Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

24: Clause 8, page 6, line 14, leave out subsections (5) and (6)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the impact of Clause 8 in relation to commercial agreements, as highlighted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s Note on the Bill, published on 9th December 2024.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will not feel beleaguered or besieged by this amendment, which is a probing amendment prompted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s note on the Bill published on his website.

Clause 8 is about co-ordination and co-operation. I have always found it a bit difficult to get my head around the notion of a statutory requirement to co-operate, although co-ordination might be a bit different. The amendment addresses subsections (5) and (6), which place a duty on someone who is not responsible for the premises but who has

“control to any other extent of the premises”.

The duty is subject to enforcement by the regulator. The amendment is to ask what “control to any other extent” means. The Explanatory Notes say that it is intended to apply to the freehold owner of the premises or the superior landlord who leases to the person who is primarily responsible under the Bill.

The independent reviewer gives a particular example. The owner of a premises rents them out to the responsible person, who uses them, in this example, as a bingo hall with a capacity of more than 800. The lease has 12 months to run and provides that no alteration may be made to the structure of the premises without the owner’s consent. There are no plans to renew the lease—indeed, the owner of the premises wants to sell them to a developer. The responsible person decides that, to comply with his duty under the legislation, he must make a structural change, putting in a new exit where there are currently windows. The owner would be entitled to refuse the alterations, particularly because they would adversely affect the value of the premises. There are conflicting considerations. Does Clause 8(6) mean that the owner has a duty to give consent? It is practicable for him to do so, but is it reasonable? What is the policy intention? Does it matter that the lease gives the ultimate say to the owner over building alterations, or is the lease now overwritten?

All this amounts to a question whether Clause 8 is intended to overwrite commercial considerations. The clause has the capacity to impose new terrorism-related duties on many building owners and landowners, not only in the property investment sector. Its effect, the independent reviewer writes, is “uncertain”. He suggests that

“since the Bill imposes unprecedented terrorism-related duties on members of the public, and has the capacity to interfere with commercial relationships, the intended impact … should be clearer”.

In this group, Amendments 24A and 24B are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I will leave it to him to introduce those. However, on Amendment 24B, in which he proposes that the tribunal must issue its determinations within a reasonable time—that being defined in regulations by the Secretary of State—I wonder whether he can tell the Committee whether this is entirely novel. He will know far better than I do, given his background and experience, whether the tribunal is required to meet a timeframe in other equivalent contexts. That is my question on his amendment. I beg to move my Amendment 24.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, in this group, I have Amendments 24A and 24B. Amendment 24A to Clause 10 is very simple. It gives the option in the case of non-enhanced duty—that is, standard duty—premises for the responsible body to delegate responsibility to more than one person. That will not dilute responsibility but, if we suppose that two people were given responsibility where it was a small and informal group, it would allow for a degree of flexibility. That is important in small, informal organisations which normally have fewer than 200 people but, in any case, fewer than 800 at an event. This is for smaller events—I do not mean that they are unimportant—and those in charge are likely to be smaller and much less formal organisations than for big places. If such organisations are to engage with all this, very often, if there are volunteers, person A may not be available because they may be on holiday, so we say let us have person B. It is not a big, structured organisation that we are talking about, necessarily.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I can see force in what the Minister has said, so I will not press my amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, will not pursue his amendment. As noble, and noble and learned, Lords will have understood, my question to him was a coded form of opposition. He said “It doesn’t matter that there’s no precedent”, but I think that it matters very much.

On my Amendment 24, I hope it is appropriate to summarise the Minister’s response as saying that there are two conditions for subsection (6) to apply: practicality and reasonableness. He is nodding—I say that so that we will get it into Hansard, because it answers the question raised by the independent reviewer. If we need to come back for any clarity, or if I am misconstruing him, perhaps there will be an opportunity.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. I gave the words “reasonable” and “practical”; they are the tenors on which the legislation would be interpreted.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

It is clear that the burdens imposed by the Bill may be considerable. Allowing companies and small community ventures the opportunity to obtain assistance and pass on some of the contingent liability would reduce the impact, particularly on volunteers in small businesses. If they had contracted with a security provider and there was a breach, it seems there would then be a strong case for that provider to answer to and remedy the breach when asked to by the accredited body. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to consider the amendment closely.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will have realised from the last debate, my noble friend and I are rather keen on accreditation of training—I will come back to that in a moment—but I should make it clear that we should not be using the term “kitemark”; I know I always do. Apparently, that is the term used by the British Standards Institution for products—as I discovered a while ago when I got this wrong in another context.

Accreditation of training is not quite the same as accreditation of the trainer or the provider. I am a little confused about some of this amendment: the terms “accredited” and “certified” are both used, and I do not know whether it is intended that there is a difference between them. When the noble Lord winds up this debate, perhaps he could tell us—that may be something or nothing.

I had written down, “Is this delegation of responsibility or liability?” The noble Lord just talked about sharing liability, but I do think that that is the direction that the Bill is going or should go in. I find quite a lot of difficulties with this amendment, although there are points where our thinking coincides. As it stands, I do not think we could wholly support it.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has been very careful in the drafting of this amendment and I respect the work he has done, although, like the noble Baroness, I do not agree with the amendment. It seems to undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to place responsibility on those people who control premises. To create a box-ticking exercise of this kind, which is what it would amount to, would simply facilitate the payment of an annual subscription and leave it to some other company to take that responsibility.

The noble Lord will be aware, I am sure, that, when somebody employs an independent contractor to carry out part of the work they are contracted to do—for example, a floor layer to do part of a construction contract—the person who engages that independent contractor has at least a common-law responsibility to ensure that they take reasonable steps to ensure that the independent contractor is competent and does the work properly. This amendment would appear to remove that potential responsibility. All of us who have been involved in cases involving questioning the work of independent contractors will know that sometimes such claims can be successful because the employer has not carried out proper scrutiny of the independent contractor.

I also draw to the House’s attention paragraph 8.106 of Manchester Arena Inquiry Volume 1: Security for the Arena. Sir John Saunders recommended that

“consideration is given to amending the SIA legislation to require that companies which carry out security work which may include a counter terrorism element are required to be licensed”.

He recommended, therefore,

“that only fit and proper companies carry out this work”,

under an amended SIA licensing procedure similar to the procedure that the SIA already operates for security companies carrying out door security work and similar activities. If the aim of the Bill is, as I believe, to place clear responsibility on those who operate property to take reasonable steps to secure the public against terrorist acts, that responsibility should not be shuffled aside by an amendment of this kind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, if there is not communication with local authorities on all the activities under this Bill, I would be horrified. They must have a major part to play. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, may be right in thinking that it needs to be put in black and white but, frankly, they are such central players that it had not occurred to me that that was required.

The two amendments to which my noble friend has spoken are about differences in the physical structure of premises and in how and when they are used. The briefing we had from the Society of London Theatre was about the get-out at the end of a run, when there is activity right through the night which affects adjacent premises. This is different from how other businesses are run. A good part of what we are trying to say is that none of us can know how every business operates. It requires wide consultation.

Now I look at Amendment 36A, as happens at this stage, it is not a very good amendment, but it enables me to ask how Clause 27(4) will operate. The subsection provides that, where there is an allegation that there has been a contravention of a requirement,

“proof that the person acted in accordance with … guidance … may be relied on as tending to establish that there was no such contravention”.

It uses the words “proof”, “relied” and “tending to establish”. The explanatory statement puts it better, but this probing amendment is to clarify the meaning of this and how it will operate in practice.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I will. Thirdly, as regards the requirement in Clause 6(3)(d) relating to security of information about the event that may assist in planning acts of terrorism, given that most large events are pre-advertised and many are pre-sold, how practical will this requirement be and how does the Minister consider it can be complied with? I will write to the Minister with my other questions.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I suspect that the answer to quite a lot of the points that have been made lies in the term “reasonably practicable”, which is seen throughout the Bill. I asked some questions about that on the previous day of Committee, in particular whether reasonably practicable was limited to physical considerations or included financial ones and was a mix. Fair enough, my amendment was about the meaning of “immediate vicinity” and that is what the Minister answered, but I do not think he answered that question. If he is able to do so today, I think it might help us quite a lot. The financial implications are specifically referred to in Amendment 22.

I first heard the term “invacuation” about 20 years ago and I heard it from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I am very doubtful about Amendment 20A. I do not think it can be dealt with by advice. Taking the example of Grenfell, it seems very harsh to say this, but bad cases make bad law. I really doubt that the example we have heard could be answered by the change in the Bill proposed by this amendment.

With Amendment 21A, I suppose the question is whether reasonably practicable encompasses proportionate. I think, in the context, it does. Conversely, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and I think he is right to question in Amendment 23A whether it is appropriate that a copy of the document dealing with procedures is provided to the SIA as soon as reasonably practicable after it is prepared. It would be helpful to have a specific time limit here to ensure that the documents are prepared quickly, in a timely manner. That may be something for the SIA to be able to indicate was required, but it would be right not to have an entirely open-ended arrangement that could mean that some people who should be preparing documents do not get on with them as quickly as they should.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower’s amendments in this group, specifically Amendments 21A and 23A, and I hope to do so very briefly. It strikes me that Amendment 21A is a crucial brake, as it were, on the power of the Executive. It introduces a test of reasonable proportionality to the creation by the Secretary of State of further procedures by regulation.

I know that there are some later amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and others on the totality of the Henry VIII clauses in this clause and ensuing clauses. But, in the event that these specific provisions, namely subsections (4) and (5), remain in the Bill, Amendment 21A represents a crucial limit on the powers of the Government. In the age-old phrasing relating to proportionality, it is important not to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Insisting that “further procedures” meet an additional test of being reasonably proportionate imposes on the Secretary of State a duty to consider the question of proportionality in a measured and proper way.

Finally, Amendment 23A, as others have said, would provide an express and definitive timeframe for ensuring documentary compliance. The legislation would thus avoid uncertainty and vagueness by creating a specific time period. That strikes me as being in the interests of the person responsible for the enhanced duty premises or qualifying event and in the interests of the SIA. In short, everyone would know where they stand, and I suggest that that kind of awareness is to be commended. I look forward to hearing the Government’s clarification of all the points made.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I have to admit to being unclear, after what I hope will be a short debate of 20 minutes, as to what exactly this amendment is for. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, wanted a mini-Second Reading debate, because that is what we have had. I remind him, and noble Lords who have spoken, that this is Committee and not Second Reading. The arguments should therefore be addressed to the amendment concerned.

I am also unclear, when I look at Amendment 1, what it actually adds. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said that the Long Title of the Bill really spells it out. If that is too much for anybody who is unclear what the Bill is about, simply look at its title: “Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill”. Does that not really rather sum it up? Why do we need this clarificatory line to say:

“The purpose of this Act is to protect premises from terrorism”?


You just have to read the title of the Bill; it says that already.

Noble Lords have talked about mission creep and the problems of defining terrorism. Can I just make one point quite clear? If, as a citizen, you become involved in an act of violence, you are not going to worry about whether the individual concerned meets a particular category of terrorism. What you want is immediate action and somebody coming to protect you. The Bill is about trying to prevent that initial act of violence. This amendment adds nothing and is pointless. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, whom I respect on so many issues, said that the Opposition’s purpose is to get the Bill implemented as soon as possible. I suggest that introducing amendments like this will not add to that cause.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made one point with which I agree. It is that there is a need for focus. Unfortunately, this amendment is not focused. He talks of the threat of terrorism: the Long Title and the text use the term “acts of terrorism”, and that is where the focus needs to be.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a short debate on Amendment 1. If the Committee will indulge me, I am keen to very briefly set out an overall approach from these Benches to Committee stage. I reiterate that we support the Bill. We recognise that families and survivors have already had to wait a very long time to get this important legislation on the statute book, but we believe it is also important to get clarity on certain areas of the Bill and to probe the thinking behind some of the drafting, so that it can be the best Bill possible. I also pay tribute to Figen Murray and the campaign team. They have done an amazing job, but there remain areas in the Bill that are very much a framework. Greater clarity, as well as reassurances from the Minister, would be helpful.

I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, regarding Amendment 1. In fact, I was sitting in my office this afternoon thinking, “Isn’t that exactly what the Long Title of the Bill says, so what is the added purpose?”. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but I am afraid that I too did not really hear the additional purpose of his amendment. As I see it, the purpose of the Bill is about public confidence and public protection, as well as the protection of premises. In other words, it should be about people as well as just premises.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it is about people taking responsibility for themselves. It is about making sure that people feel safer when they go to a venue or an event. On Saturday, I happened to go to a theatre in central London where I was asked to open up my rucksack. I also went to a very small private museum on Sunday, staffed by volunteers, where I was not only asked to show my rucksack but had it confiscated and put in a locker. These things do not necessarily cost money, since at that museum they were volunteers.

The Bill should be about introducing measures that minimise the risks, making sure that venues and events have a plan in place and a person responsible for implementing that plan

“to reduce the vulnerability of the premises”

as it says in the Long Title of the Bill. The Bill is also about making sure that there is a plan in place in the tragic event that an attack happens. One of the main problems that I see with this amendment is that it sets out only part of what the Bill aims to do. Yes, the Bill is about protection of premises from terrorism, but it is also about having plans in place to minimise the number of casualties in the extremely unfortunate case that an attack occurs. We should remember that people who are involved in an attack have injuries for life—and not just physical injuries. They can also have emotional and mental health injuries. For that reason, from these Benches, I am afraid that we cannot support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, we are with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on this. If the market to which he is referring is the one I am thinking of, dispersing people from that site would be very difficult, with a bloody great rock and a castle in the way.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his support of my amendment, but I am afraid I am going to question one part of his amendment. The section in the Building Act 1984 refers to a

“permanent or temporary building, and … any other structure or erection”,

including

“a vehicle, vessel … aircraft or … movable object”—

there is mention in the section of hovercraft. I find it difficult to see how this would be quite the right reference for the Bill.

We have Amendment 20 in this group, which seeks to take out the reference to “immediate vicinity”, and is a probing amendment. This would mean that the objective would not include reducing the risk if an act of terrorism occurs in the immediate vicinity of premises or an event. That is not what we are aiming to achieve; we are aiming to understand, and allow interested organisations to understand, what “immediate vicinity” means. A lot of organisations that briefed us are concerned about this; owners and operators want to comply with the law, take all reasonable steps and do the right thing, but they are not quite sure what that means.

We have heard about grey space, which is the public space outside a building where, by definition, event organisers and security personnel have no control, and only the police can control them—for instance, an area where people queue on a pavement to enter premises but are outside neighbouring premises, or queues which cross over one another.

I assume that the words

“so far as is reasonably practicable”

are the key to what immediate vicinity means in any given situation. Does that phrase mean only what is physically practicable, as a matter of physical layout and the scope for protective measures, or where it is appropriate for an owner to control what goes on, or is it also what is financially practicable, and is that related to the scale of an event or the activities taken over a period as a whole, or to the financial position of an owner of operator? The Explanatory Notes say that what is reasonably practicable is to put in place particular procedures, but I am not quite sure that that answers the point.

It strikes me that what is in the immediate vicinity of any building may affect insurance issues, such as the premium payable by the owner or whether a claim by an owner is met by insurers.

As well as the Minister clarifying the point today, if he is able to, can he tell us whether the Home Office has considered the need for guidance, perhaps with examples of what is in the immediate vicinity? However, as I typed that, I thought that that could be confusing, because if an example is not there then people may think that it would not apply. What help can the Home Office give, or ensure that the Security Industry Authority gives, to help the assessment of whether an area is within the immediate vicinity of premises?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I will deal with Amendments 3 and 20; I do not wish to say anything about Amendment 2.

So far as Amendment 3 is concerned, I am sure we have all attended many events that have taken place in large, demountable premises. It is a long time since I have been to the International Eisteddfod in Llangollen, but certainly the last time I attended the arena was a demountable premises—I would have called it a building—that could be packed up on lorries, taken away and stored somewhere. We have all been to sporting events in premises like that. It is a bit of a puzzle to me as to why, in Clause 2(2), the Government diluted the word “premises” by referring to buildings in Clause 2(2)(a). I urge the Government to consider, before Report, putting a definition of premises and/or buildings in the interpretation section at Clause 33. It is my belief that, subject to whatever decision we reach in your Lordships’ Committee about the number of people attending an event which brings those premises within this Bill, we need to include demountable premises.

I turn next to Amendment 20. I mean it when I say that anything that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee or Lady Suttie, say, I treat with great seriousness, having known them for a very long time. When I hear the noble Baronesses say something together then I treat it with even more respect. However, I have looked at their amendment, alongside Clause 5(2). I urge the Government to consider whether their amendment dilutes the effect of this Bill, rather than achieves their aims—and I do not wish that to happen.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will respond to that very quickly, because I was waiting for the “but”. It is a probing amendment. I looked for ways to introduce the concept of immediate vicinity in order to question it, and this was the first time where I could do so. I hoped that that would be clear. I certainly am not seeking to dilute the Bill, merely to seek clarity.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I understand and accept what the noble Baroness was attempting, but Clause 5(2) refers to

“if an act of terrorism were to occur on the premises, at the event or in the immediate vicinity of the premises or event”.

To me, that seems to fulfil all requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I have tried to impress on the Committee that we think that the type of circumstance that the noble and learned Lord has suggested is covered by the Bill. I will obviously examine Hansard and the contributions again in the light of the discussion, but I remain convinced that the Bill meets the needs that the noble and learned Lord is concerned about. However, reflection is always a good thing and I will certainly examine his comments in detail.

I had a sense of a looming intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, before I sit down, but I am obviously just generally nervous of his potential interventions coming my way.

I hope I have satisfied noble Lords and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie. With that, I hope that the amendments are not pressed. I will look at Hansard and at the comments made.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will not try to answer any points about Amendment 20. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned it but did not really emphasise whether his amendment, or a similar amendment referring to temporary structures, would do any harm in this context. I do not think it would, but it is a discussion that we should have.

The Minister is quite right to be wary of any body language demonstrated by the noble Lord sitting immediately opposite me—you never know what is coming.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has made his case and I have made mine. His words are always worthy of examination, and that I will do.

Syrian Asylum Applications

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hamwee]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to process the outstanding asylum applications of Syrians in the UK.

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

Following the fall of the Assad regime, the Home Office has withdrawn the country policy and information notes guidance for Syria and temporarily paused interviews and decisions on Syrian asylum claims. This was and remains a necessary step which several other European countries have also taken. The pause is under constant review. When there is a clear basis on which to make decisions, we will resume.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will understand that, for asylum seekers and refugees, uncertainty exacerbates the problems that they have in any event. Will the Home Office consider processing claims that are not based on persecution from the Assad regime? Can the Minister give the House any information on whether the pause applies to Syrians applying for settlement, having been here for five years, and with their initial leave expiring?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On the latter question, everything is paused at the moment for the simple reason that we do not yet understand what has happened in Syria on a permanent basis or know how stable Syria is as a whole. For those who have applied and for those who have had their leave to remain agreed, those issues are paused. As for the first part of the noble Baroness’s question, although there is a strong case to say that those who came here prior to the fall of the Assad regime were fleeing the Assad regime, we still have to examine all the circumstances pending the resolution of what happened in Syria prior to Christmas.

Asylum Seekers: Hotels

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate—

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord German (LD)]

My apologies.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Sorry, the communication obviously was not good enough.

[Lord German (LD)]

My hearing aid is still out of action.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

As there is the opportunity to speak in the gap, perhaps I may respond to some comments of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, regarding the Private Member’s Bill, for which I must take responsibility and not load it on the Minister.

The Bill is concerned primarily with allowing children to sponsor their parents to come to this country—currently, parents can sponsor children, as he said. Much of the rest of the Bill reflects what is in the current rules. The extra numbers involved are difficult to estimate, but the Refugee Council, the Red Cross and Safe Passage have given an estimate of, from memory, a lower figure of 340 a year and a maximum figure of 750.

The noble Lord shakes his head about the reflection of the current rules. To give him just one example, when I looked at them, I was surprised to see that the term “emotional well-being”, which I think he may have mentioned, is in them; I was quite encouraged to see that.

More generally, and I know that my noble friend will say everything I would want to say and probably more—and better—asylum seekers cannot just be a matter of numbers for us, given what is going on globally with conflicts and so on. This is where the debate seems to always land. I want to put on record at least a response to the noble Lord; I am actually grateful to him for having read the Bill.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Bruiser? Moi? Surely not. I will at some point potentially bruise the noble Lord once again, but today I am trying to find the sensible middle way.

Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that I have already recognised that there are issues with the numbers. When he intervened at Second Reading and asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the numbers, there was a potential vacuum for an assessment of what those numbers would be. Again, any sensible Government would have to take those matters into account, which, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is why I indicated at Second Reading that we had concerns about the additional numbers, the assessments of those numbers and the criteria for granting them. As I said then and reiterate today, there are legal reasonable routes for other family members to join after a proper assessment. Without repeating it all today, I referenced that very strongly in the debate at Second Reading.

The government response today is that I wish the amendments to be withdrawn. But that is a matter for noble Lords. As we progress, in Committee, on Report, at Third Reading and when the Bill goes to the House of Commons, we as a Government will, in between, reflect on these matters.

I hope that is clear, even if it is slightly in the middle. Maybe in the middle is not such a bad place to be. That is my view on the amendments and on the Bill. I can add nothing more than that today than to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to respond to amendments that were designed—as appears to be the condition of current Opposition Members—not to help clarity, were perhaps for a little further discussion or perhaps a little obfuscation. Ultimately, the House will determine these matters in due course.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Schwab and Westheimer Trust, which supports young asylum seekers in education. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his compliments about persistence. The compliments should be directed at previous Home Office Ministers, who waived the Bill’s predecessors through to the Commons in a very similar form and did not seek to obstruct them. I applaud the Minister’s elegant negotiation of a tightrope. As he says, there can be further opportunities for discussion, and of course sending the Bill to the Commons gives those opportunities.

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murray. I certainly had not intended a discourtesy. There was not a vacuum as regards the numbers; it was my inability immediately to find the briefing we received from the Red Cross, Safe Passage and the Refugee Council, which was sent to those who had their names down to speak at Second Reading. Had I realised that he wanted to pursue that point, I would of course have handed on my copy of the briefing. That briefing included a number of other issues.

I will make a few general points that are relevant to all the amendments in this group. The Bill is to put into statutory form provisions for family reunion that are currently in the rules, because statute is more stable than rules. We are adding siblings, for reasons that we will come to, and provide for children to sponsor family members, including parents, whom they cannot currently sponsor. The cost of supporting unaccompanied children is obviously high. My view is that reuniting families would lead to savings: parents would support their children.

We want to see more safe and legal routes. Currently, those routes are quite limited. The provisions we are proposing would create a safe and legal route, subject to a visa. Applications for visas are much easier to control, oversee and assess than people arriving on our shores in an irregular fashion. Of course, children—particularly those who are alone—are in a particular position. That is why we have had a lot of support from outside the House, with many mentions of the best interests of the child. Vulnerability to trafficking and exploitation has already been mentioned.

The incompatibility of some of the amendments with many of the current rules has been mentioned. The current position is that the Secretary of State can extend or restrict eligibility through changes to the rules, so the factual position remains the same. Amendment 19 is slightly tighter than the current position, in that it suggests criteria.

I will have to keep my remarks shorter than I would like, and I hope noble Lords will understand the slightly telegraphic nature of some of what I have to say. First, making the Bill not permissive denies the whole Bill. I thought the “may” and “must” point was linked with the proviso in Amendment 5, which I had assumed was the main point. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, shows concern for services integration, which was not much of a focus for the previous Government. It is hugely important, and I encourage him to keep on urging both investment and support for the organisations involved, and to pursue the recommendations of the Woolf commission. But the conditions he sets out do not apply to grants of family reunion now.

We on these Benches are no great fans of the IMA; I hope that we will see the current Government get rid of it. The previous Government of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, consulted on a cap under the IMA, but did not include family reunion in the proposals for that cap. They listed routes to be subject to the cap and referred to other safe and legal routes.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest, having for a long time been a member of the board at the Rose Theatre in Kingston, the capacity of which is over 800 when you include staff, volunteers and performers. I declare the interest because I still refer to them as “us” and “we”.

There is a lot of experience in the Chamber today, among not only the speakers but the people listening too. My experience is minor, but because I feel quite affected by it, I am declaring it as an interest as well. On 7/7, when the Mayor of London was in Singapore, after the announcement about the 2012 Games, the officers at City Hall told me that I was the most senior politician in the building—I was chair of the assembly at the time. I realised rapidly that the officials needed someone to report to, and that my role was to be supportive and make sure that those in operational roles were able to get on with the job without any interference from people such as me. That was my big learning from that. Subsequently, the London Assembly looked at communications on the day, including the role of the media. I echo a good deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady May, said about communications.

It was inevitable that words such as “balanced” and “proportional” would be used a good deal today, and they have been used by those who have made representations to us. What they mean to the user is of course affected by where that person is looking from. I would add the words “objective” and “measured”. It may be difficult not to focus on the most recent event, but not every situation is coverable and the Bill does stop, or seek to stop, all terrorism.

As my noble friend Lady Suttie made clear, Liberal Democrats support the Bill. Personally, I would have preferred the title to mention people, or at least the Bill to give them some priority over premises, because this is about people. I welcome the amount of consultation and general work in the lead-up to this. That needs to continue, as many noble Lords have said, including in the preparation of regulations and guidance. I accept that regulations will be needed. I do not think that from these Benches we will be quite as critical about regulations as we often are—although we reserve the right to be a bit of a nuisance.

I asked the Rose Theatre for its views, and it gave me only about three lines. Basically, it said that it wants easy to follow guidance. It will not be entirely easy, because events differ, numbers of volunteers and casual staff differ, incidents differ, and there are different factors and responses required—evacuation or invacuation —and the right response may be counterintuitive. Premises do not follow a single pattern, and the Bill extends beyond buildings.

At this point, I ask the Minister if the Government have in mind further clarification of the term “in the vicinity”. That is clearly troubling owners and operators as to how far their responsibility extends and what, in practical terms, they can do. It troubles me because of consequences for compliance and, perhaps, insurance cover.

We have made it clear that our principal concern is about training. I have seen the letter from the Security Minister to my honourable friend Ben Maguire MP, which says that guidance will signpost a range of suitable free training offers. I am interested in the term “free”. I know that it is envisaged that the SIA will provide a good deal of guidance, but like other noble Lords I think that the legislation seems to create quite a market for trainers, not all of them as skilled as they would present themselves. I gather it is not envisaged that the SIA will have to approve training programmes or trainers. I would like to explore at a later stage whether there is scope for some sort of franking approval, so that it is the properly skilled consultants who are relied on, as it is likely that people will think that it is the responsible thing to do to get in someone to make sure that they are doing the right thing.

The SIA is in a pivotal position—again, the noble Baroness, Lady May, talked a good deal about this. Under Clause 12, it is to prepare guidance about how it itself proposes to exercise its functions. I find “guidance” a rather curious term here. It is to have extensive powers. For now, I will just mention non-compliance penalties: the maximum of the greater of £18 million and 5% of qualifying worldwide revenue. That is an awful lot of power. It also suggests quite a lot of scope for avoidance through how accounts are structured and gives the SIA a lot of scope in determining—the word is how it “regards”—what comprises revenue. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, mentioned the briefing we received today from the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health. It raised some of these points about how the SIA will operate, given its new functions, so can the Minister say something—anything—about its governance?

On insurance, perhaps I am too cynical in envisaging the scope for squabbles about the extent of cover and exclusions relating to alleged non-compliance and the assessment of what is “reasonably practicable”, but I think I have a fellow cynic sitting across the Chamber from me at the moment. I may also be too cynical about legislating for co-ordination and co-operation, but I do not think this is a novel provision.

Related to this, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about Clause 31, which provides that the Bill gives no right of action in respect of non-compliance. I do not really understand how this can work. One question is whether non-compliance can be used in evidence in civil proceedings. The noble Lord shrugs his shoulders—exactly; that will not show in Hansard, I am afraid. I also want to pursue the observations of the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation on Clause 18—he refers to a number of provisions and queries their impact—and on Clause 32, as it affects alterations to thresholds. He draws attention to the shortcomings of unamendable regulations, which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned. If it would be helpful for the Minister, I would be happy to table amendments for these matters to be discussed in detail later rather than today.

Planning and licensing have rightly been mentioned, but perhaps we should add building regulations, which may be more relevant on a day-to-day basis. Various organisations have raised concerns about the costs, and we have heard what the Minister had to say on them. We must acknowledge the burden, including costs, which local authorities will incur.

The Government’s explanation for the particular treatment of places of worship is that they, to quote the Minister’s letter,

“are different to other premises … in being readily accessible and welcoming to all, without the same commercial drivers … usually having no restrictions on entry, or staff routinely present.”

A lot of community organisations would say, “Well, that’s us too.” The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, had quite a lot to say about this; I agree with very much of what he said. The Government also refer, with regard to places of worship, to

“developing measures to better mitigate threats through local police engagement”,

but that must also apply across the board. Of course, a lot of places, particularly places of worship, have their own security arrangements.

Recently, I visited a synagogue that I had not been to before. Its entrance was not easy to spot, but the Muslim cab driver who took me did spot it. He said, “It must be here: I can see the security”. If there is a danger in this Bill, it is perhaps that people will see the regime as a complete substitute for other measures, including their own common sense. There will be points raised in the form of amendments because it is what we do here, but from these Benches, supporting the Bill, our amendments will be because we want to see the Bill as clear and effective as it can be.

Border Security: Collaboration

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and welcome the Government’s decision to pause Syrian asylum claims. We welcome the fall of the Assad regime and wait to see what will happen in Syria, although the risk of instability is high.

On the subject of new international agreements relating to border security, I am afraid that I cannot be as positive. The Government’s record so far on border security and immigration has been an unmitigated disaster. Illegal small boat crossings have surged on their watch, with record numbers of dangerous journeys across the channel putting lives at risk. This is a direct consequence of the Labour Government’s inability to get a grip on the problem and their refusal to make the hard choices necessary to secure the borders. The public know it and statistics prove it. Under Labour, the UK has become a magnet for criminal smuggling gangs. No doubt the Minister will tell me that the Government will be judged on the success of their delivery. Well, I can tell the Minister that he is being judged now and it is not a good look.

The agreements reached with Germany and the Calais Group may sound good on paper but what is missing is any real action or delivery. Where is the urgency? What are the tangible results? Where are they? Smuggling networks remain entrenched. The enforcement measures announced today amount to little more than tinkering around the edges. The Home Secretary said in the other place that her approach was delivering results, but the facts do not bear that out. I can put it no better than my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary did:

“In the 150 days since the election, more than 20,000 people dangerously and illegally crossed the English channel, 18% more than did so in the same 150 days in the previous year. I do not call an 18% year-on-year increase ‘delivering results’; that is a failure”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/24; col. 902.]


This country deserves better. The British people want stronger borders, a controlled immigration system and criminals brought to justice. Yet Labour’s track record, now and during its last time in Government, shows that it cannot be trusted to deliver on any of these priorities.

Therefore, I ask the Minister a few questions. First, can he clarify what specific, measurable steps the Government are taking to dismantle criminal smuggling networks, domestically and internationally? Secondly, what provisions are in place to ensure that the agreements with Germany and the Calais Group deliver urgent, tangible results rather than just more headlines? Thirdly, will the Government consider further legislative changes to enhance border security and ensure tougher penalties for smuggling gangs and those facilitating illegal crossings? Fourthly, given the sharp increase in channel crossings year on year, how does the Minister reconcile this trend with the Home Secretary’s claim that the Government’s approach is delivering results? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the Statement, although I do wish that these Statements were not always headed as being about border security. It is about much more than security. In particular, we welcome the collaborative approach, which we see as essential to international issues.

The Statement mentions Syria. I appreciate that the Statement is not really about Syria but as it is in here, let me take the opportunity to ask—although I think I can anticipate the answer—whether the Government are yet seeing any impact either of Syrians in this country who are now wanting to go back to the Middle East or any new wave of asylum seekers coming from Syria.

The Statement refers to wider crimes. We know that organised crime covers a wide area and that these things are all related. It lists violence, exploitation, money laundering and drug trafficking. I am sure that the Government see that people trafficking and illegal working are all part of the picture—but I would be glad of the confirmation.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about higher penalties. It is the same with policing. It is catching people, rather than the penalties, which is the deterrent. Given his background, I would be surprised if he disagreed with that. The Statement also refers to legislation identified by the Germans as being needed to add to their measures. Have the UK Government identified any need for further legislation here? I hope not, because legislation is often referred to as being the solution when so often it is action that is needed.

Finally, I express one major reservation. Safe and legal routes are not mentioned. Were they part of the discussions between the international parties?

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

I am grateful for those contributions from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches. I have set out to the House on numerous occasions the record of the previous Government, and I shall not take the House’s time today to repeat that record, except to say that, since 4 July, this Government have had to take significant steps, which I will now outline, to tackle the backlog of problems left by the previous Government’s small boats initiatives, the failure to tackle asylum processing effectively and the use of hotels, which has gone from zero in 2019 to 200 hotels in 2024. I will not go on the record too much because I have covered that area before and, if provoked, will undoubtedly do so again.

I hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, would have shown a little more enthusiasm and welcome for the steps that the Government outlined in this Statement. We have, for the very first time, secured agreement with Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands to take action on a number of key issues. Those key issues reflect what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. For the first time ever, the Germans have agreed to look at their own domestic legislation to allow for criminal exchanges of a range of issues with the UK Government, because the UK is not a member of Schengen and current German legislation does not allow the Germans to do anything outside the Schengen area. They are now looking at that, and there is a commitment, I suspect, from all political parties, because Germany faces an almost certain election in February, to continue that process as a whole.

The joint action plan on irregular migration, which was concluded last week, includes international co-operation, intelligence sharing and the use of the Europol system, of which we are now no longer technically part because of the decisions on Brexit. Therefore, we have strengthened information sharing, strengthened co-operation and a strengthened commitment from the five key partners that face the channel, plus Germany, to tackle this issue. That is a good thing that will help lead to people smugglers thinking twice about smuggling individuals or facing the consequences accordingly. The clarification in German law will facilitate migrant smuggling to the UK and Germany becoming a criminal offence. That is in addition to the measures that we have taken using money saved from the appalling, wasteful, useless Rwanda scheme that the noble Lord supported. That scheme has now been scrapped; the £700 million has been put into areas such as £150 million towards a new border command, which legislation will establish on a legal footing in the new year. Those are real, manifest issues.

The noble Lord gives me one of his very pleasant, helpful, wry smiles. But he knows, deep down, that the record of his Government was one that he would not really hold up to scrutiny; and that the things we are doing are positive measures that will remove the criminal gangs and take action against them. There is a whole range of other things that we will look at in due course. He may smile at this again, but he needs to know that 1,000 more staff have gone into enforcement and returns because of the savings made on the Rwanda scheme, and therefore people who are here and have had their asylum claims refused, or who are here illegally, are now being returned. Enforcement returns are 19% up and voluntary returns are 14% up, and that is because we have shifted resources from the useless, wasteful Rwanda scheme, which did not return people or act as a deterrent, to a productive, forceful scheme that forces returns and is putting in place a border command. He used some of my lines back at me; we will be judged on how this scheme operates. Let us leave it at that, for the moment, for this noble House and for the noble Lord, because we will return to those matters in due course.

I just want to cover any other points that he made. There is a G7 plan, which includes Italy and other countries, that is looking at crossings from the Mediterranean. I think it will have an impact; he does not. Time will tell, and we will debate this continually in the future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, began with Syria. Everybody internationally, with the possible exception—or definite exception—of President Putin and the Assad regime itself, welcomes the fall of the Assad regime, but it has raised some complications. We do not yet know how the new regime is going to operate; we do not yet know whether Syrians in the United Kingdom will feel safe to return to Syria; we do not yet know whether people will flee from Syria and make legitimate asylum claims. That is all under consideration. I cannot give her any assurances yet. She knows that we have paused the asylum scheme on Syria for that reason. I hope that we will be able to give some further news on that in the new year when, I hope, things have settled a bit more in Syria.

The noble Baroness mentioned people trafficking; I say that, yes, that is a crime we wish to crack down on. I mentioned the Schengen agreement, which is the piece of legislation we got an agreement on with the German authorities today.

The noble Baroness mentioned safe and legal routes, which are extremely important. She may not have seen it in the Statement, but it is a key part of government policy to ensure that people who need asylum can make those claims. If they are legitimate in this country, they can be processed quickly; if they are processed quickly, we can make some determinations that mean that we do not have to rely on the 200 hotels that the previous Government put in place, costing us millions of pounds each day; and, if there are safe and legal routes and people are agreed, they can integrate into UK society as asylum seekers who have sought, claimed and got asylum. The downside of that also remains: if people do not have a right to live in the United Kingdom and their asylum claims fail, we have to find mechanisms to remove them.

I hope that, overall, the House can welcome this as a positive Statement. I look forward to reaching out with a hand of friendship to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, to say that I hope that we can have some co-operation on these matters. We potentially share the same objective; we have simply had different means of getting there.

Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the leader of the pack for introducing the Bill with her usual combination of passion and rigour. I support it. I know that my views on migration and asylum-seeking are not in complete alignment with that of every other Member of the House, but the Bill is about people who have been accepted as refugees, and I hope we all believe in efficiency and humanity. I hope none of us believes in punishing people for being refugees.

I welcome the 56-day pilot as part of progress towards a permanent change, not just in the time period, I hope, but in the overall process. I too hope that the Minister will use the opportunity to tell the House, and importantly the sector and the people affected, the details: who and where; how information will be captured; how the pilot will be evaluated; how the Home Office, and all relevant departments, will work with local authorities, NGOs, landlords, banks, employers and everyone with direct experience, which includes refugees themselves; and how evaluation of the ALMO project will be incorporated, so that it is a single exercise, into the development of wraparound support for people granted status.

Local authority funding is of course an issue. The integration tariff for people on the Homes for Ukraine and Afghan schemes does not apply to refugees who have arrived via an asylum route.

I saw the Home Office reported as referring to a “time-limited” exercise

“as we clear the asylum backlog and transition to eVisas”,

and being

“committed to ending the use of hotels as we ramp up returns of failed asylum seekers”.

I found part of that objective and the messaging—the words used—less than wholly encouraging.

It strikes me as an irony that so many of those who seek asylum are professionally qualified, skilled, energetic and, I am sure, well organised. What must they think—this is a rhetorical question—about information about moving on coming in a series of separate letters, with confusion around effective dates and processes? There are so many aspects, as the noble Baroness said: homelessness, priority need and rough sleeping; children’s education being disrupted by moving; the need for contractors to provide support, not only physical accommodation; access to universal credit; e-visas. I could go on, but this is a short debate. The pilot is a chance to iron out problems and bureaucratic confusions and inconsistencies. I have heard it described as “fudge-adjacent”; I hope it is much more than that.

Yesterday, I met someone from an organisation in an allied field who said that the most encouraging words they could hear from a Minister are, “I’d like you to talk to my officials”. I would like the Minister and his colleagues in government to express a willingness to listen to and work with not my officials—I have not got any—but those who can contribute their direct experience to make the pilot a success.

Migration and Border Security

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Viscount makes an extremely important point. The Government have put in place an £11 million fund to support humanitarian aid. The Foreign Secretary has met his Turkish and Emirati counterparts and the UN special envoy, and he will look at those issues in due course. With due respect to the noble Viscount and others, if we were talking this time last week we would not have expected to be where we are now. Things are moving very speedily, but the Government are cognisant of the fact that they need to help secure the stability of a new regime and, at the same time, examine the consequences of that regime change in a way that encourages peace in the region.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will pursue the point about casework. Does the Minister agree that there is a balance between speed, accuracy and the application of all the humanitarian factors that one needs to keep in mind? Thinking about what it must be like to deal with the applications, I have only admiration for those who work on them. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer this, but I wonder whether the Home Office is providing enough support for supervision, as well as general support for those faced with the applications.

I also want to mention asylum hotels, which the Minister mentioned. I hear an increasing call for support for people living in asylum hotels—more than just accommodation. Perhaps the Home Office can bear this in mind in its contracting of accommodation, because asylum seekers need more than just a roof over their head.

Finally, I will no doubt be showing my ignorance, but perhaps I could ask a question on the Statement. We are told that illegal working visits are up 34%. What are illegal working visits?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

First, on that point, legislation was passed in 2014 by the then Conservative Government, which the then Labour Opposition supported. I was the shadow Minister. It was to ensure that we crack down on illegal working in a range of establishments, for two reasons. First, individuals who are here illegally should not be exploited by unscrupulous employers. Secondly, in employing people illegally, those unscrupulous employers are undercutting the ability to pay decent wages and give decent conditions of service to people who work legally, while undercutting the costs of other businesses. Therefore, it is not appropriate. The Government are trying to up that, building on the legislation that was passed. I hope that I have noble Lords’ support in this. We are also looking at building on that legislation to ensure that we can take further steps accordingly.

The noble Baroness also mentions two aspects. One is asylum hotels. This is difficult, but it is the Government’s intention to end the use of asylum hotels at an early opportunity. We will be progressing that. At the moment, give or take one or two hotels, we are at the same number that the Government had in July, but we are aiming to reduce that significantly, because it is a cost to the taxpayer and, as the noble Baroness says, it is not conducive to the good health and well-being of those people who are in our care for that period of time. Again, that is a long-term objective. On her first point, we are trying to speed up the asylum system in an accurate way to ensure that asylum claims are assessed quickly. Then, where they are approved, individuals can have asylum, and, where they are not approved and people have no right of abode, they can be removed. At the moment, that system has no energy in it, to the extent that we want it to have. We are trying to put some energy into that system.