Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting)
Dan Jarvis Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I apologise, but I may have inadvertently given a date rather than a time. This panel lasts until 2.20 pm.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Q
I am conscious that some, but not all, members of the Committee have spent quite a lot of time thinking about the nature of the threat that we face. You are supremely well placed, given your experience, to talk about the nature of the threat. I know that there will be limitations on what you can say. However, it would be incredibly helpful for the Committee if, based on your extensive experience of policing, you were able to say something about the nature of the terrorist threat that we face today and how that compares with, say, 10 years ago. Can you also say something about your assessment of the legislation we are dealing with and its benefits?
Matt Jukes: Thank you very much, Minister, and I thank the Committee for the opportunity. Before I move on to the threat, I would like to acknowledge all those who have been directly affected by the reality of terrorism in the UK and particularly to remember the victims of the attacks that have given rise to the movement towards the Bill. I pay particular tribute to Figen Murray for her tireless campaigning to bring us to this point.
The terrorist threat in the UK remains substantial and across the years that I have been involved, we have moved from a situation where people once needed to travel to acquire terrorist training, methodologies and equipment to now being able to carry out that kind of research and reconnaissance and acquire terrorist knowledge from their bedrooms, increasingly driven by the internet. The most pronounced feature of our work of late has been low sophistication actors who are self-initiated. They are sometimes called lone wolves or lone actors, but are in fact often connected to small groups of individuals online and often inspired by terrorist rhetoric, which endures from decades of presence of that kind of material, now in the online space.
We see three principal forms of ideology driving radicalisation and risk. First, there is those who have been inspired by or are directly connected to organisations such as Daesh/ISIS or al-Qaeda—so-called Islamist extremist terrorism. Secondly, we have seen over recent years the growing presence of extreme right-wing terrorism in our casework. Thirdly, there is an increasing number of cases of individuals who are mixed, unclear or unstable in their ideology and who seek inspiration in the material online from a range of different sources, sometimes mixing and moving across those ideologies.
In contrast to the previous decade, where we saw the rise of the Syrian caliphate and travel overseas, in recent years we have seen less travel overseas to carry out acts of terrorism and we have worked incredibly hard internationally and in partnership to reduce the movement of terrorist foreign fighters. One consequence of that has been that all the major terrorist organisations, which seem at times very remote from the UK, speak in terms of attacks being carried out where you are—effectively, if you cannot travel, then you might consider an attack where you are—and we have seen examples of that ideology following through.
The major terrorist organisations, which have been significantly degraded since 2014 and the rise and fall of the Syrian caliphate, should be acknowledged, as the director general of MI5 has said, as being down but not out. Although I have spoken about the numerous, dispersed individuals who are inspired to act on self-initiation, we are seeing signals of growing and re-emerging sophistication in international terrorism. The most obvious instance of that was the Crocus City Hall attack in Moscow earlier this year.
I will finish by scaling all of that. I am fortunate to work with a range of partners, communities, victims and survivors. Our core teams in counter-terrorism policing are currently investigating, in 800 separate cases, thousands of individuals who have expressed some intent to pursue a terrorist cause. Every year, 6,000 to 7,000 people are added to the roster of those who have been referred into the prevention of violent extremism casework through the Prevent lens.
All of that takes us to the question of how to mitigate those threats. We mitigate them through the pursuit of those who are already on our radar effectively, working closely with MI5. We mitigate those risks by trying to get ahead of them, with the prevention of violent extremism through the Prevent programme and elements of deradicalisation. It is absolutely critical that, in the conditions I have just described, we are able to protect the potential targets of terrorism and prepare communities, businesses and society to respond when terrorist events take place.
The terrorist threat now is harder to spot and harder to stop than it has ever been. Therefore, however effective our investigations are, we have to be ready to prepare and protect the potential targets of terrorism. To do that, we think that the proposed measures in the Bill—Martyn’s law—are proportionate, and highly likely to be effective.
We enjoy extremely positive relationships with a range of sectors—they are giving evidence this afternoon—but the measures will move us forward from a mode of co-operation, encouragement and collaboration, to giving communities, customers and society the confidence that there is a base level of preparedness and protection in place in the venues captured by the Bill. While we have enjoyed those relationships, we know there is a great deal of inconsistency around the country, and we would not want to see in any sense a postcode lottery for those who deserve protection.
I will finish with a small illustration. You have probably already heard, and will continue to hear, fear and concerns about the proportionality, cost and scale of the impact of the Bill. Given the terrible events of 2017, it is worth remembering that in Borough market during the London Bridge attack, the simple act of encouraging customers to remain in a premises and locking the door saved lives. At the level of intervention that is proposed in the majority of premises, the simple preparedness of staff to take low-cost or no-cost interventions can absolutely contribute to saving lives in the UK. For that reason, counter-terrorism is full square behind the Bill.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Q
Matt Jukes: The foundational incident for these conversations is the attack on Manchester Arena in May 2017. The evidence of the inquiry was clear that with a better prepared environment there, responders and those working on the premises could have changed the outcomes, whether by preventing an attack that evening, or mitigating its effects. One factor that has been discussed is that we will only capture a range of premises. We might touch on thresholds, but we might capture a range of premises and not all public spaces. One thing I felt quite confident in judging is that preparing businesses in these different tiers to be more security-minded, preparing people who work in those businesses to be more security aware and planful around the prospects of safety will raise overall the readiness of communities for attack.
Even though some of the attacks that we have seen over recent years have taken place in public spaces in open areas and would not be captured by this legislation, we might have seen trauma kits more readily accessible in adjacent premises. We might have seen people who were travelling to or from work who were more ready to play their part in responding as part of the community response to those incidents, and we might have been able to mitigate some of the risks of the spread of those attacks in the way I described in London bridge.
We know that where it has worked best, a combination of vigilance, preparedness and physical security can all play their part. We absolutely see both deterrent and mitigation of risk. Based on our experience of attacks over recent years, it would have to include those at major events. You are going to hear some more evidence about that. We know that in an enduring sense, major and public events remain a focus of terrorist planning.
The Chair
Thank you all. For this oral evidence session we have until 2.50 pm. Can the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Neil Sharpley: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Neil Sharpley. I am the chair for the Federation of Small Businesses covering Home Office and Ministry of Justice policy, and so embrace security industry and terrorism aspects as well as crime.
Mike Pearce: Good afternoon, Chair and Committee. My name is Mike Pearce. I am the director of security for Land Securities, otherwise known as Landsec. I am also chair of the Counter Terrorism Business Information Exchange.
John Frost: Good afternoon. I am John Frost, deputy chair of the Counter Terrorism Business Information Exchange. I also head up business continuity and safety at Marks & Spencer and lead the Retailers Business Continuity Association.
Dan Jarvis
Q
Neil Sharpley: The simple answer to that is yes. The comments we made previously have been taken into account. We think that for any piece of new legislation that is breaking new ground, which we of course support and our own research shows that there is a need for information to be disseminated to businesses about terrorism risk, the threshold has been set at the right level initially. We expect that it will be reviewed in due course as the Bill, or the Act when it becomes that, beds in, but we feel that the parameters have been set correctly at present.
The concerns we expressed previously were about very small venues, community venues, local societies and things of that sort. The one thing that is not touched on in the Bill, which I should perhaps mention initially, is what the role of local authorities should be in helping to achieve the aims of the Bill. We all agree that the aims are to ameliorate the risk as far as terrorism is concerned. I am sure it has been observed before that many open public areas are surrounded by a plethora of smaller businesses, many of which would never be in scope of the Bill but all of which, because of the current threat vectors, might possibly be at risk. My question to you is, should this Bill also contain some provision that requires local authorities to assess the risks of those open areas and to embark on some sort of training exercise in respect of the smaller businesses surrounding them, whether or not they fall within the scope of the Bill in terms of specific obligations? That is something that needs attention and something we have touched on a number of times before, and I think the local authority representative who gave evidence before the Bill was launched also touched on that. It seems to be an area where, especially in smaller towns and cities, a considerable amount of good work could be done to reduce the risk beyond what is currently envisaged within the Bill.
In general terms, we welcome the changes. We think the Bill will take some time to bed in. Businesses will become accustomed to the responsibilities and, in due course, those responsibilities may not be regarded in such an onerous way as they might be regarded now for any new piece of legislation. It may also be possible, with due consultation, to change the parameters, but that is a matter for the future; it is a matter for research and for data, and we need to do what is necessary to ameliorate the risk, not what is unnecessary but looks good in regulatory terms. We need to address the specific risks—the real risks—themselves, rather than create a system that does not target those risks as extensively as I think could be done.
Tim Roca
Q
John Frost: In our organisation, regardless of any capacities, we would adopt an approach across all of our locations. The rationale for that would be that, having suffered incidents of this nature in sites, stores or premises that are below the threshold that has been set out, we would feel that there would be a moral obligation, as well as the legislative obligation, to equip all of our stores. Therefore, we will have our own inspectorate across stores in the enhanced tiers, but we will ensure that our management teams are trained, engaged, educated and equipped proportionately to respond to acts of this nature in every site that we operate in.
The Chair
For this oral evidence session, we will have until 3.10 pm. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Cameron Yorston: Hello everyone, and thank you for having us. I am Cameron Yorston, a director at the Sport and Recreation Alliance.
Max Nicholls: Hi everyone—I am Max Nicholls, policy manager at the Sport and Recreation Alliance.
Dan Jarvis
Q
Secondly, we would like to get a sense of your views on the proposed changes in relation to the addition of the “reasonably practicable” standard. Again, we hope you will welcome that change. Your sense of those two changes would be very much appreciated.
Max Nicholls: I am happy to take that question. We certainly welcome the flexibility introduced by the change around capacity calculations, the ability to look at things such as historic attendance data and a wider range of measures that may impact how many people are on site. We have some sites in the sport and recreation sector that are quite large in their overall footprint, but which in reality have fairly few people in them at any one time. Previously, there was a concern that if a calculation based purely on footprint was to be introduced, lots of those premises could be drawn into the enhanced tier. We certainly welcome that change and the flexibility around how many people are on site based on the different criteria set out in the briefing note.
Cameron Yorston: The answer to the second question on the introduction of the “reasonably practicable” judgment is that we welcome it entirely. I also wanted to kick off a broader point that we, and the sector more broadly, welcome the intention of the Bill, as the gentlemen before us said. I think everyone can be supportive of the principle of trying to make venues in specific sectors more resilient across the country.
I suspect you will also have heard this throughout the day. What is missing—or rather, where we still need further clarity and guidance—is greater clarity on the practical implementation of the Bill and on how, in practice, that “reasonably practicable” judgment will apply. I am more than happy to elaborate and illustrate with specific examples of where it is not clear that the spirit and intention of the Bill, and those exclusions or measures you reference, will bite in the appropriate way. There is a risk of unintended consequences.
Sonia Kumar
Q
Max Nicholls: I will make an opening point generally on community sports venues and organisations. Across the country, we have roughly 100,000 grassroots sports clubs; as many on the Committee will be aware, these are predominantly volunteer-run, and do important work in the community to get people active and deliver community cohesion, as well as delivering all these other social benefits driven by participation in sport and physical activity.
We know that there are lots of challenges around recruiting and retaining volunteers, specifically post-covid. One common thing our members tell us is that volunteer recruitment is one of the key barriers to delivering more sport and physical activity. As Cameron alluded to, something we are keen to work with the Committee and Government on, through to the production of guidance, is supporting those volunteers in community-based organisations; we want to understand what their environment requirements are and give them as much information and guidance as possible to support them in the undertaking of their requirements.
As you say, that will look very different in different parts of the country. We represent a huge plethora of sports and recreational activities where the clubs and activities are very different. Having the flexibility to understand what is appropriate and practicable for those different organisations is important.
Cameron Yorston: To add to that briefly, and to reiterate the earlier point, we want to avoid unintended consequences. It is quite hard as at now to envisage all the specific impacts that might emerge from the legislation, given there is clearly a need for greater clarity and guidance.
The overarching point is that we do not want to impose any potentially prohibitive burdens or requirements on volunteers who are already very stretched, as that risks reducing the provision of sport, physical activity and recreation against the backdrop of the country’s wider challenges, such as issues with public health and a struggling NHS. What we do not want to do is inadvertently reduce people’s ability to participate in sport, recreation and physical activity, because there are adverse unintended consequences to that.
The Chair
We have Kate Nicholls OBE, the chief executive of UKHospitality, in the Committee Room with us, and we are joined via Zoom by Mike Kill, the chief executive of the Night Time Industries Association. We have until 3.40 pm for this oral evidence session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Kate Nicholls: I am Kate Nicholls, chief executive at UKHospitality, the national trade body for hospitality businesses right the way through from a single-site independent pub, bar, nightclub, restaurant or hotel to the largest national chains. Our membership also includes some large event venues and exhibition centres.
Mike Kill: My name is Mike Kill. I am the chief executive of the Night Time Industries Association, which represents businesses that operate in the ecosystem between 6 pm and 6 am. Broadly, we represent pubs, bars, restaurants, clubs, live music venues, events, casinos and the like that operate within that period.
Dan Jarvis
Good afternoon to you both. Thank you very much for appearing before the Committee today: you have a particularly valuable insight and we are looking forward to hearing from you.
We heard earlier from Mayor Andy Burnham, who was very positive about the impact that these measures are already having on the hospitality sector in Greater Manchester. I want to get a sense of whether that accords with your analysis of the impact of these measures on the hospitality sector nationally. It was very positive to hear the good news story from Greater Manchester, with the way it has been embraced by the hospitality businesses there, but it would be good to get your sense of whether there should be the same approach right around the country.
Kate Nicholls: I do not think anybody in the hospitality sector or the wider live music and events sector could have experienced the recent incidents we have had—not just in Manchester, but in London—and just sat back and waited for legislation to ensure that our customers, our public and, most importantly, our staff were safe. Since those events, and since the learnings coming out of the inquiry, we have been working collectively with our members to look at how we could take forward this protect duty within the context of our existing licensing regime—the Licensing Act 2003 puts on us a legal obligation to ensure we take account of public safety. As part of that, businesses in city centre locations, in particular, have worked with their local police forces and counter-terrorism to ensure that steps are already being taken to look at measures that could be encompassed within this duty.
I should also say that we are working to ensure that that is taken right down to the very smallest venues and that lessons are learned there, so that we have a basic level of security within the public realm. While Manchester is leading the way, quite unsurprisingly, we are working hard to make sure that we are doing the same thing and carrying out those lessons and delivering that in practice.
Sonia Kumar
Q
Mike Kill: With regard to the businesses that we represent—particularly some of the small and medium-sized enterprises and businesses that are slightly smaller and, as you can appreciate, on the lower tier—there is, without a doubt, a resonating concern around the cost base given the current economic climate.
A key area of concern for us, because the industry has a high turnover of staff, is that that continual training of staff within that high turnover is going to represent a level of cost. When we looked at things like the impact assessment, we felt that without a doubt, given the infrastructure, systems, processes and considerations at either level—whether on the standard or the enhanced tier—there is a concern that this will be onerous cost-wise, particularly around staffing levels. There is also concern with regard to certain shifts around things like the national living wage, which will drive that forward as well.
From the perspective of the industry, there is still a resonating concern that there will be an undue burden on small venues and community groups in particular, which, in the current economic climate, that could lead to further challenging situations. That is not to take away from the importance of safety; however, the reality is that we have to be honest about our position moving forward. So there are resonating concerns, but people are taking positive steps forward.
Just to reiterate and support Kate’s comments, there has been a very positive reaction to the Bill—it is very well supported. I believe the right action to move forward is happening across the sector as a whole at varying levels, but Manchester is without a doubt leading that, given the circumstances represented there.
The Chair
Are there any other questions for the panel? I want to ensure I do not miss anybody again. If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
I understand that we may be so far ahead of ourselves that not all the witnesses for the next panel are here.
Dan Jarvis
Dame Siobhain, may I propose that we change the order of the panel of witnesses, while remaining within the provisions of the programme order?
The Chair
Does anyone in the Committee object? No.
Examination of Witnesses
Jeremy Leggett gave evidence.
The Chair
Our next witnesses are Jon Collins, chief executive of LIVE, and Melvin Benn, spokesman for the Concert Promoters Association. This is now panel 10 of the oral evidence session, and we have until 4.30 pm. Could the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?
Jon Collins: My name is Jon Collins, and I am the chief executive of LIVE, which is the live music industry body in the UK. We pull together 15 different associations from across live music, including the Music Venue Trust, which represents the smallest music venues in the country, the British Association of Concert Halls, the National Arenas Association—taking us upscale—and the Association of Independent Festivals. The Concert Promoters Association, which Melvin is representing, also sits on my board, alongside representatives from artists, agents, managers and ticket retailers—right the way through.
Melvin Benn: My name is Melvin Benn, and I am the managing Director of Festival Republic. I am here today speaking on behalf of the Concert Promoters Association. Festival Republic is the largest festival producer and promoter in the UK, producing and promoting festivals such as Reading, Leeds, Latitude, Wireless and Wilderness, concert series in Gunnersbury park, Crystal Palace park and Finsbury park and so on.
Dan Jarvis
Q
Jon Collins: Thank you for those comments. We are attempting to be a critical friend to strengthen the Bill as it moves through the House. The first recognition is the role of licensing in our industry. Every one of the venues and festivals I have talked about will have a premises licence, be that for the event or for the venue. There are four objectives under that piece of legislation that relate to public safety, the prevention of crime and disorder and so on. We have concerns about how the requirements under this legislation will or will not align with the licence conditions that our venues and festivals will be operating within.
There is a risk of some potential conflict—particularly as the licensing process is often a multi-year process, where the local authority gets to understand the venue and the festival and comes back year in, year out. There will be the development of security advisory group sessions and the development of an event management plan. That is a long, well-developed process, but now an inspector could potentially visit just before the event and say, “I am not satisfied with all of this; you need to take these steps.” The first thing we would note is that there is no requirement for them to be reasonably practicable in the Bill, whereas the requirement for operators is to take reasonably practicable steps. We think an amendment that adds that expectation to the inspectorate would be useful.
Beyond that, could the guidance for this legislation be mirrored in the section 182 guidance for the Licensing Act 2003 in England and Wales, and its equivalents in other countries and regions? Could we have something in the legislation to say that a requirement from the inspectorate cannot conflict with a licence condition? If there was conflict, if something happened and we had to get into the whys and wherefores, there would potentially be legal considerations there: “Well, I was compliant with this legislation, but you’re saying I am not compliant over here.” There are some challenges there that we think can be addressed as the Bill moves forward and the guidance is created.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Q
Jon Collins: The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 is similar to the 2003 Act in its provisions. It could be, for example, a venue having a condition that says they will search everybody on entry. That will necessarily create a queue outside the premises, but it might be that from a counter-terrorism perspective you need to get everybody inside the premises as quickly as possible. Then you have a direct conflict, and the operator is trying to square that circle.
Melvin Benn: As Jon said, the two licensing Acts in England and Wales and in Scotland are very similar. In Scotland, particularly for outdoor events, licences are done on an annual basis, as opposed to a permanent premises licence as it is in England and Wales.
However, there is potential for conflict where a venue, an annual festival or an annual series of concerts has been in monthly meetings with safety advisory groups and has done all the preparation on the basis of the advice from the safety advisory group—who of course take advice from the local police force and the local CT SecCo, or counter-terrorism security co-ordinator, and so on—and the organisers will have their plan for the evening, or the festival, the weekend, or the next month or six months of the venue, all costed and budgeted, and then the regulator’s representative may come in and say, “I fundamentally disagree with that, and I need you to do this.” It appears that they have supreme powers. Certainly, in the way it is written, as Jon said, there is no factor of reasonableness in it, which we have to have. Parliament expects us to be reasonable in our endeavours, in our searching and so on. This does not have that factor of reasonableness, and it could cause conflict. It could be that the regulator and the safety advisory group have differences of opinion and we get caught in between, with what could be very significant financial penalties, not knowing quite which way to go.
Tim Roca
Q
Gary Stephen: I am aware that in some parts of the security industry, the SIA has a poor reputation when it comes to the enforcement of licensed premises. But from the information provided to me, and with the creation of a separate entity within the SIA to manage the enforcement of new legislation, it is comforting. Looking at the alternatives, it seems like the most practical and logical appointment on the face of it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Dan Jarvis Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Fraud accounts for 39% of all crime, according to the England and Wales crime survey, and it was the most common type of crime in the year ending March 2024. It is a crime that destroys lives and we are committed to working with law enforcement and industry to better protect the public and businesses from the fraud threats they face.
Phil Brickell
We know that 39% of all reported crime is fraud, and many of those offences are carried out by serious organised crime gangs. The National Crime Agency is tasked with protecting my constituents from foreign origin fraud and serious organised crime, but a recent report from Spotlight on Corruption found that after 14 years of Conservative government the NCA was “on its knees”, spending millions of pounds on consultants and failing to retain investigators. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the NCA is able to protect my constituents from financial crime?
Dan Jarvis
Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the NCA for its operational leadership and its focus on tackling economic crime. Through collaborating with jurisdictions at risk, we make it harder for organised crime groups to target UK victims. The national fraud squad, run by the NCA’s national economic crime centre, and the City of London police, with 400 new officers by next year, have boosted the ability to tackle the highest-harm international offenders. We are working to deliver a workforce strategy to address retention challenges for fraud. This is important work that impacts on all our constituents and it is a priority area for this Government.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister will know that online harm goes beyond fraud. It can impact people’s lives through suicide sites that signpost people to unregulated sites that lead them to a place none of us want to see them go to. He will know that the European Commission is currently investigating Facebook and Instagram. The United States is introducing the kids online safety Act, which, if it is passed by Congress, will make a huge impact. Why is it left to parents in the United Kingdom—in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, wherever they are—to take their own litigation against these big tech companies? Is it not time the Government did more?
Dan Jarvis
We are doing more, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is a key priority for the Department, not least because 70% of fraud has an international element, particularly online. Approximately one in 18 adults were victims of fraud in the year ending March 2024. The noble Lord Hanson leads on this for the Department, and he and I are working closely with other Government Departments, including the Treasury and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. This is a priority and we need to do more.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Sir David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
When last year the now Home Secretary called on the then Conservative Government to use counter-terror legislation to proscribe organisations such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, she will remember that I supported her publicly. Since then, Iran and the IRGC have got even more dangerous. Has she changed her mind, and if so, why?
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I gently point out that he is asking the Government to do something that the previous Government did not do in 14 years. I can say to him that we are leading work on countering Iranian state threats, making use of the full breadth and expertise of our intelligence services and law enforcement agencies. We keep the list of proscribed organisations under very close review. I can assure him that work continues apace to identify further ways to tackle the threat.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
UK universities have experienced a fivefold increase in antisemitic incidents since the 7 October terrorist attacks. At a recent meeting of the Union of Jewish Students, I heard distressing examples of the Iranian regime organising on our campuses and stirring up hatred against Jewish students. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Department is taking to deal with the threat posed by Tehran here on British soil?
Dan Jarvis
We have been clear that the behaviour of the Iranian regime, including the actions of the IRGC, poses a threat to the safety and security of the UK and our allies. The Government continually assess threats to the UK and take the protection of individuals’ rights, freedoms and safety incredibly seriously, wherever those threats may originate.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
After a bungled fraud investigation by Renault Crédit International, it, together with Renault-Nissan UK Ltd moved to seize the assets of a business in my constituency, Mackie Motors Brechin Ltd. This cost my constituent half a million pounds and 25% of his order book value. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the finer points of this clearly very dubious act by a UK bank?
Dan Jarvis
I am concerned to hear about the case that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I put on record my gratitude to the Home Secretary and her team for releasing the Home Office commissioned report, “The Historical Roots of the Windrush Scandal”, which concluded that 30 years of racist immigration legislation caused the Windrush scandal. Those now on the Opposition Benches spent three years trying to suppress that report. Will the Home Secretary meet me, other MPs and civil society representatives to discuss its recommendations?
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Dan Jarvis ExcerptsMonday 14th October 2024
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. I will endeavour to address the themes of the arguments that have been put forth. Before doing so, I place on the record my thanks to the Home Affairs Committee for its scrutiny of the draft Bill in the last Session, and I thank the Opposition for the constructive approach they have taken to this Bill, for the support that they have given today and, indeed, for the work done by the previous Government.
As many hon. Members have rightly set out, keeping the country safe is the first duty of government. Just last week, the director general of MI5 set out in his threat update speech that the country is subject to the most interconnected threat environment that we have ever seen. The threat picture is complex, evolving and enduring, with terrorists choosing to attack a broad range of locations. It is not possible to predict where in the UK an attack might happen, or the type of premises or event that could be impacted, but engagement with business indicates that preparedness and protective security in the counter-terrorism space often falls behind areas where there are long-established legal requirements, such as health and safety.
In recent years, inquests and inquiries into terror attacks have set out the need for a legal requirement, including monitored recommendation 4 in volume 1 of the Manchester Arena inquiry. The police, the security services and other partners continue to do all they can to combat the terror threat, and we are immensely grateful to all those who work around the clock to counter threats and protect the safety of our country. The public are safer as a result of their efforts, and we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.
Many businesses and organisations already do excellent work to improve their security and preparedness. However, the absence of legislative requirements means that there is no consistency or consideration of the outcomes. That is what this Bill—Martyn’s law—seeks to achieve. It will improve protective security and organisational preparedness across the UK, thereby making us safer. Through the Bill, qualifying premises and events should be better prepared to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. Those responsible for certain premises and events will be required to take steps to mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack and reduce harm in the event of a terrorist attack occurring. Additionally, certain larger premises and events will have to take steps to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks. The public rightly deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events, and the Government see it as reasonable that, in many locations, appropriate and reasonably practical steps should be taken to protect staff and the public from the impact of terrorism.
Like other Members, I would like to take the opportunity to thank and pay tribute to Figen Murray, whose campaigning has been crucial in driving this Bill forward. Her tireless work is an inspiration to us all. To have suffered such a tremendous loss and still find the strength to campaign for change is extraordinary, and I know that I speak for all Members of this House in saying Figen, you are an inspiration.
I turn now to the main points raised during today’s debate. First, I should say that we were privileged to hear two truly excellent maiden speeches from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) and my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). Both spoke exceptionally well and did their constituents real credit, and I know that the House will look forward to hearing much more from them as they draw on the huge experience that they both bring to this place.
I should also say, as this legislation progresses, that we keep in our hearts all those who have lost their lives in terrorist attacks, including the late Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. They are gone but their memory endures, as does our commitment to supporting their loved ones and the survivors who live with the scars of being caught up in terrorism, whether physical or psychological. I firmly agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) in respect of the late James Brokenshire, who is much missed in this place.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the late Ian Gow, the former Member of Parliament for Eastbourne, who was brutally assassinated in a terrorist attack in 1990? His shield is here in the Chamber, honouring his memory all year round, and I would invite the Minister and all Members to share their tribute to him as well.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that intervention, and yes, of course I join the hon. Member in that. I am sure that all Members will want to pay tribute to the late Ian Gow.
The shadow Home Secretary asked about implement-ation. Following Royal Assent, there will be time to understand and, where necessary, act upon the new requirements before they come into force. We expect the implementation period to be at least 24 months to allow for the set-up of the regulator, and we will continue to engage and communicate with industry and other stakeholders during this period, including in the live music sector, to ensure that there is sufficient time for those responsible for premises and events in scope to understand their new obligations, and to plan and prepare. A robust monitoring and evaluation plan is also in place to measure the Bill’s effectiveness following implementation, and the Government will keep the Bill’s measures under review and have the powers needed to adjust the regime if necessary.
Several Members asked about the proportionality of the standard tier. The Government are extremely mindful that many premises and events continue to face the challenge of rising costs. The Bill seeks to achieve public protection outcomes while avoiding an undue burden on businesses and other organisations. In the standard tier, the focus is on having procedures that are intended to be simple and low cost. There will be no requirement to put in place any physical measures.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of my constituents in Rochdale will warmly welcome this Bill, particularly given that many of them were in the Manchester Arena on that dark day in 2017. I would like to suggest, though, that many small music venues worry about the proportionality of this Bill. Does the Minister want to give them reassurance that the voluntary scheme in Manchester has worked well so far, and that this revised version of the Bill will reduce the costs that were anticipated before?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, a Greater Manchester MP, for making that important point. It is worth saying in response that the feedback from businesses in the Greater Manchester area has been incredibly positive. While we are mindful of the potential burdens on business, we have consulted and worked closely with the sector and we will continue to listen carefully to the concerns it may wish to raise.
Dan Jarvis
I am going to make a bit of progress. I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I am conscious that time is against me and that Madam Deputy Speaker is looking intently at me.
The right hon. Member for Witham made a number of important points, not least that the primary role of the Security Industry Authority will be to provide advice, guidance and support to those responsible, to enable them to meet their obligations. The Bill also gives the SIA the necessary enforcement and investigation powers. These are modelled on those of other similar inspection regimes, which will allow an inspector to enter premises, interview staff, gather the information they need and assess the level of compliance. In the most serious or persistent of instances, criminal sanctions will be available.
The right hon. Lady also asked for an update on our work to support the victims of terrorism, and she rightly referenced the good work of Travis Frain, whom I also have had the privilege of meeting to discuss important issues, including that of memorialisation. The right hon. Lady raised a number of important points, and I will commit to write to her specifically on this point but also on the other points that she raised. She should be assured, however, as should the whole House, of this Government’s commitment to supporting the victims of terrorism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), another Greater Manchester MP, spoke powerfully about the impact of the Manchester attack. I fully agree with everything he said, as I did with the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) spoke movingly about Martyn Hett and eloquently paid tribute to the solidarity, resilience and resolve of the people of Greater Manchester. I can also assure her, and the House, that dedicated, easy-to-follow guidance and support will be provided for duty holders to ensure that those in scope have the required information on what to do and how best to do it. This will include local authorities and volunteers, as raised by the hon. Members for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) and for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) respectively.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) asked about planning processes, and I have made a particular note of his point about bollards. I can assure him that we will consider, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and planning leads in the devolved Governments, how security considerations are referenced in and achieved through the planning regimes and guidance, in the light of the Bill’s provisions.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley made a number of important, pertinent points. He rightly said that the protection and safety of the public is paramount, but he raised a number of points around the impact on smaller premises and the changing nature of the threat. I can give him the assurances that he sought. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) made a number of useful points, not least about seeking to strike the right balance between security and the impact on business.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall rightly reflected his own constituency experience and spoke about rural venues, smaller premises and penalties. I am also grateful to him for mentioning Brendan Cox. It is absolutely right to reference the significant contribution that Brendan Cox has made to this process. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) made a really important point about Edinburgh. It is a great city that knows how to host events, and I am particularly pleased to hear that the city welcomes this legislation. Of course, we will want to work closely with colleagues in Scotland and elsewhere to ensure the successful implementation of this legislation.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) made a number of important points, not least on ensuring that we work together to defeat terrorism. He also raised important points about smaller premises and the SIA. I am happy to discuss those points with him further, but I can say to him that the enhanced duty requirements will not apply to premises used for childcare or for primary, secondary and further education. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) also mentioned Travis Frain, and I am grateful to him for doing so. I join him in paying tribute to Travis’s work. He has been an inspirational campaigner and we will want to continue to work closely with him in the future.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as always, drew very sensibly on his experience of Northern Ireland from a terrorism perspective. His contribution is always appreciated. He raised a number of specific points and I will endeavour to come back to him by letter in order to give him clarity.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is always very kind and I knew he would say yes to me eventually. He has not commented yet on churches. Could he give us some idea of what his thoughts are there? I mentioned in my contribution the fact that all churches right across Northern Ireland took precautions after the Darkley hall massacre. Every person needs to be safety conscious, and every person in church took that role upon themselves.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning churches. All places of worship will be included in the standard tier. We recognise their unique and hugely important contribution, and we have looked very closely at how we can ensure that this legislation will provide them with appropriate protections. Again, I am happy to discuss this further, should the hon. Gentleman wish to do so.
The Bill’s provisions have been very carefully designed to strike the right balance between public protection and avoiding undue burdens on premises and events. These simple, common-sense steps will bolster the UK’s preparedness for and protection from terrorism.
I finish by reiterating the thanks of the whole House to Figen Murray. To have gone through what she has and still work so tirelessly for change is both humbling and inspiring. Figen has said that it is time to get this done, and she is right.
Security is the foundation upon which everything else is built, and nothing matters more to this Government. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: Programme
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 19 November 2024.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Anna Turley.)
Question agreed to.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: Money
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided, and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Anna Turley.)
Question agreed to.
Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024: Implementation
Dan Jarvis Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The first duty of Government is to keep our citizens safe. The UK faces an evolving threat from terrorists, hostile actors and organised criminal groups, and it is vital that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the powers and capabilities they need to target these individuals and groups.
The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, makes targeted updates to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, to ensure the UK’s investigatory powers framework remains fit for the purpose of protecting our national security. Much of the operational detail is necessarily set out in guidance, rather than on the face of the primary legislation. This is delivered through statutory codes of practice, which are brought into force via secondary legislation, and which public authorities must have regard to when exercising functions to which the codes relate. The secondary legislation to bring the codes into force will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.
As part of the Home Office’s work in implementing the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024, today we are launching a public consultation to seek views on the proposed revised codes. The consultation will run over a 12-week period and provides an opportunity for stakeholders to have their say.
The consultation will seek views on three new codes (on bulk personal datasets with a low or no expectation of privacy, third-party bulk personal datasets and the notices regime) and updates to five existing codes (on bulk personal datasets, communications data, bulk communications data, equipment interference, and interception). It will also seek views on a set of draft notices regulations, which will specify what types of changes may be included in the new notification notices, introduce timelines for the review of technical capability, data retention, and national security notices, and amend existing regulations in relation to notice processes with regards to membership of the technical advisory board.
Alongside publication of this consultation, I have also signed the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 (Commencement No. 1 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2024. These regulations commence the majority of the 2024 Act’s provisions, ensuring that important measures such as additional journalistic protections within the bulk equipment interference regime are commenced as soon as possible. The Home Office will encourage public authorities which exercise functions under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to have regard to the new draft codes from this point onwards. This approach is being taken to provide clarity to public authorities, both in situations whereby the existing codes do not make provision for new measures within the 2024 Act (such as those relating to bulk personal datasets where there is a low or no expectation of privacy or third party bulk personal datasets) and in situations whereby the draft codes include important updates to the existing codes (such as on what amounts to lawful authority for acquiring communications data). There will still be scope to amend the draft codes based on responses to the consultation, ahead of final versions being brought into force through secondary legislation. The Home Office will carefully consider responses to the consultation in advance of the introduction of the relevant secondary legislation, which will be progressed when parliamentary time allows.
Certain aspects of the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 have not been included within the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 (Commencement No. 1 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2024 and will instead be commenced at a later date. In particular, some of the notices provisions will only be commenced once the consultation has been concluded. Further, commencement of the requirement to have a warrant to examine a third-party bulk personal dataset will be delayed for six months, allowing sufficient time for warrants to be prepared and staggered, thereby avoiding a situation whereby they all fall to expire on the same day.
The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 will bring the investigatory powers regime up to date with the modern age. This approach to implementation will allow for consideration of a wide range of stakeholder views, while providing certainty to public authorities in exercising these powers.
A copy of the consultation and the associated annexes will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS124]
Use of Animals in Science: Strengthening Regulation
Dan Jarvis Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
This Government are committed to partnering with scientists, industry and civil society to work towards the phasing out of animal testing. As we move towards this goal, we recognise that the development of safe and effective medicines, the protection of humans and animals, and the protection of the environment still relies on the limited and strictly regulated use of animals. We are committed to maintaining the UK’s history of strong laws and strengthening our regulatory framework to assure protections to animals used in science. Strengthening our national regulator is important to maintain our position at the global forefront of welfare and support the UK’s life science sector to innovate and grow.
To this end, the Great Britain animals in science regulator will make reforms to its organisational design to most effectively deliver its purpose of protecting animals through maintaining compliance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Reforms will ensure that the life sciences sector is supported to grow through regulation which is proportionate, targeted, clear, and consistent, as well as robust and effective. The reforms will allow the regulator to be flexible to developments in the scientific and regulatory landscape, so that it is adaptable and resilient over the long-term.
Changes to the regulator’s organisational design are focused on ensuring the regulator has the right capacity and capabilities in the right places to meet best practice standards for regulators. The changes are designed to facilitate the regulator in adopting an operating model which has an increased emphasis on data, analysis and quality monitoring, and an improved provision of guidance and communication to the life science sector on how to comply with the law to protect animals. These changes will achieve stronger protections for animals; increase adherence to the principles of replacement, reduction, and refinement; provide an enhanced quality of service for the science sector; and increase assurance to the public of the protections the UK continues to deliver for animals in science.
[HCWS127]
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Dan Jarvis Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The Government have today introduced the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill to the House of Commons.
The Government would like to pay tribute to the 22 victims of the horrific Manchester Arena attack in 2017, and to Figen Murray, mother of one of the victims, Martyn Hett. Her campaigning has been crucial in driving this Bill forward.
Against the backdrop of an increasingly complex, evolving and enduring threat picture, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill will deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to “strengthen the security of public events and venues”.
The Bill seeks to improve protective security and organisational preparedness across the UK. It will require those responsible for certain premises and events to take steps to mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack and reduce harm in the event of a terrorist attack occurring. In addition to this, certain larger premises and events must also take additional steps to reduce the vulnerability of the premises to terrorist attacks.
Through the Bill, qualifying premises and events should be better prepared and ready to respond in the event of a terrorist attack.
Bill development
This Government have reflected on the scrutiny provided throughout the Bill’s development. As well as the extensive engagement that has taken place with security partners, business and victims’ groups including Figen Murray and the Martyn’s law campaign team, the Survivors Against Terror, as well as parliamentarians.
That is why important changes have been made to the Bill to ensure that we can both achieve public protection outcomes and ensure there are no undue burdens on businesses and other organisations:
We have raised the standard tier threshold from 100 to 200, to create a more appropriate scope of the duty;
The “reasonably practicable” standard of requirements, now applicable in both tiers, is designed to allow procedures and measures to be tailored to the specific circumstances of a premises or event. This will enable duty holders to take into consideration what is within their control and the resources they have available to them, as well as what is suitable and appropriate for their premises or event; and
We have removed the requirements for a specific, prescribed form of training and the completion of a mandatory standard terrorism evaluation form—in recognition that a one size fits all approach is not appropriate and could be onerous.
We are confident these changes ensure the Bill is more appropriate whilst still delivering on its core aim of enhancing public safety.
Bill proposals
Scope
A person will be subject to the main requirements of the Bill if they are responsible for a qualifying premises or events.
A person who has control of premises in connection with their relevant schedule 1 use is responsible for qualifying premises. For example, the operator of an arena or governing body of a school will be responsible for fulfilling the requirements of the Bill at their respective premises.
A person who will have control of the premises at which an event is to be held in connection with their use for the event will be responsible for a qualifying event.
Control over premises has been utilised in other regulatory regimes, such as fire safety.
Standard duty premises
The Bill establishes a tiered approach linked to the activity that takes place at premises or an event and the number of individuals it is reasonable to expect may be present on the premises at the same time.
Persons responsible for a standard duty premises, i.e. qualifying premises where it is reasonable to expect that between 200 and 799 individuals may be present at the same time, will be required to:
Notify the regulator of their premises; and
Put in place appropriate and reasonably practicable public protection procedures, as set out in clause 5 of the Bill.
These procedures are to be followed by people working at the premises if an act of terrorism was to occur at the premises or in the immediate vicinity, which may be expected to reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals. This includes ensuring there are procedures in place to provide information to individuals on the premises and to evacuate, invacuate or lockdown the premises.
The requirements for standard duty premises are focused on simple, low-cost activities surrounding policies and procedures, which are to be followed by staff in the event of terrorist attack or suspected terrorist attack occurring. The aim of these requirements is to improve staff preparedness and responses. There is no requirement to put in place physical measures in this tier. Furthermore, the reasonably practicable element will enable standard duty premises to tailor their approach to the resources they have available.
Enhanced duty premises and qualifying events
“Enhanced duty premises” and “qualifying events” are premises or events where it is reasonable to expect that 800 or more individuals may be present on the premises or attend the event at the same time. In addition to the same procedures as standard duty premises, persons responsible for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events will be required to:
Notify the regulator of their premises/event;
Put in place appropriate and reasonably practicable public protection measures that could be expected to reduce both the vulnerability of the premises or event to an act of terrorism occurring at the location, and the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals if an attack was to occur there or nearby. For example, an enhanced duty premises will be required, insofar as reasonably practicable, to implement measures relating to the monitoring of the premises and their immediate vicinity;
Document the public protection procedures and measures in place, or proposed to put in place, and provide this document to the regulator. This document should include an assessment as to how those procedures and measures may be expected to reduce, so far as is reasonably practicable, vulnerability and risk of harm.
Where the responsible person for an enhanced duty premises or qualifying event is not an individual, they must appoint an individual as a designated senior individual with responsibility for ensuring that the relevant requirements are met.
Special categorisations and exemptions
There will be some limited exclusions and exemptions from the Bill’s requirements, in particular where premises are already subject to existing requirements to consider and mitigate threats that achieve comparable security outcomes.
All places of worship will be placed into the standard tier where there are 200 or more individuals present at the same time—even if that number is 800 or greater. The Government consider it is appropriate that such places of worship take forward the standard duty procedures. However, places of worship are different to other premises in scope, in being readily accessible and welcoming to all, without the same commercial drivers as other premises, usually having no restrictions on entry, or staff routinely present. The Government recognise this, and will continue its work with faith communities to respect the unique nature of places of worship and how they operate, whilst considering how we can support them to reduce their vulnerability to terrorism and hate crime. This includes developing measures to better mitigate threats through local police engagement and Government-funded work programmes.
Primary, secondary and further education establishments have been placed within the standard tier even if their capacity is greater than 800 individuals. Existing safety and safeguarding requirements at these establishments mean they have a range of appropriate security procedures and access controls measures in place.
However, premises belonging to higher education institutions (e.g. universities) could be in either tier, depending on the number of individuals that can reasonably be expected on the relevant premises. This is because they are, in the main, more freely accessible and so should be subject to the full requirements of the Bill.
The regulator
The Bill establishes a regulator to oversee and enforce compliance of the Bill’s requirements. This regulator will operate as a new function of the Security Industry Authority.
As an arm’s length body, the Security Industry Authority is operationally independent of the Home Office whilst being accountable to Home Office Ministers. Because the Security Industry Authority is an existing Home Office public safety regulator, we assess that this is the most appropriate way to deliver this critical function. Utilising an existing arm’s length body also follows the Cabinet Office guidance and precedent set across Government for establishing new regulators. With its years of experience in inspection and enforcement around public safety at venues, alongside the work it already does with our security partners to promote best practice around counter terrorism protective security.
Sanctions and enforcement
Compliance with the Bill’s requirements will be overseen by the Security Industry Authority. The core principle of the regulator’s activity will be to support, advise and guide those responsible for premises and events in meeting the requirements of this legislation. Due to the severity of the risk posed by terrorism, it is important that the Security Industry Authority has the necessary tools to investigate suspected non-compliance and, where it is found, remedy serious or persistent non-compliance.
To that end, the Security Industry Authority will have powers to issue a range of civil sanctions such as monetary penalties. Due to the seriousness of some actions and in line with other regimes, the Bill also includes a limited number of underpinning criminal offences—for example, it will be a criminal offence to impersonate an inspector.
The Security Industry Authority must set any penalty at an amount that is reasonable and proportionate and take into account a range of factors including—but not limited to—an organisation’s ability to pay.
The Bill also makes amendments to the Licensing Act 2003 and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to protect premises plans from being used for the purposes of terrorism.
Dedicated guidance and support will be provided for duty holders to ensure that those in scope have the required information on what to do and how best to do it.
Next steps
We believe it is now time that this cross-party commitment to improve the safety and security of venues in the wake of the Manchester Arena attack is delivered without further delay. The public rightly deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events and we see it as reasonable that, in many locations, they should take appropriate, reasonably practicable steps to protect staff and the public from the horrific impacts and effects of terrorism.
I look forward to engaging with Members in Parliament on this important piece of legislation. I will be holding a drop-in session in due course, should they wish to learn more about the Bill, and would be happy to answer any of their questions. Details will be provided shortly.
The Bill and accompanying documents will be available online here https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3765 and further information, including factsheets on the key elements of the Bill, will be available on gov.uk here www.gov.uk/government/collections/terrorism-protection-of-premises-bill-2024.
[HCWS98]
Financial Fraud and Economic Crime
Dan Jarvis Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on securing this debate on what is—there has been a clear consensus about this—a very important matter. I often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—perhaps too regularly—but I completely agreed with what he said about the expertise that we have seen among new Members. I think we have seen that very clearly today, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer because it came through loud and clear from his speech that he has a strong knowledge and comprehensive understanding of these issues. I think that, collectively, we owe him a debt of gratitude for bringing them to our attention this afternoon. I am also grateful to all those other hon. Members who have contributed to what has genuinely been a very sensible and constructive debate.
I am genuinely grateful to both the Opposition Front Benchers for their sensible contributions. I welcome the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan). He comes to this place with a lot of hugely relevant and credible experience, and I look forward to working closely with him. He made a specific point—an entirely reasonable challenge—about the importance of seeking to work closely with allies in Europe. I can absolutely give him that assurance. We understand the importance of doing so, and we are on the case with that.
I also welcome the shadow Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), to his post. On behalf of the Department, I can genuinely say that we wish him well, and that we look forward to working closely with him. I have had quite a busy day, but I am sure that he has had quite a busy one as well in preparing for this debate. As he always does, he made a number of sensible and reasonable points, and I am happy to confirm to him the commitment and the priority that we attach to these important matters. I hope very much that we can work closely together as we move forward.
Based on the contributions that we have had in today’s debate, there is a clear consensus that economic crime and fraud are pernicious threats that ruin lives and damage our prosperity. They must be dealt with as a priority. I want to take the opportunity today to say something about the Government’s approach, as I seek to respond to the many excellent points that hon. Members have raised.
Economic crime threatens our national security and the prosperity of the UK. It covers a broad range of illicit activity, including fraud, money laundering, kleptocracy and corruption. It drives serious organised crime, which has a hugely damaging and corrosive impact, and causes immense harm to the public—to all our constituents. It affects the financial and emotional wellbeing of victims and the interests of legitimate businesses, and undermines our international reputation.
According to the crime survey for England and Wales for the year ending March 2024, fraud against individuals accounts for 36% of crime, so it is by far the most common offence. That is a startling statistic, which underlines the scale of the threat and the challenge, but it does not capture the full horror of the misery and devastation that lies behind the numbers—the stories of life savings snatched, of confidence shattered, of emotional distress.
We know that nobody is safe from fraud; it can affect anyone, with one in 18 people becoming a victim of fraud in the year ending March 2024. Businesses are also under threat: the economic crime survey for 2020 estimated that one in five in the sectors surveyed had been victims of fraud in the previous three years. These figures are another striking illustration of the scale of the threat, and underline why it is so crucial that we eliminate any safe spaces for criminals to operate in.
I should note that the crime survey shows that fraud is down 10% on the previous year, which is encouraging, and I want to thank all those across Government, industry and law enforcement who work to turn the screw on fraudsters and criminals. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their important work. A lot of effort has gone into addressing these issues, and that is to be welcomed, but, to address the entirely reasonable point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), we must now go further.
We know from experience that fraudsters are well organised. They are also opportunists and will try to perpetrate their crimes on anyone they can, including the most vulnerable in our society, which is especially callous. Given we are up against devious and resourceful criminals, we need to ensure that our approach is fit for purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer clearly has a very strong command of the subject matter, which he has translated into a number of insightful recommendations. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, rightly pressed me to ensure that we will take those seriously.
I hope my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer will understand if I stop short of making policy commitments at this stage and in this forum. That being said, his seven recommendations—the internal mail is clearly working in overdrive because the letter dropped just as he mentioned the seven recommendations—have clearly been very well thought through and are backed up by his considerable expertise. I give him the assurance that I will take them away and come back to him with a response as we continue to shape this Government’s approach. Incidentally, I was particularly intrigued by suggestion No. 3 on the establishment of an anti-fraud champion. I wonder whether he had anyone in mind, but let’s leave that hanging there for now.
Underlying any steps that the Government take, we will be steadfast in our determination to combat economic crime wherever and however it manifests itself. We are committed to working with key partners across the public sector, the private sector and law enforcement to reduce fraud and better protect the public and businesses.
Estimates suggest that around 80% of fraud has an online element, much of which originates from overseas, which was a point very well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge). Online platforms, as well as telecommunications services, are being exploited by fraudsters to commit their crimes. It is vital that we pull together with industry, regulators and consumer groups to consider what else can be done to close the gaps that criminals exploit.
The sector charter programme works to complement legislation and move in a more agile and targeted manner, and has improved collaboration with industry. It has enabled effective changes within sectors such as telecommunications, retail banking, tech and accountancy. We have seen telecommunications companies install spam shields, which have blocked over 1 billion text messages. The tech sector—I know my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer knows a lot about this—has introduced verification measures for marketplace sellers and advertisers to make sure people are who they say they are. Although we have seen strong action from companies, including via the sector charters, it is important to ensure that counter-fraud activity is prioritised. Recent legislation, such as the Online Safety Act 2023, will help to raise standards and best practice, but we remain open to the use of further legislation and regulation in the future, and that is a continuing conversation that we will want to have with my hon. Friend and with Members throughout the House.
There is still plenty more for Government and industry to do together, and I look forward to collaborating with our key partners in the coming months. We must also increase the disruption and prosecution of fraudsters. A national fraud squad of 400 new posts, led by the NCA’s national economic crime centre and the City of London police, will target the most harmful fraudsters. This will transform the law enforcement response by taking a much more proactive and intelligence-led approach to disrupting the most serious fraudsters, both domestically and overseas.
Another important element is public awareness. We need to ensure that people are alert to these crimes, and it is essential that we have the tools to protect people so that they have the confidence and trust to come forward and report cases where they have fallen victim to fraud. That is why we are working with the City of London police to create a new police “fraud protect network”, which will engage with local forces to provide consistent messaging and safeguarding advice to local communities. That is why there is a wealth of advice on how to spot and avoid fraud on our “Stop! Think Fraud” campaign website, although I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer about that.
As well as protecting individuals, the Government are committed to protecting businesses from fraud and other related crime such as ransomware. The Home Office supports a network of regional cyber-resilience centres to provide cyber-security advice and guidance to businesses across England and Wales.
We are also committed to improving economic crime legislation. The economic crime measures in last Session’s Criminal Justice Bill did not make the statute book before the general election was called. Since the election, the Government have been examining how best to progress action in a number of areas, including the reform of the criminal confiscation regime, the banning of SIM farms that can be used in fraudulent activity, accessing money in suspended accounts to further tackle economic crime, and improving corporate liability laws. We understand that those are important reforms to cut crime, but also that there will be others. We will set out our position in due course and, where necessary, introduce further legislation.
In closing, I thank all hon. Members attending for their contributions and once again thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer on securing the debate. We have covered a good deal of ground, all of it constructive and helpful. For all the statistics, policies and measures, it is the victims who we must always keep at the forefront of our minds. We must prevent more people and businesses suffering as a result of economic crime and fraud, and we must protect our society and economy from those threats. As I have set out, this Government are committed to doing just that, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House on this critical endeavour.
Oral Answers to Questions
Dan Jarvis Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Home Department (Dan Jarvis)
Facial recognition technology is being used effectively by police forces to identify suspects more quickly and accurately but, of course, it is essential that any new technologies are accompanied by strong safeguards and are underpinned by a robust legal framework. This Government will give careful consideration to the overall impact of all new policing technology.
Kim Johnson
I welcome my hon. Friend’s response, but facial recognition technology is being used by the police in publicly accessible places, and it breaches human rights and discriminates disproportionately against black people. The previous Government failed to introduce legislation to restrict its use, so can my hon. Friend confirm when there will be legislation to protect us? Will he meet me and representatives of civil liberties organisations to discuss this matter further?
Dan Jarvis
I understand that the National Physical Laboratory has independently tested the algorithms that the police have been using in live facial recognition cases and has found them to be highly accurate. It found no statistically significant differences based on ethnicity at the settings the police generally use.
It is extremely important that any new technology used by the police is accompanied by strong safeguards, including to prevent bias or disproportionality, and that a robust legal framework is in place to govern the use of these new technologies. My hon. Friend still has concerns, and I am sure the policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), or I will be happy to meet her.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Home Department (Dan Jarvis)
It will always be a Government priority to protect our elections against foreign interference. Established processes are in place to protect the UK’s democratic integrity, including the National Security Act 2023, providing security services and our law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to tackle state threats. Last week, the Home Secretary and I convened the defending democracy taskforce to consider any issues arising from the election.
Melanie Ward
During the recent general election, some of my constituents in Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy were understandably frustrated by delays in the postal voting system. I understand that the Electoral Commission is looking into this and I hope that lessons will be learned. Our democratic system must always be protected from both domestic and foreign malign interference, including misinformation. Will the Minister update the House on the work being undertaken by the defending democracy taskforce to review measures put in place to protect the general election? Will he also explain what efforts are being made to protect our wider democratic system?
Dan Jarvis
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. The defending democracy taskforce met for the first time under the new Government on 25 July. The taskforce brings together Ministers from across Government, along with representatives from law enforcement and the intelligence community. Last week’s meeting discussed how political intimidation and harassment has no place in our society, and how the taskforce will drive a whole-of-Government response to the full range of threats to our democracy. The taskforce will bring to bear the full range of tools and capabilities to meet this challenge.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I warmly welcome the appointment of the Minister and congratulate him on it. Like me, he will appreciate that the security and intelligence agencies are reluctant to be seen to interfere in the democratic process, but does he agree that steps must be taken to ensure that the proceeds of kleptocracy in countries such as Russia are not used to infect democratic political parties in this country and elsewhere?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great wisdom and authority on these matters, and he has huge experience of them, so I will not detain the House any further, but say yes, I agree with him.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Sir David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Minister of State, Home Department (Dan Jarvis)
The right hon. Gentleman, who has a long-standing interest in these matters, knows that we do not comment on whether an organisation is being considered for proscription. What is clear is that Iran’s malign activities, including the activities of the IRGC, are completely unacceptable. I can give him an assurance that we keep these matters under very close review.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
For the communities in my constituency mourning the loss of a young person to knife crime, the Government’s commitment to ban zombie knives, machetes and ninja swords cannot come soon enough. Can the Home Secretary confirm that, in bringing forward this vital legislation, she will ensure that the penalties for selling those weapons illegally will be substantial and that they will apply personally to executives at the highest level in any retail outlet, including online marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon?
Political Violence and Disruption: Walney Report
Dan Jarvis Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing advance sight of it. I join him in thanking Lord Walney for his work on this report.
It is important to say from the outset that the Opposition absolutely respect the fundamental freedom to make legitimate, peaceful protest but, when that freedom is abused to intimidate, harass and harm others, safeguards must be put in place to protect the public and our democratic system as a whole. We have seen in recent months that people have been intimidated and have felt threatened due to protest activity.
I therefore agree with the Minister that this is totally unacceptable, and there must be no no-go areas in our country. That is why we have been crystal clear that where there are public order offences, hate crime offences or terrorist offences on marches and demonstrations, they must face the full force of the law. The police have our full support in taking swift and robust action. Furthermore, we have been crystal clear that our police forces need the utmost clarity and support to carry out sometimes complex policing operations around protests.
The Walney report on political violence and disruption deals with some of the most fundamental and sensitive cornerstones of our democratic society. The Opposition will therefore go through and consider the report’s 41 recommendations very carefully, with an approach that our long and proud tradition of the right to peaceful protest must never be undermined by criminal or threatening activity on Britain’s streets.
In the first instance, I will touch on two points discussed in the report before asking the Minister a couple of questions.
The first point relates to whether the police should have more powers to ban protests that are intimidating or disruptive. It is important to note that the police already have powers under the Public Order Act 1986 to place conditions on protests, including amending routes and timings. They also have the power, in cases where there may be serious public disorder, to apply to the Home Secretary to prohibit a particular protest from taking place.
In addition, we have already had several new pieces of public order legislation in recent years that, in some cases, police forces are still getting to grips with. With this in mind, we believe the focus should be on making the existing framework work to make sure that the police can take robust action against those engaging in hateful or criminal behaviour on our streets. That said, we will look at this recommendation in more depth and see what the Government bring forward, because it is vital that everyone in our country feels safe on our streets.
The second point relates to protest organisers paying policing costs. The report’s recommendation raises a series of practical considerations about which organisations would be forced to pay and under what circumstances. Again, we think the focus at the moment should be on making existing legislation work but, as with the rest of the report, we will examine these recommendations in more depth and see what the Government bring forward.
Before asking the Minister a couple of questions, I welcome that the report raises serious concerns about the growing intimidation of Members of this House and local councillors. The Minister knows that, through the Defending Democracy Taskforce, we will continue to support the Government in their important work. He also knows that I stand ready to work closely with him to support his vital work in this area.
The report has been published amid activity across Government to counter extremism, bolster community cohesion and protect our democracy from malign forces, not least the work under way in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities after the definition of extremism was published in March, and the work of the Defending Democracy Taskforce. I therefore ask the Minister to explain how other relevant Ministers in other relevant Government Departments will be involved in the preparation of the Government’s response to the Walney report.
Lord Walney’s work started in 2021 and, entirely understandably, had to be revised in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks. Although there had to be proper consultation and careful thought applied to such important matters, does the Minister think it would have been helpful if the report had been published sooner? I also point out to the Minister that the counter-extremism strategy is nine years out of date, while the hate crime strategy is now four years out of date. What plans does he have to update them?
To conclude, let me be clear that we on the Labour Benches will work to ensure that these threats are countered. We will work to defend the values of freedom and tolerance that are the cornerstones of our democracy, and we will work to defeat all those who seek to harm and undermine our way of life—in that, we will be unrelenting.
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the way he has approached this matter. He has always been extremely pragmatic in areas of national security, and has certainly been a very capable partner with whom I have been able to work. I am grateful for his approach today.
I am particularly grateful that the hon. Gentleman is open to looking at certain areas of this report seriously, such as the question of where costs should lie. Football clubs have to contribute to the cost of policing matches, and Wimbledon has to contribute to the cost of policing tennis, and yet here are organisations costing tens of millions of pounds in policing costs each year, and doing so as though this was their own private fiefdom. It strikes me as a very odd way of behaving. I also welcome the hon. Gentleman’s approach to the Defending Democracy Taskforce and the support he has offered for it today.
Let me just answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions briefly. We will be discussing with DLUHC—as he knows, it is an important participant in this discussion—and other relevant departments, including the Ministry of Justice, how to take these recommendations forward and which to adopt. I am sure he understands that I will update the House in the usual way at the appropriate time. I am also grateful for his support on that.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
Dan Jarvis Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his remarks. It is always good to see him in his place. At the outset, I want to put on record that we on the Opposition Benches believe national security—the defence of our homeland—is an issue that as much as possible should rise above the political fray and unite us in common cause.
Given that this statutory instrument relates to Scotland, I think it is right that we take the opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary Scottish men and women serving in government, our intelligence services, our police and our armed forces who work tirelessly from Land’s End to John O’Groats to keep Scotland and all of the United Kingdom safe. These men and women protecting our country must of course work within legislative frameworks. Today, we are debating the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Revised Guidance) Regulations 2024 in the Chamber, some seven months, as the Minister said, after we debated a fairly similar statutory instrument to update the Prevent duty guidance in England and Wales.
Before I turn to the details of the statutory instrument before the House on the updated Scottish Prevent duty guidance, I want—with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker—to very briefly put on record my great affection for Scotland. Home to beautiful highland countryside from Glen Affric to Glen Urquhart, breathtaking coastline from the Mull of Galloway right the way round to St Abb’s Head, and bustling cities on the Clyde, the Forth, the Dee and the Tay, Scotland is a truly special place. Add to that the fact that Scottish people are some of the most warm-hearted and generous people anyone could wish to meet, and I am so proud that Scotland stands shoulder to shoulder with the rest of our United Kingdom to counter the threats of an increasingly more volatile and polarised world.
Sir John Hayes
I am slightly hesitant about interrupting this eulogy to all things Scots, but has the hon. Gentleman noted that a Scot has just taken the Chair?
Dan Jarvis
I had made that observation, and that in part gave me the confidence to continue going perhaps longer than otherwise might have been the case. I sense, given the beady eye you have on me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I should probably—
Dan Jarvis
Madam Deputy Speaker says it is fine to keep saying nice things about Scotland, but I am slightly conscious that the Minister may have somewhere to go in the not-too-distant future. I do not want to detain him for too much longer, given that there is apparently quite an important meeting taking place at 14.15—
Dan Jarvis
At 16.15—the Minister has admitted it—but although I would like the opportunity to spend even longer talking about what a fantastic place Scotland is, I should probably begin to turn to the substance of these matters. I do so by saying that we on the Opposition Benches support the update to the Scottish Prevent duty guidance, although there are some questions about how it sits within broader efforts to counter extremism and terrorism, which I will come to in a moment.
Regardless of where in the UK extremism rears its ugly head, it is fuelled by fear and hate, and stoked by malign individuals whose motives are abhorrent to the vast majority of decent people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We have felt the devastation that extremism can cause through terrorist attacks around the world and in our country. With every act of terror, there was a path starting with radicalisation and ending with lives lost and lives changed forever.
At this point, I want to take the opportunity, and I am sure the Minister will join me in doing so, of paying tribute to Figen Murray. She is the mother of Manchester Arena bombing victim Martyn Hett, and she is a campaigner for Martyn’s law. Just today, she has completed her walk down from Manchester to London to meet the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The dignity and tenacity shown by Figen reminds us all of the painful legacies left by terrorism that are faced by too many people in our country.
That is why Prevent practitioners in Scotland and across the UK need confidence and clarity in Prevent duty guidance, as this guidance should ensure that the right interventions are taking place at the right time to detect, disrupt and defeat extremism wherever it presents itself. These interventions save lives, and we should not understate the crucial role played by Prevent practitioners. We therefore welcome changes in the guidance to improve the quality of Prevent referrals to multi-agency panels in Scotland by giving clearer advice on how to understand and manage risk, including through training and risk assessments and reducing permissive environments as a key theme to tackle the ideological causes of terrorism and broader radicalising influences. These are important steps, as there can never be any excuse for extremist violence anywhere on Britain’s streets or the glorification of any violence linked to any ideological cause. As the extremist threat landscape continues to shift across the UK, there must be full confidence in Prevent’s work in Scotland.
I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. First, since we debated the Prevent duty guidance regulations for England and Wales, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has published the UK Government’s new definition of extremism—an update from their 2011 definition that the Scottish Government did not adopt. Can the Minister outline what discussions he has had with colleagues in the Scottish Government about adopting the new definition? To what extent can he say whether it was discussed as part of a wider discussion on community cohesion at the inter-ministerial standing committee meeting on 12 March?
Secondly, and still touching on the intergovernmental work, Sir William Shawcross stated in his review his concern about the lack of oversight and support for Prevent delivery in the Scottish education sector. He recommended that the Scottish Government restructure Prevent in line with the wider UK model. Although guidance for higher education institutions in Scotland was published alongside the updated Scottish Prevent duty guidance, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain what feedback was received from the Scottish education sector ahead of publication. What will the next steps be with the Scottish Government regarding Prevent and the Scottish education sector? Furthermore, Sir William said in February this year that Ministers had ignored some of his key recommendations. Has the Minister discussed those concerns with Sir William?
Thirdly, in his review, Sir William challenged the perceived extremist threat landscape in Scotland as identified by Scottish officials and recommended that more frequent assessments be made to enhance understanding among practitioners and officials alike. It was not clear in the UK Government’s response to this recommendation that they would work with the Scottish Government and Police Scotland on increasing the frequency. Can the Minister outline what is being done to improve this vital intelligence-gathering work in Scotland?
To conclude, the Opposition will work constructively with the Government as much as possible on these important matters, and I know that the Minister will take my points and questions in that spirit. All of us on the Opposition Benches want to ensure that the Scottish public and the wider UK are spared the terrors of extremism and shielded from the depravity of terrorist violence. We will work closely with the UK and Scottish Governments to ensure that they succeed in that vital task.
Tom Tugendhat
Let me start with some of the points that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) made. I want to make it absolutely clear that incel violence is a form of extremism that draws on an ideology based on the hatred of women. It is completely unacceptable and, sadly, it has led to terrorism not just here but in other parts. It is utterly vile, and it is as serious and pernicious as any other form of terrorism or extremism. It is not quite as prevalent as some other forms—that is to be welcomed—but it can be kept down only if, as she said, we include people in our community and cut off the routes to hatred before they emerge and become passages.
The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), as usual, has approached this in a calm and professional manner. It has been a pleasure to work with him on this, as it has been in many other areas. It has been an absolute joy to work with Figen Murray on another area. She has been a remarkable advocate for individuals across our country who have been victims of terror. Seven years ago, almost to the day, she lost her son Martyn. I know we all pay enormous tribute to her for the dignity and professionalism with which she has approached her campaign—one that has led to an awful lot of support, including from the Prime Minister and others. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his approach to this. Sadly, I cannot offer any updates at this stage. As he knows, we are going through the necessary consultation process. I will bring forward further updates as soon as I can, but that will be in due course, I am afraid.
The hon. Gentleman raised an interesting question about DLUHC’s conversation with the Scottish Government. Forgive me, but I will have to leave the DLUHC Secretary to speak for himself on that, as I am not aware of his conversations. I speak regularly to the Scottish Government on these areas, some of which are reserved matters. As he knows, national security is a reserved matter and therefore the responsibility of the UK Government. That said, there is an awful lot of co-operation not just with the Scottish Government but with other administrations in Scotland, including different councils in different counties.
While we are on this matter, the hon. Gentleman’s paean to Scotland would not have anything to do with his desire to get in campaigning mode, would it?
Tom Tugendhat
I appreciate what he said, but for somebody who decided to throw himself out of aeroplanes in the south of England rather than join our great and glorious core training in Arbroath—that is just a very strange thing to have done, for who claims to have that unbelievable love for the north! It is a huge privilege to tease the hon. Gentleman—we have been friends for far too long for me to miss the opportunity.
It is always a pleasure to be in Scotland and to see the extraordinary achievements made by the Scottish people, not just in this area but in many others. This is one of those areas where I just want to pick up on something. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the way in which Scotland is dealing with these cases. I want to pay enormous tribute to those who are gathered together in Gartcosh: over 20 different agencies, including everybody from Police Scotland, MI5 to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and various environmental agencies. It is absolutely extraordinary to see what they have brought together. It is a real power centre not just for keeping Scotland safe, but for fighting crime and disorder all across the United Kingdom. It is a fantastic resource and really impressive.
If we are giving this paean to Scotland, I should also say that the head of MI5, whose Scottish tones have informed me of some of the worst abuses of humanity in this country, demonstrates the level of commitment that many have. I place on record my extreme gratitude to all MI5 officers, counter-terrorism police and the National Crime Agency, who do a huge amount to keep us safe, alongside the territorial forces, whose work is absolutely essential.
None of that would work unless there was the underpinning, and the underpinning is making sure that society does not breed more extremists. The way we avoid that is by making sure that people are part of our community. The Prevent programme is absolutely essential to making sure that when somebody strays, they are assisted to come back into the fold. This is the work, as was said, of the good shepherd. That is what is so important today: making sure that we keep people in our society and within the fold, able to contribute and able to feel part of a wider whole. That is absolutely essential.