Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. Notwithstanding what my noble friend Lord De Mauley just said about pursing his amendment later, I support the sentiment behind it.

In another Bill before your Lordships’ House, the Football Governance Bill, we are looking at the implications for football clubs, particularly those at the lower end of the pyramid. I was therefore attracted to what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said and what his amendment seeks to do by looking at venues with a capacity of under 10,000—the sports grounds and stadia which attract a smaller number of people but still have sizeable crowds. As we discussed in the previous group, they are run by volunteers as much as, and indeed often more so, than full-time staff, with all the implications of that.

My noble friend, in talking about the London Marathon and the Oxford and Cambridge boat race, brought a number of important examples of sporting events which take place in both private establishments and in public. The growing interest in the parkrun movement springs to mind as another example. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a bit more about whether those more informal but regular sporting events which attract large numbers of people would be covered by the Bill, and if so, how.

I certainly agree with what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said in his concluding remarks. It will be very important to have some guidance here. I said at Second Reading that some more sector-specific guidance is needed. My noble friend’s suggestion of working with DCMS, on behalf of the many and varied sectors which that department has the pleasure of working with, would be very valuable because that can get us into some of the minutiae that my noble friend’s speech just set out. Those minutiae are very important, as the organisations and volunteers that run events are grappling with the duties the Bill will impose upon them.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I also support my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I wish to ask the Minister two questions that arise on this topic that I have found in the impact assessment.

At paragraph 68, there is a description of the enforcement regime in relation to the provisions in the Bill:

“Enforcement will be delivered via a mainly civil sanctions regime”.


In respect of a standard duty premises, we can see that there is a fixed penalty and an ability for the regulator to impose a fixed penalty of £500 per day from the date on which the

“penalty is due until the date the contravention is rectified or the notice is withdrawn by the Regulator”.

There is furthermore a power, in the most “egregious cases” according to the impact assessment, of a criminal prosecution of the relevant person. My first question picks up on a theme in an earlier group. To what extent does the Minister think this will have an impact on volunteering and the willingness of people to take on roles where they would be responsible for facing such enforcement?

My second question is in relation to the funding estimates in the impact assessment. One can see, in paragraph 98 on page 23 of the impact assessment, there is a description of how it is that the civil servants have reached their valuation of what the Bill is going to cost. In the previous paragraph, they discuss the impact of outdoor festivals, but in paragraph 98 they say that outdoor events other than festivals

“have not been included in the analysis. These events are not included due to the absence of specific and accurate data about the number of events and their respective capacities. This lack of a comprehensive list of these events means that a reliable estimate of the number of events could not be made. Therefore, outdoor events other than festivals have been excluded from the appraisal analysis”.

I suggest to the Committee that this is simply not good enough. This is an impact assessment which tells us on its first page that the possible financial impact of these measures is somewhere between £1.8 billion, which is the best case, and £4.9 billion. To simply exclude the valuation from outdoor events because no attempt can be made to assess how many people may attend is simply not good enough. We can see this is a policy that has been developed without the needs of the kinds of small sports grounds that my noble friend has identified. Would the Minister agree that the common-sense position would be to consider excluding completely these kinds of small sporting venues from the operation of the Bill?

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will try to be as short as possible at this time of night. Schedule 2 excludes from the scope of the Bill sports grounds that are not designated sports grounds. So far, so good—but it is not straightforward. The exclusion for recreation and leisure in part 1 of Schedule 2 applies only where those attending are not members or customers who paid. If it is a members’ club, you are not excluded.

Furthermore, a sports ground is defined as being a sports ground within Section 17 of the sports grounds Act, or whatever it is called. The definition in that Act says that it means

“any place where sports or other competitive activities take place in the open air and where accommodation has been provided for spectators consisting of artificial structures or of natural structures artificially modified for the purpose”.

The reference to accommodation for spectators could well include a pavilion or some other fairly relaxed accommodation, with perhaps a bar attached and changing facilities, and so on. It does not have to be a pavilion as I understand it, which would include accommodation for 800 people. It is just a sports ground which has accommodation, because you are looking at the sports grounds Act.

So a question arises where there are quite large playing fields, a pavilion and a members’ club, and 200 people come from time to time to watch the match on Saturday against other clubs. It is not a lot of people, and children come, and everyone else. From time to time—because that is the wording in the Bill—there is a match against their local rivals, and they bring 400 friends along, and the home team have got 600, so you have 1,000. Are they going to have to search everyone who comes, and every car, and so on?

I am not saying that this is entirely wrong, but I do suggest that thought has to be given to how it will bite. What is the definition of an outdoor event or a sporting event of the sort I have in mind, such as football matches between local villages and towns? Cricket matches sometimes attract quite a lot of people. I am not talking about county grounds but just matches between two clubs that are old rivals on a bank holiday or something like that. This is all in the open air, in a completely unconfined space and, one hesitates to say, not on the highest level of the risk register. I am not going to tempt fate by saying anything else. I ask the Minister to consider this, certainly before Report.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 8 similarly seeks to raise the threshold for mandatory compliance with the requirements of the Bill to

“300 people, or, if smaller”,

where

“the Secretary of State determines that the premises are at a heightened risk of terrorist attack”.

This is a more flexible measure than the amendments proposed by my noble friends, although I entirely agree with the sentiment of the speeches that we have heard from my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Udny-Lister, and in an earlier group by my noble friend Lord De Mauley.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, observed a moment ago, the Government were entirely right to increase the threshold from 100 to 200, but I suggest that 200 is still too low and will cause disproportionate expense and disruption to small businesses. In particular, I will focus on the potential impact on community volunteering.

In engaging in the balancing act of the protections which this Bill will afford, one must look at the history of the type of terror attacks that we seek to address. As my noble friend Lord De Mauley observed in his remarks, they are largely urban and at large venues. While the Minister is right to say that attacks can happen at any premises at any time, it is also right to say that there is a greater risk at certain types of venues and in certain locations, and that is borne out by the history of terrorist attacks. It is therefore incumbent, I suggest to the Committee, that this legislation adopts a flexible approach to risk. I have sought to reflect that in my Amendment 8.

I suggest that we must have a proportionate approach, or this legislation will have the effect of closing largely community venues, much valued by people up and down this country. One needs look only at the Home Office’s own impact assessment, produced with the Bill. At page 9, the authors note that among respondents to the survey of premises with a capacity of 100 to 299—the owners of smaller premises, places of worship, village halls and community centres—only four in 10

“agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack”,

and

“Around half … reported that the revised requirements would be difficult to take forwards … Six in ten … were at least somewhat concerned that the cost of meeting the standard tier requirements will affect their organisation’s financial ability to continue operating”.


This Bill is a sledgehammer that is going to crack the nut of our village halls. I ask the Minister: if, two years down the line, after the implementation of these procedures, we find it is very difficult for village halls to find trustees and volunteers who are prepared to take on the legal obligations of the enforcement regime that this Bill imposes and those village halls start to close, what will the Government do to undo the damage wrought to our communities by the closure of these much-valued venues?

I strongly commend my amendment and a measure of flexibility to the Government and the Committee this evening.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, not for the first time in a debate on terrorism in your Lordships’ House, I have to say that I do not want to be the person who in a few years’ time says, “I told you so”. This Bill is about terrorism. If a terrorism act resulted in the deaths of 20, 30 or even two or three people in a hall that was holding a qualifying event that had 232 people, for example, in the audience, in both Houses we would be saying, “Something’s got to be done. We got this wrong”.

I remind your Lordships that one of the most notorious and most damaging terrorist attacks this country has ever seen took place in a public house in Birmingham. So the idea that we hold a sort of numbers auction on the capacity that qualifies under the Bill is, I am afraid, foolish and wrong. Indeed, I am very concerned about this debate on numbers, because it runs the risk of being part of a playbook for terrorists to read—and many terrorists do read very carefully, both on the internet and elsewhere, when they are making their decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

A few years ago, I produced a report for the Mayor of London on London’s preparedness to deal with a terrorist incident. The question he wanted me to answer was whether he was putting enough armed support officers in the capital to deal with the sorts of attacks that had taken place in Paris and Brussels in recent years. I think he wanted to be in a position where he would be able to say, should something dreadful have happened after my report, “Well, I asked that Lord Harris to do a report for me and he said it would be okay”. I am afraid that is not the answer that I gave the mayor. I said, “Ultimately, it’s down to you. What is the risk appetite that you have for coping with this? Of course you could reduce the risk significantly by doubling or quadrupling the number of armed support units, but what is your risk appetite to do that and what do you think the consequence is?” That is exactly where we are on this Bill: what is our risk appetite?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

What is the noble Lord’s risk appetite for closures of community venues and village halls as a consequence of these provisions if the threshold is set too low?

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

That is what it means to consider your risk appetite: you consider the risk of something dreadful happening and the risk and the consequences associated with trying to address it. That is the choice we must make. I suspect that ultimately we are going to disagree on this. My risk appetite, because I do not really like being killed in the name of some terrorist or other ideology, is that I would prefer the number to be smaller; I would prefer it to be 100. I accept that some noble Lords opposite would rather see the figure set higher. We have a different view of the risk appetite.

My answer to all these amendments is that the Government have consulted widely and responded to that consultation. They have increased the number from 100 to 200. Personally, I am prepared to accept the risk judgment made by Government Ministers on that basis. That is the way in which we should approach it. We will all have different numbers in mind and different views of risk appetite, but ultimately we expect our Government to take a sensible, balanced risk appetite, and I believe that this is it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Sorry, I left north Wales at 7 am, so it has been a long day already. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned the figure of 800. Why have we come to our figure? I can make all sorts of justifications. Two hundred takes into account the greatest number of large premises, so it is a figure that we have determined accordingly. We have to set the figure at a certain level and we have done so following the wide range of consultation that has taken place.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

To what extent has the department made an evaluation of the impact on volunteering of the measures as they are currently proposed, with a threshold of 200? Does the Home Office have a threshold for the number of trustees that they think will go unfilled, or the lack of volunteering in community ventures and village halls, as a consequence of the threats and burden imposed by these measures?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The measures that we have accepted are part of the consultation that we have undertaken. The noble Lord was a Minister standing at this Dispatch Box in this department during the genesis of this Bill, so he will know that there has been wide consultation on these matters. Again, I point him to Clause 5 on public protection measures. Clause 5(3) refers to

“evacuating individuals from the premises … moving individuals to a place on the premises … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.

Are those onerous issues? Or are they things that, even in our own assessment, are relatively low cost in terms of training? That relatively low cost is, essentially, in person hours when determining what those requirements are.

Again, we could fix a number. If I fixed the number at 300, 400 or 500, we would take even more premises out, but that would dilute the purpose of this legislation, which is to set good practice for the prevention of an attack when an attack is occurring and the steps that can be taken to save lives. People’s experiences—not mine, but those in the consultations of the public inquiry—mean that the 200 figure we have now settled on is the right one. I commend that figure to the House and hope that noble Lords will support it in due course when it comes to the final decision by this House before Third Reading.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out “must, within 6 months of this section coming into force” and insert “may”

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, which is tabled in my name, I will speak in support of the other amendments in this group, all of which relate to Clause 1.

It is worth pointing out in a sentence that the present position under Appendix FM of the UK Immigration Rules is that a person granted refugee or protection status is entitled to make an application for family members to join in two circumstances. Depending on eligibility requirements, they must be a partner—that is, someone in a genuine relationship—or a child under the age of 18 who is not married or in a civil partnership. That is the present legal position. This Bill would have the effect of broadening that application, and we are going to look at that in a second.

At the Second Reading of this Bill, which was held on 18 October, I intervened on the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to ask whether she could inform the House of how many people she envisaged would be granted refugee family reunion status on an annual basis under this Bill. Her answer was:

“I will not go into that now; I do not have it in my speech. I am time-limited and conscious of other people’s need for that time. I will happily tell the noble Lord later”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 360.]


I have yet to be told how many people the noble Baroness envisages would be admitted on an annual basis under these measures.

Clause 1(1) provides that:

“The Secretary of State must, within 6 months … lay … a statement of changes in the … ‘immigration rules’”.


That would have the effect, as per the wording in subsection 1(3), of requiring that there be leave to

“enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted protection status”.

Nothing in that clause suggests that there is any control on the number of people who may be admitted.

The term “family members” is specifically defined in Clause (1)(5)(a), which provides that it includes a person’s

“parent …. spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner … child, including adopted child, who is either … under the age of 18 or … over the age of 18, but dependent on the person… sibling, including adoptive sibling”.

Clause (1)(5(b) states that it includes:

“such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to … the importance of maintaining family unity … the best interests of a child … the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted protection status and another person … any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted protection status”,

and

“such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

This is possibly the most expansive definition of “additional family member” that could be conceived.

My amendments are targeted to address that issue in the Bill. The reason for this is that, clearly, the admission of refugees’ additional family members to this country places a strain on domestic limited resources, including accommodation, financial support, education facilities and medical facilities. As the House of Lords Library briefing noted, since 2015, some 64,000 additional family members have been admitted under the present scheme. I suggest that, under these proposals, that number would be multiplied very many times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I ask the noble Lord, who I think has also put forward Amendment 14, whether children who have been formally adopted are contained within the Immigration Rules?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Appendix FM, as I understand it—although I would have to check—does allow for an application to be considered by the Home Office in respect of a formally adopted child. But I am sure the Minister can confirm, or otherwise, in relation to that.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Given that the last Government did not set up safe, legal routes and actually encouraged the small boats, does the noble Lord have no shame in actually suggesting that this will do the same?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Well, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is wrong: there are a number of safe and legal routes, as she will hear in a moment from the Minister. We are part of the UK resettlement scheme and there are a number of other routes, including the Ukraine family scheme and the Hong Kong scheme: these are all safe and legal routes. So I have absolutely no shame in standing here and asserting that this Bill would be contrary to the interests of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I regret that I was not here for Second Reading, but my Green Party colleague, my noble friend Lady Bennett, was.

I absolutely oppose all these amendments. I have been at debates on a couple of Bills in this Session where the Conservative Peers have been, I would say, playing games. That does not show respect to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Shame.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, gave me a very sneaky answer earlier. If he is a distinguished lawyer, I can see how he might win cases by being sneaky like that. He knows very well—look, he is laughing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

That is unparliamentary language.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Is it? I do not think it is.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord has had his say.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, knows very well that when I say “safe and legal routes”, I mean for any and every nationality—not just the few that the previous Government thought were acceptable to come to Britain.

Also, if noble Lords are rude enough to go over the advisory time limit and show disrespect to the Committee, perhaps their microphones should be turned off.

On the other Bills I mentioned, the Conservatives have been filibustering. They have been making some of these Bills quite unpleasant to sit through when one cares about the issue at hand. Personally, I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, even though he did not give way to me. He is absolutely right that this is petty bickering; I really cannot stand it. We need safe and legal routes. The previous Government did not give us those routes for all nationalities, which means—

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness give way?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

No; I will give way in a moment—perhaps.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness give way?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

No. The previous Government actually encouraged the small boats. They encouraged people to come by routes that were not safe.

The Green Party supports this Bill. It is time to remove the barriers so that desperate children can be reunited with their families in safety.

--- Later in debate ---

I think I have got to the end of the amendments included in this group. I hope I have, albeit in very shortened form, answered the points that have been made. I cannot accept any of the amendments in the group.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate on this group of amendments, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who, with her customary elegance, has outlined her response to the amendments. I am particularly glad to note that we agree on the importance of integration in relation to additional family members—if not on too much else.

I am also pleased to note that I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on his matter of principle that the detail should be in the Immigration Rules. That is one of the reasons why I, like the Government, oppose the Bill in total. But, if we are to have the Bill, I suggest that we need the amendments. As I understand it, the Government remain against the Bill, notwithstanding the very elegant tightrope on which the Minister trod.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his speech. Possibly one might have thought, from listening to it, that the purpose of the Bill was solely in relation to children, but of course we can see that Clause 1(3) relates to family members of

“a person granted protection status”.

So that is all people, not just those under 18.

To the question from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I agree with her too. I certainly do not intend by my amendments any alteration to the present scheme in Appendix FM. It works well and allows the Secretary of State to amend the scheme, which is the correct way that these things should be done.

Lastly, turning to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I obviously do not accept that the Government caused the small boats crossings; they sought very hard to address them and succeeded in bringing them down, and they brought in the Rwanda scheme to stop them. I still maintain that, had it been switched on, it would have achieved its deterrence objective, but that is a debate for another day. The noble Baroness suggested that the term “safe and legal routes” should be defined in the way she suggests: as a route open to anyone for application. I am afraid that that is not the meaning of safe and legal routes. It is a term used in statute and means just what it says on the tin: a route that is safe and legal.

This Government, and the previous Government, have welcomed a great many refugees: over half a million in the last 10 years, including refugees from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. These are great things that we can all be proud of. However, through these amendments I say that the Bill would unfortunately overwhelm our resources to deal with this sort of migration. With that, I will withdraw my amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I would like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for being so rude about him. I like to think that I speak the truth, but sometimes the truth verges on utter rudeness, and I am extremely sorry for saying that.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister identified, the principle that the first duty of government is the protection of its people is one that is redolent in this legislation. In an era when terrorism remains a persistent and evolving threat, as the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, both noted, it is essential that we equip ourselves with the tools necessary to mitigate risk and enhance public safety. This Bill, by introducing a Protect duty, sends a clear message that safeguarding our citizens in public spaces is a shared responsibility. As the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Hogan-Howe, noted, this legislation completes the triangle of counterterrorism law and, indeed, it gives substance to what was previously a thinner field in the Prepare and Protect arena, as identified by my noble friend Lord Parkinson. All in all, this Bill is a significant step, but its practical implications warrant close scrutiny.

One of the most encouraging aspects of this Bill is its emphasis on partnership. Public safety cannot be the sole preserve of law enforcement or the intelligence services. Venue operators, local authorities and private security firms, together with the owners of establishments covered by this Bill, all have a role to play. However, to make this partnership effective, we must ensure that all stakeholders are properly equipped to meet the challenge. This includes access to training, resources and clear guidance on best practices. Prior to implementation, the Government should establish a comprehensive support framework to help businesses and organisations meet their obligations under this legislation. I understand that this is planned, but we have yet to have the detail. I have no doubt that the Minister will provide further detail on that in due course.

As was so well put by my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and a number of other noble Lords around the House, there are significant concerns about the identification of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator in the context of this Bill. It may be that there are other bodies—for example, local authorities—which would be better at providing this regulation, and there may be an argument that it is consistent with the roles in respect of licensed premises. However, that can be explored further in Committee. At the least, as moved in the other place by my honourable friend Alicia Kearns, we believe that there should be a report reviewing the role of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator, to be laid before Parliament 18 months after Royal Assent. This would allow stakeholders to review and provide input on the appropriateness of the Security Industry Authority enforcing the measures in this Bill —in due course again reviewing whether their enforcement is done properly and to appropriate standards and ensuring that people attending venues are safe.

We also need to be alive to preventing the expansion in costs caused by gold-plating the provisions in these Bills in accordance with suggestions by consultants, about which we have heard so much across the House this evening and was particularly noted by my noble friend Lady May and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

In passing, I endorse the call by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the House be shown at least outlines of the draft guidance, which is suggested in the Bill at Clause 12(2)(a), to be generated by the SIA, and the guidance to be generated by the Secretary of State in Clause 27. I also endorse the call that the Government provide an indication as to whether such guidance would be sectoral, for the reasons identified by my noble friend Lord Parkinson in his speech.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, stated, the Bill provides an opportunity to leverage technology in our fight against terrorism. Advances in surveillance systems, AI and data analysis can play a critical role in identifying threats before they materialise. I therefore encourage the Government to look at ways to encourage innovation in this area. Could we, for example, incentivise the adoption of security technology? Could we establish a recognition scheme for businesses that go above and beyond in their security measures and in relation to measures and steps taken to address the problems in communication, as noted, again, by my noble friend Lady May and others? Such initiatives would not only enhance public safety but encourage a proactive security culture.

As my noble friend Lady Newlove made clear, one of the hallmarks of our society is the freedom of our citizens to gather and enjoy public spaces without fear. It is vital that, in our pursuit of public safety, we do not inadvertently stifle the very freedoms which we seek to protect. If I may echo the powerful points made in different ways by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that is another way in which terrorism wins. This Bill must not lead to an environment of excessive regulation or create barriers for community events. It is all a balancing act.

I therefore ask the Minister to clarify how the Government intend to monitor and evaluate the impact of this legislation, post commencement, on civil society and volunteering. This goes directly to the issue which I have no doubt we will explore in Committee as to the threshold. I agree with many of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The House will want to look both at the threshold and at the power of the Secretary of State to lower that threshold.

Terrorism knows no borders, and our approach to security must reflect this reality. While the Bill focuses on domestic venues, we must not lose sight of the international dimension. The UK has a proud history of leadership in counterterrorism co-operation. How will the measures in this Bill align with broader international efforts? Are we sharing best practices in relation to the protection of public spaces with our allies and learning from their experiences? This exploration of factors is all part of the cool-headed approach encouraged by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and I would endorse such an approach in Committee in this House.

Finally, I highlight the importance of community resilience. No piece of legislation can be a substitute for an engaged and vigilant society. This Bill provides an opportunity to foster greater awareness and preparedness at grass-roots level. Simple measures such as public awareness campaigns and community training programmes can make a significant difference. Empowering ordinary citizens to recognise and report suspicious activity is one of the most effective ways to prevent attacks.

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill is now a necessary piece of legislation. It reflects our commitment as a party to safeguarding the public and addressing the challenges of the modern age. However, as my noble friend Lord Frost observed, we must ensure that this Bill is implemented with care and foresight by fostering partnerships, embracing innovation, safeguarding freedoms and preserving community volunteering. We can create a security framework that is not only robust but reflects our values. We on these Benches look forward to working with colleagues across the House, as we have done hitherto, to ensure that this Bill delivers proportionately the protections that all our citizens deserve.

I have a few final questions to pose to the Minister. What assurances can the Government provide that businesses and venues will have sufficient time, importantly, and resources to comply with the new requirement before the penalties are enforced? Will implementation take place only when the relevant authority, possibly the SIA, is able to cope with the implementation of the provisions in the Bill? It may be that 24 months, although it is a period that has found some favour in the House, may not be long enough for the SIA to arrange its affairs such that it can administer the system. Is it right that the regulator would adopt a pragmatic and understanding approach to enforcement, particularly at smaller venues, at the outset of the commencement of the Bill’s provisions? Secondly, will there be specific government-funded training programmes to help smaller venues understand and meet their obligations under the Bill? Thirdly, is it intended that the new measures will integrate with other existing counterterrorism efforts on intelligence sharing and operational co-ordination?

On a specific point, there is a provision in the Bill for enhanced-tier premises to submit revised security plans to the SIA whenever they are changed or created. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson noted, there are concerns about the routine provision of these highly sensitive documents to the SIA. Would it not be better simply to have a dip-sample approach, such that every premises has to update its plan and make it available for a spot check by the SIA? This would have the benefit of reducing the administrative burden on both the participants and the SIA. No doubt that can also be explored in Committee. Finally, will the Government keep these measures under review to ensure they continue to strike the right balance?

While I look forward to the Minister’s responses, I also look forward to continuing the co-operative and iterative cross-party process that the Bill has hitherto enjoyed. I am sure that it will achieve its vital aims effectively and fairly in the end. It is a matter of grave regret that we need to have such a Bill, but it is clear, given the present and enduring terror threat, that we need such a Bill.

Defending Democracy Taskforce

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I hope I can assure my noble friend that the Government take the issue of deepfakes, AI and misrepresentation extremely seriously. We will be looking at that as part of the task-force remit. There are also powers within the Online Safety Act, and we are certainly reflecting on the points mentioned by my noble friend because it is important that we have integrity in our elections. People need to understand what that integrity means. It does not mean deepfakes purporting to be somebody or something they are not.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, we are told that the Defending Democracy Taskforce will report in due course. Can the Minister guarantee to us that that report will be provided in good time for the May elections?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is a continuing process and, as the noble Lord will know, the task force was established when his Government were in office and continues now. It is an ongoing process; we are looking at this and will produce lessons whenever they are forthcoming. In relation to the local elections in May, we have extended Operation Bridger, which gives support, if required, to Members of Parliament and Members of this House and key individuals who face elections in May. That operation, Operation Ford, is available to give support to individuals who face election at any time when parliamentary elections are not forthcoming.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I second my noble friend’s welcome for Christmas and new year—in fact, I third his welcome, because I think we are all ready for that break in due course.

He mentioned the contribution of many people who came to this country from our Commonwealth partners abroad, and who have contributed to building the Britain that I grew up in. It is important that we recognise their contribution. People from both the Sikh community and the Windrush community have helped make the Britain that I am proud of, and I wish them well. I cannot commit to a statue today, but I note his representations and will certainly reflect on them. We hope that, however it is done, the recognition will be made.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, when I was the Minister responsible for the Windrush compensation scheme, some of the best of the Home Office’s staff worked for it. It is a very impressive team based in Sheffield, and I recommend that the Minister visits its office and sees its work. On that basis, I also welcome the decision to have a single point of contact; I was keen to try to achieve that, so I am very glad that they have managed to do it. What is the current average time for processing a new claim to the Windrush compensation scheme?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord has got me there—if he allows me, I will reflect on that. Before I go on the welcome Christmas and new year break, I will make a telephone call to Sheffield and encourage the team to inform him, via me, of that delay in due course. I hope that, between us, we can have a very merry new year and resolve these issues for the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the others who deserve that recognition and resolution.

Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, the move-on period was fixed at 28 days under the previous Labour Government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, noted, she has been raising questions about this valiantly since at least 2016. I can certainly confirm that my ankles too bear the scars of the Lister terrier pack.

The last Government were aware of the issues raised in this Bill and the issues that arise in the question of the move-on period from asylum accommodation. As long ago as 2022, my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, then the Home Office Minister, observed from the Dispatch Box that the then Government’s focus was on implementing practical changes with the aim of securing better outcomes. In October 2023, I answered a Written Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in relation to the move-on period. I noted that the Home Office was reliant on people who are no longer eligible for asylum support leaving the asylum accommodation estate as quickly as possible and that this number was increasing due to the significant efforts that were under way to clear the asylum backlog—which of course has been reducing both under the previous Government and this Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, noted.

I also said in that Answer that individuals should make plans to move on from asylum support as quickly as possible and that the Home Office offers support through Migrant Help or its partner organisation in doing this. This includes providing advice on accessing the labour market and applying for universal credit, signposting to local authorities for assistance with housing, and signposting that newly recognised refugees are entitled to housing assistance from the local authority and will be treated as a priority need if they have children or are considered vulnerable.

I further noted that individuals do not need to wait for their BRP to make a claim for benefits and that they are encouraged to do so as early as possible. That was followed, in December last year, by my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s answer to an Oral Question on this topic. He said that the prescribed 28-day period

“is long-standing in our legislation”,—[Official Report, 18/12/23; col. 2036.]

and that increasing it would “exacerbate” the “huge strain” on the asylum accommodation estate.

This problem has not gone away. It has since worsened, not least—I hesitate to be political here—because of the increased small boat crossings, of 20,000, since the general election. The Government’s decision to increase to a 56-day period as a pilot measure is viewed with some concern, as is this Private Member’s Bill. I am particularly concerned that this move is being funded by a transfer of funds from the refugee employability programme which, as the Sunday Times of last Sunday informs us, was scrapped by a decision of the Prime Minister. The refugee employability programme, which I have already raised in this House, was designed to help integrate refugees into our society and to provide English language training. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is the case.

We must not forget that one consequence of this change is that there are fewer resources to provide accommodation for those who need it and are already living in our country. It is an exercise in the allocation of scarce resources. Contrary to the Labour Government’s manifesto pledge to end the use of hotels, taxpayers are now spending about £8 million a day on hotel costs. This policy and this Bill will surely drive up that figure.

In all the speeches I have heard today, there has been a striking absence of the discussion of the cost of these measures to the Home Office budget. Can the Minister please set out the cost to the Home Office of, first, the extension of this trial period and, secondly, making the proposed change permanent? Thirdly, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the legal basis for the extension to 56 days during the trial period, given that the figure remains unamended in the 2000 regulations.

Police Act 1997 (Authorisations to Interfere with Property: Relevant Offence) Regulations 2025

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome and support both these orders. The first statutory instrument adds offences under the National Security Act to the list of relevant offences in the Police Act 1997, enabling the use of counter-drone powers by police and other authorised officials. This means they will have the power to use counter-drone technology and to take action against unmanned aircraft or drones which are being operated in an area around a prohibited place or a cordoned area without authorisation.

As has already been noted by noble Lords, we have seen an exponential increase in the use of drones in crime. It makes perfect sense to empower the police to tackle this rising threat. It is consistent with the evolving threat reflected in the debates on the National Security Act, which passed through this House last year.

I turn to the draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025, which are also supported on this side of the House. As the Minister explained, this is a consequential amendment to the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019. One can understand how these incidents occur, and it is clearly appropriate to make the order that is sought.

The National Security Act was a landmark achievement for the previous Conservative Government and passed with a good measure of parliamentary support across both this House and the other place. It reflected the evolving national security threat that our country faces. It places Britain at the forefront of efforts to protect our citizens, businesses, institutions and defence establishments from the ever-changing threats posed by hostile actors, cyber threats and covert intelligence measures. The only question I have for the Minister is: when does he estimate that the National Security Act will be fully in force?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the contributions from His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for both orders, which are relatively straightforward and, I hope, totally uncontroversial. I hope that this House today, as well as the House of Commons in due course, will support them.

I will start with the extremely important and valid points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. The first relates to the potential for individuals not to know about a site or for the site sensitivity not to be obvious. The Government have considered that, where appropriate, steps should be taken to ensure that all prohibited places are clearly signposted for the benefit of the public. They will remain discretionary for a time, because it will not always be appropriate or practical for security reasons, but the prohibited places offences under the National Security Act 2023 take account of this. Whether or not signage is in place depends on the circumstances, and that would then determine whether or not an offence has been committed. For most places, signage is in place. There will be a limited number of places where there is no signage—but, again, it is not appropriate, even today, to talk about what types of prohibited places they may be, for reasons that are obvious.

The National Security Act 2023 protects our most sensitive sites against activity, which is why we welcomed it when it was introduced by the previous Government. Section 7 of the Act sets out what the prohibited places are, including certain Crown land in the UK, the sovereign base areas, defence establishments, and areas for the defence of a foreign state or the extraction of material for UK defence purposes, as well as sites owned or controlled by the UK intelligence services and used for their functions. Such prohibited places are inherently sensitive and therefore may be at risk. An offence might be committed under Section 5 if a person carries out unauthorised conduct in relation to that prohibited place. As has been mentioned, there would be a defence under legislation for that.

The noble Baroness asked, quite rightly, who has the responsibility of dealing with unidentified drones around these sites. The police forces play a major initial part in protecting UK defence sites from drone misuse, but responsibility for that misuse will depend on the site and its specific circumstances. The Home Office is trying to support the development of the national police counter-drone capability, which has taken place over the last five years. The SI provides greater assurances and outlines circumstances where action can be taken in relation to cordoned-off drone areas.

The noble Baroness specifically mentioned Chinese matériel. The National Police Chiefs’ Council is looking at, and collaborating with, military partners and other state drone operators to make sure that we align security standards. That means that we are looking at a national procurement framework that includes drones as part of this, and we are engaging with police forces to ensure that the suppliers added to the framework meet the required security standards.

Again, that will determine whether drones of any particular provenance are allowed to be used by UK police forces and others. That security assessment will, I hope, reassure the noble Baroness.

The final question, from the noble Lord, was about the full implementation of the National Security Act. I have to say to him: when parliamentary time allows and when government decisions have been taken. I will inform him when that moment is due to arrive.

Guns Manufactured by 3D Printers

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am not aware that the Government are relying on a Private Member’s Bill. There is a Private Member’s Bill coming forward, but it is not a Government-sponsored Bill; it is being undertaken by a Back-Bencher in the House of Commons. We will reflect on that legislation, look at what is needed and make sure that, if there are loopholes, we tie them up. Ultimately, legislation is there to say that firearms are illegal, and there are severe penalties for the ownership and distribution of those illegal firearms. If there are gaps in the legislation along the lines that noble Lords have mentioned, we will review that in due course next year.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords have heard the strong view of the House, from the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Hogan-Howe, among others, that there is a gap in the criminal canon for the downloading of software to make 3D-printed firearms. Clearly, it would be appropriate for the Home Office immediately to launch a consultation on making it an offence to download the software to create 3D-printed firearms. Will the Minister commit to initiating such a consultation immediately?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will take that as a representation to the Government about their proposals for next year. The Government are exploring all legislative options to criminalise the possession and supply of 3D-printed firearms templates. We are looking at that now; I hope the noble Lord will have patience in this matter.

Police Officers: Recruitment

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what steps they are taking to recruit 13,000 additional police officers, and (2) what assessment they have made of the impact of a proposed reduction of Metropolitan Police officer numbers on this commitment.

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

As part of our safer streets mission, the Government will restore neighbourhood policing by putting police back on the beat, with 13,000 additional police officers, police community support officers and special constables in neighbourhood policing roles across England and Wales, including in London. Last week, the Prime Minister announced a £100 million fund which will be made available in 2025-26 to support the initial delivery of the 13,000 additional neighbourhood police and details of delivery for the coming year will be confirmed at the provisional police funding settlement later this month.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, the media report that the Metropolitan Police is going to cut 2,300 officers and 400 staff next year because of a £450 million funding shortfall. This clearly will be devastating for the service. Does the Minister agree that the Government will therefore struggle to hit their target of 13,000 new police officers? Does this news put the Government’s mission-led strategy at risk?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government’s target of 13,000 police, police and community support officers and special constables will be met to ensure an increase in neighbourhood policing by the end of this Parliament. We have put the funding of £100 million in place next year to ensure that resource is in place to meet that initial mission which we will complete and be judged on by the end of this Parliament. The police settlement has not yet been determined. It will be announced next week, before Christmas. It will be consulted on between Christmas and January and it will be a matter for approval by Parliament by February. As yet, much of the discussion is speculation. I simply say to the noble Lord that his record still needs scrutiny and he needs to remember that his Government reduced police officer numbers by 20,000, reduced the number of PCSOs from over 16,000 to 8,000 and reduced the number of special constables from 20,000 to 8,500 in the course of their term of office. We will meet our targets. We will meet our mission statement and he will judge us on that.