United Front Work Department

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree. This Government’s approach will always be to work constructively across the House on matters relating to national security, but given the record of certain right hon. and hon. Opposition Members, I suggest that humility might be the order of the day for some of them.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I do not want to go over the readiness of FIRS again and again. I will leave it at this: I was assured by the same officials who sit in the Box advising the Minister that it would be ready to go by the end of the year. Clearly the advice has changed. Only one thing in the Department has changed, which is the party leading it, so I can only assume that there has been a change of intent, but I am delighted that it will be ready to go by the summer—better late than never. The real question, of course, is whether it will be worth having. The advice from MI5 was very clear: if China is not in the enhanced tier, it will not be worth having. Will China be in that tier?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I take these matters incredibly seriously. He and I have known each other for a very long time. I therefore know that he will take on trust my assertion to him and to the House that the scheme was not ready to go when we arrived in government in July this year. We are working at pace. I have today given the House a timeframe and said that we are looking very closely, working with colleagues across Government, at how we can best structure the scheme. We will make announcements in the normal way in due course.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 31st October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Dan Jarvis]

Clause 12 will allow the SIA to effectively operate as the regulator for the Bill by setting out its responsibilities, powers and role. The primary role of the SIA will be to provide support and guidance. However, it is also important that it has the powers necessary to investigate and monitor compliance, so that the legislation can be enforced effectively. Schedule 3 therefore grants powers to authorised inspectors to investigate whether persons responsible for premises or events are contravening or have contravened requirements of the Bill. The schedule outlines their powers to gather information, the use of warrants, their ability to enter premises without a warrant, and supporting offences.

Under the schedule, inspectors will be able to serve information notices to gather relevant information for inspection purposes. The notice could require a person to provide written detail relating to an investigation or to attend an interview. Inspectors may enter premises without a warrant, subject to certain conditions in paragraph 4. However, schedule 3 also provides for inspectors to apply for warrants to enter premises, with paragraph 6 setting out the powers afforded to inspectors once a warrant is issued. The schedule also creates criminal offences for failing to comply with information notices, obstructing authorised inspectors and impersonating inspectors.

Under clause 12, the SIA must prepare guidance about how it will exercise its functions, which must be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. Approved guidance must then be published and kept subject to review, and revised accordingly as needed. The SIA must also provide advice about the requirements of the Bill, as well as reviewing the effectiveness of the requirements in reducing the risk of harm and the vulnerability of premises and events in scope.

The clause also requires the SIA to comply with requests from the Secretary of State and provide an annual report, which is to be laid before Parliament. The SIA is the appropriate body to undertake this role, due to its years of experience in increasing security standards and ensuring public protection. I hope that the Committee will support clause 12 and schedule 3.

I turn now to new clause 2, tabled by the shadow Minister, the right Member for Tonbridge. Establishing the SIA as the new regulator for this legislation, which is the first of its kind, will take at least 24 months. That is in line with the timeframes taken to establish new regulatory functions in existing bodies over recent years. I am sure he will agree that it would not be possible or fair to judge a new regulator’s performance before the regime has been established. Once the SIA has taken on its new role, it will take time before there is robust data against which to evaluate its performance.

The legislation already establishes several checks and balances on the performance of the SIA, as is standard with arm’s length bodies. They include the production of an annual report on performance, enabling the Secretary of State to issue directions to the SIA, and ensuring that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint board members and approve statutory guidance for publication.

Further to this, I have confidence that the SIA is the right home for the regulator because it already plays an important role in safeguarding the public through its statutory and non-statutory work. With a wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation, it better protects the public. With the addition of its new function, the SIA will be able to raise security standards for both people and places.

The Home Office will maintain appropriate levels of oversight and accountability to ensure that the regulator is delivered as intended. Once operational, the Secretary of State will closely monitor the performance of the regulator to ensure that it carries out its functions under the Bill effectively. For the reasons that I have set out, the Government do not support the amendment.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I tabled the new clause on the SIA for the simple reason that its reputation goes before it. Work that was done in the Department under a previous regime demonstrated that there were alternatives, which we felt would offer not only better value for money but greater ministerial oversight and better accountability to those who are forced to use its services. But clearly, with the Government’s majority, it is for the Minister to decide.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 13

Compliance notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 14 to 16 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Mr Tugendhat, do you wish to comment?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Simply to say that, although there needs to be a maximum sum to levy as a penalty, £18 million strikes any reasonable person as extremely high. Although we completely agree with compliance, the fines strike me as a little out of proportion.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Amendments made: 5, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, at end insert—

“(za) in the case of a contravention of a requirement imposed by a notice under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3 (requirement to attend and answer questions), £5,000; paragraph 3(1)(b)”

This amendment sets at £5,000 the maximum monetary penalty that an individual may be given for failure to comply with a requirement imposed under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3.

Amendment 6, in clause 18, page 13, line 11, after “if” insert

“, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.

Amendment 7, in clause 18, page 13, line 13, after “if” insert

“, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.

Amendment 8, in clause 18, page 14, line 1, at end insert—

“(za) subsection (1)(za),”—(Dan Jarvis.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Offences of failing to comply with compliance notice or restriction notice

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 25 and 26 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

The clause prevents a person from bringing a claim in private law against a person responsible for qualifying premises or events for a breach of statutory duty where they have failed to comply with requirements in the Bill. The Government consider it appropriate that means of redress for non-compliance with the new regime should be limited to enforcement by the SIA.

The SIA will have a range of enforcement actions, which are underpinned by some criminal offences, as has already been debated. It is not considered necessary to allow persons to bring private claims for simple non-compliance, such as seeking compensation for the responsible person failing to put in place public protection procedures. However, the inclusion of the clause does not preclude or otherwise affect any right of action that a person may have independently of the bail.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Powers to amend this Part

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 32, page 22, line 20, leave out from “for” to “in” in line 21 and insert

“enhanced duty premises to be standard duty premises.”

This amendment prevents standard duty premises from becoming enhanced duty premises at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Tom Tugendhat]

This is a simple repetition of the amendments we have made throughout the Bill to alleviate the burden on small businesses and ensure that the balance is appropriate.

[Dan Jarvis]

I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendment. He seeks to remove the provision in the clause that would allow the Secretary of State, via regulations, to make standard duty premises be treated as enhanced duty premises. It would have the effect of limiting the Secretary of State to only being able to provide that premises that would ordinarily be in the enhanced tier be treated as if standard duty premises. That is already the case in the Bill for certain premises, such as places of worship.

As I have explained, the nature and level of the threat from terrorism can evolve and change rapidly, with different behaviours, methods and tactics emerging. It is therefore important that the Government can respond quickly to protect the public if it becomes evident that there is a particular threat to certain types of premises and that the public protection measures in the enhanced tier should be in place there to reduce vulnerability and the risk of harm.

I again reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that regulations to make amendments to schedule 1 under this power would be subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring the express approval of both Houses of Parliament. For those reasons, the Government cannot support the amendment.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Interpretation of this Part

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Dan Jarvis]

The clause is technical in nature, defining certain terms used throughout the Bill. For example, the clause provides that the meaning of “terrorism” in the Bill is the same as in the Terrorism Act 2000. The clause is necessary to provide the meaning of these terms for the purposes of the Bill.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Licensing: disclosure of plans of premises

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

Briefly, clauses 35 and 36 are general provisions required for the operation of the Bill. Clause 35 sets out the parliamentary procedure accompanying the regulations. Clause 36 details the territorial extent of the Bill: parts 1 and 3 of the Bill extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; part 2 of the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, with part 1 of schedule 4 extending to England and Wales and part 2 of schedule 4 extending to Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Commencement

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 37, page 25, line 5, after “force” insert “for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements”.

See explanatory statement to NC1.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 19, in clause 37, page 25, line 10, at end insert—

“(2A) Parts 1 and 2 come into force for standard duty premises requirements on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint in line with section [Independent review of operation of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements].”.

See explanatory statement to NC1.

New clause 1—Independent review of operation of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements—

“(1) Within 18 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the operation of the enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements, including any recommendations for the implementation of the standard duty.

(2) The review in subsection (1) must—

(a) assess the level of costs and liability transferred to businesses and individuals arising as a consequence of the statutory provisions in this Act;

(b) consider any wider implications for businesses and individuals in meeting the new public protection measures and any potential need for additional statutory safeguards, support or guidance for businesses and individuals as result of the passing of this Act; and

(c) be led by an independent chair and comprise a panel comprising representatives from the hospitality, live music, performing arts, cultural and retail sectors, grassroots sports venues, small businesses and local government.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the Government’s formal response to the review specified in subsection (1).

(4) The Secretary of State may not make a regulation under section 37(2A) until—

(a) the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and

(b) the report specified in subsection (3) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”.

This new clause, together with Amendments 18 and 19, would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of the enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements before commencing the standard duty requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am afraid that amendment 18 is on the same point we have made throughout, which is about overburdening.

[Dan Jarvis]

Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for these amendments. While I completely understand the sentiment underpinning them, the Government do not support them. I would, however, like to assure the Committee that the Government are committed to learning the lessons from implementation, which is why a robust monitoring and evaluation plan to monitor the Bill’s effectiveness is in place. What is more, the Government have already committed to undertaking a thorough post-implementation review, which will assess whether the legislation is meeting its policy objectives, including analysing the costs and impacts on businesses and other premises in scope.

The Government have been clear that, following Royal Assent, we expect there to be an implementation period of at least 24 months, which will allow for the set-up of the regulator, while ensuring sufficient time for those responsible for premises and events in scope to understand their new obligations and to plan and prepare. Detailed guidance will be provided to assist those in scope to prepare for the requirements, as well as extensive communications and engagement with business and organisations.

Furthermore, as I have already set out, the Bill’s requirements in the standard tier are focused on straightforward procedures designed to increase preparedness and reduce the physical risk to the public from acts of terrorism. The procedures are intended to be simple and have no cost, other than staff time, to develop and implement, with no requirement to purchase or install any additional equipment beyond what they already have in place.

For this combination of factors, we believe that the Government’s approach will provide those in scope with sufficient time and information to prepare for the Bill’s requirements. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge, and other hon. Members, also heard in this week’s evidence sessions from several witnesses who raised the importance of the standard tier, and the crucial public-protection outcomes that it can achieve. I share that sentiment; the standard-tier requirements are important provisions that will help to mitigate the risk of physical harm from acts of terrorism. We therefore do not consider that mandating a staggered approach to implementation in the way proposed is currently required. We will keep the Bill’s measures under review and have powers to adjust the regime if necessary. For those reasons, we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Tom Tugendhat]

We are nearly there, Sir Edward.

[The Chair]

It’s going very well—not what I am used to.

[Tom Tugendhat]

It’s your chairmanship! I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

New clause 1 has already been debated and is not being moved. New clause 2 has been debated already, but do you wish to comment on it, Mr Tugendhat?

[Tom Tugendhat]

On a point of order, Sir Edward. I will comment on it very happily, and merely repeat that the SIA is a regulator that has faced significant challenges over recent years and, again, I raise the question as to whether it is the appropriate regulator. As usual, however, the Minister would have the numbers in a vote.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

With your leave, Sir Edward, I will take this opportunity to thank you for chairing this Committee and to thank all Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, not just today but in proceedings on Tuesday. I will also take the opportunity to say a particular thank you to all those members of my Department who have worked incredibly hard to draw this legislation together, in conjunction with the staff of this House. Their efforts have been very much appreciated. I am grateful for the cross-party nature of what we have achieved as we have progressed the Bill through the House.

[Tom Tugendhat]

It would be churlish of me not to thank you, Sir Edward, for the speed and efficiency with which you have guided us through this. This is also an opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the Minister, who has been a friend for many years—nearly 20 years, actually. It is a wonderful symmetry that, on my last day on the Front Bench for my party, I am doing what I did when we first met, which is scrutinising him.

[The Chair]

It has been a pleasure to serve you all, and it has been so easy—no controversy. Thank you very much.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 31st October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. It is good to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge, in his place. He and I have known each other for a very long time, and as this may be our final exchange—

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

It will be.

[Dan Jarvis]

Well, as it sounds as though it will be our final exchange, I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his service and wish him well for the future.

The purpose of clause 1 is to aid the reader of the Bill to understand its content and structure, which I am sure will be a great relief to members of the Committee as we debate the Bill. As the clause provides an overview of the Bill, this seems an appropriate moment to set out a reminder of why we have sought to legislate.

The first responsibility of any Government is to keep the public safe; that is, and will always be, our No. 1 priority. Since the start of 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots, and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks. As the MI5 director general, Ken McCallum, set out last month, this country is today subject to

“the most complex and interconnected threat environment we’ve ever seen.”

As can sadly be seen from recent terrorism incidents, the public may be targeted at a wide range of public venues and spaces. We know, too, that the terror threat has become less predictable and potential attacks harder to detect and investigate. That is why those who run premises and events need to know what they can do, and what they should be doing, to keep the public safe. That view is supported by inquests and inquiries into terror attacks, which have recommended the introduction of legislation to improve the safety and security of public venues. That includes, but is not limited to, monitored recommendation 4 in volume 1 of the Manchester Arena inquiry.

The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place, or appropriate measures taken, to keep us safe. Wherever people are and whatever they are doing, they deserve to both be and feel safe, ensuring protection of life and of our way of life.

While we recognise that the risks posed by terrorism are already proactively considered for some premises and events, there is a lack of consistency, which needs addressing. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill—Martyn’s law—will remedy that inconsistency. The Bill’s proposals have been subject to extensive development, and a draft version of this legislation was subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny under the previous Government. Indeed, the shadow Minister gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on that matter.

The Bill that we have brought forward has been adjusted to strike an appropriate balance between protecting the public and avoiding an undue burden on premises. We recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be suitable for all premises and events, which is why, for example, we have adapted the Bill’s requirements to include the “reasonably practicable” test. That will enable those responsible for qualifying premises or events to take into consideration what is within their control and the resources they have available to them, as well as what is suitable and appropriate for their venue.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to Figen Murray, from whom we heard so movingly on Tuesday. She has without doubt been the driving force behind this Bill. I am sure that all Committee members will agree that Figen is an inspiration to us all. With that, I look forward to the exchanges to come in the course of proceedings in this Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge is withdrawing his amendment.

[Tom Tugendhat]

No, I am not withdrawing it; I am just not moving it.

[Tim Roca]

Fair enough. But I will speak to clause 1 of the Bill. I will focus on small businesses, because we heard a lot in the evidence session about the impact on them. They are the lifeblood of our economy and key contributors to keeping our high streets vital and thriving.

It is important to reflect on the evidence we heard about the impact that the Bill will have on small businesses, particularly what Mayor Andy Burnham said about the experience they have had in Greater Manchester already. The city council in Manchester held partnership sessions with large and small businesses alike—over 2,000 people across 10 sessions representing 700 businesses. They then held the tabletop discussions that Figen Murray talked about, including with large spaces such as the Printworks, all the way down to small independent restaurants. The response of those businesses was clear. They believe that there is a need for the legislation, and they do not believe that the provisions are prohibitively onerous. They believe that, at most, it would cost them two hours of staff time.

I will quote from Gareth Worthington, the night time economy officer at CityCo and Manchester business improvement district, which I am happy to place in the Library:

“If a venue operator does not know how to evacuate their venue they should not be running that venue and if training can be provided to help make that evacuation safer then venues should grasp it with both hands.”

Businesses recognise that their first duty is to keep their patrons safe, and that sensible practical measures can be taken to reduce the chance of harm. Businesses are aware of the threats out there. The Minister alluded to those when he spoke: 43 late-stage terrorist plots foiled, and in the last year the number of state-threat investigations launched by the security services increased by 48%. The practical measures in the Bill are necessary, reasonable and proportionate.

Finally, I want to talk about Figen Murray, as she is one of my constituents. I cannot put it better than the way Mayor Andy Burnham phrased it:

“Figen responded to an awful, evil act of hate, with love…Everything she has done since losing her son has been about making the world a better place in his memory.”

He also said:

“Through her work with young people and her campaign for Martyn’s Law, she is helping to prevent future tragedies and give every parent peace of mind. She is a real icon of Greater Manchester.”

I am proud that she is one of my constituents.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Given that this is the last time I will speak on this Bill Committee, I want to pay tribute to Figen and Brendan for the work they have done.

There is always a danger with such Bills that we put the blame not on the perpetrator but on those who are actually victims. I say that because the businesses that must make provision, pay the cost and bear the burden are also victims of the perpetrators. Let us be absolutely clear: for all that this law lays out the responsibilities on businesses, the true responsibility falls on those perpetrating these attacks.

Today, as Ken McCallum would tell us, the Iranian state is a prime originator, and the Muslim Brotherhood is a feeder, of the evil we see perpetrated. It is the various jihadi extremist organisations that make this country less safe, and different aspects of other political parties also make it more dangerous. We must be absolutely clear that responsibility for the actions we are talking about actually falls not on the businesses but on those who encourage, tolerate and perpetrate terrorism. Let us be absolutely clear today that one of the principal vectors for this violence comes straight out of Tehran and through various organisations that are still operating in this country despite many attempts to close them down.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful for the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale, for Dudley and for Macclesfield. I am also grateful for the contribution made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall; the Government appreciate the Liberal Democrat party’s support, and I am happy to work, and have further conversations, with him before Report on the important point that he raised about training.

Finally, I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. I completely agree with his point about responsibility, and he is right. He will know that this new Government take these matters incredibly seriously, and I can give him and the rest of the Committee an absolute assurance that we will not rest in seeking to address the points he made and the concerns he dealt with admirably when he was the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Qualifying premises

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “200” and insert “300”.

This amendment sets the threshold for qualifying premises at 300 individuals.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 20, in clause 32, page 22, line 9, leave out “100” insert “200”.

This amendment sets the floor for standard duty at 200 individuals.

Amendment 21, in clause 32, page 22, line 12, leave out “500” and insert “799”.

This amendment sets the floor for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events at 799 individuals.

Clause stand part.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I tabled the amendments for the simple reason that a burden will fall on businesses and on individuals; we can belittle it and say that complying will take only an hour or two, but for many small businesses that is a significant burden. As was made clear in the evidence session only the other day, the burden on local authorities, including at parish level for parish halls, can change the way in which trustees approach this issue, which is why we looked to make the changes that I recognise the Minister has indeed made.

It is important to ensure that the burdens do not grow. That is why I have tabled some of the amendments before us, which change some of the fines and request a change from simply issuing an instruction to introducing a statutory instrument—a very specific moment when the Minister actually has to make a decision and bring the issue back to Parliament. We can belittle the hours, but trustees and volunteers at village halls make their own time available—I speak from personal experience, and others will have seen this as well—so if the burden is too great, plenty of village halls will simply close because we are asking people to take on more than they are willing to give.

That is why we have tabled the amendments, but as they all speak to the same point, which is not overburdening people, my remarks can be taken to apply to them as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca]

I want to speak briefly to the point about thresholds, which has just been discussed. The consultations prior to the Bill were based on a threshold of 100 at the standard tier, and I welcome the ability the Bill gives the Secretary of State to reduce the threshold back to that, should the evidence warrant that. I think Members will be reassured by some of the safeguards the Minister has just talked about, which would have to be in place before any such change happened.

In the protect duty public consultation, half of respondents thought that the threshold should be 100. Moving it to 200 has already taken 100,000 premises out of the scope of the legislation, leaving 180,000 within it. Raising the threshold to 300 would in effect remove the standard tier altogether. Figen has been very clear on this point:

“Raising the threshold of 200 even higher would mean that proportionality would no longer exist”.

She has also pointed out that in her small town of Poynton, in my constituency, a threshold of 200 would already mean that not a single venue is covered by this legislation. A move to 300 would therefore be a mistake and fatal to the purpose of the Bill.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Given the very obvious numbers on the Committee, there is no point in pushing the amendment to a vote, but I still believe that the burden on small businesses is too great. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Specified uses of premises

[Dan Jarvis]

I beg to move amendment 10, schedule 1, page 26, line 15, leave out paragraphs 3 and 4 and insert—

“Entertainment and leisure activities

3 Use (other than a use mentioned elsewhere in this Schedule) for the provision of entertainment, leisure or recreation activities of any description, where the activity is principally for the benefit of visiting members of the public.”

This amendment makes general provision about premises used by the public for entertainment, leisure or recreation activities and replaces references to specific types of such activities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I wanted to speak on this clause because it is arguably the most important component of this legislation and could have the biggest impact. Obviously we all hope that terrorist events do not happen, but we must be alert to the possibility that they can, and to what we collectively need to do to prepare for that situation.

Enhanced-tier organisations, particularly those at the upper end such as stadiums, will already have many operations in place to prepare for that. They will do table-top exercises; they will do war games; they will designate staff; they will have protocols. But for the standard tier, in particular, will not automatically be doing that. As we see the terror threat evolving to target those smaller standard-tier institutions, it is important that we prompt them, through this legislation, to do that thinking.

The former US Under-Secretary of State for Homeland Security, Juliette Kayyem, talks about the distinction between “pre-boom” and “boom” with terrorist events. Pre-boom, we can do a lot of work to stop terrorists—put in checks and do things—but we have to think about what we do in the moment when the terrorist attack has already begun. That is not the time for institutions, particularly small institutions, to be thinking, “What is the exit route? What do we need to do? Who’s in charge here?” In reference to American school shootings, Juliette Kayyem says that the least useful person, once a school shooting has started, is the person who says, “We should have banned guns.” It is too late to be having that conversation, and the gun is already in the school. People need to be prepared for that situation.

The four requirements under subsection (3) are small, and quite intuitive, prompts that we are asking of standard-tier institutions; but in giving those prompts we could be encouraging them to take the small steps that will, when the terrorist event happens, affect the outcome and could really save lives. This is a really important clause.

The Opposition have made the point that the clause presents a burden on business, and it is true that it is bringing into scope organisations that probably have not had this burden placed upon them before. Admittedly, there is a component of burden being placed here—but actually it is not the legislation that is doing that; it is the evolving terror threat, which we are responding to. That is why it is important to note that the proposals made here—those four requirements—are straightforward. As I say, they are almost intuitive and commonsensical. They are not onerous and they are low-cost.

My constituency, the city centre of Edinburgh, is event central. We have hundreds of events there every week, and in August we host the third-biggest ticketed event in the world—double the number of people go to events in that month as go to the Olympics. But they are not all in one place. It is not one big stadium; they are spread throughout the city.

Some of those events, such as the Tattoo, would qualify for the enhanced tier, but many of them would be standard tier. If we can prompt them to make these changes, we really could make a huge impact. If we do not do that and there is a chilling effect because people feel insecure, the burden on organisations will significant; we need to take that seriously. That is why the distinction between standard and enhanced is appropriate, and I think the requirements being made of the standard tier are the right ones.

This very important clause codifies something that society should be doing anyway, given the evolving terror threat. The way we will know it has had an impact is that we will never hear about it again, because the prompts will mean that further action is not required and tragedies do not happen.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Public protection measures for enhanced duty premises and qualifying event

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 6, page 5, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from creating further requirements for enhanced duty premises by regulations.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 26, in clause 6, page 5, line 8, leave out subsection 6.

This amendment allows the Secretary of State to omit or amend the description of public protection measures for enhanced premises and qualifying events without regard to the considerations set out in Clause (6)6.

Clause stand part.

[Tom Tugendhat]

This very simple amendment is in line with the others that I have already spoken about. It would limit the Government’s power to exert extra burdens on small businesses.

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling this amendment. The Government consider that specifying further measures is an important power for the Secretary of State and must be available to ensure effective protection of the public through these measures.

Having the ability to specify further public protection measures through regulations means that the requirements of the enhanced duty can be amended to reflect changes in the terrorism threat, advances in technological solutions and our response to them. For example, there may be lessons learned from future incidents, further common types of attack may emerge, or best practice may evolve.

The right hon. Gentleman’s amendment would limit the Government’s ability to protect the public and safeguard them from harm. I understand that the intention behind it may relate to fears over the burden that future measures may create. However, the clause is drafted to constrain the power to be exercisable only where it is considered that the further measures will reduce vulnerability to, or the risk of physical harm from, an attack. It is intended to ensure that new requirements are limited to those necessary to protect the public, and remain in line with the overall objectives of the measures under the clause. Given the evolving nature of terrorism and the threat it poses, the Government consider it necessary to include this power, and therefore do not support the amendment.

On amendment 26, the Government consider it important to be able to remove or amend public protection measures from the list in subsection (3). For example, the Government might identify potential amendments to improve the measures through lessons learned and evolving best practice. This power is drafted so that the Secretary of State may remove or amend the types of measures only if they consider that doing so will not either increase the risk of physical harm to individuals or increase the vulnerability of the premises or event to the risk of acts of terrorism. That is in accordance with the overall objectives of the measures within this clause, as stated in subsection (2).

Were we to agree to the amendment, specified measures could be amended or removed without a requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to expressly consider how those public protection objectives would be effective in taking away or altering a measure in the list approved by Parliament. The Government do not consider that appropriate and therefore respectfully do not support the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Enhanced duty premises and qualifying events: documenting compliance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Dan Jarvis]

Clause 7 places a legislative requirement on those responsible for enhanced duty premises and events to prepare and maintain a document that records their compliance in relation to putting in place procedures, under clause 5, and measures, under clause 6. This is necessary to ensure that premises are able to more easily demonstrate compliance, and the Security Industry Authority is able to assess that against the Bill’s requirements. Many premises will already be documenting similar mitigations in regard to existing security plans for non-legislative purposes—fire safety and health and safety legislation, for example.

Documents should contain statements that relate to the public protection procedures and measures that are implemented, or proposed to be implemented, at their premises or event. Documents should also contain assessments to provide a rationale as to how the proposed procedures and measures will reduce both physical harm to individuals present and vulnerabilities of the premises or event if an attack were to occur.

When complete, the document should contain the totality of the procedures and measures deployed and sufficient detail to enable the authority to assess whether those responsible for premises and events are compliant with the Bill’s requirements. In the first instance, those responsible for enhanced duty premises and events are required to provide the document as soon as reasonably practicable after it is prepared and within 30 days of any subsequent revision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Requirements to co-ordinate and co-operate

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (First sitting)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Shadow Minister, do you have any questions?

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I have had the great privilege of meeting Figen and Brendan over many months on this, so I have no questions.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

Q I reiterate your comments, Dame Siobhain, about the admiration we all hold for Figen and Brendan and for the campaigning that they have done. Figen is a constituent of mine and I know we are all very proud of her in Macclesfield. May I ask you, Figen, what you think is the most important element of this Bill?

Figen Murray: I think it is that as many places as possible are covered. We as a campaign team are concerned about the threshold, if I am honest. I live in a small town —more like a village—and with the original 100 threshold, quite a few of the restaurants as well as the little theatre we have and the pubs would have been covered under the law. With the change in the threshold, my little town is now not coming into scope at all and is completely not secure under Martyn’s law. It concerns me. The change from the 100 threshold to 200 will exclude about 100,000 premises. It feels like quite a lot now no longer need to be within that scope. It worries me.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

May I start by extending my support to the Home Secretary for whatever incident is going on in Southport, and to Merseyside police, given the incidents we are sadly seeing in Merseyside today?

Earlier this month, the right hon. Lady refused to rule out the UK accepting migrants from European countries in exchange for a returns deal with Europe. Does she accept that under any deal she does, some of those sent to the United Kingdom from the European Union could harbour extremist ideologies or pose a security threat? Will she commit to ensuring strong safeguards, including a right of refusal on a case-by-case basis, to stop anyone who could put Britain’s security at risk from entering this country?

[Yvette Cooper]

There will always need to be proper safeguards on security, and proper security checks on those who come to this country, but the problem with the boat crossings is that they undermine that border security. There are no checks on dangerous boat crossings, which put lives at risk, and on who criminal gangs choose to put into boats. We are clear that we need stronger border security. That is why we are setting up a new border security command, and counter-terror powers in new legislation. We recognise that returns—for example, of failed asylum seekers—have dropped substantially since the last Labour Government were in place. We have to turn that around; we want to increase returns.

Immigration and Home Affairs

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

May I start by sending my congratulations and those of my party to the hon. and right hon. Members who have been elected today, the hon. Members for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)? I congratulate them all; I am sure they will fulfil their roles as Deputy Speakers with great integrity and honour.

I turn briefly to some of the maiden speeches, of which there have been the most extraordinary number. I am grateful to have sat through many of them, although perhaps not all. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) brings fantastic previous service to the House, although I hope he is not bitten by another dog. I must also pay tribute to his wife Caroline’s courage and his campaign. I also cite the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who is not shy of a cake. Although that may not be the public service or public health message that she wishes to bring, it is one that I share. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) highlighted the Glasshouse, which is indeed at the cultural heart of our nation. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) gave a moving account of a tragic loss, and his campaign for recognising baby loss is one that will be backed across the whole House. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) surprised us all by actually discussing the subject of the debate.

The direct access of the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) to the Chancellor will no doubt raise huge hopes in her constituency. The addiction of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) to ice cream suggests that he should team up with the hon. Member for Darlington. I suggest they might one day be friends.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) does belong here, no matter what she says and no matter what anybody else says. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) taught us the meaning of pier envy, which was a new one on me. The baby girl of the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) will no doubt bring enormous joy, but if my experience is anything to go by, enormous sleepless nights, too. No doubt she too will be voting in the Lobby very soon.

I must pay enormous tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) in healthcare. As a child I was a frequent flyer and user of the William Harvey hospital, so I am grateful that he continues to serve in that community. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) hid a king or found one—I am not sure quite which. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a passionate defence of the need for domestic energy production, and I share that view enormously. I am sorry he does not share it with the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), but perhaps he will inform him better.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) had kind words to say about our friend Alex Chalk, who served the House and that constituency with great integrity and decency. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) recalled the last battle on British soil and is now seeking to power our country with nuclear energy. As he will know well, this country only ever builds nuclear power stations under a Conservative Government.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) committed to work on disabilities, and that sentiment will be shared by many here. The campaigning technique of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) is undoubtedly original. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) can only hope to break the track record of getting a second term in that seat, and even those of us on the Opposition Benches might be supportive of that.

The history of piracy of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) will no doubt worry the Whips something rotten. I am sure she will fail to put them at their ease—certainly not so early in the Parliament. The fashion advice of the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) would be welcomed by those of us who missed the 1960s, but he no doubt will be contributing. I thank him for his kind words to our friend Greg Hands, who served the constituency so well.

I turn to the King’s Speech, rather than the maiden speeches—the King, after all, has given one himself. Sadly he did not choose his own words, and I am not sure they were the ones he would have chosen. It is, however, as ever a pleasure to be speaking across the Dispatch Box from the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), and I wish her the very best of luck in her new role. Becoming a Labour Immigration Minister must be a strange experience. After all, Barbara Roche, one of her predecessors, wrote that she was “appalled” to be appointed Immigration Minister in the Blair Government. One of Barbara’s contemporaries, David Blunkett, famously said that there was “no obvious limit” to the number of migrants who could settle in the United Kingdom. I suspect we will not get such frank honesty from this Prime Minister or this Home Secretary. However, in their hearts I suspect that neither of them truly believes in controlling legal and illegal migration.

The hon. Member for Wallasey has my sympathy. It cannot be easy to defend a Government who have already scrapped the deterrents that worked, lost the commander of the border strategy unit and now all but offered an amnesty. Oh dear, these days are difficult, are they not? No doubt she has already read the advice of her frontline officers, because the National Crime Agency was extremely clear. It has been tasked by that Government to tackle criminal gangs, but it has already said that we need an effective deterrence agreement, and since it has publicly pointed out that no country has ever stopped people trafficking upstream in foreign countries without a deportation scheme, I am certain that it will not have minced its words in private.

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Dame Angela Eagle)]

rose—

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady will get plenty of time in just a moment.

Despite that, the Home Secretary has promised the British people results and urged us to put faith in her plans. I have long heard and listened to the right hon. Lady, who has been a friend for many years, so let me ask the question put yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). If, God forbid, the Home Secretary is wrong and the numbers rise—I know; wonders will never happen—what will she do? Will she take responsibility and resign, or will she reach for the old Blair-Brown playbook that is the golden thread running through the King’s Speech and instead farm out the blame, set up a new quango, pretend it is not her problem and hope that it all goes away?

I am sorry to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that having listened to the debates over the last few days, it seems that Labour’s approach to illegal immigration is absolutely typical of how it plans to govern. This is a Government who will be overbearing when they should stand back and absent when they should stand tall. They will be too hesitant in defending our country from her enemies abroad, too controlling—or uncontrolling—of our borders, failing to protect decent people from criminals. But they will be all too willing to creep into every corner of our personal lives. This is a Government who seem determined to prioritise left-wing ideology over the interests of the British people; I am afraid that is what Labour does.

That is what is happening in education, where the Government are rolling back the quiet revolution that has made our schools some of the best in the western hemisphere; in energy, where they claim that they will reduce bills by creating an energy company that does not generate energy; and in skills, where the best they can offer a generation that aspires is another bloated regulator. Those are the policies of a Government who value jobs for bureaucrats over results and ideological purity over the wellbeing of the British people.

I am afraid that the economy cannot afford such ideology. We need honesty in the challenges that we face. Despite the Chancellor’s attempts to talk down the position that she has found herself in, that is indeed what she has inherited. Despite the selective memories on the Government Benches, we know the facts. We have the lowest inflation and the fastest-growing economy of any G7 country, the deficit is down, unemployment is down and the economy is growing, all despite a global pandemic and a war raging in Europe. That recovery is now at risk. Labour talks about growth, but businesses are already groaning at the proposed increase in regulation that the Government are proposing and are fearful of the tax rises that we are all expecting from the Chancellor and that she is effectively rolling the carpet for this autumn.

The changes in workplace regulations will not protect new employees; they will simply put businesses off hiring them. The trouble with Labour’s plans is that we know that however well-meaning they are, they always lead to the same outcome. While Conservatives see industry as the source of our prosperity, Labour just views it as something to be taxed. It thinks that entrepreneurs are not grafters but greedy, and it cannot see that drive and energy bring opportunity to a whole community, not just to an individual or a company.

To that, I say this. Just as our security should not be taken for granted, neither should our wealth or prosperity. No one owes us a living or a good life. If we punish those who create jobs and make it harder or more expensive to run a business, this country will get poorer. It will not happen overnight; it will creep up on us, with investments not made, business ideas not taken forward and entrepreneurs moved abroad. Little by little, those good intentions will lead to well-predicted consequences. Where we should be going for growth, Labour is designing a state of stagnation.

The direction that the Government have chosen to take is all too clear: a state that is weak on defence, weak on protecting our borders and weak on maintaining order, whether in schools or on the streets. Yet, that state presumes to tell us how to live our lives, offering us less choice about how we educate our children, run our businesses, rent our homes and do our jobs. In only a few weeks, the Government have already shown themselves unable to commit to the steps needed to keep us safe, unable to secure our borders and unwilling to let the British economy thrive.

The Labour party talks a good game, but actions speak louder than words, and its actions so far have been those of a party determined to put ideology over this country’s interests.

Crash-for-cash Insurance Fraud

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I am delighted to speak in a debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). He demonstrates again not only his commitment to his constituents, but the way to use the House quite correctly to bring out a particular example that affects both his constituents and people across the whole United Kingdom. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) highlighted many of these issues in Scotland. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) touched on many of those issues and, sadly, her personal experience. That certainly was a telling lesson for all of us.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) touched on many of the questions that we are all looking at, because insurance fraud is not a victimless crime, as Members have highlighted. A few weeks ago I renewed my insurance premium, and I felt it; I know we all do. The reality is we are covering not just our own errors and foibles behind the wheel but those made by others and, in this case, by criminals. That is why I take the matter incredibly seriously, because fraud is not a victimless crime. It is not simply a crime against the insurance business or insurance companies, which in itself is not victimless—after all, insurance companies are owned by shareholders, families and individuals across the United Kingdom. Rather, it is a crime that has a direct implication for the pay packets and household economy of families across the United Kingdom. That is why fraud is taken so seriously and is part of the brief of the Security Minister.

Members may think it unusual that fraud, or even crash fraud like this, is part of my brief—I usually spend my time wondering what different foreign agents may be trying to do in the United Kingdom or, indeed, what hostile states may be trying to steal off us—and they may question the connection. But as hon. Members have correctly said, the connections are clear: criminals use fraud to raise cash to exchange with agents of hostile states. Effectively, the connection between hostile states, serious and organised crime, and people trafficking and fraud is all too clear. I should be clear that that does not mean that every group is connected in all parts. Sadly, or rather happily, many groups are not connected and are simply small ventures by individuals who are trying to exploit something that they may have been told about by somebody else. Therefore, they are simply copycat cases. We should not exaggerate too much, but keep that in perspective. The truth is that there are serious challenges. The serious point here is that hundreds of thousands of such cases have come to light: I think we are now up to 130,000, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said. The Insurance Fraud Bureau, which does so much to lead on this issue, has around 6,000 active suspected crash-for-cash claim investigations that have been notified to it by its members, with an estimated worth of over £70 million, and crash-for-cash cases make up about 30% of its live investigations.

We also recognise that moped-enabled crash-for-cash fraud is on the rise, which the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden highlighted quite correctly. It is pernicious and can be extremely dangerous, because not only is the rider putting themselves at risk, but they may force the driver of the car into a dangerous manoeuvre that could put other road users at risk. It is perhaps not the case here, but a solicitor or another person can also be complicit in the scam, which needs to be called out. That is why we are working not just with the insurance sector, or even just with policing. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Nottingham North recognised that we have hired thousands of new police officers over England and Wales over the last year, many of whom are on the streets. Only London under a Labour government has failed to meet its target, which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and his constituents sadly know all too well.

The reality is that it is not just about policing, but about the way we work with solicitors, regulatory authorities and the various other organisations with oversight of the area. Unlike traditional scams, the moped scam involves hiding down a side road, nipping out and effectively trying to provoke an accident, which is extremely dangerous. The Insurance Fraud Bureau ran a targeted awareness campaign on the scam in June last year, which we supported because it highlighted what road users should look out for and what they should do if they think they have been a victim of such a scam. The campaign received widespread national coverage, and I am grateful to Sky, the BBC and TalkTV for picking it up.

There is still an awful lot that we must do. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington for setting out many of those areas, and to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden for highlighting how fraud can happen to anyone in the United Kingdom. The impact of fraud goes beyond financial losses, and improving support for victims is an important part of our fraud strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington is right. Not only have we introduced 400 new officers for the national fraud squad, but thanks to its efforts and the City of London police, we have managed to bring down fraud as a crime target. It is now down 16% year on year, building on 13% last year, which demonstrates that we are travelling in the right direction.

Sadly, fraud is playing a more important part in many people’s lives. So much of our lives is now online and has therefore been opened up to a different area of exploitation. That is why the work we are doing across the 43 police forces of England and Wales to support more victims through Action Fraud as part of the fraud strategy is so important.

We are also supporting National Trading Standards in its roll-out of a multi-agency approach to fraud, bringing together local services and improving support to vulnerable victims. Through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which I know the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has beside his bed at night, we legislated to require the payment systems regulator to introduce mandatory reimbursement for authorised push payment scams. Those provisions will come into force in October and will ensure that more people get their money back.

This is a matter of huge importance to the Government and something that we take seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), our fraud champion, has been working on it closely. He has been an important asset to the Home Office in making sure that work comes together. I am very grateful for the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington about our fraud champion. I agree: he is excellent.

Points of Order

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point of order and for giving notice of it. Obviously the Chair is not responsible for the accuracy or otherwise of evidence given to Select Committees; again, I know those on the Treasury Bench will take on board his comments about a Minister coming to make a statement. The other way that he may wish to get further clarification is through the Select Committee itself, given what he has said about the evidence being given to it.

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With apologies, I used some figures I was not entirely sure of. I have now had them confirmed and just wanted to correct the record very slightly. I said that there had been more than 600 arrests from those protests, and that is correct, but it was 15, not 50, under the Terrorism Act 2000. My apologies.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am grateful to the Minister for correcting the record so quickly. Thank you.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Revised Guidance) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 7 May, be approved.

This instrument, which was laid before Parliament on 7 May 2024, relates to Prevent in Scotland. After the approval of both Chambers last year, the Prevent duty guidance for specified authorities in England and Wales came into effect on 31 December 2023.

As many Members will know, Prevent is one of the pillars of the Contest strategy, the United Kingdom’s counter-terrorism strategy which has been replicated around the world. The aim of Prevent is to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. It also extends to supporting the rehabilitation and disengagement of those already involved in terrorism. Put simply, Prevent is an early intervention programme to help keep all of us safe. To do so effectively, it requires frontline sectors across society, including education, healthcare, local authorities, criminal justice agencies and the police, to support this mission.

That is why we have the Prevent duty set out in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. It sits alongside long-established duties on professionals to protect people from a range of other harms, such as involvement in gangs or physical and sexual exploitation. The Prevent duty helps to ensure people susceptible to radicalisation are offered timely interventions before it is too late.

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

My right hon. Friend will know that I was the security Minister who introduced the Prevent duty he has just set out, the first time there was a legislative requirement on the organisations he described to participate in that programme. He will also know there has been a review of Prevent by Mr Shawcross and that that has made some useful suggestions about how it can be refined. My right hon. Friend may well speak about that in his speech, but I would like him to focus particularly on how that affects the Prevent duty.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Perhaps the best way for me to start this response is by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend, who was instrumental in ensuring we got the Contest strategy through and in holding the Department to account to make sure that it not only delivered when it began but that it continued to deliver. It is a hugely important part of our protection and I will indeed be coming on to Sir William’s work. It is worth saying that Sir William is a fantastic public servant who has done brilliant work for our country in many ways, and his recent review was one of those many areas in which he has contributed. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to put on record my tribute and thanks to him for all his work.

As I have said, the Prevent duty helps ensure people who are susceptible to radicalisation are offered timely interventions before it is too late. None of this is easy because, as there is no single track to a person being radicalised, there are many factors which can, either alone or combined, lead to someone subscribing to an extremist ideology, which in some cases can lead to terrorism. These factors often include exposure to radicalising influences, real and perceived grievances, and an individual’s own susceptibility. The Prevent duty guidance exists to help those working in frontline sectors to navigate these challenging situations. The 2015 Act requires specified authorities to have regard to this guidance.

It is challenging but we must always strive for excellence. The Government are committed to ensuring that Prevent is effective. The report of the independent review of Prevent—the IRP—was published on 8 February 2023 and set out Sir William Shawcross’s 34 recommendations, all of which were accepted by the Government in response. Last year, we implemented the Prevent duty guidance for England and Wales, responding to several of Sir William’s recommendations. The updated guidance for Scotland, which is the subject of this statutory instrument, was issued on 7 May, and it will ensure that Scotland too can benefit from updated guidance and best practice. The Home Office worked quickly with the Scottish Government to ensure that the updated Prevent duty guidance for Scotland is closely tailored to the Scottish context.

It is worth saying that all parts of the United Kingdom face slightly different challenges on Prevent, because different political views and ideologies affect different communities in all parts of the United Kingdom, and that is as true of Scotland as it is of anywhere else. The guidance has updated Prevent’s objectives to make it clear that Prevent should tackle the ideological causes of terrorism. It sets out requirements more clearly, articulating the need for high-quality training so that risk can be identified and managed. It provides an updated threat picture, and gives details of the strategic security threat check, which helps Prevent recognise and respond to the greatest threats. This will ensure that Prevent is well-equipped to counter the threats we face and the ideologies underpinning them.

As well as responding to the independent review of Prevent’s recommendations, the guidance reflects current best practice. It supports and exemplifies the excellent work that we know takes place across the country to keep us safe and help prevent people from becoming terrorists or from supporting terrorism. The guidance will assist specified authorities in Scotland to understand how best to comply with the duty. It includes details of the capabilities they should have to be able to identify and manage risk. It also advises on how they can help create an environment where the ideologies that are used to radicalise people into terrorism are challenged, not permitted to flourish.

People with responsibilities relevant to the delivery of Prevent were consulted on the guidance. A range of key Scottish governmental partners were engaged throughout the development of the updated guidance, and their feedback has been positive. The Government have been working closely with these partners to roll out the guidance and support its implementation. Subject to the approval of this House, this statutory instrument will bring the new guidance into effect on 19 August, replacing the 2015 guidance. It will strengthen the Prevent system and help to keep us all safe, which is why I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

Madam Deputy Speaker says it is fine to keep saying nice things about Scotland, but I am slightly conscious that the Minister may have somewhere to go in the not-too-distant future. I do not want to detain him for too much longer, given that there is apparently quite an important meeting taking place at 14.15—

[Tom Tugendhat]

At 16.15.

[Dan Jarvis]

At 16.15—the Minister has admitted it—but although I would like the opportunity to spend even longer talking about what a fantastic place Scotland is, I should probably begin to turn to the substance of these matters. I do so by saying that we on the Opposition Benches support the update to the Scottish Prevent duty guidance, although there are some questions about how it sits within broader efforts to counter extremism and terrorism, which I will come to in a moment.

Regardless of where in the UK extremism rears its ugly head, it is fuelled by fear and hate, and stoked by malign individuals whose motives are abhorrent to the vast majority of decent people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We have felt the devastation that extremism can cause through terrorist attacks around the world and in our country. With every act of terror, there was a path starting with radicalisation and ending with lives lost and lives changed forever.

At this point, I want to take the opportunity, and I am sure the Minister will join me in doing so, of paying tribute to Figen Murray. She is the mother of Manchester Arena bombing victim Martyn Hett, and she is a campaigner for Martyn’s law. Just today, she has completed her walk down from Manchester to London to meet the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The dignity and tenacity shown by Figen reminds us all of the painful legacies left by terrorism that are faced by too many people in our country.

That is why Prevent practitioners in Scotland and across the UK need confidence and clarity in Prevent duty guidance, as this guidance should ensure that the right interventions are taking place at the right time to detect, disrupt and defeat extremism wherever it presents itself. These interventions save lives, and we should not understate the crucial role played by Prevent practitioners. We therefore welcome changes in the guidance to improve the quality of Prevent referrals to multi-agency panels in Scotland by giving clearer advice on how to understand and manage risk, including through training and risk assessments and reducing permissive environments as a key theme to tackle the ideological causes of terrorism and broader radicalising influences. These are important steps, as there can never be any excuse for extremist violence anywhere on Britain’s streets or the glorification of any violence linked to any ideological cause. As the extremist threat landscape continues to shift across the UK, there must be full confidence in Prevent’s work in Scotland.

I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. First, since we debated the Prevent duty guidance regulations for England and Wales, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has published the UK Government’s new definition of extremism—an update from their 2011 definition that the Scottish Government did not adopt. Can the Minister outline what discussions he has had with colleagues in the Scottish Government about adopting the new definition? To what extent can he say whether it was discussed as part of a wider discussion on community cohesion at the inter-ministerial standing committee meeting on 12 March?

Secondly, and still touching on the intergovernmental work, Sir William Shawcross stated in his review his concern about the lack of oversight and support for Prevent delivery in the Scottish education sector. He recommended that the Scottish Government restructure Prevent in line with the wider UK model. Although guidance for higher education institutions in Scotland was published alongside the updated Scottish Prevent duty guidance, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain what feedback was received from the Scottish education sector ahead of publication. What will the next steps be with the Scottish Government regarding Prevent and the Scottish education sector? Furthermore, Sir William said in February this year that Ministers had ignored some of his key recommendations. Has the Minister discussed those concerns with Sir William?

Thirdly, in his review, Sir William challenged the perceived extremist threat landscape in Scotland as identified by Scottish officials and recommended that more frequent assessments be made to enhance understanding among practitioners and officials alike. It was not clear in the UK Government’s response to this recommendation that they would work with the Scottish Government and Police Scotland on increasing the frequency. Can the Minister outline what is being done to improve this vital intelligence-gathering work in Scotland?

To conclude, the Opposition will work constructively with the Government as much as possible on these important matters, and I know that the Minister will take my points and questions in that spirit. All of us on the Opposition Benches want to ensure that the Scottish public and the wider UK are spared the terrors of extremism and shielded from the depravity of terrorist violence. We will work closely with the UK and Scottish Governments to ensure that they succeed in that vital task.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

Let me start with some of the points that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) made. I want to make it absolutely clear that incel violence is a form of extremism that draws on an ideology based on the hatred of women. It is completely unacceptable and, sadly, it has led to terrorism not just here but in other parts. It is utterly vile, and it is as serious and pernicious as any other form of terrorism or extremism. It is not quite as prevalent as some other forms—that is to be welcomed—but it can be kept down only if, as she said, we include people in our community and cut off the routes to hatred before they emerge and become passages.

The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), as usual, has approached this in a calm and professional manner. It has been a pleasure to work with him on this, as it has been in many other areas. It has been an absolute joy to work with Figen Murray on another area. She has been a remarkable advocate for individuals across our country who have been victims of terror. Seven years ago, almost to the day, she lost her son Martyn. I know we all pay enormous tribute to her for the dignity and professionalism with which she has approached her campaign—one that has led to an awful lot of support, including from the Prime Minister and others. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his approach to this. Sadly, I cannot offer any updates at this stage. As he knows, we are going through the necessary consultation process. I will bring forward further updates as soon as I can, but that will be in due course, I am afraid.

The hon. Gentleman raised an interesting question about DLUHC’s conversation with the Scottish Government. Forgive me, but I will have to leave the DLUHC Secretary to speak for himself on that, as I am not aware of his conversations. I speak regularly to the Scottish Government on these areas, some of which are reserved matters. As he knows, national security is a reserved matter and therefore the responsibility of the UK Government. That said, there is an awful lot of co-operation not just with the Scottish Government but with other administrations in Scotland, including different councils in different counties.

While we are on this matter, the hon. Gentleman’s paean to Scotland would not have anything to do with his desire to get in campaigning mode, would it?

[Dan Jarvis]

So cynical!

[Tom Tugendhat]

I appreciate what he said, but for somebody who decided to throw himself out of aeroplanes in the south of England rather than join our great and glorious core training in Arbroath—that is just a very strange thing to have done, for who claims to have that unbelievable love for the north! It is a huge privilege to tease the hon. Gentleman—we have been friends for far too long for me to miss the opportunity.

It is always a pleasure to be in Scotland and to see the extraordinary achievements made by the Scottish people, not just in this area but in many others. This is one of those areas where I just want to pick up on something. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the way in which Scotland is dealing with these cases. I want to pay enormous tribute to those who are gathered together in Gartcosh: over 20 different agencies, including everybody from Police Scotland, MI5 to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and various environmental agencies. It is absolutely extraordinary to see what they have brought together. It is a real power centre not just for keeping Scotland safe, but for fighting crime and disorder all across the United Kingdom. It is a fantastic resource and really impressive.

If we are giving this paean to Scotland, I should also say that the head of MI5, whose Scottish tones have informed me of some of the worst abuses of humanity in this country, demonstrates the level of commitment that many have. I place on record my extreme gratitude to all MI5 officers, counter-terrorism police and the National Crime Agency, who do a huge amount to keep us safe, alongside the territorial forces, whose work is absolutely essential.

None of that would work unless there was the underpinning, and the underpinning is making sure that society does not breed more extremists. The way we avoid that is by making sure that people are part of our community. The Prevent programme is absolutely essential to making sure that when somebody strays, they are assisted to come back into the fold. This is the work, as was said, of the good shepherd. That is what is so important today: making sure that we keep people in our society and within the fold, able to contribute and able to feel part of a wider whole. That is absolutely essential.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the Minister’s opening remarks. As someone who takes a huge personal interest in our counter-terrorism capabilities, I want to put on record the fact that we are working cross-party. That is very welcome indeed. Does the Security Minister agree that while state-on-state aggression is back at a scale that we are now having to advance our defence posture, the threat of non-state actors and extremism is very much there? In particular, we are seeing the rise of ISIS-K and potentially overtaking the scale of threat that al-Qaeda posed. It is now out of control, taking advantage of recruitment, indoctrinating and tasking in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Does he agree that we should all be concerned about ISIS-K?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that ISIS-K—naming that area of Afghanistan after the older Arabic name, Khorasan, for that region—is a pernicious threat and it has been spreading in Afghanistan. Sadly, we have seen it act, including most recently in Moscow. It is a deeply pernicious force and one that we are acutely aware of. The agencies I cited earlier are extremely cautious to keep a very close eye on it. The tragedy is that these organisations have the ability to form and organise under the Taliban, that hateful organisation which has taken over the territory of Afghanistan and is not only bringing violence, pain and suffering to millions of Afghans, but ensuring that women and girls do not enjoy the liberties that they should—that they are denied education, prevented from work, and prevented from seeing the progress and opportunity that we would all hope for others around the world.

Scotland now has a Prevent adviser, which brings it into line with England and Wales. The adviser’s work is extremely important to ensuring that we are all working together. As I have said, while it is certainly true that extremism has a local characteristic, it is not the same extremism that we see in London, Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast, or any other place where we might be campaigning in the second half of the year—to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central. The efforts we are making in all parts of the United Kingdom are essential, because keeping the United Kingdom safe, together and whole is this Government's priority, and one that we will never stop working on. I say that as a passionate Unionist/ I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) will understand that we may disagree on that, even though we work together in this regard.

I am grateful for the contributions made today, and I am grateful for the support of Members in all parts of the House for this statutory instrument. Let me just reassert that the core objective is to strengthen the Prevent system, which is a vital component of our counter-terrorism operations.

Question put and agreed to.

Political Violence and Disruption: Walney Report

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

With permission, I will make a statement on Lord Walney’s report entitled “Protecting our Democracy from Coercion”. Lord Walney was appointed in 2019 to advise the Government on political violence and extremism. Throughout the course of his review, laid before Parliament yesterday and available on gov.uk, he has consulted an extensive evidence base and engaged Government, public bodies, international partners, academia, civil society and those personally affected by violent disruption and extremism.

Lord Walney’s timely and compelling report identifies a rising tide of extremism in this country. Its central finding is that political intimidation and the incitement of hatred by extremist groups and individuals are infringing on the essential rights and freedoms of the British people and those they choose to represent them in politics. In recent months, we have too often seen intimidatory and aggressive protest activity, with frequent disruption to our democratic processes, be that protests outside MPs’ homes and council meetings or shutting down events where people from both sides of this House have been speaking.

Lord Walney eloquently describes the threat posed by the extreme right as well as the extreme left, whose activists, in his words,

“systematically seek to undermine faith in our parliamentary democracy and the rule of law.”

This has a very real impact on the elected representatives who choose to dedicate themselves in service to the public. Lord Walney highlights the 2023 Local Government Association survey’s finding that 70% of local councillors felt

“at risk at least some of the time”

while fulfilling their role. It also has an effect on the public servants working to make their communities a better place up and down the country.

I was particularly struck by the section on protests at schools. The purpose of schools, as I am sure we can all agree, is to educate our children and to teach students how to think, not what to think. Our teachers must be free to do this without fear or favour. While it is right that schools consult parents on sensitive issues, it is not their job to appease pressure groups, self-appointed community activists or religious institutions. That is why I was deeply concerned by the aggressive protests targeting schools detailed in Lord Walney’s report. It is unacceptable that, in Birmingham, one assistant head had to be escorted in and out of their school for their own safety. It is unacceptable that, in Batley, a teacher and his family are reportedly still in hiding after being accused of blasphemy.

There is no right not to be offended in this country. No religion or belief system is immune from criticism or exempted from our liberal democratic tradition. Blasphemy laws are incompatible with British values and principles. The effect that these incidents have had is utterly unacceptable. Every politician and public servant, at all levels and across all parties, must be able to perform their duties without fear. This transcends party dividing lines. We must all stand up for our shared democratic values and freedoms.

This Government will take every possible step to safeguard the people and institutions upon which our democracy depends. We recently committed an additional £31 million to bolstering the protection of elected representatives and our democratic processes, an investment that will be used to enhance police capabilities, increase private security support for those facing a higher risk, and expand cyber-security advice. This investment is underpinned by the defending democracy policing protocol, agreed with police chiefs, to ensure a robust policing response to disruptive activity, including the provision of dedicated, named police contacts for all elected representatives and candidates to liaise with on security matters.

As Lord Walney sets out, it is vital that we take action to manage and limit the impact of protests that descend into violence and disruption. These have not just resulted in vile displays of antisemitism on our streets and aggressive, disruptive tactics deployed by some protestors; they have also drained police resources, as officers are redeployed away from their frontline duties to protect the British public from criminals who target them with fraud, theft and violence.

We must not forget that it is the British people who pay for this. We must not permit the selfishness of an extremist minority to deprive them of the services they are owed and should rightly expect. That is why, over the coming weeks, the Government will look carefully at Lord Walney’s recommendations on public order, and will look at changing the thresholds for imposing conditions on protests and the way in which they are applied. This includes amending the threshold to prevent protests from going ahead on account of the cumulative impact of serious disruption, or where there is the threat of intimidating and abusive conduct based on the persistence of previous arrests.

In addition, we will consider Lord Walney’s recommendation for putting greater responsibilities on protest organisers to limit disruption, and to allow the police to account for demands on their resources in setting conditions, to ensure wider public safety in their jurisdictions beyond protests. The Home Secretary, the Policing Minister and I will be considering the merits of these suggestions over the coming weeks.

The Government are already introducing measures through the Criminal Justice Bill to crack down on dangerous disorder, many of which were inspired by working closely with Lord Walney over recent months. The Government have also introduced serious disruption prevention orders to allow courts to place requirements or prohibitions on an individual aged 18 or over that they consider necessary and proportionate to prevent that individual from causing serious disruption.

We must go further in tackling the root causes. In this vein, the Government have updated the definition of extremism to be used by Government Departments and officials, alongside a set of engagement principles. This is to ensure that they do not, inadvertently or otherwise, provide a platform, funding or legitimacy to groups or individuals who attempt to advance extremist ideologies that would deny our fundamental rights and freedoms.

I thank Lord Walney for his tireless effort in bringing the report together, and we will continue to work closely with him to ensure that his findings inform ongoing policy development. We will, of course, update Parliament on our progress at the appropriate time.

There is no doubt that extremism poses a threat to our democracy. Left unchecked, it would eat away at the very foundations of our society and the liberties of our people. This Government will not allow that to happen. We will hold ever faster to the values of freedom and tolerance that make our country great. We will use every available tool to combat those who seek to divide us and the poisonous ideologies they espouse. And, in the end, we will defeat extremism in all its ugly forms.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing advance sight of it. I join him in thanking Lord Walney for his work on this report.

It is important to say from the outset that the Opposition absolutely respect the fundamental freedom to make legitimate, peaceful protest but, when that freedom is abused to intimidate, harass and harm others, safeguards must be put in place to protect the public and our democratic system as a whole. We have seen in recent months that people have been intimidated and have felt threatened due to protest activity.

I therefore agree with the Minister that this is totally unacceptable, and there must be no no-go areas in our country. That is why we have been crystal clear that where there are public order offences, hate crime offences or terrorist offences on marches and demonstrations, they must face the full force of the law. The police have our full support in taking swift and robust action. Furthermore, we have been crystal clear that our police forces need the utmost clarity and support to carry out sometimes complex policing operations around protests.

The Walney report on political violence and disruption deals with some of the most fundamental and sensitive cornerstones of our democratic society. The Opposition will therefore go through and consider the report’s 41 recommendations very carefully, with an approach that our long and proud tradition of the right to peaceful protest must never be undermined by criminal or threatening activity on Britain’s streets.

In the first instance, I will touch on two points discussed in the report before asking the Minister a couple of questions.

The first point relates to whether the police should have more powers to ban protests that are intimidating or disruptive. It is important to note that the police already have powers under the Public Order Act 1986 to place conditions on protests, including amending routes and timings. They also have the power, in cases where there may be serious public disorder, to apply to the Home Secretary to prohibit a particular protest from taking place.

In addition, we have already had several new pieces of public order legislation in recent years that, in some cases, police forces are still getting to grips with. With this in mind, we believe the focus should be on making the existing framework work to make sure that the police can take robust action against those engaging in hateful or criminal behaviour on our streets. That said, we will look at this recommendation in more depth and see what the Government bring forward, because it is vital that everyone in our country feels safe on our streets.

The second point relates to protest organisers paying policing costs. The report’s recommendation raises a series of practical considerations about which organisations would be forced to pay and under what circumstances. Again, we think the focus at the moment should be on making existing legislation work but, as with the rest of the report, we will examine these recommendations in more depth and see what the Government bring forward.

Before asking the Minister a couple of questions, I welcome that the report raises serious concerns about the growing intimidation of Members of this House and local councillors. The Minister knows that, through the Defending Democracy Taskforce, we will continue to support the Government in their important work. He also knows that I stand ready to work closely with him to support his vital work in this area.

The report has been published amid activity across Government to counter extremism, bolster community cohesion and protect our democracy from malign forces, not least the work under way in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities after the definition of extremism was published in March, and the work of the Defending Democracy Taskforce. I therefore ask the Minister to explain how other relevant Ministers in other relevant Government Departments will be involved in the preparation of the Government’s response to the Walney report.

Lord Walney’s work started in 2021 and, entirely understandably, had to be revised in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks. Although there had to be proper consultation and careful thought applied to such important matters, does the Minister think it would have been helpful if the report had been published sooner? I also point out to the Minister that the counter-extremism strategy is nine years out of date, while the hate crime strategy is now four years out of date. What plans does he have to update them?

To conclude, let me be clear that we on the Labour Benches will work to ensure that these threats are countered. We will work to defend the values of freedom and tolerance that are the cornerstones of our democracy, and we will work to defeat all those who seek to harm and undermine our way of life—in that, we will be unrelenting.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the way he has approached this matter. He has always been extremely pragmatic in areas of national security, and has certainly been a very capable partner with whom I have been able to work. I am grateful for his approach today.

I am particularly grateful that the hon. Gentleman is open to looking at certain areas of this report seriously, such as the question of where costs should lie. Football clubs have to contribute to the cost of policing matches, and Wimbledon has to contribute to the cost of policing tennis, and yet here are organisations costing tens of millions of pounds in policing costs each year, and doing so as though this was their own private fiefdom. It strikes me as a very odd way of behaving. I also welcome the hon. Gentleman’s approach to the Defending Democracy Taskforce and the support he has offered for it today.

Let me just answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions briefly. We will be discussing with DLUHC—as he knows, it is an important participant in this discussion—and other relevant departments, including the Ministry of Justice, how to take these recommendations forward and which to adopt. I am sure he understands that I will update the House in the usual way at the appropriate time. I am also grateful for his support on that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I personally find it reassuring that this matter is being debated by two gallant hon. and right hon. Members—my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)—who first met, I believe, fighting extremism in a foreign country.

I wish to draw particular attention to Lord Walney’s recommendation 20 on requiring the organisers of repeated protest marches to contribute to the cost of policing. Last Sunday, the relatives of the wartime Telegraphist Air Gunners held their commemoration service in a nearby church, rather than at the Fleet Air Arm memorial on the seafront at Lee-on-the-Solent, because to do the latter would have involved a road closure and policing for which their little association would have had to pay. Even if one says there should be a wider regime where political protest is concerned, after one large protest on a particular cause, the repetition of the same protest week in, week out—possibly for intimidatory purposes—should certainly not be cost-free to the organisers.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The challenges we are seeing with different churches and communities across the land are where individuals organise protests surrounding areas that are used for different purposes, and that is exactly why this report is so important. When people assemble at sites that should otherwise be free for groups to associate in, whether that is churches or village halls, the important thing is that our democracy is able to be performed there. What my right hon. Friend spoke about may not sound like part of the democratic process, in the sense that it is not party political—it is not a ballot box or an election—but it is part of that process because it is about people getting together, with people able to associate together, feel a place in our community and know that they are part of a rich tradition, all the way from those Fleet Air Arm Telegraphists to those serving today. That is why this report is so important, and why we will be putting so much effort into it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

On the SNP Benches, we stand firmly against intimidation, violence and extremism anywhere. We stand against antisemitism, Islamophobia and hate in all its pernicious forms. But this report goes nowhere near tackling the causes of hate and violence. To recommend—as it does in many different ways—clamping down further on people’s right to protest is entirely inappropriate.

Just yesterday, Liberty won a notable victory at the High Court. The Tory anti-protest laws have led to substantially increased exposure to criminal sanctions on the part of protesters exercising their civil rights, and the court found that the Home Secretary had failed to consult groups who may be affected. Last year, when we debated the statutory instrument on which that court case was founded, I criticised the wide and vague definitions within that SI, which led the Government to that challenge. We certainly do not need more illiberal legislation—that goes against our democratic principles, does it not?

It is in that context that we have Lord Walney’s doorstop of anti-democratic measures in front of us today. I note that Lord Walney has a serious conflict of interest in this matter, as a paid adviser to defence and oil and gas interests—a matter of public record. To say that there should be further restrictions on groups such as Just Stop Oil or anti-war demonstrators smacks of a conflict of interest. It certainly strikes me, as somebody who has been on many protests over the years, that the author of this report must have been on very few, based on his lack of understanding of such protests, how they are organised and the types of people who attend them.

I also ask the Minister if he will take this opportunity to clarify what the Prime Minister said the other week when he put people who support the democratic self-determination of their country in the same bracket as those who support extremist regimes around the world. Scottish nationalists are not extremists. We have been asking for our independence for a very long time and in democratic ways.

I also wish to—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a very long report. I also wish to criticise in particular recommendation 4, which says:

“Serious incel-related violence in the UK should not be routinely categorised as terrorism”,

which I think is extremely worrying. I would ask the Minister to reconsider that. In the online space, I also feel there are a lot of contradictions, as the report says that platforms should not use artificial intelligence but that the police should be empowered to do so.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady and I have a slightly different perception on many things—that is true—but certainly on liberty. Over the past few weeks and months, I have seen members of our communities terrified to walk the streets of our country. I have seen people, particularly from the Jewish community, but from many others as well, fearful that the radicalisation and violence threatened by some of the protests is threatening them. I have also spoken to friends in the Muslim community who are terrified that their children will be radicalised into groups that advocate violence. I think it is the job of this Government—of any British Government—to defend the interests of all our citizens. I make absolutely no apology for standing up against extremism; whether it seeks to target Jews, young Muslims or anybody else, it is simply unacceptable.

The suggestions that Lord Walney has set out are just that—suggestions. They are suggestions that the Government will look at, consider and come back to, and I will update the House as soon as we have been able to do that. However, if liberty means anything, it means the ability to travel freely to the synagogue on Saturday, to the mosque on Friday, and to the church on Sunday. It means being free from intimidation. It means the ability to enjoy life in the United Kingdom free of those pressures and terrors. This Government will always stand up for those freedoms.

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

Having organised a number of demonstrations myself, I am nervous at the prospect of being invited to contribute financially to their policing. Nevertheless, clearly there are public order issues and issues of great public nuisance, not least to retailers, commercial businesses and ordinary people going about their business. When there are a repeated series of demonstrations, may I suggest that the Government explore the possibility of confining them to a static demonstration, be it at Speakers’ Corner or elsewhere?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, touching on some of the issues covered by Lord Walney’s report. He highlights the important aspect that, time and again, we have seen protests stretching and spreading, and being allowed to effectively close down large areas of a city or town, when in reality the point is made long before the march.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that I have fought extremism since I have been in this place, and I will continue to do so. I fought against it in Birmingham, over the Trojan horse schools matter, and I continue to do so. I deplore right-wing extremism. Having had death threats made against me, I have gone to the police, to the House and to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The latest report from the West Midlands Police says that they are not prepared to take any action, so I will proceed further with the IOPC. The report raises the issue of the protection of Members. When Members do not get protection, as we saw outside schools in Birmingham, Hall Green, or when candidates were intimidated in Batley and Spen, it is not appropriate. I hope that the report will lead to some conclusions on that.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I pay a huge tribute to the hon. Gentleman. He has been a voice of sanity and courage for many years, on many of these issues. His leadership on the Trojan horse scandal was inspirational, and his voice of clarity, standing up for members of the British public who do not wish to see their children or themselves pushed into supporting extremist ideology, has been an example to many of us. I am enormously grateful for his support and I would be delighted to work with him on the appalling issues he has faced himself.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Lord Walney has come up with a marvellous report. I am not surprised: I knew him when he was a Member of Parliament and he was an excellent Member of Parliament too. His report talks about preventing protests from going ahead on account of the “cumulative impact” of serious disruption. He is right to identify that; it is intimidatory and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has already said, many Jewish people, Muslims and others are frightened of going on the streets because of it. If the report now leads to more legislation by this Government, how certain is the Minister that individual police forces, in particular the Metropolitan police, will implement those new laws?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that the noble Lord Walney is still a Member of Parliament, but he has the misfortune to sit in red, not green. The truth is that many police forces are taking effective action already. It is sad that some of those who hold the office of police and crime commissioner do not always feel that it is their role to insist that that leadership is offered; in that case, we are, of course, speaking of London. We may need legislation, but not necessarily. At the moment, we need decisions.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Where there is a threat to democracy and to people giving service in public life, surely the most effective response will always be one that commands the support of all those who are part of that democratic process. We can only do that by building consensus. The Government have tabled late amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill involving the policing of demonstrations, some of which include the removal of defences of lawfulness. We do not have a consensus around those amendments. Will the Minister go back to the Home Office, get the agreement of his Department to pause the amendments and convene talks involving all parties to see if we can build genuine consensus in this House, and beyond? That is surely the best and most effective threat to the extremists.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am rather enjoying the idea that the former Deputy Chief Whip is now telling me that we need to build consensus; that was certainly not the impression I got when he held that office. [Interruption.] The recovery is going extremely well, if that is the case. In reality, of course we try to work across all parts of the House and try to build consensus, but I am here to serve the British people not the whims of other hon. Members.

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

I welcome the report and thank Lord Walney for his excellent work. It contains 78 references to social media, which of course has been instrumental in allowing extremists not only to organise but to spread their message. The social media algorithms reward radicalism, fake news and division. Lord Walney makes some excellent recommendations, but does the Minister agree that it is the anonymity of online accounts that is particularly pernicious? When we speak in real life, our free speech comes with accountability, but that is not the case online because there are so many anonymous accounts. Should the Government look at whether anonymous accounts are appropriate in a democracy, as supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie)? Cracking down on such accounts would go a long way towards sorting out the problem.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s approach to this, and to many other aspects of social media and online harms. She has been an example to many of us in how campaigns can be led to include, not exclude, and she has made her voice heard extremely clearly. All of us in this House will have had that Jekyll and Hyde experience of meeting someone in person who has previously been utterly vitriolic online—like seeing a country parson walking down the lane, and then discovering from their social media that Satan himself could not have come up with more bile. It is quite remarkable.

My hon. Friend makes a very good point that we need a little bit of recognition about who we all are—not just elected Members but others who are campaigning in favour or against a political issue. By and large, people approach issues in our democracy from a position of interest in the common good and support for each other, their families, communities and neighbours, but the treatment that somehow comes out of people when they are anonymous can be simply vile.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

Earlier this week, I met a female chief fire officer who explained to me some of the intimidation, harassment and abuse that she had experienced, alongside some of her female colleagues in senior leadership roles in our emergency services, up to and including credible death threats. As far as I can tell, that is for no other reason than that they have the audacity to be women in senior leadership roles in our emergency services. The Walney reports considers the intimidation of academics and journalists, but I urge the Minister to speak to colleagues across Government to see what other protections we might need to offer those people doing incredibly important work, who under no circumstances should be subject to that type of intimidation?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments; she makes some very good points. Yesterday I was talking to Festus Akinbusoye about the racism he faced as police and crime commissioner. Whether people are in a public-facing role in our emergency services—our ambulance, police or fire crews, for example—or they hold an elected position, from Prime Minister to parish councillor, the idea that they should face any hostility at all is unacceptable, but the idea that they should be targeted because of their sex, race, gender or religion is even more unacceptable.

This country is extraordinary for many reasons. One thing that I love about it is the fact that many people from many different backgrounds have found their home here and have found their voice here and made it strongly. The transformation that has made to our country for the good is remarkable. I am hugely proud of that. To see that voice silenced by people, as the hon. Lady says, because they happen to be a female fire officer, is simply unacceptable, and I will certainly talk to the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire to see what more we can do.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that at the next election it would be wrong for parliamentary candidates to be intimidated into not disclosing their home addresses on their nomination papers? If we change the conventions on that, we will be giving in to these threats. Does he also accept that if a person hires a public hall for a protest meeting, they are liable for public liability insurance? Might it not be better to say that if someone is organising a large public event in a public open space, they should also be liable for public insurance? Would that not be a better way of doing things, rather than expecting fees to be paid to the police?

[Tom Tugendhat]

As usual, I will listen very carefully to my hon. Friend’s suggestions. As for addresses, I do not think the election system will change between now and the second half of the year, as we have now learned. I look forward to standing in that election, whenever it comes, and for my address to be recorded as an address in the Tunbridge constituency.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

There are aspects of this report that I welcome. For example, the careful cataloguing of the harassment and intimidation of gender critical feminists across the United Kingdom is a valuable contribution to our public debate. However, I consider the recommendations to be largely far too draconian. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, has repeatedly stressed that public authorities, including the Government and the police, are under a negative obligation not to interfere with the right to peaceful protest, and a positive obligation to facilitate peaceful protest. Yesterday’s High Court ruling, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), gave a very clear message that, in regulating protest, the Government must act within the law, and they must not pursue an anti-protest agenda at the expense of human rights, particularly freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. I would like a cast-iron assurance from the Minister that protection of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and the right to protest will be at the heart of the Government’s consideration of the report’s recommendations.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I pay tribute to the hon. and learned Lady for her courage in speaking out on women’s rights, which she has done with enormous dignity and integrity, when others have sought to silence her by shouting her down, closing her out, or using genuinely quite vile language against her. She will, I hope, excuse me when I say that I have had the misfortune to see what some people have said to her on social media, and they are things that should not be said to anyone.

The hon. and learned Lady’s approach is pragmatic, as usual, and I am grateful for that. This is a challenging report. The points that she makes about our having the civil rights to assemble, debate and discuss are correct. This Government are not trying to—and never will try to—silence the British people. Hearing the voices of our fellow citizens in the ways in which they choose to express them is, of course, part of a democracy, but the ways in which they choose to express them is also mitigated by the ways in which we choose to live as a community. Those choices we call laws, as she knows. My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right in holding all of us to the principles that we have agreed in advance. What we are looking to do is ensure that those prior agreements—those laws—reflect the reality that everybody has the right to express their views and to live freely in our society, and that extremism and extremists have no place in it.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

This is a welcome statement. I have previously discussed some of these issues with Lord Walney. He is an incredibly thoughtful individual, and this is an incredibly thoughtful report. Some of those ridiculous smears that we heard earlier were completely unnecessary.

As somebody who believes in freedom of protest, do I believe that there should be an unlimited, totally unfettered right to cause huge disruption to the majority of people who just want to go about their lives, no matter the economic cost? That includes, for example, Suffolk constabulary having its resources pulled to help out with the management of these protests. No, I do not think that there should be a totally unfettered, unlimited right, so I would welcome it if this report could help to address that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to hate—be that anti-Muslim hate or some of the antisemitism we have seen in recent months—it should be tackled and be seen to be tackled as it is happening, not simply after the event?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is right. We have seen the police taking some very good action on some of these protests. I think about 600 or 700 people—I might be slightly out on the numbers, so forgive me—have now been arrested following the protests that we have regularly seen on these weekends. About 50 or so have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, which is just to say that these are not small arrests, but serious crimes with which the police are dealing.

I would like to make my next point extremely clearly. It is a point that was made to me by a middle-class Muslim family—not in my constituency—who have been friends of mine for many years. One of them said to me something that struck home very hard. They have been trying to protect their teenage kids, as we all do, from the kind of hatred and inspiration to hatred that is now all too prevalent online, through social media and sometimes other means. They do what responsible parents do: they make sure that their kids are home at a reasonable hour, and that they are part of community groups that support their lifestyle and values. Then they see broadcast on national media the kind of despicable hatred that inspires people to radicalisation and extremism and, sadly, they say, “It is not your son who is likely to be radicalised into Islamist hatred; it is mine.” I am afraid that he is absolutely right.

It is the responsibility of this Government, and any British Government, to protect the interests of every British citizen. Frankly, it would be racist and deeply unacceptable to consider that the radicalisation of one child is worth more or less than that of another. It is not, and it is wrong. That is why we will stand up against it. That is why, as my hon. Friend said, some of these protests are not just public order offences, but incitement to radicalisation and hatred, and they should be treated as such immediately.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I wish to put it on record that things have been said today, on both sides of the House, with which I agree, but that fundamentally I disagree with this report. I also wish to put on record my commitment to the protection of democracy and to the hard-won rights that we enjoy today, but this report contributes nothing to those rights—in fact, it undermines them. This morning, I spoke to a legal mind and expert on these matters who, last night, had the pleasure of reading all 300 pages of the report. He told me that it was broad, sprawling, poorly written, littered with errors, not proofread, entirely confused and, frankly, ludicrous. I shall provide an example, on which the Minister may wish to comment on. Paragraph 1.12 of the report said the Government can

“convene a process to examine the potential issue of juries acquitting defendants and judges applying laws differently when they are transgressed in the name of progressive causes like climate change and anti-racism”.

We have enjoyed the right to trial by jury in this country since before Magna Carta, and this report is undermining that. It is a sham report, and I hope the Government understand that.

[Tom Tugendhat]

As the hon. Member will understand, I will not answer every single page of the report at this stage. I will look at all the pages that have been submitted. In fact, I have looked at many of them already. The reality is that this will take a little bit of work, so I hope that he will understand.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister talked earlier about the difference between online and offline, but for many of us there is now no distinction in the intimidation and aggression that we face. If liberty means anything for elected officials, it means being able to take time off and go to the park. Last week, a man made my toddler cry because he would not leave us alone in the street, and was instead determined to call me a child killer in front of her because he did not agree with my views on abortion, a matter that I have debated with many others in my constituency. I should say that he was not a constituent.

I am not alone in being targeted on my own—many Members present have talked about it—but the parliamentary police tell me that such behaviour is completely normal and acceptable within a democracy, that this man had a right to express his opinion, that MPs should expect to be contacted wherever they are in the street and whoever is with them, and that if our families are distressed that is just unfortunate. The report talks about a Speaker’s Conference. We have an election in the offing. Many of us have spent years encouraging a diversity of candidates to come forward, particularly women with children. Does the Minister agree that we need an urgent Speaker’s Conference to get the balance right in how we can all protect our families, because we are parents and carers as well as politicians?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I offer my deepest sympathies to the hon. Lady, because that is completely unacceptable. I would be happy to take that up with her afterwards and have a specific conversation about it. I do not think that a Speaker’s Conference is necessary right now because we have set up the defending democracy taskforce, and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and hon. Members from other parties are already on it, as is Mr Speaker, represented through the parliamentary head of security, Alison Giles. We have effectively the same thing being assembled, with the ability to draw on information from the intelligence services, GCHQ and the police. While I agree entirely with the spirit of the hon. Lady’s suggestion, I merely argue that we are already doing it, and I know that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central and others will pull me up if they do not think that we are getting it right.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I stand against extremism, hate and violence in all forms, but I still think that the report is extraordinarily dangerous, draconian and undemocratic. The pretence that it is in any way independent is totally undermined by a quick glance at the entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests of its author, who works for lobby companies that represent arms manufacturers and fossil fuel companies. Will the Minister at the very least reassure us that the Government will reject recommendation 27, which undermines jury trials in cases related to climate change and anti-racism, and instead uphold our great legal tradition of allowing juries to decide as they see fit? Will he also accept the High Court’s judgment in Liberty’s case against the Home Office and abandon any further restrictions on the right to peaceful protest, and instead protect all our rights to freedom of expression and association?

[Tom Tugendhat]

We are reviewing the decision in the courts yesterday, and we will look at whether or not to appeal.

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

I thank the Minister for his kind words about Lord Walney, who reminds a friend to many on the Labour Benches, including me. London bears a disproportionate burden of the protests and countering extremism, so how will the Minister ensure that the Met’s operational costs are met by this Government for the rising challenges outlined in the report? Also, he mentioned protecting all British nationals. Will he meet with people from Hong Kong who have British national overseas status, who are increasingly the target of Chinese Communist party agents in the UK, including with those who live in my constituency who are very concerned about their safety and security?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Member knows that he and I share a strong interest in the BNO community in the United Kingdom. Hongkongers being targeted by state actors is deeply wrong. One of the things that I have focused on in the period for which I have been the Security Minister is the threat of foreign states here. We know that China has acted deeply wrongly by threatening individuals here in the United Kingdom, and we will never stand for it. We have been extremely clear that Hongkongers or BNOs are first and foremost British nationals. We will defend their rights, as we will defend everyone’s rights. I have already met them, and I will continue to meet them. They are fantastic members of our society, and they are welcome.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I completely agree with a lot of what he said. As somebody who has been harassed a lot, I am against harassment, discrimination and all of that, but let me ask a question on procedure, because I think his responses today are superior to the report itself. I queried the Table Office about unopposed returns, and was told that they are essentially a way for the Government to publish a document or papers so that, according to paragraph 7.32 of “Erskine May”, they can be protected by statute. Unopposed returns cannot be debated or voted on, and there is no opportunity for Members to object. Will the Minister explain to the House why the Government used that procedure, and are they scared that the report will not stand up to scrutiny, whether from the public or within this Chamber?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Lady for her very kind comments about my responses. I was somewhat surprised to hear them, but I am delighted none the less. [Laughter.] I see I am not alone in my surprise. It is perfectly standard to introduce an independent report conducted in order to help the Government through this process, in order to prevent any form of vexatious prosecution. We were not expecting any; this is merely a formula that is very often used to afford parliamentary privilege to a report.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I know that he takes the issue seriously, and I hope that he will agree that liberty also means the right to protest. That is a cornerstone of our democracy, and people have the right to protest in a peaceful and respectful manner. A number of these protests go through my Vauxhall constituency, and police are often abstracted to cover them. We know that protests can be difficult and complex, and remain an operational issue. I note some of the report’s recommendations, but does he agree that for this to work Ministers and politicians must respect the operational independence of all police forces?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady is right that the police are operationally independent, but they are not independent of the considerations of the people they serve—in her case, the people of Vauxhall. She knows that the people she represents have a legitimate voice in discussing policing and having their representation heard; indeed, she champions them in this place, and the Mayor of London is supposed to champion them through the policing bodies. As she also knows, it is important to balance different rights. Of course there is a right to protest. People have a fundamental democratic right to raise their voice in opposition to things that they find objectionable. People also have a simple right to be able to feed their family, take their kids to school, or attend a place of worship. When the two are in conflict, it is right that the police set a reasonable balance. I think Lord Walney is suggesting that that balance should be looked at carefully.