Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose: protection of premises from terrorism(1) The purpose of this Act is to protect premises from terrorism.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely to protect premises from terrorism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to insert a new clause before Clause 1 that aims to clearly establish the purpose of this important Bill: namely, the protection of premises from terrorism. Before I begin, I was very sorry to hear that there has been a stabbing and subsequent death at a school in Sheffield this afternoon. I know I speak for the whole House when I say our hearts go out to the victim, their family and the people of Sheffield at this difficult time.

The events of recent years have made it tragically clear that terrorism remains one of the gravest threats facing our nation. The horrifying attacks at the Manchester Arena, London Bridge and Borough Market are seared into our national consciousness. These atrocities were targeted not just at individuals but at our entire way of life. They were aimed at places where people come together to live, work and celebrate life. It is the duty of government to protect our citizens and public spaces from such evil, and that is precisely what this Bill seeks to achieve.

I again pay tribute to Figen Murray. Without her work in campaigning for this Bill, it is unlikely that it would have come before your Lordships’ House. We owe a duty to the victims, survivors and families to get this Bill right. Legislation must always be crafted with clarity of purpose. A Bill without a clearly articulated objective risks confusion during implementation and unintended consequences.

That is why this amendment is so essential. It explicitly states:

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


and requires the Secretary of State to have regard to that purpose when

“taking any actions under the … Act”.

The Bill is of the highest importance, and the Official Opposition will take a constructive approach to scrutinising it to ensure that we can deliver these urgently needed security measures in the best way possible. We have already tabled a number of priority amendments to the Bill.

During a meeting with me and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst last week, the Minister indicated that the measures under the Bill may not be implemented for at least two years. I am sure the Minister will confirm that today. I must express my concern about that timeline. Two years is a considerable length of time between the passing of a Bill and its measures taking effect. As we have seen all too often, terrorism does not wait. Therefore, we will be tabling additional amendments to ensure that the Bill comes into effect as soon as possible, to ensure the Government deliver on their promises promptly and effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

We have said that we think that that will take a two-year period. That is for Ministers to determine later on if the Bill becomes an Act, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will understand why we said roughly two years: it is because of those factors. That goes, again, to the heart of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, about the concerns for organisations generally. That two-year period will give an opportunity to put them in place. At the end of that two-year period—or, indeed, when we do commence the legislation, the measures in Clauses 5 and 6, and the responsibilities that we are putting on organisations in those two clauses, will not stop a terrorist attack, but will potentially put mitigating training measures in place in the event of an attack such as Manchester, Borough Market or London Bridge. So I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on what I have said, withdraw his amendment in due course and not return to it at a later date, because I think we have covered those points to his satisfaction.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the participation of noble Lords in relation to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about it being tautological, but it is not intended that it should be a repeat of something. As I said, the idea is to make it a Bill that has clarity, with an articulated objective. That is the purpose of the amendment and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that it ensured the point of the Bill. Clearly, there is a disparity of opinion in the House, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out from ““building”” to end of line 8 and insert “means “building” as defined in section 121 of the Building Act 1984”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment brings the definition of a “building” in line with other areas of legislation.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to bring the definition of “building” in this Bill into alignment with the definition provided in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984. At first glance, this may appear to be a purely technical adjustment, but it is one that holds practical significance and improves the coherence of our legislative framework. Consistency in legal definitions is essential for ensuring that legislation is clear, workable and enforceable. By adopting a well-established definition already enshrined in the Building Act 1984, this amendment offers several distinct advantages.

First, it ensures legal certainty. The term “building” appears across numerous pieces of legislation that deal with construction, planning, safety and environmental concerns. Diverging definitions introduce the risk of ambiguity and could result in unintended consequences or legal disputes.

Secondly, it supports efficiency and clarity for all stakeholders—whether they are local authorities, developers, legal practitioners or enforcement bodies. A single, consistent definition avoids the need for unnecessary cross-referencing and interpretation, reducing administrative complexity and the scope for conflicting judgments.

Thirdly, this amendment aligns with wider efforts to create a streamlined and harmonised regulatory environment. With the increasing need for integrated approaches to construction and building safety, clarity in our definitions becomes all the more vital. Moreover, this amendment ensures continuity. The definition under Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 has stood the test of time and has been tested in practice. It is familiar to professionals across the construction and legal sectors and therefore provides a trusted and robust foundation for any regulatory measures contained in the Bill.

In conclusion, this amendment may seem modest, but its impact on the clarity, coherence and efficiency of the legal framework is significant. I urge your Lordships to support this sensible and pragmatic change, which would uphold the principles of legal certainty and good governance. If the Minister is unable to agree with my proposed definition, I hope that he will at least take on board our concerns about the definition of premises and look to bring forward an improved definition on behalf of the Government so that we can get the Bill right.

I will now speak to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. This amendment proposes to include in the definition of building any permanent or temporary structure. This amendment draws inspiration from Section 30 of the Building Safety Act 2022. It seeks to clarify that the public protection requirements should apply not only to permit edifices but also to temporary structures, such as those erected for events such as Christmas markets or other seasonal activities.

I commend the intention behind this amendment. The safety and protection of the public must be at the heart of any legislation concerning the built environment. Temporary structures often serve as focal points for large gatherings, where the potential risks associated with terrorism can be just as significant, if not more acute than in permanent buildings. When saying this, I have in mind the horrific terrorist act on 20 December 2024, in which a large 4x4 was driven into a crowd at a Christmas market in Magdeburg in Germany, killing six people and injuring at least 299 others. Equally, we saw over the Christmas period a vehicle attack in New Orleans. I can fully understand why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has tabled his amendment, which is similar to mine, and aims to probe whether the scope of this Bill will apply to temporary structures.

I will also speak to Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to Clause 5. This amendment seeks to leave out the words “immediate vicinity” and replace them with “or at the event”. This is a probing amendment, intended to clarify the scope and meaning of the term “immediate vicinity”. I commend the noble Baroness for bringing forward this important question, as the phrase “immediate vicinity” is inherently vague and open to interpretation.

When drafting legislation, particularly provisions that relate to events, gatherings or the use of premises, clarity is paramount. The lack of a clear definition raises several practical concerns. First, from an enforcement perspective, ambiguity around the term “immediate vicinity” may cause confusion for regulatory authorities and event organisers. How far does “immediate” extend—is it 10 metres, 100 metres or further? Does it take into account natural barriers, such as walls, fences or roads? Without clear guidance, there is a risk of inconsistent application and potential disputes.

Secondly, for those responsible for ensuring public safety or compliance with regulations, the lack of a defined perimeter could lead to uncertainty. Event organisers need to understand precisely which areas fall under their responsibilities for security, crowd control and other measures in this Bill. A clearer definition would also aid in drafting licensing conditions and emergency response plans.

Thirdly, we must also consider the practical realities of modern events, which are often sprawling and multifaceted. Many public events, such as festivals, markets and sporting events, naturally extend beyond a single well-defined boundary. In such cases, the concept of “immediate vicinity” may prove too narrow to cover all relevant areas where public safety measures are required. By replacing “immediate vicinity” with “or at the event”, this amendment seeks to broaden and clarify the scope, making it more effective for the diverse nature of events and gatherings.

In the context of this discussion, we need to be very clear about which premises will be affected by the Bill. I have used my amendment to probe this, alongside the other noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. There may be existing regulatory frameworks that adequately address the safety requirements for temporary structures, such as those enforced by local authorities or event-specific safety regulations. Care must be taken to avoid unnecessary duplication which could impose additional and potentially disproportionate administrative burdens on organisers of short-term events.

In conclusion, I wish to use my amendment to open a discussion on the nature of a premises. I commend the spirit of the amendments from other noble Lords, which also seek to address this issue. I look forward to hearing from them and would encourage ongoing dialogue with stakeholders to explore how best to address the safety concerns around temporary structures, without placing undue burdens on event organisers or enforcement bodies. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Section 30 of the Building Safety Act 2022 or Section 121 of the Building Act 1984, that is the question.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, makes some strong points, particularly in regard to whether it is capable of enforcement. That is an extremely important point. A number of other important points have been made by noble Lords. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, about people attending events without having to worry and having a relaxed time is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, makes an extremely helpful point about wanting a good definition, which includes collapsible buildings, and he talked about circuses with up to 500 people. All in all, this is a definition that requires some further discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is right that it is for the Government to come forward with a definition that satisfies us all. On that basis, perhaps we can go away, have a discussion, and come back at Report with something that satisfies all of us. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too shall be very brief. We believe that all three amendments would have the effect of watering down this draft Bill and reducing the number of premises that would be covered by it. These amendments are working on the assumption that smaller events and venues are less at risk. Can the Minister say whether the Home Office has done any analysis on whether it is indeed the case that smaller venues are less at risk from terror attacks? Is that not, in itself, an assessment of the unknown? It seems to be the case that terrorism and extremist-related attacks are increasingly unpredictable and random in nature.

Noble Lords have talked about the compliance burden. Again, I would like to know a little more about how the Minister would see that in reality. Am I right in assuming that, in the 24-month rollout period before the Bill is implemented, the Government will continue to carry out extensive consultation with the sector and adopt a pragmatic, realistic and common-sense approach, following their consultation with the industry?

As I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I feel that this is about striking a balance between not discouraging creativity and not causing a considerable financial burden to small venues and small events, while maintaining a sense of security in the public. Public confidence and a sense of security play a huge role in people’s minds when they consider whether they will go to an event or venue. People feeling unsafe is not good for business.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11, standing in my name, as well as Amendments 4 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst.

Amendment 11 seeks to establish an exemption for premises which have been assessed to be in a low-risk category by an independent assessor. As the Minister knows, we have concerns about which premises will be required to implement security measures under the Bill, and we feel that there should be some flexibility for the premises that are affected by it.

It may be that the correct flexibility would be delivered by Amendment 22, in the name of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, which will be debated later in Committee, or by Amendment 8, in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. However, the overriding point here is that there must be some flexibility in approach.

Not all premises that are currently caught by the Bill are in need of these additional measures, and it equally may be the case that the Bill as drafted will miss a number of premises that are in need of them. We hope the Government will listen to these concerns and engage positively so that we can ensure that the right premises are required to put in place the appropriate measures to protect the public from the risks of terrorism. This amendment would make this judgment an independent one, taking the discretion out of the responsibility of the department and giving premises that are at low risk access to a route to exemption. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s remarks in response to this debate, and I hope he will engage with me as we seek to deliver the flexibility I have spoken about today.

I will now speak to Amendments 4 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, which seek to clarify the Bill’s language around the frequency of a premises breaching the capacity threshold. As drafted, the Bill says that the measures will apply when a premises reaches the threshold in the Bill “from time to time”. This is far too vague, and the organisations affected by the Bill need clarity now. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst has rightly seized on this point and argued forcefully for the need for clarity today. While I expect that the Minister will tell us that this can be addressed through guidance, it is important we get clarity in the Bill.

To establish a way forward, I ask the Minister to set out what timeframe the Government expect to appear in the guidance. If the Government can answer that question today, can he explain why that timeframe cannot appear in the legislation itself? It is our view that setting the timeframe in law would give businesses and other organisations which will be regulated under the Bill certainty that this definition will not be altered through guidance. I hope the Minister can see how the lack of clarity on this point in legislation could leave space for the timeframe to be changed over time, which could see more venues caught by the rules than is appropriate, and Parliament would have no input in that process.

As I said in the opening debate in Committee, the seriousness of the issues involved in this Bill means we must get the legislation right. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to this probing amendment and look to table constructive amendments to Clause 2 where necessary at Report.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am again grateful to noble Lords for the constructive way in which they have approached the amendments before us. If I may, I shall start with Amendment 11, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. The first and foremost point I want to make on Amendment 11 is the one that is made to me as Minister by the security services. The threat to the United Kingdom from terrorism is currently substantial. Terrorists may choose to carry out attacks at a broad range of locations of different sizes and types, as attacks across the UK and around the world have shown. As I have explained during the passage of the Bill, the Bill is not about preventing terrorist attacks—that is the job of our security services and the police. The objective of the Bill is to ensure that public protection procedures and measures are put in place to reduce the risk of physical harm if an attack occurs and the vulnerability of premises and events to attacks.

The key point for the noble Lord is that this is not related to the particular premise or a particular time, be it rural or not and inside or outside the scope of the Bill. It is about ensuring that the threat, which is substantial, is recognised, and that can happen at any premise and at any time. That is why we believe the amendment to be well-intended but not in keeping with the objectives of the legislation, so the Government cannot support Amendment 11 for those reasons. If the Government took a position on setting a size threshold in the Bill and considered the noble Lord’s amendment the right approach, we would end up discarding a large number of premises that could, due to the threat being substantial, be subject to attack. That point was made very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in her contribution.

Amendments 4 and 9 have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. They would change the provision of Clauses 2(2)(c) and 2(3)(a), which provide that, to be in scope as qualifying premises, 200 or more individuals must be reasonably expected to be present on the premises at the same time in connection with uses under Schedule 1 “from time to time”, as we have stated. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord would change “from time to time” to refer to the number of individuals expected “not less than once a month”. This would change both the number and range of premises caught by the Bill either at all or at enhanced duty premises.

The Government’s intention in bringing forward the Bill is to ensure that we examine that, where significant numbers of people gather at premises, steps have been taken to protect them against terrorism. This should be the case whether the relevant thresholds are met on a daily or monthly basis or less frequently. An assessment based on the number of people expected at least once a month would not take into account the myriad ways in which different premises are used and attendances fluctuate over the course of a year. For example, there is the seasonal nature of sports grounds and visitor attractions, and a monthly assessment would take those premises out of the equation.

Therefore, I hope the noble Lord is again offering me a probing amendment to examine, but I cannot support its current phraseology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that I can help the noble Lord. There are two categories. There is a 200 threshold and an 800 threshold. If a premise crosses the 200 and/or the 800 threshold, it will be responsible for undertaking certain activity as prescribed by the Bill, common to which are the items in Clause 5. From time to time, if an event is over 800, it will have to go to the levels of the Bill for those thresholds of businesses and premises over 800. That is the nature of the proposal before the House in this Bill.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, regarding Amendment 4 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we need to define exactly what we mean by “from time to time”. Is it a decade? It must be defined if organisations are to understand their responsibilities. At the moment, it is unclear. In my Amendment 11, I seek merely to establish an exemption for premises that are assessed to be in a low-risk category by an independent assessor. We have genuine concerns about which premises will be required to implement security measures under the Bill.

I have heard what the Minister has said, but I am not entirely convinced. This is an issue that we will take away and consider before Report. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment leading the group was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, so he should have replied and he must formally withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments to Clause 2 tabled by my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Murray of Blidworth. I am sorry that the Government have declined to give this group a proper title and referred to it as the “degroup”. For the benefit of the Committee, it would have been better for this group to have been given a proper title, such as “capacity of premises”. I hope the Minister will take this back to officials, so that we can have proper titles for groups of amendments going forward.

These amendments collectively seek to adjust the minimum threshold for qualifying premises under the Bill and to ensure that the legislation strikes a careful balance between security and proportional regulation. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 propose raising the threshold from the current 200 person capacity to 300, 400 and 500 respectively. These are important proposals that merit some serious consideration. The current threshold of 200 people is relatively low and risks imposing unnecessary and disproportionate burdens on small venues, community spaces and independent businesses.

I particularly have in mind when communities come together to protest at public meetings called at short notice in community halls, often with more than 200 and perhaps more than 300 people—I see the Minister smiling; we have all been there.

Small and medium-sized enterprises, including restaurants, cafes, independent theatres and community halls, are vital to the social fabric and economic vitality of our communities. Many of these premises operate on razor-thin margins and simply do not have the financial capacity or staffing resources to implement the comprehensive security measures that may be required under this legislation. Compliance with the regulations could entail significant investment in security equipment, personnel, training and operational changes—costs that could be ruinous for smaller businesses.

It is also worth considering the administrative burden that a low threshold may impose on both the businesses themselves and the enforcement authorities tasked with overseeing compliance. By setting the bar at 200 people, the current provision potentially captures a vast number of venues that pose a relatively low security risk. This dilutes resources that could be better focused on higher-risk premises where security efforts would be more impactful. Moreover, we must take a proportionate and risk-based approach to security policy. If we overburden smaller venues with costly and complex requirements, the unintended consequences may be that many of them are forced to reduce their operations or even close altogether. That would deprive communities of essential spaces for social, cultural and economic activities, particularly in rural and underserved areas where small venues play an outsized role.

Raising the thresholds to 300, 400 or 500 people, as proposed by these amendments, would ensure that security requirements are applied where they are most necessary—namely, at larger venues with higher footfall and greater potential risk. It would also signal that this legislation is responsive to the concerns of business owners and recognises the practical realities of running a small venue in today’s challenging economic climate.

It is crucial that we approach this matter with pragmatism and proportionality. A higher threshold would help protect businesses, community spaces and cultural venues from unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining a clear focus on enhancing public safety where it truly matters. We must recognise that many smaller establishments operate on tight margins and have limited resources. Mandating extensive security measures may be feasible for larger venues but could place an unsustainable financial and administrative strain on smaller premises. Raising the threshold would help to ensure that security requirements are applied where they are most necessary: namely, at larger venues with higher footfall where the risks are more significant.

That said, I appreciate the wisdom in Amendment 8, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, which he spoke to with some passion and which takes a nuanced approach. This amendment proposes a dual system where the default threshold is raised to 300 people but the Secretary of State retains the discretion to designate smaller premises as qualifying if they are at

“heightened risk of a terrorist threat”.

That flexibility is crucial. Although larger premises are generally more attractive targets, we must acknowledge that smaller venues can also be vulnerable under specific circumstances, whether due to their location, the nature of the events they host, or intelligence indicating a credible threat. Granting the Secretary of State this discretionary power ensures that the legislation remains responsive to evolving security challenges without imposing blanket requirements on small businesses.

Furthermore, Amendment 8 reflects a thoughtful understanding of the need for a risk-based approach to security. Security should be proportionate to the threat, and, by incorporating an element of ministerial discretion, we can achieve a more targeted and effective framework.

In conclusion, these amendments collectively represent a pragmatic and balanced approach to enhancing public safety while safeguarding the viability of small businesses and community spaces. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to adopting a higher default threshold alongside a discretionary mechanism to ensure that security measures are applied where they are most needed.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I am grateful to noble Lords. A range of amendments have been brought before the House and the nub of the arguments is about the threshold for qualifying premises. That issue was quite rightly debated in this House at Second Reading and was also debated in the House of Commons.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I was very glad to add my name to the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has tabled and has set out very clearly in his contribution. I was glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, has added her name to them too.

This issue was touched on at Second Reading. The noble Lord was vigilant in seeking assurances from his noble friend the Minister, and I am grateful for his tenacity in ensuring that we have this tested properly in the way that these amendments seek. He is right to be tenacious on behalf of a sector which is still in many ways bouncing back from the pandemic and which brings a great deal of pleasure to people across the country and is in many areas a linchpin of the local visitor economy, which is so important for restaurants, hotels and so much more.

This year, the sector is marking an important anniversary, Railway 200, which is the 200th anniversary of the first passenger rail journey between Stockton and Darlington. I have said before in your Lordships’ House that the railways were a gift from the north-east of England which have transformed the whole world. This important bicentenary is an opportunity to inspire new generations to learn about our railway heritage and to see how they can contribute to the future of the sector and the innovation that it needs.

As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has said, the heritage railway sector, like so many heritage and cultural organisations, is reliant on what he described as an army of volunteers. That is an important reminder, as we look at this Bill and the duties that it imposes, for us to consider how those duties, including the training of staff, will be applied in organisations which are reliant on a higher number of volunteers. We do not want the new duties, important though they are, inadvertently to deter people from volunteering in the heritage sector. There are already too many barriers, including, as I know from discussions with the Heritage Railway Association and others, the cost of petrol for volunteers who drive many miles to give generously of their time to ensure that these organisations are run—and run well.

It is important that we look at the implications for volunteers—not just in the Heritage Railways Association but across the whole heritage and cultural sphere—of the powers in Clauses 5 and 6 which are granted to the Secretary of State to specify further procedures or measures required for a premises or event to be compliant with this new law. There is also the provision in Clause 32 for the Secretary of State to amend the qualifying attendance number at a premises or event. These are things that businesses and organisations will have to grapple with and could be a particular burden to those that are heavily reliant on the army of volunteers that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has rightly mentioned.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 12 relates to Schedule 1 to the Bill, specifically paragraph 11, which deals with the railway. We should be equally mindful of paragraph 5 in Schedule 1, which relates to libraries, museums and galleries et cetera. In that paragraph, it says a museum or gallery includes

“a site where a collection of objects or works … considered to be of scientific, historic, artistic or cultural interest is exhibited outdoors or partly outdoors”.

That certainly applies to much of the heritage railway sector.

Earlier, I noticed in his place the Minister’s new friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos—it was a pleasure to see him introduced to your Lordships’ House today. He is the chairman of English Heritage; I had the pleasure of working with him when I was a Minister at DCMS, and I know he will be a valuable addition to discussions on heritage in your Lordships’ House. I am sure that that definition of “outdoor or partly outdoors” cultural and heritage sites will be of interest to him and many other heritage organisations.

Others have raised the question of whether a ruined building, which of course relates to an awful lot of heritage in the care of English Heritage and others, would count. I do not know whether the Minister would, tonight or subsequently, be able to give a bit more clarification about what the implications would be for something that was a building and is now a ruin but attracts a great deal of visitors. Of course, that sheds light on the fact that heritage buildings, by their very nature, have unique physical characteristics and in many cases have special protections under existing legislation, so it is worth considering the definitions that we are seeing in this Bill and the schedules to it to see what implications that would have for buildings which enjoy protections under, for instance, the planning Act 1990 and the listing regime for scheduled monuments. These are important questions to bear in mind.

The amendments in this group relate to mobile heritage, and while I was very glad to add my voice to the cross-party interest in that and hope the Minister can say a bit more to set our minds at rest in relation to railway heritage, I would be grateful if he could also, tonight or subsequently, provide some reassurances about our static and built heritage. Many of the issues which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has drawn attention to through these amendments apply to much more. I know the Minister has a great interest in history as well, and I hope that he can provide some of those reassurances. I was very glad to support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to Clause 2. These amendments seek to clarify that, in determining the number of individuals reasonably expected to be in the premises of a railway station, the capacity of railway vehicles used for the conveyance of passengers should not be included in that calculation. These are sensible and necessary amendments that will help ensure the effective and proportionate application of this legislation. Railway stations are fundamentally distinct from other types of qualifying premises covered by the Bill and, like entertainment venues, shopping centres or other high-traffic locations, railway stations are dynamic environments where the number of people present fluctuates significantly throughout the day based on train schedules, peak travel times and unfore- seen delays.

As I have mentioned in some of my remarks already today, there is a need for flexibility in this Bill if we are to get the right balance with appropriate protection of premises without prohibitive and overburdensome measures that actually make it difficult for businesses, charities, sports clubs and events to operate effectively. Flexibility is something we will be exploring in Committee, and I hope the Minister will engage with us constructively to deliver a Bill that gets this balance right.

I support Amendment 10. Including the capacity of railway vehicles in the threshold calculation would be both impractical and potentially misleading. Railway vehicles operate as transient spaces that are distinct from the physical station premises. The fact that a station services trains with a large capacity does not necessarily correlate with a high concentration of individuals on the station premises at any given time. This distinction is critical for ensuring that security measures are proportionate and targeted to actual on-the-ground risks.

Moreover, including railway vehicle capacity would create undue complexity for station operators. They would be required to factor in varying train schedules and seating configurations, which could lead to fluctuating security obligations that are difficult to predict and manage. Such an approach risks creating administrative burdens without delivering meaningful improvements in public safety. Of course, our new publicly owned passenger railway operators will be able to bear the burdens of additional protective requirements but, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has rightly pointed out, the Bill may hit smaller organisations that will be much less able to implement these measures.

It is also worth noting that security requirements for railway vehicles are already subject to separate regulatory frameworks. The focus of this Bill should remain on the physical station premises, where crowd management, access control and other security measures can be more effectively implemented. By clarifying that railway vehicle capacity is excluded from the threshold calculation, this amendment would ensure that resources were directed where they were most needed—on the station premises where passengers congregate and interact.

Finally, the amendment would provide much-needed clarity to station operators and regulators alike. It would remove the ambiguity around how thresholds are calculated and help ensure a consistent and practical approach to security across the rail network.

I will also speak to Amendments 16, 17 and 18. These clarify important aspects of the Bill concerning railway premises, particularly heritage railways, the rail network in Northern Ireland, and open-air or partially roofed railway stations.

Amendment 16 addresses the position of joint stations shared by heritage railways and the national rail network. Heritage railways are an invaluable part of our nation’s industrial and cultural heritage. They not only provide a vital link to our past but serve as tourism hubs that contribute significantly to local economies. These heritage stations often operate under light railway orders or orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and are distinct in their function and operations from the national rail network.

The amendment would ensure that these joint stations were not inadvertently caught up in burdensome security requirements that may be inappropriate for their specific operational contexts. Many heritage railway stations are small, community-focused operations run by volunteers who simply do not have the resources or capacity to implement the same security measures as major national rail hubs. The amendment provides much-needed clarity, helping heritage rail operators focus on maintaining their services without undue regulatory burdens.

Amendment 17 seeks to avoid the inclusion of Translink, Northern Ireland Railways, within the scope of the Bill. As noble Lords will appreciate, the railway system in Northern Ireland operates under a different legislative framework; namely, the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. Including it within the provisions of this Bill risks creating confusion and inconsistency between jurisdictions. By making it clear that Translink is excluded, the amendment helps to respect the distinct legislative and operational framework in Northern Ireland while allowing for a more coherent and targeted application of the Bill.

Finally, Amendment 18 addresses the scope of the Bill concerning railway stations and premises. It rightly clarifies that the Bill applies to buildings and not to open platforms or those covered by canopies with open sides. This is a crucial distinction. Open platforms and partially roofed stations present different security challenges compared to enclosed buildings. They are inherently more accessible and often lack the physical infrastructure required to implement comprehensive access control and security measures. Attempting to impose building-specific requirements on such premises would not only be impractical but be unlikely to yield meaningful security benefits.

In conclusion, these amendments demonstrate a thoughtful and nuanced approach to the complex and varied nature of railway premises in the United Kingdom. They strike an important balance between enhancing security and recognising the operational realities of heritage railways, the Northern Ireland rail network and open-air railway stations. I urge the Government to accept the amendments and commend the noble Lords who have tabled them for their diligence and foresight. The amendments offer a pragmatic and proportionate solution that enhances the clarity and effectiveness of the Bill without compromising security. I urge the Government to accept them and recognise their importance in supporting the safe and efficient operation of our railway stations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, given the hour, I shall be extremely brief. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made some very convincing points, but I am afraid we still basically disagree with most of these amendments, because we disagree with the premise that rural sports grounds are less likely to be attacked. I do not think that there is evidence for that—at least, I remain unconvinced that there is evidence.

My second point echoes that of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about requesting sector-specific guidance. I think that that would be a very useful thing for the Minister to pursue. Having sector-specific guidance for sports grounds would perhaps help with some of the concerns that noble Lords on the Conservative Benches have raised this evening.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I too will be as brief as I possibly can. I support the amendments to Schedule 2 tabled by my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord De Mauley. The amendments seek to clarify and refine the scope of the Bill by excluding certain venues used for open-air sporting and cultural activities in rural areas, as well as sports grounds that are not designated under current regulations. Amendments such as these are vital for ensuring that the Bill remains proportionate and practical, while safeguarding essential aspects of our national life, including grass-roots sports, rural cultural activities and events that are deeply woven into the fabric of local communities.

I will briefly address the amendment from my noble friend Lord De Mauley, who I understand will return to it later. Rural venues face a unique set of challenges. They are typically more remote, less densely populated and often lack the infrastructure and resources available to larger urban or suburban venues. Their security needs and operational realities differ significantly from those of stadiums, arenas and other major event locations. So it is essential that we do not impose disproportionate burdens on these rural venues, which are often run by volunteers or small organisations with limited budgets. They bring significant social and economic value to rural communities, fostering local identity and social cohesion. Requiring them to adopt extensive and costly security measures risks driving many of them out of operation, depriving rural areas of vital cultural and recreational opportunities.

Similarly, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan to exclude sports grounds that are not designated under current regulations is both reasonable and pragmatic. Designated sports grounds, by definition, already meet specific criteria regarding their capacity and usage, and they are often subject to existing safety and security frameworks. Non-designated sports grounds, on the other hand, are typically much smaller venues, hosting grass-roots and community-level events, so it would be disproportionate to require these smaller, non-designated grounds to implement the same level of security measures as large, professional sports facilities. Such a requirement would likely discourage participation in grass-roots sports and place unnecess- ary financial and administrative burdens on local clubs and organisations, many of which are already stretched thin.

These amendments are not about weakening security provisions, but rather about applying them sensibly and proportionately. By excluding rural cultural and sporting venues and non-designated sports grounds, we can ensure that the Bill targets resources and security measures where they are genuinely needed: at venues that present a higher risk of terrorism and where the scale and complexity of operations justify the investment.

Finally, I commend my noble friends for tabling these amendments and for highlighting the importance of maintaining a balance between security and practicality. I urge the Government to seriously consider these proposals and recognise the value of preserving the unique contributions that rural venues and grass-roots sports make to our society.

Terrorism: Glorification

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, for bringing such a timely and important debate, and indeed all other noble Lords for their touching contributions.

The glorification of terrorism and terrorists in the United Kingdom is an issue that of course affects us all, but in particular the victims and survivors of these heinous acts. I start by emphatically stating that my heart goes out to those affected by terrorism, and in particular today to the Jewish community. When people march in London singing anti-Semitic slogans that glorify the terrorist atrocities of Hamas and 7 October, I consider it to be a dark day indeed. That applies equally to those who seek to glorify the appalling terrorist acts of the Troubles—as we have heard today, some of them were absolutely appalling—or indeed any other heinous acts which have happened in our nation and seek to undermine the fabric of our society. We should call out the glorification of terrorism at every opportunity.

First, under the Terrorism Act 2006 it is already an offence to glorify acts of terrorism. However, enforcement alone is not sufficient. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to root out the ideologies and cultural narratives that allow such glorification to thrive? Can the Minister also say whether the Government have a plan in place to ensure that all cases of glorification are treated equally, so as to protect the victims and survivors?

Secondly—this is an important point—we must ensure that our educational institutions are not unwittingly providing a platform for extremist ideologies. Schools and universities are critical places where strategies can be implemented that are hugely important in addressing radicalisation. What steps have been taken to strengthen the implementation of anti-terrorist strategies and address the growing challenges posed by online radicalisation?

Thirdly, the role of social media can hardly be overstated. Platforms that allow the dissemination of extremist propaganda must be held accountable. So, how are His Majesty’s Government working with technology companies to ensure robust enforcement of policies which ban hate speech? Are we doing enough to educate young people about the dangers of consuming and sharing such material?

Finally, we must confront this issue at the societal level. This requires more than legislation; it requires leadership. I urge His Majesty’s Government to take a stand against those who seek to manipulate grievances for the purpose of sowing division and hatred. Counterextremism efforts must be community-led, with a focus on fostering a shared understanding of our values in Britain, which unite, rather than divide, our diverse population.

We cannot, and must not, allow the glorification of terrorism to gain a foothold in our society. It is a matter of not just security but moral clarity. I call on the Government to redouble their efforts in order to address the growing menace with the urgency and determination that it demands.

Syrian Asylum Applications

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

How are the Government ensuring that those granted asylum are effectively integrated into British society? In respect of applicants, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that thorough security checks are conducted before asylum applications are approved, particularly given concerns about individuals potentially exploiting the system?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In the context of Syria, there is a pause, as I have already said to the House. In the event of individuals applying from Syria after any lifting of the pause, rigorous checks will be undertaken. One of the areas of refusal could well be if there are criminal tendencies among individuals who are applying for asylum. Those rigorous tests are in place. The noble Lord raises integration. It is important that we have integration and that people respect our cultural differences, because a lack of integration leads to potential conflict, and neither he nor I wish to see that. At the moment, in relation to this Question, for the 5,500 or so Syrian refugees who have currently applied for asylum, that decision will have to wait; no further applications will be processed, although they can be accepted, until we review that pause.

Extremism Review

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we must, of course, remain resolute in protecting our democratic values and the security of our nation. As the horrific attack in Southport has shown, the evolving nature of threats requires us to remain vigilant. However, I urge caution against diluting the focus of counterterrorism efforts. Islamists and far-right extremism remain the most pressing dangers; shifting attention to behaviours devoid of clear ideological intent risks overstretching our already pressured security services. Will the Minister commit to retaining the changes to non-crime hate incidents made by the last Government? Does he agree that the police should not be looking into matters or recording personal data where there is no imminent risk of criminality? To do so would waste police time and infringe freedom of speech.

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

This Answer arises because of the leak of a document. I just want to place on record what was said in the Answer by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my honourable friend the Minister of State for Security. The leaked documents were not current or new government policy.

With regard to the incidents of hate crime that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned, I say to him again that if he thinks back, I am sure he will remember that this Government have said, on a number of occasions to date, that there was a review of non-recordable hate crime incidents where we have now asked the National Police Chiefs’ Council to look at those incidents to try to ensure that we reduce the use of non-crime hate incidents and focus on what should be the case in relation to the original intention of non-crime hate incidents.

The noble Lord also mentioned the focus of the Answer and policy as being extremism in relation to Islamist extremism and extreme right-wing neo-Nazi extremism. I can assure him that that is the case. That is the Government’s main focus. However, we have asked the interim Prevent commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, to review where we are with Prevent legislation in the light of the incident—terrible that it was—in Southport. There is also a request on the table for the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to look at whether terrorism legislation needs to be reviewed in the light of not just the recent incident but others as a whole.

I reassure the noble Lord that any changes in policy brought forward by the Government will be presented in this House in a way in which they can be understood, debated and accepted by both Houses of Parliament.

I reiterate that this was a leaked document. We do not normally comment on leaks, except in this case to say that it is not government policy.

Southport Attack

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I think I can best begin by repeating the opening sentences of the Statement:

“None of us will ever forget the events of 29 July. The school holidays had just started, and little girls were at a dance class to have fun, dance and sing. A moment of joy turned into the darkest of nightmares”.


This was one of the most despicable criminal acts in my lifetime. In my previous career—32 years as a detective policing in London—I saw some of the most violent and atrocious criminals at work, but this certainly ranks as the most heinous of crimes. Let me be clear: Rudakubana should never be released from prison. His age means he has not been given a whole life sentence, despite the countless lives he destroyed on that dreadful day and the legacy of mistrust he has sown across the country.

My heart goes out to the victims and families. Not a day has passed since the sentencing that they have not been in my thoughts and in the thoughts and prayers of the nation. I could not possibly imagine their pain but, as a father, albeit of a grown-up family, I can only send them my heartfelt condolences and offer any support I can give. We owe it to the victims, their families and the wider public to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.

In this vein, I must express my grave concerns about the limitations of our current sentencing framework. The public will rightly question how someone capable of such monstrous crimes could one day walk free among us. This is undoubtedly a question of moral clarity and public confidence in our justice system, as I am sure noble Lords will agree. There is a strong case here for amending the law to give clear judicial discretion to award whole life sentences to under-18s. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will conduct a full review of sentencing guidelines for the most serious offences committed by under-18s? Will he also commit to consulting with legal and policing experts, as well as the victims’ families, to ensure that our laws reflect the severity of such crimes and the need to protect society from those who commit them?

Furthermore, this case has highlighted the importance of support for victims and their families, both immediately following an attack and in the years that follow. Perhaps the noble Lord can outline what specific measures the Government are taking to provide such support, including access to counselling, financial assistance and legal advice where needed.

It is right that the Prime Minister highlighted the sale of knives, and we took action on this when in government, banning the sale of zombie knives. As the leader of the Opposition rightly said, we also need to understand issues relating to integration and British values. Can the Minister confirm that integration issues will form part of the Prime Minister’s review into this?

The people of Southport, and indeed the entire nation, are watching. They expect action, accountability and assurance that this will never happen again. We on these Benches are committed to working constructively with the Government to ensure that the lessons of this tragedy are learned and that justice, in its truest sense, is achieved. Let us honour the memory of those we lost by striving for a society where such horrors are not only condemned but prevented.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to discuss the Statement on the Southport attacks that was made in the House of Commons last week.

It is hard to find the words to describe the truly awful brutality that resulted in the violent and shocking deaths of Alice, Bebe and Elsie last summer in Southport: three little girls who set off to enjoy the innocent pleasure of dancing—something which so many children enjoy—only never to return. My heart goes out to their families and friends left behind, as well as to the many left physically, emotionally and mentally scarred after the barbaric events of that day.

From these Benches, we welcome the announcement of the inquiry. A public inquiry is necessary because the Government have a duty to the families to learn the lessons from what happened. An extremely violent young man was identified, by many different people and organisations, yet he was still able to carry out these abhorrent attacks.

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements exist to enable the police and other relevant agencies such as youth offending teams and social services to manage the risk presented by violent offenders, but many are underresourced and lack experienced or qualified participants. Can the Minister say whether the inquiry will aim to establish whether the risks presented by such cases are best managed through MAPPA teams? What are the Government doing to ensure that MAPPA teams are properly staffed and resourced?

Last September, the Committee on Statutory Inquiries of your Lordships’ House published its findings. Paragraph 46 of that report says:

“Ministers should keep in mind the option of holding a non-statutory inquiry (given its relative agility) and then converting it if witnesses fail to cooperate. Ministers should also consider selecting non-judge chairs or appointing a panel. Ministers should meet and consult victims and survivors’ groups before publishing the terms of reference”.


I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this is in line with the approach that the Government intend to take on the public inquiry.

The announcement last week of the introduction of greater checks on age before buying knives online is to be welcomed. As the Home Secretary said last week, it is truly shocking that Axel Rudakubana was easily able to buy knives on Amazon when he was only 17. However, can the Minister clarify what is the current situation for buying knives online from an outlet based outside of the UK? Can he confirm whether it is the intention to introduce age verification for the import of knives to this country?

A great deal has been written and said about the effectiveness of Prevent and the definition of terrorism since the Prime Minister’s and Home Secretary’s Statements last week. It is welcome that there is to be another review of Prevent. I believe the Prime Minister’s Statement raised some important questions. Is a lone attacker—unfortunately, usually a young man—who is obsessed with terrorism and previous terrorist attacks but who is not ideologically driven or working within a recognised terrorist organisation, a terrorist? It is important to consider what would be the consequences of changing Prevent’s engagement in such cases.

Does the Minister agree with Neil Basu, the Met’s former head of counterterror policing, when he said last week that a “Prevent for non-terrorists” is now necessary and will require a “big bill” if we want to be safe? Will the Home Office carry out an assessment of the risks of diverting counterterrorism officers from their core task if the definition is expanded to include extremely violent, physiologically disturbed people who are clearly a danger to society but not necessarily a threat to the state?

The brutal murders in Southport raise questions about dangerous individuals and the internet, as Rachel Reeves acknowledged yesterday and as is made clear by the Home Secretary’s letter to the many tech companies appealing for a change in their attitudes. There have always been dangerous and violent individuals who pose a risk to society, but society now faces an additional threat from individuals who have easy access to radical, violent and extremist views on the internet, which can provide an incentive for attacks and sometimes an utterly misguided sense of identity and justification. Do the Government intend to take further measures to remove such dangerous content and to work with search engines such as Google to divert searches to more positive content, with signposting to organisations that can help such individuals?

The misinformation spread on social media after the attacks last summer in Southport, including from Elon Musk, was truly sickening and shocking. It did absolutely nothing to help the victims and survivors, and had much more to do with identity politics and a right-wing agenda. These are not simple matters with quick-fix solutions. We should be wary of knee-jerk reactions which result in bad legislation. However, the victims’ families deserve to know that we will ask the difficult questions and try to find workable solutions, and, most importantly, learn from the mistakes.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the horrific crimes of child sexual exploitation and abuse laid bare in the Home Office Statement are a particularly dark moment for our nation.

Let us not mince words: local authorities run by Labour have failed to act with the urgency that these crimes demand. Last week, the Prime Minister referred to those calling for a national inquiry into the scandal as “far-right”. Let us be clear: there is nothing far-right about wanting justice.

It seems that the general public agree. Two-thirds of Labour voters are at odds with Sir Keir Starmer and would support a new statutory public inquiry into the grooming-gangs scandal. New YouGov polling suggests that 76% of the British public— including 65% of Labour voters—would support a new statutory inquiry, compared with just 13% who would oppose a new national investigation. This is a moment where the Government could have truly united the nation by listening to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, but they have failed to do so.

While I welcome the recognition of grooming gangs as a persistent and insidious threat, the Government’s measures fall short of what is needed. The ethnicity data expansion and rapid audits do not go far enough. Prominent voices have long called for robust data collection and enforcement to identify and dismantle these criminal networks.

Under Labour’s watch in council areas such as Rotherham and Oldham, local authorities and police forces have been complicit in a culture of excuses and cover-ups. Instead of demanding transparency and accountability, this Government are tiptoeing around hard truths, putting political correctness above child protection. We must confront the uncomfortable realities of this crisis, including the cultural and societal factors that enable abuse.

Local inquiries, while helpful, are no substitute for national leadership. The £5 million funding for local initiatives is a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of the problem. What Labour fails to grasp is that piecemeal solutions cannot address systemic failures. What is required is a unified, national strategy that holds all institutions accountable and ensures no child slips through the cracks.

This Government need to understand that this issue is a national emergency. I repeat that the Government need to launch a comprehensive national statutory inquiry, holding those responsible to account. Most importantly, we need to deliver justice for survivors through action. It is not enough to audit failures; we must correct them.

The safety of our children is not a partisan issue; it is a moral obligation. Yet, the Government’s record on this crisis has been one of hesitation, inaction and misplaced priorities. We as an Opposition will not stand by as these failures persist. We owe it to the victims, the survivors and the generations to come to build a society that will no longer look the other way. This is the leadership our nation deserves: firm, unapologetic and unwavering in its commitment to protecting the innocent.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I pay tribute to the victims of child sexual exploitation who, for too long, have been treated as miscreants themselves, including by police and social workers, thus repeating their victimisation. Their bravery in continuing their fight over many years of not being listened to is quite extraordinary.

My first question is about them. What support and recompense will the Government provide for these victims? While it is good that the Government have accepted all the IICSA recommendations, the Statement says that the Government will lay out a timetable for taking forward these recommendations before Easter. A timetable is welcome, but does the Minister actually have any idea of timescales for the possible start and finish for the discussion, consultation and implementation of these recommendations? I ask this with experience of speaking on many of the other inquiries and recommendations, and know how easily things can get bogged down in paperwork, to put it politely.

The Home Secretary said that there will be

“new action to help victims get more investigations and prosecutions”.

However, I cannot get the answer to my question of why the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which incorporates an enormous amount of legislation to support victims, has not yet been commenced, other than for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.

The HMICFRS inspection on police and law enforcement bodies’ response to group-based child sexual exploitation in England and Wales, published in December 2023, made nine recommendations. Can the Minister say how many have now been fully implemented by government? It is not clear whether the previous Government had accepted them in full, let alone implemented them. I realise that three have not quite reached the deadline by which that should have been done—only one of those goes beyond March this year—but that leaves six where the deadline has now passed. If the Minister cannot answer that question now, I would be grateful if he could write to me.

It is encouraging that the Government want to do a rapid audit of the current scale and nature of gang-based exploitation, but can he say what “rapid” means, not least as the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has other roles to fulfil? Will her taking up this role slow down the other important work that she is doing?

It is also encouraging that the Government will start collecting better data and evidence. One of the problems here is that a lot of the evidence has never been collected. Can the Minister say whether they will review the various local inquiries—Oldham, Rotherham, Telford and other towns? I have raised this with him before, and I got a positive response, but it would be useful if the Government could lay out all the various inquiries that have happened so that it is possible for their information to be included; otherwise, we may miss some important things.

It is good news that Tom Crowther KC has been appointed to develop a new framework for victim-centred locally led inquiries. The Statement mentions the drawing up of a duty of candour. We on these Benches have stood alongside Labour when it has raised this is the past. Can the Minister give your Lordships’ House some idea about when this might be published? There is clearly an urgent need for it.

I end by expressing my disappointment at the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He talked about the national emergency, but his Government did not accept all the recommendations made by Alexis Jay, it is not clear whether they have implemented the recommendations from HMI, and, more importantly, his Government did nothing to start to implement those that his party now says should have been implemented.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for both Front-Bench contributions. I say at the outset that I am disappointed by the tone of the first few words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He seems to imply that this problem occurs only in authorities that have Labour control. If he thinks that is the case, he is sadly misguided. When he reads back what he has said today, I think the tone of his contribution is one that he will think about, reflect upon and regret.

I am trying to look at a programme of activity to ensure that we stop the vile crime of child abuse, that we respond to the reports that have been published already, and that we put a detailed programme in place to affect change. I am disappointed by the way that the noble Lord has approached this. If he wants to politicise things, let us politicise the Alexis Jay report, rightly commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady May, when she was in the House of Commons. It took seven years to achieve its objectives and produce recommendations, which were given to the previous Government in May 2023. By 4 July 2024, not one single action in the recommendations had been started, never mind completed. So if the noble Lord wants to politicise this matter, I will certainly politicise it, but I appeal to all Members of this House to focus on the real issue: child abuse and prevention of that child abuse.

That is why I will focus on the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I can tell her that there will be a clear timetable. There will be a clear programme of activity. We have said that, unlike the previous Government, we will respond to all 20 IICSA recommendations by Easter of this year. We have already put in place three recommendations announced recently by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. Those three steps include: mandatory reporting, which we debated in depth on Friday; making grooming an aggravated factor, which I know the noble Baroness will welcome; and introducing police performance frameworks, which again I know the noble Baroness will welcome.

The noble Baroness asked about the Victims and Prisoners Act. I have consulted my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the Justice Minister, and we are working on that; we will bring forward proposals to implement that in due course.

The noble Baroness asked about deadlines, the Casey report and our response. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has been commissioned to do a short report for three months to take us up to April. She does not commence the longer-term work on other departments’ activities until April this year. The three-month audit is about looking at the issues, which are important in all local authorities, of the ethnicity of people who are committing child abuse, what preparation is available and what support is on hand.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about all inquiries. She knows that I have given a commitment before that we need to look at the lessons from all inquiries, but I say to all Members of this House that we have laid out a clear timetable for implementing the IICSA recommendations; we have appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to improve the understanding of the scale and nature; we have extended the remit of the IICSA report to look at other areas now; we have given support to the National Police Chiefs’ Council to look at further action that could be taken on historic child sex abuse reviews; we have put finance in of £5 million, not just with Tom Crowther but with others, to look at local inquiries; we have put an undercover online help and support line in place; we have included the three mandatory duties; and we will be taking measures on the Online Safety Act, which will come into effect next year, to make sure that we tackle child sexual abuse, which very often is now on the dark web and online.

I offer the noble Lord the hand of friendship and ask him not to politicise this in the way that he has and to look at the positives that have been done.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Have a statutory inquiry.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

A statutory inquiry, for which the noble Lord heckles me from a sedentary position, would mean a further five or six years before recommendations took place. Clear action was set down by Alexis Jay in the IICSA inquiry.

Believe it or not, we have been working on this from last July to January this year. We have announced measures now because parties have commented, often based on false information, about what has not been happening. Things have been happening. Those who have served or worked in government know that Governments do not just announce things at one day’s notice. A lot of work has been put into this between July and January to achieve those objectives—and in fact we have put an awful lot more work into this than the previous Government did over the 19 months when those recommendations were there.

So my hand of friendship goes to the noble Lord, Lord Davies. He should work with the Government, with Members of the Liberal Democrats, with this House and with the House of Commons to do something now, in the next few months, to help to reduce the dreadful activities of child abuse online, in person and elsewhere. If we do that, we can make a real difference in the near future rather than waiting for some mythical inquiry and trying to pin the fact that we cannot do that on the Government because of political shenanigans. We are not doing that because we want urgent action on this issue. I commend my right honourable friend’s Statement to the House.

Asylum Seekers: Hotels

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to cease using hotels to house asylum seekers.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to bring this debate to your Lordships’ House this evening. I am grateful to all noble Lords who are participating. The purpose of the debate is to question the Government on an issue that resonates deeply with communities across the country: when will they see the end of the use of hotels to house asylum seekers? This is a challenge which demands urgent action. It is not just about fiscal responsibility but about rebuilding public confidence in our immigration system, fostering community cohesion and ensuring Britain remains a nation of both compassion and order.

Let me state clearly: Britain has a proud history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. As the Minister will know, Wales is a nation of sanctuary. Swansea, where I hail from, is a local authority of sanctuary, which I know so well. We have welcomed in refugees from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong, which, when in government, we could say we were proud of. But what we see today—a dependence on hotels as a stopgap solution—is neither compassionate nor sustainable.

First, let us address the financial burden. According to the latest Home Office figures, housing asylum seekers in hotels costs taxpayers over £8 million a day. This staggering expenditure is indefensible, particularly after a Budget which has increased pressures on employers, farmers and families, and reduced employment opportunities.

The Government should explain why this costly and inefficient approach is being allowed to continue, but we must also come to this debate with honest intentions. Yes, processing asylum claims was a challenge under the previous Conservative Government, despite it being one of our political priorities. With that in mind, I genuinely wish the Minister well in tackling this issue and I hope he is able to rise to the challenge presented.

Secondly, the impact on local communities cannot be ignored. From seaside towns to rural villages, hotels that once supported tourism and local employment have been repurposed as temporary accommodation. This has led to economic disruption, increased pressure on local services and growing frustration among residents. It now falls to the Labour Government to act decisively. At the last opportunity to question the Minister on this, I raised the enforcement unit. He did not have the figures on how many people were hired to date by the unit. I wonder: does he have the figures today?

The heart of this crisis lies in a broken asylum system over many years and many successive Governments, regardless of their political colour. This not only strains public finances but undermines confidence in our ability to distinguish between genuine asylum seekers and those seeking to exploit the system.

So, what should be done? First, the Government must accelerate the clearing of the asylum backlog. This requires more than resources; it demands clear leadership and effective management. Secondly, we must tackle illegal crossings at their source. Bilateral agreements with key countries are vital, as are robust deterrents and investments in border enforcement. However, while gathering intelligence is all well and good, it is useful only provided that it can be converted into practical arrests. I will be keen to see the Government’s progress on this subject and will continue to question them on it. Finally, fairness must underpin every policy: fairness to taxpayers, fairness to communities, and fairness to those who follow legal, safe routes.

The Government’s reliance on hotel accommodation for asylum seekers is an issue that needs addressing imminently. While we await the Government’s progress, this issue also highlights the challenges we faced, and must learn from, when we were in government. Now is the time for leadership. We must move beyond short-term fixes and deliver a comprehensive plan that restores order to the asylum system, strengthens our communities, and upholds the values that define our nation.

I will ask a couple of questions of the Minister. Following on from a previous Oral Question, which I am afraid still requires clarity, what measures are being implemented by the Minister to ensure local communities are consulted and supported during this transition? On the bilateral agreements that we have often been made aware of, what progress has been made in deterring illegal crossings and facilitating the return of individuals with unfounded claims?

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I thank all noble Lords and I look forward to hearing from them in this debate.

Regulated and Other Activities (Mandatory Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to this Bill today. Over many years, I have been involved with the investigation of the sexual abuse of babies through to paedophilia, and this goes on right underneath the noses of the people who are meant to protect these children. I welcome the Bill and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her tireless work on this issue and for bringing the Bill to the House. The Bill is both a moral imperative and a practical necessity, and it addresses one of the greatest and gravest breaches of trust in our society: the failure to protect children from the atrocious crime of sexual abuse, whether that is in sport, education or elsewhere.

I am sure that many noble Lords will have an opinion on this subject, with the sickening news on grooming gangs. I do not wish to waver drastically from the subject of the noble Baroness’s Bill, and will focus on its contents rather than the broader political issues. However, I must reiterate my plea to the Minister that a full-scale inquiry into child sexual exploitation is called for. I ask the Minister to join the Mayor of Manchester in calling for a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.

We should all understand the importance of safeguarding our communities and the necessity of ensuring that every child has the opportunity to grow up safe and secure. This Bill embodies those principles. It seeks to enshrine in law a duty to report suspected child sexual abuse, placing the protection of our most vulnerable above all else. It thoughtfully protects mandated reporters from detriment, which will undoubtedly ensure that whistleblowers in institutions where abuse is prevalent are encouraged to come forward. Finally, it creates a criminal offence of failing to report prescribed concerns. This Bill shows just how seriously His Majesty’s Government should take the issue of child sexual abuse.

The Bill will help rebuild trust in the institutions that serve our communities, be they schools, places of worship, sports clubs, healthcare providers or any other setting. Recent scandals have exposed not just the horrifying prevalence of child sexual abuse but the systematic failures to act when abuse was suspected or known. Mandatory reporting will ensure that those entrusted with the care of children understand their responsibility to act when they suspect wrongdoing.

The introduction of mandatory reporting is about fostering a culture of vigilance. It is about ensuring that no child’s cry for help goes unheard and no perpetrator is left to abuse again. That is at the heart of the Bill, as emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. We fully recognise that there is a duty on those with positions of responsibility to shield the innocent from harm. Like schoolteachers, priests and doctors, we in this House have a duty of care over the vulnerable. It comes with the position of trust that has been placed on us as legislators. I ask the Minister to commit to protecting children by supporting the noble Baroness’s Bill.

Child sexual abuse leaves lasting scars, not only on the victims but on families and communities. By ensuring swift intervention, this Bill will help mitigate the long-term damage caused by abuse, offering victims the opportunity to receive support and justice sooner. Moreover, it reinforces the principle that communities must stand together in defence of their children. The duty to report is not a bureaucratic imposition; it is an ethical obligation that unites us all in the common cause of protecting the young.

This Bill will enhance the UK’s standing as a global leader in child protection. By enacting mandatory reporting, we send a clear message: the United Kingdom will not tolerate the abuse of children and will hold those who turn a blind eye accountable. The Bill is a vital step forward in our collective duty to protect the innocent. It provides a robust framework to ensure that those who work with children understand their responsibilities and act decisively to safeguard the welfare of children.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has said, child sexual abuse is real and it is happening. I urge all noble Lords to support the Bill. Let us demonstrate our unwavering commitment to the safety and well-being of our children. Let us act decisively to ensure that silence can no longer shield abusers from justice.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

I hope that the House will not accept these amendments and I ask noble Lords to put them aside, because they do not make for a coherent Bill. I say on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that we support and will assist our noble friend Lady Hamwee to make this Bill a reality.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments to Clause 1 put forward by my noble friends on this side of the House.

First, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth that seeks to replace “must” with “may” in Clause 1. This amendment is a vital adjustment to ensure that we uphold the principles of good governance, maintain flexibility in policy-making and safeguard our national interests. First and foremost, this amendment reflects the importance of retaining the Government’s discretion in managing immigration policy. Whichever Government are in power, immigration is an ongoing and rapidly changing issue to which the Secretary of State at the time must respond with pace. The word “must” imposes a rigid timeline and an obligation on the Secretary of State to act within six months, regardless of the evolving circumstances. Replacing it with “may” will preserve the Government’s ability to assess, prioritise and implement policies based on the prevailing domestic and international context. This flexibility is especially important in a world that is increasingly uncertain and unpredictable.

Amendment 2, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes replacing the six-month timeline for laying changes to the Immigration Rules with a more appropriate one-month period. This amendment is about ensuring that Parliament retains proper oversight of a Bill about which we have serious concerns. Reducing the timeline to one month ensures that any changes to the Immigration Rules under the Bill are brought back to Parliament swiftly for scrutiny. It would prevent the Government from allowing extended periods of uncertainty to shield decisions that could fundamentally undermine the integrity of our immigration system. The amendment highlights a critical point that, while we respect the intention behind the Bill, we oppose it because it fails to address the complexities of immigration policy.

Amendment 3, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes replacing the 21-day implementation period with a more measured three-month period. This amendment reflects our belief that significant changes to our Immigration Rules, such as those concerning refugee family reunion, must not be rushed through without proper consideration of their implications for the UK’s immigration system, resources and public confidence. The original provision for 21 days is, frankly, far too short a period for such substantial changes to be introduced and implemented. We believe that it risks creating undue pressure on our immigration authorities and undermining the orderly processes that we have worked hard to maintain. Extending this period to three months would therefore provide the necessary time for proper evaluation, preparation and control. Family reunions must be managed in a way that ensures that we are not inadvertently incentivising illegal migration or creating vulnerabilities in our immigration system.

Amendment 4, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, seeks to amend Clause 1 by extending the period for implementing changes to the Immigration Rules for refugee family reunion from 21 days to one year. This amendment is both prudent and necessary, as it would ensure that any changes were introduced with the care, preparation and thoroughness that they deserve. The practical implications of significant policy changes must be carefully managed to avoid unintended consequences that could undermine the very outcomes that we seek to achieve. This amendment would provide the Government with the time required to conduct a comprehensive and detailed review of the potential impacts of these changes, including their effects on public services, local communities and the integration of refugees. A rushed implementation within just 21 days would fail to account for the complex and interconnected challenges of housing, healthcare, education and social cohesion that arise from any significant adjustment to our Immigration Rules.

Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, seeks to introduce critical safeguards ensuring that any changes to the Immigration Rules for refugee family reunion are made responsibly with due consideration for their impact on local communities, public services and our broader immigration system. This amendment strikes to the heart of the practical realities of governing. It is our duty as legislators to ensure that our policies are sustainable and do not place undue strain on local communities or public services. By requiring the Secretary of State to assess the projected impact on local support services, housing and integration arrangements, the amendment would introduce a much-needed layer of accountability, which acknowledges that housing, schools, healthcare and community resources are not infinite and that we must carefully manage the arrival of new residents to ensure that they are properly supported. Overburdening the systems not only will undermine the successful integration of refugees but could erode public confidence in our immigration policies.

Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, seeks to introduce a new level of transparency and accountability to the Bill by requiring detailed information on costs, capacity and prioritisation in housing before implementing changes to the Immigration Rules. This amendment is both practical and prudent, ensuring that any changes introduced under the Bill are grounded in a full understanding of their financial and social implications. It reflects core Conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, public accountability and fairness, ensuring that we balance our humanitarian commitments with the needs of our communities and the sustainability of our public services.

Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, seeks to reduce the age threshold from 25 to 21 concerning the eligibility of siblings for family reunion. This amendment is a vital correction to a clause that, as currently drafted, risks broadening the scope of family reunion far beyond what is reasonable or necessary. By lowering the age threshold, we can better align this provision with the principles of fairness, practicality and public confidence in our immigration system. The age of 25 is unnecessarily high and creates significant challenges for the effective management of family reunion cases. An individual in their mid-20s is, by any reasonable standard, an adult capable of independence. Extending family reunion rights to siblings up to the age of 25 dilutes the focus of the Bill.

The proposed age of 21 strikes a more appropriate balance. It avoids creating a system that is overly broad and difficult to administer. This amendment would ensure that family reunion remains a process based on need, not convenience. Moreover, the broader implications of maintaining the 25 year-old threshold must not be ignored. Such an expansive definition risks placing additional strain on already overstretched resources, including housing, social services and immigration officials. It could undermine the public’s trust in our ability to manage migration in a controlled and responsible manner—a trust that is critical to maintaining support for genuine humanitarian efforts. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment and to reject a Bill that, in its current form, risks eroding the principles on which our immigration system is built.

Amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would require a medical health assessment for each applicant under Clause 1 before their application for family reunion status is approved. This amendment is a practical and necessary addition to the Bill. It would ensure that the process for granting family reunion status is not only compassionate but thorough, responsible and mindful of the broader implications for public health and welfare. First and foremost, the amendment would strengthen public confidence in the integrity of our immigration system. By implementing a medical health assessment, we would establish a robust framework that considers the physical and physiological fitness of applicants while addressing potential public health concerns. This is particularly important to ensure that we meet our obligations to applicants and the communities that welcome them. The amendment also aligns with the principles of good governance and accountability. It would ensure that decisions regarding family reunion are made with full knowledge of any health factors that may affect an individual’s ability to integrate and thrive in the United Kingdom. It would prevent rushed or uninformed approvals that could create challenges down the line for both applicants and public services.

I commend my noble friend for proposing this amendment, which demonstrates a commitment to compassion balanced with prudence. I urge the Committee to support this sensible and measured addition to the Bill to ensure that our family reunion policies remain fair, humane and effective.

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

Well, we have had some fun with the Bill and the amendments. I start by reiterating what I said on 18 October when I responded to the Bill’s Second Reading on behalf of the Government. For ease, I refer noble Lords to cols. 371-74. It is worth taking that as a starting point because the amendments and their impact on the Bill are relevant. I said very clearly at that stage:

“I reassure all noble Lords that the Government fully support the principle of family unity and share their concerns regarding families who have been separated by conflict or persecution. It is for precisely that reason that the Government support what has been referred to already: an existing comprehensive framework for reuniting refugees with their families in the UK”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 371.]


That is the principle of the Bill. At the same time, I said:

“Expanding the policy to extended family would—undoubtedly, in my view and in those of my colleagues across the Home Office—have a significant and difficult impact on stretched public resources. It would also mean that we have to bring more people into scope of the policy, including those who may not necessarily need international protection themselves”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 373.]


On 18 October, I found myself supporting the Bill and the principle of it in part, but not its extensions without further consideration. I now find myself addressing amendments which are, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said—let us be generous—somewhat contradictory in parts. There is no coherence from the Conservative Back Benches or Front Bench in relation to all those points, and different places and policy principles are put onboard.

I find myself looking at all the amendments and thinking that these are not designed to help the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, they are probably not designed to help the Government come to sensible suggestions on these points, and they are certainly not designed to help those who might face persecution or refugee status and need those supports. Can I support the amendments? No, I cannot. Can I support the noble Baroness’s Bill in its current form? No, I cannot. I find myself in the very strange position of being the Government of the day and coming to a sensible position, perhaps; Members will judge that in due course.