their sentence. When most people I represent hear of a sentence for such crimes, they assume that people will serve 100% of it. Of course, that has not been the case for a long time, but we now know that the Government, on the grounds of prison overcrowding, are to release many more of these dangerous people on to our streets. I am afraid that the wishful thinking I described earlier will soon turn to the wish that the Government would see the sense of why that is an entirely unacceptable course of action. The last Conservative Government added to the number of prison places, but not enough and not fast enough—I think all of us on the Conservative Benches would acknowledge that—but given where we are, we simply cannot subject the British people to the fear, and not only fear but the reality, of letting out of prison others who would do them harm.

Let us deal with the third aspect of criminal justice, which is to try to prevent recidivism by reforming those in prison. As a Minister, I worked on prison education, because it is important that we try to ensure that people who have committed a crime and have been punished for doing so do not commit another, but that cannot be the only or defining characteristic of criminal justice. We have to recognise what Philip Bean, the criminologist in the 1970s said: retribution has to be a core part of what the public see in order to maintain their faith in the system and in what the Government and the authorities are doing. Yes, let us have a debate about rehabilitation; let us try to save souls, not only because it prevents recidivism but because it is the right thing to do for those individuals. But we should understand that punishment is not a dirty word. It is what most of our constituents take for granted, yet I never hear those sentiments expressed with any vehemence or conviction by the liberal establishment in this country, which unfortunately is too well represented in this place.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are different types of crimes and different types of prisoners, and that many people in our prison system at the moment, particularly those responsible for relatively low-level, non-violent antisocial behaviour, could powerfully serve much better and more rehabilitative community sentences? I do not want chain gangs in Norfolk and Lincolnshire, but good community service, where people can see that they are actually putting something back into society, would ease a lot of pressure on the system.

[Sir John Hayes]

Community sentences can play a part, that is true, but my hon. Friend will recall that the problem I described earlier of misunderstanding crime as an illness to be treated has its roots in thinking that stretches right back to the 1960s. You will perhaps know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 began intermediate treatment orders, which essentially rewarded young people who had committed crimes with the kind of community activities that my hon. Friend describes. People were sent to the Brecon Beacons when their law-abiding neighbours had to make do with a week in Clacton. I mean no disrespect to Clacton or its representative, I hasten to add. [Laughter.] That is not the kind of response to crime that the vast majority of my constituents—or, I suspect, those of my hon. Friend—expect. Yes, community sentences can play a part, but they must not in any way distract us from the fundamental truth—I think it was Grotius who said it, Mr Deputy Speaker—that criminal justice has to have at its heart the idea of an ill suffered for an ill inflicted. I hope that the new Government will recognise that to crack down on crime, they really do have to restore public faith in the fact that, as I said, justice will be done.

It is fact that 10% of convicted criminals are responsible for half of all convictions. It is true, too, that those individuals are known and can be identified and must not be released in the way that has been suggested. Yet, disturbingly, the new Prisons Minister is on the record as saying:

“We’re addicted to sentencing, we’re addicted to punishment. So many people who are in prison, in my view, shouldn’t be there.”

That is both the opposite of the truth and anything but what most people think.

I welcome the attention given in the King’s Speech to shoplifting, but again I fear that the Government’s approach amounts to little more than wishful thinking. We have a shoplifting epidemic in Britain. Police forces do not respond to almost nine out of 10 serious incidents and UK retailers already spend around £1 billion each year on trying to deal with a problem with which they struggle to cope. Many offenders persistently commit crimes and get away with it.

So let us, in this debate and in the programme that follows it, not simply rely on wishful thinking but face up to the profound truths which seem to have escaped the notice of Labour Governments forever and, too often, of Conservative Governments too: reflecting the sentiments of the vast majority of law-abiding people means the guilty must be punished and the innocent must be protected.