Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ben Maguire]

I suspect that that will be a question for the Minister when we come towards the end of the debate. It is certainly something that volunteers will seek clarity on so that they can know exactly what is required of them under the Bill. Without adequate training, we will end up with just vague asks of them, and they will not know exactly how to carry out their duties under the legislation.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

With due respect, the hon. Gentleman said that the cost was a question for the Minister, but since this is his proposed new clause, surely he should have some idea of the financial and other implications for the organisations that would have to comply with it.

[Ben Maguire]

I certainly would not suggest, and neither would the Liberal Democrats, that the training fee should fall on small venues, but the Government should consider it so that there is clarity for those smaller venues. I hope that answers the right hon. Member’s question.

The new clause covers evacuation procedures, monitoring of premises, physical safety and security and the overall provision of protecting lives. It would also establish a full training implementation plan, with the Secretary of State regularly updating Parliament to ensure that the right progress is being made. Crucially, it would ensure that our businesses are fully supported and given the clarity that they need. The public deserve to know that wherever they are—at a concert, a wedding or a local cider festival—staff are properly trained to respond to such emergencies. They should have confidence that venues are held to a consistent standard of preparation and readiness. For the venues themselves, the new clause would greatly improve safety, and would provide clarity and consistency on the standards that they must meet under this law.

Of course, there are concerns from many micro and small businesses about the financial impact and additional bureaucracy that these requirements may bring. That is why the new clause proposes a practical training plan to minimise the financial burden, with scalable and specific training.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray]

That intervention was slightly more in scope and was also about Edinburgh, so I was happier to take it.

The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, in advance of the Bill Committee debate and the debate that we are having now, I spoke to Edinburgh city council and to some of the event organisers, who told me that it is exactly because Edinburgh has become a place where fringe events take place regularly that these considerations have been normalised. Our city has put a lot of the necessary infrastructure in place, along with the thinking and the organisational requirements—and there is also a corporate memory between the small venues—to cope with terrorist events. As Andy Burnham pointed out in his evidence, Edinburgh is one of the national leaders on this front. However, I recognise that not every community has that advantage, which is why the Bill will extend to other communities the measures that already benefit mine.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Member said earlier that these were “prompts”, and that what we should consider was what happened after an attack. What is worrying is that the Bill goes beyond that. It talks about occasions on which it is suspected that a terrorist offence might take place or is taking place. That is not an “after”. The Bill creates an obligation for those who are in charge of the event in question to prevent individuals from entering. Before an event or while it is happening, there is a security obligation on some of these small groups to prevent people from entering the premises. That is not a prompt; it is a huge burden on the organisers.

[Chris Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Again, having been on the Public Bill Committee, my argument is that the Bill is proportionate.

--- Later in debate ---

If, at a later date, the Government want to bring substantially more organisations and venues into the provisions of the Bill, at either level, they can come back with primary legislation, which we can debate and consider. However, that is not what is being proposed today, which is why I will be voting for amendments 25 and 26. This is a good Bill, but we should not roll back the progress the Government have rightly made and we should stick to the thresholds as set out in the Bill.

[Sammy Wilson]

I fully understand the reasoning and the demand for a Bill such as this when it became known that, after a terrorist event, lives were lost because of bad organisation. If it is possible to introduce legislation that helps to avoid a situation that we have seen develop in the past, then of course we should do it. However, we have to be cognisant that when we introduce legislation, it has consequences for the people to whom it applies.

As we have heard time and again during the debate, Members believe that this legislation is both proportionate and practical. If Members genuinely believe that that is the case, there is absolutely no reason why new clause 1 should not be supported. We are entering a new field and imposing new regulations on bodies that were not regulated in relation to terrorism before, so surely it is important that we find out whether or not the objective and the intention is actually fulfilled. One way to do that is to monitor the effect over a period of time.

I have some concerns about the legislation, which people have already raised. In many cases, I do not think that the measures are practical. Secondly, I do not believe that they will not have an impact. That is not what Members expected and it is not what they want. Members across the House have said that they think the legislation may put people off engaging in activities that they would have undertaken in the absence of the regulations—activities that make a valuable contribution to their communities.

There is always a danger that people interpret the legislation that comes before the House, and sometimes our own rhetoric encourages them to do so. They may think a result of this legislation will be that it reduces the danger of people suffering a terrorist attack. To be clear, that is not and cannot be the purpose of the Bill. Terrorist attacks can be stopped only if we have intelligence, the security forces can act on that intelligence and we act in time. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) pointed out, the legislation is more about what happens after the event. However, it is not only about what happens after the event. The legislation puts obligations on people before they make a decision to undertake an event. Some of the wording in the Bill raises concerns.

[Chris Murray]

To clarify, I was not saying the legislation was only of value after an event. I said that part of its value was the impact it had on planning for the period after an event. On the burden the right hon. Gentleman talks about on people making preparations, does he accept that it is important that they consider the potential impact of events and think in advance about that in taking those decisions? That is how we will avoid the kind of atrocities we have seen.

[Sammy Wilson]

Let us look at some of the language and the requirements in the Bill that are totally reasonable. For example, the Bill sets out that people who are organising events should have plans

“for evacuating individuals from the premises”.

As far as I know, that already happens. At many of the events I attend, before the event even starts, somebody stands up and says, “Here are some house rules: in the event of a fire, the exits are here, here and here. Leave in an orderly way. When you get outside, meet at a certain point, so we can check everybody is out of the area.” There are measures in the Bill that are reasonable and that I would assume people are already doing. If they are not doing them, then it is not onerous on them to start saying that at the beginning of an event.

However, the Bill applies to retail as well. It is easy to communicate that kind of information to people if they are in a theatre or at some kind of concert, but it is a bit more difficult to communicate that to individuals when they are moving in and out of retail premises. We have to be careful about the practicalities of what we ask people to do.

Let me set out some of the things I have concerns about, which I believe are unreasonable to require of organisations. First, “public protection procedures” have to be

“followed by individuals working on the premises or at the event if there is reason to suspect that an act of terrorism is occurring, or is about to occur, on the premises”.

I suppose it is fairly obvious if something is “occurring” —we know if something is happening—but what if it is likely or “about to occur”? Are organisers meant to liaise with the police and get intelligence from them—intelligence that the police may not be able to divulge, or may not even have? What onus does it put on individuals in terms of preparation, given the random nature of terrorism? We have seen somebody go into a pre-school class with a knife. Nobody could have anticipated that.

Furthermore, when an event is occurring, or might be about to occur, the organiser has to prevent individuals from entering the premises. If I were organising an event, I would want to know what kind of security requirement that puts on me as the organiser. Am I meant to ensure that a security presence is there? What kind of security presence? We have talked quite a lot tonight about the fact that many events of 200 people could be organised by ordinary community groups. I think of theatre groups in my constituency. The only interest that people who organise such events have is acting. They do not have any of the skills that might be required to prevent people from entering the premises, so do they need to have security apparatus, such as security people?

The next measure about which there is a degree of ambiguity is the requirement that organisers do not divulge security information relating to the premises or event. I understand that they should not send out plans of the building in which they will be operating, showing the doors through which people can come in and get out, and the easy and hard ways into the premises. However, the Bill goes further than that. The organisers cannot give information about the event. The whole purpose of an event is to publicise it. Where will it be held? At what time will it be held? How many people can be facilitated? How do people get tickets? The point that I am trying to make is that there is language in the Bill about which I would have a lot of questions, were I an individual who was subject to it, because if I did not get it right, there would be a fine of up to £5,000 or £10,000.

[Ben Maguire]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is making a compelling case to support new clause 2, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would provide for training to address some of the ambiguity that he describes?

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not believe that training would address the ambiguity, because the ambiguity is in the wording of the legislation with which people will be required to comply. We all know what happens with training schools. As soon as training is mentioned, people start rubbing their hands and thinking how much they will charge for it. We are talking about training for a one-off event.

When we introduce such legislation, we have to be careful not to put a burden on people. I know that Members have said that this is not a burden, but I hope that I have explained why I believe the Bill puts a burden on people whose main job is not security. I understand common-sense requirements being made of event organisers, but if someone’s main job is not security at such events, they are more likely simply to drop the event.

I also support the amendments about the ability of the Secretary of State to change regulations, because that ability relates to not just the size of the premises, which can be decreased, but the purpose for which the premises will be used, the people who can be held responsible, and the scope of the premises that can be covered. The powers in clause 32 to amend the legislation are fairly extensive, and if the Secretary of State decides that there are to be changes in those four areas, the legislation that we approve tonight could be radically different in a year’s time, because the review depends upon whether there is a need to reduce the vulnerability of events, as per clause 6(5).

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

If the hon. Member will bear with me, I am going to address some of the points he raised.

Furthermore, it will take at least 24 months following Royal Assent for the SIA to begin undertaking its enforcement duties. It would not be fair of us, nor indeed possible, to judge its performance before it has begun carrying out its new functions, which seems to be the effect of the new clause.

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Dan Jarvis]

I will make a bit of progress.

I can also assure the House that the Bill already contains provisions to ensure the appropriate oversight of the SIA. Ultimately, the Bill gives the SIA the tools that it will need to deliver its new enforcement functions successfully. We are committed to exploring wider opportunities to strengthen the SIA so that it can carry out its public protection role and deliver the Government’s ambitious agenda.

I turn to the amendments on training provision tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire). I thank him again for his interest in that important issue. As he knows, the Bill has been developed to ensure that those working at premises and events are better prepared to respond quickly to evolving situations in the event of a terrorist attack occurring or being suspected. Those workers make rapid decisions and take actions that could save lives. There is no specific training requirement in the Bill, but it is essential that workers with responsibility for carrying out public protection procedures are adequately instructed—and, where appropriate, trained—to do so. Training and instruction will be tailored to the premises and events in question, and to the procedures that they have developed, rather than our using a one-size-fits-all approach.

Migration and Border Security

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is certainly right that the £700 million for four people is absolutely not good value for money at all. We will always make sure that we are looking for good value for money, as well as getting results.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The previous Administration cannot, Pontius Pilate-like, wash their hands of this immigration mess that has placed intolerable burdens on mostly disadvantaged working-class communities, but the Government now have responsibility for this matter. They cannot pass it back again: they have responsibility. What I would like to hear from the Home Secretary today—despite what has happened since July, with 20,000 more immigrants coming into the United Kingdom, hotel places up and foreign criminals still waltzing through the courts claiming human rights to stop themselves being removed—is what she intends to do to remove the pull factor that encourages people to see Britain as an easy touch.

[Yvette Cooper]

One of the things we are doing is cracking down on illegal working and the exploitation by employers of people coming to the UK who are often not here lawfully and as a result are being exploited by employers. That has been too easy for employers to do for far too long. That is why we saw an increase of more than 30% in illegal working visits over the summer, a significant increase in the number of arrests as a result of those visits, and a consequent significant increase in penalties for employers. We will continue to take much stronger action, such as removing the ability to sponsor workers from any employer who is breaching important employment laws. We need to ensure that every bit of the system is being tackled and addressed, so that we can have a system that is fair and has public support.

Police Reform

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

All Members will know that antisocial behaviour can blight communities and can cause real problems to individuals and families. This week is Antisocial Behaviour Awareness Week, and I was struck by Resolve’s statistic that one in seven householders is thinking about moving because of antisocial behaviour. That is really shocking, and our respect orders and neighbourhood policing reforms will start to address the antisocial behaviour that has blighted many of our communities for too long.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister has outlined the lack of confidence in police services across the United Kingdom because of the failure to deal with real crimes such as burglary, shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. At the same time, we learn that three police forces have spent a year investigating a tweet by a columnist after a report from someone in Holland. Surely, if there is to be reform, one thing we should do is tell the police that they are no longer the thought police. They are meant to be dealing with crime. If that means changing the bad law introduced by the last Government, will the Minister make sure it is done so that we do not have any more of this nonsense?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that this Government are prioritising the crimes that affect communities and individuals, such as the increasing antisocial behaviour, threats and knife-enabled robbery. Those are the things that people care about, and those are the things that our safer streets mission is designed to deal with.

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, it is worth reflecting that the provisions on non-crime hate incidents came out of the Macpherson inquiry following the murder of Stephen Lawrence. That recommendation was about providing an intelligence picture for police officers. It may not be a crime, but the intelligence picture might benefit from knowing about it. It is worth reflecting on that. Of course, I want consistency and common sense in such investigations and, as I said earlier, the inspectorate has also highlighted the need for consistency and training because of the confusion about the guidelines issued by the previous Government. I am happy to look at that with the College of Policing to make sure we get it right, but there is a place for it in some circumstances.

Immigration and Home Affairs

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I spent 13 years on these Benches in opposition, and I know how frustrating it can be.

The reality is that when the sheer size of our defeat became apparent, I had some difficulty in coming to terms with it. In order to characterise it, I do not think one can do better than our late colleague Peter Brooke, who, when describing a similar calamity, said, “the battle of Isandlwana is lost, so now begins the defence of the mission station at Rorke’s Drift.”

I had no doubt that the Government were always going to abandon the Rwanda scheme—they made that absolutely clear, and they have every right to do it—but I do think that the House will ultimately come to regret not having such a deterrent to hand. Had it been allowed to develop, it could have been such a deterrent. It was never a silver bullet but always part of a complex jigsaw of measures, of which, of course, the holy grail would be returns agreements.

The previous Government should be utterly congratulated on the returns agreement they made with Albania, which has been a tremendous success. Such agreements are hard to come by. I remember being sent to negotiate with President Ghani in Afghanistan to try to get him to take a more helpful approach, given the blood and treasure that we were expending on behalf of his regime and the people of Afghanistan. He turned to me and said, “My priority is the young men and women who are taking the battle to the Taliban, and you want me to give time and resource to those people who’ve chosen to run away?” Well, it was a fair point—of course, ultimately he ran away himself. But I had little more success in negotiations on returns agreements with other Commonwealth members. These agreements are extraordinarily hard to achieve. I think that we would have wanted a third country where we could have settled people, because ultimately our ability to do so will be finite and limited.

I want to draw attention to what the Prime Minister said yesterday in his statement, when he pointed out that he had just authorised a very significant increase in money to regimes in Africa. Ultimately, that has to be the long-term answer—the very long-term answer. We made an agreement back in 1970 with the wealthy countries of the world to spend 0.7% of our national income on international development in the economies of those countries from which so many people are now coming and will continue to come as long as the incentive of life being so much better here exists. It took us until the coalition Government in 2011 to actually honour that commitment to spending 0.7% of our national income, and we subsequently abandoned it—or certainly reduced it. If all the nations that had entered that agreement had honoured it and delivered it when they made it, perhaps the flow of population from the developing world would have abated substantially and we would be dealing with a different situation.

Ultimately, it is all about jobs. Take Zaatari, the huge refugee camp on the borders of Jordan and Syria: a great city now, made from scratch. Those who are accommodated in Zaatari will find that the housing provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is of a substantially better quality than that available in many cities and shanty towns across the world. They will find that the World Food Programme will feed them, and their children will be educated by the UN children’s agencies. Perhaps most importantly, security will be supplied by the Jordanian forces and be of a much greater standard than they might enjoy in many other parts of the world. Despite all those advantages, people from Zaatari will spend every penny they have, and borrow, in order to escape and get the one thing that Zaatari cannot supply them: a livelihood and a future for their family. That is the driver of so much migration.

Ultimately, we must return to that original policy, restore the 0.7%, and start building for the long term a world that is much more secure as a consequence of the economic developments available in those other places.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, but does he accept that much of that aid went to propping up corrupt regimes, which denied people the rights that we have in this country and was one of the things that drove immigration in this country? If aid is misspent or used to prop up regimes, it is detrimental, not helpful.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

That is absolutely right, but we did not do that. We did not spend our money in that way. We supported people under desperate regimes, not by giving money to those regimes but by providing sustenance through third parties and NGOs, which delivered that. Some of the greatest damage done by much of our own press was how our international development aid effort was painted as destructive in the way that was just described. It never was.

I return to my original point: we cannot take everybody, and we certainly needed somewhere else where they could have gone. Rwanda struck me as somewhere that that possibility could blossom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I congratulate the new hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) on an excellent speech. She will clearly be a force to be reckoned with in this Chamber and beyond, and I wish her well in her parliamentary career. She follows the former Father of the House, so she has big shoes to fill.

I thank the good citizens of Harrow East, who have allowed me to return to the House for the fifth time. I am delighted that on what was not a great night for my party, I was able not only to hold my share of the vote but to increase my majority substantially, although sadly I was probably the only Conservative Member to do so. I also thank many colleagues from the opposite side who came to visit my constituency during that time, and enjoyed the hospitality of the residents of Harrow East while at the same time increasing my majority.

Harrow East is, of course, the most multiracial and most multi-religious constituency, and has a greater adherence to religious faith than any other constituency in the country. I am proud to represent people of all faiths and none, and, in particular, the large number who have come from the Commonwealth to live in this country and to live in Harrow East. I am dedicated to serving them to the best of my ability, for as long as they wish me to do so.

Given the debate we are having today on the Gracious Speech, there are some things that I want to raise, particularly on home affairs. We have heard from the Home Secretary about the Government’s plans to deal with both legal and illegal migration. One challenge for the new Government will be very clear: how we deal with the 52,000 illegal migrants who have come to this country, and who would have been going to Rwanda or another place for resettlement. Clearly, there is a decision to be made by the Home Office about what happens to those people, because the previous Government could not return them to their previous country. That will have to happen, and the other challenge will be how we stop this country being a magnet for illegal migration in the first place. We all want to see that happen, and it is vital that it is done.

Obviously, we have challenges in other fields, and I welcome the words in the King’s Speech, and indeed the new Prime Minister’s words, about many of the things to be included in the new Government’s programme. I was absolutely delighted to hear that they will continue with the tobacco and vapes Bill, which, as many colleagues will know, I have championed through Parliament on many occasions. We had reached the end of its Committee stage, which you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, but we did not progress the Bill afterwards. I hope that it will be introduced rapidly, and that we can get it on to the statute book as fast as possible.

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), who is on the Front Bench, will welcome my saying that the football governance Bill needs to be progressed quickly as well, so that we encourage the football clubs that we love to be properly organised and helped.

I am also pleased that the Holocaust memorial Bill, which completed its stages in this House, will be enacted as fast as possible. Prior to the election, I was the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Holocaust memorial and educational centre. The fact is that antisemitism in this country is rife and has grown, and we must combat it at every possible stage. We must also ensure that the memorial and learning centre are placed alongside this building, so that we can demonstrate to the world that we must learn the lessons of what happened during the second world war and the Holocaust, and never allow it to happen again. It is vital that our young people and older people understand the consequences of that, and such work has been done on a cross-party basis. In many ways, it is going to be absolutely vital to work on a cross-party basis.

The hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), who is still in her place, raised the issue of what is going on in Gaza right now. I noticed that she made no mention of the hostages who are still held by the terrorists and the need for them to be returned. Once that happens, the weight of the world can lead to a cessation of hostilities and, indeed, a peaceful resolution in the middle east.

[Sammy Wilson]

Did the hon. Gentleman also note that there was no mention at all of the cynical way in which Hamas have used civilians as human shields? They have used their schools, hospitals and homes. They are guilty of causing many of the civilian deaths that have occurred, because they have cynically used their own people.