Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 14th October 2024
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has the wholehearted support of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and, I hope, the whole House. Some of those who campaigned hardest for it have joined us in Parliament for this evening’s debate.
Seven and a half years ago, on the evening of 22 May 2017, thousands of people went to Manchester Arena for a music concert. Many of those in attendance were children and teenagers. They were there to see Ariana Grande, their favourite pop star, and to dance and sing along to her songs. They were there to soak up the atmosphere with friends and family. But as the event drew to a close and people started to leave, terror struck. Scenes of happiness gave way to shock and trauma, and what had been an enjoyable spring evening was transformed into a nightmare. More than 1,000 people were injured, and 22 of them never came home—nine of those were teenagers. Today, we remember them all. Their lives were brutally cut short in an act of pure evil.
We also think of the victims of other terrorist attacks. They will never be forgotten. Their families and friends, left to pick up the pieces and somehow go on, are in our hearts and prayers. We think also of all those who survived this and other similarly abhorrent acts, the survivors of all terror attacks, who live with the scars, whether physical or psychological. We think of the first responders who are on the frontline when the worst happens, bravely working to protect the public and to save lives, and we think of the police and security and intelligence agencies who work night and day to prevent attacks and keep us all safe. We give them our thanks.
In the aftermath of the Manchester Arena attack, our country did what it always does when confronted with terrorism: we came together. As the city grieved, we stood shoulder to shoulder with those affected and offered our friendship and support. In the darkness came rays of light—those who were determined to support each other and ensure that more was done to save young lives in future.
That spirit is embodied by Figen Murray, who is with us in the Public Gallery today. It is because of Figen that we are all here to talk about this legislation. Figen’s son, Martyn Hett, was among those killed in the attack. I cannot imagine Figen’s pain and I am in awe of her courage. To suffer such a horrendous loss and somehow find the strength to fight for changes that will help others is heroic. Despite her grief, she has campaigned, and when asked this morning why she does so, she said that she looks at her child’s ashes on the bookshelf and she does not want other families to have to face the same. Figen and campaigners have fought for this law. This Bill has been a long time coming, but she has never given up. I am sure the whole House will agree wheneb;normal;j I say to Figen, “You are a true inspiration. Officially, we are debating the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill but in essence and in spirit, this is ‘Martyn’s law’.”
The first responsibility of any Government is to keep the public safe. That is, and will always be, our No. 1 priority. We will not let terrorists or extremists destroy or distort our way of life. That is why Labour committed in our manifesto to strengthening the security of public events and venues, why the Prime Minister made a commitment to Figen Murray and why we have moved at speed to introduce the Bill in a matter of weeks after the general election. Earlier work was done on the Bill under the last Government and I am glad to say that it has cross-party support—I hope that, when it comes to security matters, the House will always be prepared to come together.
The Manchester Arena inquiry made 169 public recommendations. Volume 1 focused on the security of the arena and set out the need for a protect duty in primary legislation. The chair, Sir John Saunders, whom I thank for all the work he did, concluded:
“Doing nothing is, in my view, not an option. Equally, the Protect Duty must not be so prescriptive as to prevent people enjoying a normal life.”
That encapsulates the purpose behind the Bill and behind so much of what we do when countering terrorism and extremism: ensuring that proper measures are taken to keep us safe; ensuring that people can get on with their lives and making it possible for people to keep enjoying all the things they do; and protection of life—protection of our way of life.
Since March 2017, MI5 and the police have together disrupted 43 late-stage plots and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks. We know from those incidents that the public can be targeted at a wide range of public venues and spaces. We know too that the terror threat has become less predictable and potential attacks harder to detect and investigate. That is why everyone needs to be part of the measures we take to keep people safe—including those who run premises and events, who need to know what they can do and what they should be doing to keep people safe.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I am loath to interrupt the Home Secretary; she is making a passionate and clear case for why the Bill is necessary, and the SNP will be supporting her. Is she aware of the concerns from the live music sector, which will be most burdened and most impacted by this particular Bill? Is she in constant contact with the live music sector, and can she offer any reassurance on the number of issues that I know it has raised with her?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I know there will be many detailed discussions on that in Committee. Since the original draft legislation was published, we have sought to ensure that there was extensive consultation with businesses, with premises and with venues of all sizes. That is why there is a different approach, which I will come on to, for different sizes of venue, ensuring that the response that premises need to make is proportionate and recognises the detailed individual circumstances, which will be very different from one venue and one organisation to another. I will come to that point and that detail.
The legislation requires for the first time that those responsible for certain premises and events consider terrorist risk and how they would respond to an attack. Larger premises and events will need to take steps to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks. For premises to fall within the scope of the Bill, it must be reasonable to expect that there may be 200 or more individuals present on those premises at the same time. In addition, the premises must be used for one or more of the activities specified in the Bill—for example, entertainment or leisure. For those premises that are in scope, a tiered approach has been established, with requirements varying. Events and premises where it is reasonably expected that 800 or more people may be present at once will generally be in the enhanced tier, and any other premises—those where 200 to 800 people may be present—will be in the standard tier.
Those responsible for premises in the standard tier will be required to notify the regulator and have in place public protection procedures to reduce the risk of harm to individuals in the event of an act of terrorism. It is important that those procedures are designed to be very simple and low cost. There will be no requirement to put in place physical measures in the standard tier. There are four categories of procedure: evacuation, which relates to the process of getting people safely out of the premises; invacuation, for example where we need to keep people safe within premises; lockdown, if a premises needs to be kept secure from an attacker who is trying to get in; and communication—simply communicating to all those involved, including staff and the public who might be at risk.
In recognition of the potentially greater impact of an attack on larger premises, those in the enhanced tier will be subject to additional requirements or public protection measures: monitoring for risks and indicators; security measures for individuals, which might mean search and screening processes; physical safety measures, where relevant, such as safety glass; and securing information to make it harder for people to plan, prepare or execute acts of terrorism.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I just ask, given that the atrocity in the Manchester Arena was caused by a terrorist coming in with explosives in a very prominent backpack, how the measures being proposed would have affected that scenario?
Yvette Cooper
We are being clear that it is not for the Government to specify precise arrangements for every venue. I do not think it would be appropriate to do so. Arrangements will vary according to the event. We know that many large venues already have procedures to search bags or conduct those sorts of checks. We are clear that this needs to be done proportionately, and according to the size of the venue and the arrangements in place.
Sir Julian Lewis
If I may pursue that point a little further, if what we are really talking about is explosions being carried out by suicide bombers among large numbers of people, the one thing that all those atrocities have in common is that an explosive device, which is invariably bulky, has to be carried in. Is that not the central point that everybody ought to be addressing?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman is right. That is why one of the things we would expect is that premises have proper search measures, and particularly to ensure that there are security measures around the movement of individuals, but as well as the searches that might take place at an event itself, safety measures may also involve having monitoring procedures in place—for example, if the same individual has been back, circling a venue several times, and is behaving in a suspicious or inappropriate way. Making sure that staff are trained to recognise those kinds of risks and indicators may be an important part of keeping the venue safe.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.
Neil Coyle
I thank the Home Secretary for introducing this important legislation, which means so much to those who were affected in Manchester and to those affected on 3 June 2017 in the London bridge and Borough market attack. My question is on measuring risks and taking measures in advance to try to protect people. Will venues be able to draw down on terror insurance where they have it? Will the Government support an awareness campaign on the need to have terror insurance and support? Where risk assessments highlight a physical barrier or a change to an external area, how will the Bill support venues and local authorities to work together to resolve concerns? Barriers to securing literal barriers around Borough market have included the design and who is going to pay; there have been lots of practical difficulties in designing and installing the permanent barriers to protect all those who still use the amazing Borough market in my constituency.
Yvette Cooper
As my hon. Friend will know, the prevention of future deaths report from the London bridge and Borough market inquests called for clarity of responsibility for venue operators regarding protective security. Addressing that point is one reason that we are bringing forward this legislation. My hon. Friend is also right that, in practice, security and safety measures require people to work together and require partnerships among them, the venue, local councils and others. It is not for this legislation to set out the decisions for insurance companies; its whole purpose is to make venues safer and more resilient to the kinds of pressures and attacks they might face.
Yvette Cooper
I said I would give way to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I will then come to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Sir John Hayes
The right hon. Lady makes two profoundly important points. The first is on the metamorphosis of terrorism and how we need to be persistently clear about how we respond to it in the event of the changes we have seen. The second is about how the whole House comes together on these matters; as the right hon. Lady knows, I have had an interest in this subject for some time and I entirely endorse what she says.
The particular point that I want to make is about anticipating events. The right hon. Lady has spoken a great deal about how we deal with events in the moment, as it were—the training of staff is critical, as she said—but of course we could be talking about a timed device that is planted long before a large event takes place. How does she see the legislation having an impact on a plot that is made well in advance, as I am sure the one in Manchester was?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member makes an important point and I thank him for his long-standing interest in the issue. Those responsible for premises and events in the enhanced tier will be required to provide the regulator with a document that sets out all the public protection measures and procedures they have, and how they expect those processes to reduce their vulnerability and risk of harm from terrorism. The first category is about monitoring for risks and indicators. That might include monitoring prevention measures—for example, if there has been some kind of security breach a week before or some days before—or assessing what the risks might be. The third measure is about physical safety, which might include the physical arrangements that can prevent somebody from being able to take action in advance of a major event to create that risk and threat. There are ways of having those checks in place.
The Bill ensures that there is a new regulator to oversee compliance through a new function of the Security Industry Authority. We expect the SIA’s primary role to be supporting and advising businesses to implement the legislation’s requirements. Even though the SIA will have a suite of powers and sanctions, including the power to issue fines for non-compliance or to shut down events in the enhanced tier, in fact those sanctions are primarily civil. I reassure the House that those responsible for premises and events will be given time to understand and that the SIA’s approach will be to support venues to adopt the new measures. A range of factors will be taken into account so that penalties will be used only to address the most serious or repeated failings.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State for her contribution and for setting the scene so well. We will support the Government’s legislation because it is the right thing to do. The Secretary of State knows very well that we in Northern Ireland have suffered a campaign lasting 30-plus years from the IRA, where shopkeepers and those involved in businesses took steps against firebombs, against people bombing houses and against car bombs, which resulted in a large loss of life. Has there been the opportunity to consider what was done in Northern Ireland in a voluntary capacity to combat such things? I am ever mindful that it was perhaps not necessary to have legislation that handed out fines.
Everyone wants to do the right thing and if that is the case, it is about how we encourage people to do that. Lessons can be learned from back home. I will speak later and highlight some of those things, but I think it is important that we take all the knowledge from everywhere in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right that there has been considerable work by many venues and premises in Northern Ireland to respond to the kinds of threats and risks that, sadly, communities have faced through the years. He may also be interested to know that in Manchester a voluntary version of Martyn’s law was introduced after the appalling Manchester Arena attack; training and support were provided for venues and many businesses were keen to sign up. That has been very well supported and the view in Manchester is that it has been hugely successful.
The experience of the hon. Member for Strangford in Northern Ireland and the experience in Manchester is that, too often, there has been a tragic reason as to why organisations have responded in that way. We need to make sure those same lessons are learned right across the country. That is why we are setting out this comprehensive legislation, so we are not in a situation where the biggest venues only respond when something terrible happens—when it is too late and lives have been lost.
We are committed to working extensively with the business community during the passage and roll-out of the Bill. As well as the ongoing programme of direct engagement, we have also updated ProtectUK to make it easier for businesses and others to navigate and understand the supporting information on the Bill. We are acutely conscious in introducing this legislation of the need to get the proper balance and detail right. That is why, as hon. and right hon. Members will know, the Bill’s proposals have been subject to extensive development, and the draft version of the legislation was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny under the previous Government.
Most crucially, we have raised the threshold for being in scope from 100 to 200 individuals. We recognise the need for a location-specific approach because the procedures in one place may not apply to another. We have also ensured that in both tiers appropriate procedures and measures are required only
“so far as is reasonably practicable”.
Those words are crucial to recognising the importance of protecting life and our way of life.
With Figen here, we always keep in our minds that terrible day in Manchester seven and a half years ago. The youngest victim was an eight-year-old girl, Saffie-Rose Roussos. Her headteacher asked the question afterwards:
“How do you tell 276 children that their friend has been murdered”?
That is a question we all ask: how can we explain how anyone could have targeted the event that day, with young children enjoying their love of music and dancing? But that is the point. When terrorists want to cause maximum damage—when they want to destroy our way of life—of course they seek out crowds, but they also seek out innocence, happiness and joy. That is why our task is not just to take measures to keep people safe but to work tirelessly to ensure that people can get on and enjoy their lives, and that we never let terrorists, extremists and criminals win.
Let me finish by quoting Figen. She said:
“It’s time to get this done.”
I could not put it better. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for bringing the Bill forward with such pace and alacrity. I pay tribute to Figen Murray for her tireless campaigning; I know that she, her husband and other campaigners join us in the Chamber. It is also appropriate that we pay tribute to her son, Martyn Hett, who was murdered, alongside 21 other innocent victims, while going to the Manchester Arena in 2017 to watch a concert. It is of course in that tragic context that we find ourselves considering this legislation.
As the Home Secretary said, the Bill enjoys cross-party support, and the Opposition support its aims and aspirations. I am grateful to her for recognising at the Dispatch Box the work that was done, particularly in pre-legislative scrutiny, to ensure that the Bill has the best chance of navigating its parliamentary stages and concluding in a manner that achieves the dual purpose of keeping people safe while supporting the music and entertainment industry, of which we are so proud.
When I met Ms Murray ahead of the general election, I said, perhaps rashly, that I was confident that, irrespective of the outcome of the election, the Bill would be brought forward. I am glad that the Home Secretary did not put me in an awkward position having made such a commitment. I felt confident at the time that I would be proved right, and I am pleased that, on this one occasion thus far, she and her Ministers have done so. Martyn’s law was in both our parties’ manifestos at the last general election, and it is important that this measured and well thought through piece of legislation is properly scrutinised legislation and makes it through the House.
As the Home Secretary said, the threat picture is complex, evolving and enduring, and terrorists choose to attack a broad range of locations. As she also stated, they choose to attack in a manner and in locations that maximise the detrimental impact on our way of life. The protection of our way of life is in many ways just as important as the protection of life itself. As there is a range of potential targets, it is right that the Bill proposes that a range of premises be better protected and ready to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. At the same time, the Government have to think very carefully when regulating in this way, to ensure that we recognise that we cannot regulate away all risks. We should regulate when and where it provides greater safety to the public, ensuring that we do not create a false sense of security or impose a cost so high that venues are unable to comply and therefore fail to reduce the risk.
It is appropriate that we look at the impact assessment produced by the Government, and recognise that the new regulations will affect an estimated 155,000 small businesses with a venue capacity of between 200 and 799 people. That will impose an average cost on them of around £330 a year. The regulations will also impact around 24,000 larger venues with a capacity of 800 and above, imposing an average cost of around £5,000 each year. When I was the Home Secretary, I looked at ways of reducing the burden on the industry as much as possible, while ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders, as it were, could bear the largest load, protecting smaller venues. I therefore welcome the lighter-touch approach that has been put forward, particularly in the standard tier.
While in government, we also looked at the case for raising the standard threshold beyond 200 to around 300. I see in the Bill that a capacity of 200 was settled on. Clearly, as the Bill goes through the scrutiny process, questions will be asked about whether 200, 300, or a lower or higher figure is appropriate. It is right that those questions are asked, and Members across the House should feel at liberty to probe the Government on the rationale, because this is about balance, and ensuring that people are safe and venues stay viable.
In recognition of the important but novel approach that is being taken, what thought have the Government given to a feedback process whereby the implementation could be assessed and thresholds adjusted if needs be? The Government might consider implementing the enhanced tier in a staged process and learn lessons before implementing the standard tier fully. I would certainly be more than happy to discuss that with the Home Secretary across the Dispatch Box, in Committee, or elsewhere.
Turning to the establishment of the new regulator, I welcome the Government’s intention that the regulatory function of Martyn’s law will be delivered as a new function of the Security Industry Authority, but what assurances has the right hon. Lady had from the SIA regarding its readiness for this? As I said, including the standard tier, we are looking at nearly 200,000 venues. We want to ensure that the legislation is effective, and not just on the statute book gathering dust.
Sir John Hayes
I am mindful of my right hon. Friend’s earlier point about how small businesses can cope with the new requirements. Part of that involves increasing their staff’s awareness and understanding of the threat. The training that the Home Secretary spoke about will be vital in that respect. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of minimising costs will be for umbrella organisations to co-ordinate some of that training, in organisations big and small, to improve staff understanding of the risk and how it can be countered?
Mr Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Given that so much legislation of this nature enjoys cross-party support, there are opportunities to discuss the most effective way of implementing our universal desire to get good and effective, but not overly onerous, legislation on the books. Members may feel a bit reticent about asking challenging questions for fear of coming across as seeking to undermine the work of legislation, but I know from the conversations that he and I have had that the opposite is true here. There are opportunities to do as he suggests, for example with the requirement for the enhanced tier venues to get their house in order. That could be done in close co-ordination with local venues in the standard tier, and the relevant training could be done hand in hand without the full financial, time or other burden falling on smaller venues. That kind of detail could make a fundamentally sound Bill increasingly effective.
We need to look at what else can be done to ensure that the plans for premises cannot be used against them, and that if those plans are disclosed, they cannot be utilised by would-be attackers as part of their preparation. Of course, there is a balancing act between having best practice made public—something that would benefit smaller venues—and ensuring that we do not give advantage to those who would do harm.
I also ask that Ministers ensure that the regulator is supportive and constructive. The Home Secretary made that point, and it is important to say it at the Dispatch Box, but making sure that it is really embedded in the organisation is key. The regulator’s desire should be to help venues to stay safe and viable, rather than looking for opportunities to rush in with fining powers, which could either put businesses out of business or introduce such a fear of fines that they decide to take the easy option and close their doors. That is not something that Members on either side of the House want.
Organisations will, of course, need time to adapt and familiarise themselves with the new guidance. On that point, I note that the new legislation is unlikely to be implemented for around 24 months after Royal Assent. If that is the case, will the Home Secretary commit to engage with the industry via the Federation of Small Businesses, Live music Industry Venues and Entertainment, the Greater London Authority and other bodies to ensure that we do not have a one-size-fits-all approach that might, perhaps inadvertently, squeeze sensible changes that could increase compliance without increasing risk?
What mitigations or exemptions will the Home Secretary consider to protect voluntary and community venues, such as churches or places of worship, particularly those that have already said that the new regulations will be burdensome for them? It is vital to keep the thresholds and guidance under review as the legislation is implemented. Fear of regulation often incentivises owners and organisers to take the most cautious point of view rather than the most appropriate one, and that would be counterproductive.
As the Home Secretary said, terror threats are constantly evolving, and we must evolve with them. In doing so, we must be alive to the threat that new regulations and protections have on our everyday lives—on gatherings, on places of worship and on business—and we should keep proportionality at the forefront of our minds. She has made a commitment to do that, and I am grateful that she has done so. In that spirit, I offer the Opposition’s support in ensuring that the legislation passes promptly through the House and is implemented in the best form possible, and that we do what we can to ensure that tragedies such as we saw in the Manchester Arena never happen again.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak today in support of this vital Bill. I start by joining the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary in paying tribute to the bravery and phenomenal campaigning of Figen Murray. To so selflessly and bravely campaign for the safety of others after suffering such unimaginable trauma is truly inspirational. It is the reason this legislation is before the House today, and it is the reason lives will be saved when this Bill becomes law. That should lead to an enormous sense of pride for her and for all the campaigners involved.
As a Greater Manchester Member of Parliament, I find this legislation especially poignant, coming as it does after the Manchester Arena attack in 2017, which united Manchester, our region and our country in grief. Twenty-two people died that night, and many more were left with lifelong physical and psychological trauma. First and foremost, they suffered from an act of indescribable evil and cowardice from people who seek to destroy what binds us and our way of life. They also suffered as a result of security arrangements at Manchester Arena that were not proportional to the severe threat posed by terrorism.
The Manchester Arena inquiry carried out by Sir John Saunders found multiple missed opportunities for detecting and stopping the bomber, or, at the very least, minimising the number of casualties that he was able to inflict. Sir John spoke of serious shortcomings from the operators of the arena, the company tasked with the concert security and the British Transport Police, including a lack of preparedness and a lack of communication between security employees regarding suspicious behaviour. That contributed to the attacker being able to do covert reconnaissance on the arena undetected and find a CCTV blind spot.
Underpinning those missed opportunities was a failure to treat the terror threat with the severity it deserved. At that point, the terror threat facing the country was classed as severe, but now it is classed as substantial, with an attack sadly likely. Indeed, we know that since the Manchester Arena bombing, 43 terror plots on UK venues have been foiled at a late stage. Figen Murray has said:
“We’ve been lucky 43 times but they only have to be lucky once.”
That is why there is such an urgent need for this overdue Bill. I am proud that the Government are treating this issue as the priority that it deserves to be. After all, our most basic responsibility in this place is to do everything we can to ensure the safety and security of our residents. The Prime Minister promised he would act, and he has done so just months into his Administration. I thank him and the Home Office team for their swift action to deliver us to this stage.
The striking thing for me about this legislation is how common-sense it all is. We would be hard pressed to find a constituent who disagrees that all public premises should take reasonably practical measures to mitigate the impact of a terrorist plot. Similarly, it feels like a significant oversight that there was no previous mandate setting out who is responsible for implementing these measures, as there will be should this Bill become law. These are common-sense proposals to deal with serious issues—something every Bill in this place seeks to do, but does not always achieve. That is why it has such strong support in all parts of the House.
I note the supportive comments of the head of counter-terrorism policing, Matt Jukes, who talked of
“the opportunity that this Bill brings to drive greater consistency”
among businesses and communities, and
“to take simple low or no-cost steps that will save lives”.
I appreciate that concerns have been expressed about the burden that will be placed on businesses, particularly smaller music venues that are still recovering from the covid-19 pandemic, but with the support of a dedicated regulator to help them and a period of 24 months to prepare, I do not believe that any business is facing obstacles that cannot be overcome. I thank the Home Secretary for setting out the Government’s tiered approach, and I know that much more will be said about support for businesses as the Bill progresses through the House.
For the Bill to be as effective as possible, we need collaboration between Government, business and campaigners. We have a duty to make it as effective as possible, because while it cannot remove the hurt or pain of those who suffered a loss in the Manchester Arena attack or ease the pain of those who are living with their injuries, it can forever reduce the likelihood of such an event happening again, and it will save lives. That is why I am proud to support the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
As this House reflects on the measures we must take to protect our nation, it is essential that—as others have already done—we remember the tragedy of 22 May 2017, when the Manchester Arena bombing claimed 22 lives in a shocking act of terror. Those of us who are from Greater Manchester all know someone who was there that night, whether they were watching the concert, picking up their daughters, or responding as a member of our emergency services. Among the 22 who were lost was Martyn Hett, a young man from Stockport who was full of life, boundless energy and a personality that lit up every room he entered. Martyn was 29 years old, and for anyone who knew him—as many of my constituents did—he was a symbol of joy and creativity. His love for life, humour, and unique way of connecting with people left a lasting impression on so many Stopfordians.
Martyn’s mum Figen endured a loss that no parent should ever have to face. However, Figen’s response to that unimaginable pain has been one of remarkable strength and resolve. She has become a tireless advocate for change and an inspiration to us all, and she has led the campaign for Martyn’s law in memory of her son. Figen’s efforts have not gone unnoticed: over the years, she has worked with policymakers, security experts and communities to push for these changes, with the goal of ensuring no other family has to experience what she and her family have had to. Her determination has turned a personal tragedy into a powerful force for good. She has taken her message to Governments of different shades, to public forums and to schools, reminding us of the urgent need for better safety measures in public spaces. Martyn’s law is a testament to her courage.
I must also pay tribute to the people of Greater Manchester, who came together in an extraordinary display of solidarity, resilience and compassion. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, our city region stood tall: taxi drivers offered free rides to those stranded, residents opened their homes to concertgoers in need, and local businesses provided food and shelter to strangers. Greater Manchester is a city region known for its gumption and its strength, and that night, we showed the world what true unity looks like. In the days that followed, St Ann’s Square became a place of mourning, reflection and community, with thousands of people gathering there—as well as across the region—to pay tribute to the victims, light candles and lay flowers. I remember gathering in Romiley Precinct, because it was important to be with our neighbours and to feel part of our community. It was not just a moment of mourning, but a really powerful statement that our city region would not be broken by terror.
The Mancunian way speaks to that enduring spirit—a refusal to be defined by fear, but instead by our unity and resolve. It was evident in the tireless work of the emergency services, who responded with bravery and professionalism on that terrible night, and in the action of the countless volunteers who came forward offering what they could to help. The attack sought to sow fear and division, but it only brought us closer together and reminded us of what truly makes Greater Manchester great: its people. As we consider the legislation before us today, we must remember the 22 lives lost and the families forever changed, as well as the resilience of the people of Greater Manchester. We must honour the memory of Martyn and the work of Figen, whose campaign for Martyn’s law is not just a call for better security, but a testament to the power of love and community in the face of terror.
This legislation is intended to ensure that businesses and organisations are better prepared to deal with, and respond to, terror-related threats. The tragic Arena attack exposed deficiencies in the security of public venues. This Bill aims to address those gaps by imposing a legal duty on the owners and operators of public venues to assess the risk of terror-related security threats and implement proportionate security measures. Attention should be drawn to the party responsible for complying with the regulations set out in the Bill, which is the owner, the operator or the leaseholder of the venue. The Bill applies to any premises that, at times, will host 200 or more people, ranging from nightclubs and sports grounds to leisure centres, schools and universities.
A key distinction should be made, and is made, between the three categories to which the Bill applies: enhanced duty premises, which may expect 800 attendees from time to time; qualifying events, which are any event that will have public access and may host 800 or more attendees; and standard duty premises, which may host at least 200 people at times. I welcome the new threshold for standard duty premises of 200 individuals, which largely addresses the concerns raised by Action with Communities in Rural England and will reduce the burden on the organisers and operators of thousands of community-run venues, such as village halls, community halls and church halls. Such venues might be used for community groups, exercise classes and weddings in rural areas where the terrorist threat is usually low.
However, some concerns remain. The Bill grants the Home Secretary the power to lower the 200-person threshold to 100. Such a change should require a strong specific justification related to a clear and widespread threat, and in such cases less burdensome alternatives such as increased police engagement with smaller venues should be considered. We urge the Government to examine carefully whether the benefits of the Bill are proportional to the potential costs for smaller venues and their operators. Furthermore, the Bill contains little scope to train venue operators in their new responsibilities, leaving them preparing the required procedures with—in our view—not enough support. If the legislation is to be as effective as possible, the Government will need to address those concerns.
At this stage, the Liberal Democrats support Martyn’s law and look forward to further constructive scrutiny as it progresses through Parliament. It represents a step forward in ensuring the safety of our public spaces. The devastating attack at the Arena in 2017 serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities that exist and the heavy price we pay when they are exploited. We owe it to the victims and their families, and to every citizen, to learn from that tragedy and take measures to prevent it from happening again. By strengthening the security of our venues and enhancing our preparedness, we honour the memory of all those lost, and we demonstrate our commitment to protect the public from such senseless acts of terror.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Greater Manchester is my home. In a recent podcast, Sir Ian McKellen said:
“If you ever arrive in Manchester, if you’re lucky enough to be able to afford the train fare, you come down the steps at Piccadilly, and if you’re lucky enough to be able to afford a taxi, you get in the back of one, and the taxi driver—usually a man, but not always—says, ‘Where you going to, love?’”
He went on to say:
“Where grown men call strangers ‘love’. I think if we all did that, it would be a rather better place, wouldn’t it?”
That is the Greater Manchester I recognise and am proud of. Although I am not a native, I have come to know the warm, welcoming compassion of its people. This is the Greater Manchester that was shaken to its core by the unspeakable devastation caused by the Arena bombing—an act so far removed from the values of the place I now call home. I join the Home Secretary in commending the action Manchester took, effectively enacting Martyn’s law following that dreadful attack. I know that Members on all sides of the House who have visited our region, even for a brief moment, will recognise the warmth and compassion of which I speak.
This Bill, Martyn’s law, is an important step towards ensuring that no other family, no other mother and, indeed, no other parent has to endure the same pain and loss that Figen Murray and so many others have faced. Everyone in Greater Manchester and across the country should feel safe when they attend public venues, whether they are at a local theatre production, a concert or a football match, or simply enjoying a day out, and they should know that their children will be safe too.
In my part of Greater Manchester, Bolton North East, our vibrant arts sector is the heartbeat of the community. Local venues such as the Albert Halls and the Octagon theatre, which will fall under the standard tier of this legislation, play a vital role in bringing people together and providing spaces where families can celebrate creativity and culture. For smaller venues such as these, it is crucial that we strike the right balance, ensuring that both safety and culture can thrive side by side.
I would like to end by paying tribute to Figen and her campaign team, who have worked tirelessly to keep this Bill on the agenda. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the entire Home Office team and the Prime Minister for wasting no time in bringing Martyn’s law to the House within the first 100 days of this Government, and I look forward to supporting the Bill through the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I think it is right that at this moment we all pause to remember those who have lost their lives to acts of terrorism, and not just in recent years but across many decades.
I pay particular tribute to Figen Murray, Martyn Hett’s mother, whose role in this legislation has been recognised today by the whole House. Other families have lost loved ones to terrorism, but she has single-handedly championed Martyn’s law. I have had the great privilege of spending time with Figen, and with so many other families, and it is quite something, frankly, to listen to them speak not just of their concerns, heartbreak and suffering, but of their determined resolve to seek justice for their loved ones, and to steer this legislation across different political parties and bring it before Parliament. I do not have enough words to pay tribute to Figen and so many others, but I can say that the tragedy that has affected their lives has led them to stand tall.
There are other individuals such as Travis Frain, who has made such a big impact by standing up and giving voice to the victims of these atrocities, and they all deserve the greatest recognition and respect. They have shown a great deal of courage in dealing with the pain, suffering and trauma that they have experienced, and in working towards making our country and our community safe, and protecting other citizens from the suffering and hardship that they themselves have faced. It is a testament to their campaign that Martyn’s law has consistently attracted cross-party support.
I want to thank everyone in the House, including those on both Front Benches and the Home Affairs Committee, which examined the draft Bill, as well as everyone who has worked on progressing Martyn’s law from 2021 onwards. That was when the first consultation took place, for 18 weeks. It provided some startling insights into the public’s attitudes towards the protection of venues and the steps they wanted their Government to advance. So many people have been involved in this legislation, but I do want to pay tribute to a former Security Minister who worked on this with me in the Home Office. James Brokenshire, who was a diligent Security Minister, led this work. This month marks the third anniversary of his passing, and he will be in our thoughts.
Of course, our thoughts and prayers must also be with the family of Sir David Amess, whose murder took place three years ago tomorrow. We look at his plaque in the same way that we look at the plaque in memory of Jo Cox. They and their families were victims of some of the atrocities that have taken place in our country.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the right hon. Member for her tributes to David Amess and Jo Cox, and I join her in those tributes. David’s family will be very much in our hearts as we remember him tomorrow, as will Jo and all of her family. The right hon. Member is right to pay tribute to them, and I thank her for doing so.
Priti Patel
I thank the Home Secretary for her comments. Debates such as this concentrate all our minds and thoughts on how we must work together. It is so sad, but many of the Members here have spoken about Sir David and Jo, and in fact great security measures have then been enacted. Indeed, I pay tribute to Mr Speaker, staff members and everyone who has stepped up to do so. However, there is a threat here, which is the suffering, the loss and the pain, and as has been said in the debates thus far, the Manchester Arena tragedy will live with so many of us for so long.
I set up the inquiry when I was Home Secretary, and many of the findings of the important work of Sir John Saunders were absolutely shocking. The families had to sit through and participate in the inquiry, and they were retraumatised to a certain extent while giving evidence and listening to some of the failings, which was deeply painful. This is very much about the lessons we can learn collectively, and not just across Government but as a society. This Bill will always be in memory of Martyn, of course, but it is also in memory of the many others affected.
Sir John Hayes
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for setting up the inquiry, but those recommendations did not stop with this legislation. While it is important that we welcome this in the spirit that has imbued the debate so far, the recommendations on co-ordination and some of the failures in communication between different agencies—those recommendations were mentioned by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand)—do need to be acted on. Notwithstanding the spirit that I have described, it is important that that scrutiny continues and that we learn the lessons to which she has alluded.
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He will know very well from his own time in government, given the roles in which he served, that we have been privy to the details of some awful plans, plots and issues that could have inflicted a lot of problems on our country. We must always have these policies under review.
I want to pay tribute to the work of our security and intelligence services. Their work behind the scenes is just outstanding, and we are blessed in so many ways with the level of scrutiny, the work they do and the resources that come from Government. I want to pay tribute to the team that set up the counter-terrorism operations centre—a new organisation established by the previous Government during the last Parliament—which focuses on the integrated approach of our security services for a lot of the operational work that takes place. We should not just pay tribute to it, but recognise that this work always has to be kept under review, because the threats change. The nature of the threats evolves and changes constantly and, as we know, terrorism is not just domestic but takes place outside this country.
The Bill has had extensive consideration and consultation. It has taken into account the recommendations and details contained in reports and inquests from the Manchester Arena attack, and from the attacks at London bridge and here in Westminster, and other incidents, as is absolutely right. During my time at the Home Office, we gave a commitment to introduce a protect duty, which was welcomed across the House and by campaigners and many businesses, and that consultation was undertaken in 2021. We had to consult and consider carefully how best to implement that and improve public safety protections while being mindful of the many impacts on businesses to which the House has alluded—the need for those impacts to be proportionate and for burdens to be minimised—particularly on smaller businesses and venues, and contemplating the role and responsibilities of the regulator. The Home Secretary touched on some of those points.
Since then, the draft Bill was published last year and was considered by the Home Affairs Committee, and this year the standard tier consultation took place. The results were published last month with the Bill and, importantly, the provisions have been built on and some changes made. It is right that the details have been scrutinised. It is important that we recognise the patience of the campaigners who wanted the Bill to come forward much earlier, but we needed to get the technicalities and the details right. There is no point in bringing forward legislation if we cannot operationalise it.
The Home Secretary has spoken about the role of the SIA. We need to consider how the SIA will be equipped adequately. It was resourced heavily during the covid pandemic, with new duties and responsibilities, but again it is the practicalities that are important, because the Bill brings an estimated 179,000 premises under the scope of the requirements of Martyn’s law, with a distinction in place—some have a standard duty, as we have heard from the Secretary of State. It is right that the provisions are proportionate to the scale and size of premises and businesses, and that there is a link to the risk, but we do not want to see issues with the enforceability of the provisions, so I want to ask the Home Secretary and her team some questions in that regard.
The Home Secretary touched on the whole issue around the SIA, the regulator and the potential to enforce civil penalties, but we need to understand the practicalities, because she also highlighted that we do not want to put additional burdens on businesses through the work that has taken place already. If businesses are not stepping up—not learning from past mistakes and the recommendations of other inquiries—how will that be picked up? Penalties are one thing, but they should be the last resort; we need these institutions and organisations to put public safety and the practicalities first.
I hope that the Minister responding to the debate will talk about the impact on local authorities, including local councils and town parishes. What assurances can be given about the work under way with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support local authorities to meet these obligations, including through training, and considering the implications, practicalities and scope? Will there be financial support for them? What support will be given to schools and educational institutions on their standard duty?
Given the existing measures that some premises have in place to ensure compliance with fire safety, health and safety, and crime prevention requirements, will the Minister look carefully at the interplay between those responsibilities so that the guidance is not complicated but consistent and comprehensive, and that we assist premises in minimising cost burdens while allowing them to work in an integrated way? One big lesson from Manchester, and Sir John’s inquiry and the reporting— we know this, as it was in the public domain—was that there was a lack of integration between the various services working together. That absolutely has to be recognised. We must ensure there is a golden thread running through all the services locally, so they know how to integrate and work together. The impact assessment gives an estimate of the overall cost of the standard duty and the enhanced duty over a significant period, but there is again the question of the practicalities: what does this really mean for the many organisations and institutions that will be involved?
I seek clarity from the Minister about the role of planning policy in delivering Martyn’s law. This is important; with changes in planning policy, we might be able to make changes to the way in which buildings are shaped and designed, and to what local authorities take on board. We might be able to ensure that the relevant authorities receive advice and guidance from the police on how to design out some of these issues and put in safety measures, and bring in developers to introduce good designs and new concepts, future-proofing many institutions, buildings and developments.
I will touch on the nature of terror incidents and the premises that need to be considered, because we need procedures to examine how best to prevent incidents from taking place and places from becoming targets. Monitoring and surveillance is second nature to our institutions, but there is also the question of how premises hosting events should respond to a particular threat or even anticipate an incident—what kinds of processes and procedures will such premises be undertaking? Perhaps the Home Secretary or the Minister could talk a bit about some of the discussions they have had with key sectors. Live venues and events were discussed earlier, but have they been consulted not just on how they will design these incidents out but on the practical measures—the kind of work that will be undertaken or the drills that will be put in place?
There are a lot of lessons to learn just from recent incidents. We saw what happened at London bridge in 2017, which differed from the Finsbury Park attack, the Manchester Arena attack and the Reading Forbury Gardens attack as well. It is important that the SIA, the regulator and the Government work to ensure that those responsible for premises and events have the full duty, and can go into their own planning and preparations in the right way.
I will mention one particular inquiry that is taking place, as it is in the news today: the inquiry into the 2018 Novichok poisoning in Salisbury of Dawn Sturgess, chaired by Lord Hughes of Ombersley. The Government will naturally be considering the harm and damage that that caused, because the actions of a hostile state led to the most atrocious and appalling deaths of innocent people in our country. It reminds us all that incidents come in all shapes and guises, and that we need to find better ways to protect the public and put public safety first.
I conclude by asking the Minister about support for victims of terrorism. The Home Office has been conducting an internal review into the support package available to victims of terrorism, and considering the introduction of a national day of service and tribute to victims of terrorism. Travis Frain, whom the ministerial team will be familiar with and know of, has been a long-standing and deeply passionate campaigner for that. Ministers prior to the election were looking at this matter as well, so we would welcome even a small update on the Government’s thinking regarding support for victims of terrorism and on some of the work that Travis was leading.
I note from the programme motion that the Government are keen for the Bill to complete its Committee stage by mid-November. To ensure it progresses quickly, I hope that Members across both Houses will ask the right questions and work in a practical way with the industry—we have not even touched on the insurance industry but I am sure that will all be covered in Committee—and look at how we can start providing public protection and safety sooner rather than later. I say this in my concluding remarks, particularly recognising that Figen Murray and others are here today watching the debate, because we owe it to them, to their families and to so many who have suffered and who have been waiting in anticipation for this legislation. We owe it to them to enact these measures in a practical way: to give them and the public confidence, as they look to us all to drive this legislation forward with positive outcomes, sooner rather than later.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). I wish to make it clear at the start of my speech that I very much welcome this Bill, which means so much to so many, in Manchester in particular, for the reasons outlined by the Home Secretary, but also those affected by other terror attacks in our country, including my own community which was attacked on 3 June 2017 at London bridge and Borough market.
The Bill is targeted at protecting people from further incidents, primarily at large entertainment venues. This is very relevant to my constituency. Many former printworks in Rotherhithe are now live music venues; Members may be familiar with the Ministry of Sound at Elephant and Castle; and of course many will also be aware of the Young Vic. They could all be brought into the scope, and there are thousands of other smaller hospitality venues that could also be brought into scope for different levels of requirements under this legislation.
As has already been pointed out, we are at substantial risk of further attack, and the people whose motives are to attack us and our way of life sadly choose areas where there are multiple innocent civilians and there is likely to be an international impact, which makes constituencies and communities such as mine more vulnerable, because we have one of London’s busiest train stations. We have part of a world heritage site at Tower bridge. We have millions of visitors at Tate Modern and the Globe theatre, and the Shard itself, which are all sadly targets for those who seek to disrupt or destroy our way of life. I need this Bill to be effective to ensure that my constituents can go about their business and way of life routinely, with minimal fear.
My community did receive a visit from the then Prime Minister Theresa May after the attack in 2017, which was welcome, but the level of support from former Governments was not sufficient. The strength to rebuild the community and the footfall at Borough market and more widely came from the local community, and our community is still indebted to the former dean of Southwark cathedral, Andrew Nunn—now retired—who led and shaped some of the work with his team. There was also the work of the Borough market trust and others, from individual traders who operate as very small businesses right through to large restaurants and traders across London. Many other local businesses played their part, including Barclays bank on Borough High Street, which provided facilities for those locked out of their own premises. News UK, which does not often get praise from this party, provided a generous voucher scheme for hundreds of its employees to ensure that the market was receiving more business sooner, for which traders were incredibly grateful.
I am almost apologetic in raising this matter, because it sounds niche, but one issue that concerns me is the security barriers and the bollards. Seven years on, there have been many issues in trying to ensure sufficient external protection for venues. That comes back to the nature of the attacks we see. Manchester was very different from London bridge and Borough market. Many of the more recent terror attacks we have seen have involved vehicles and knives and blades. Vehicle protections are an issue for many venues that will be covered by the legislation, but they will not be able to act alone in installing protective measures. Clauses 11 and 12 of the previous draft Bill required risk assessments but did not confer sufficient requirements on all agencies involved with responsibility for preparedness to prevent an attack. That is my reading, and I hope that Ministers will address that as the Bill goes forward.
The dispute resolution system set out in clauses 18 to 20 of that document cover use of a premises and venue, but not shared spaces or communal areas. For example, in Southwark we have the entrances and exits from Transport for London roads, Southwark Council roads and communal shared space partly owned by the Borough market trust. Where there is a mixture of owners and responsibilities, there needs to be a clearer means of delivering the change required to make the legislation effective. That needs to be looked at. Do the Government need to work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to improve the planning process so that where measures are identified, perhaps in a risk assessment as in clauses 11 and 12 of the previous draft Bill, there could be a fast-track process for getting them implemented through planning? There are other plans for this Government to improve the planning system, and that would be a sensible measure to take forward.
Then we have the measure on reviewing preparedness. I was grateful to Pool Reinsurance, which was helpful after the attack in talking through the changes that the Government made to terror insurance, which I supported at the time. One of the issues it raised was whether there was sufficient coverage. It seems reasonable additionally to require those with duties under the provisions as set out in clauses 11 and 12 of the previous draft Bill to have terror insurance. That insurance could be integral to protections and preparedness, and a means of drawing down on insurance systems could be written into the Bill.
When it comes to security measures, I do not think that the largesse, generosity or imagination of an individual firm should determine whether they will allow venues to draw down on their insurance. There needs to be a minimum requirement. To give a practical example, when lots of Henry Moore pieces were being stolen across London and elsewhere and melted down, Southwark council said, “We had better get rid of ours”, but actually, we worked instead with the insurer to build some protective measures, such as a plinth alarm, deep planters with concrete bases and CCTV. Those were all paid for by the insurer, rather than targeted at the residents who have this amazing piece in their backyard. Again, this should not be about the imagination of an individual insurer. Perhaps training could be provided by Pool Reinsurance or another actor, or covered by them. Pool Reinsurance could provide an annual review of preparedness. The number of venues with protection could be reported back to Parliament or put in the public domain at no cost to the Home Office, because Pool Re provides something along similar lines elsewhere. I hope Ministers will examine that.
The former Home Secretary also mentioned local authorities and licensing. I agree that the previous Government loaded additional responsibilities with no new resources on to many councils, including my own, with no recourse to public funds being a very significant one. This is another area where I have a concern—I think the Government’s intent is clear, but can full cost recovery be available for local authorities that are having to assess? Some authorities, such as mine, will have more responsibility in delivering that, and local taxpayers should not bear the cost of providing protective measures to defend everyone who visits those venues. It should be a matter of full cost recovery. I hope that that will be made clearer in the Bill.
That being said, I support this legislation. I hope the issues I have briefly referenced will be addressed as the legislation progresses. We all come here to make a difference. This legislation will not just make a difference, but save lives, and it will weaken the chances of those who seek to attack us and undermine our way of life. I am glad it is being welcomed by everyone across the House today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. You must bob if you wish to contribute. I call Rachel Gilmour to make her maiden speech.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Thank you for calling me to make my maiden speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I do, may I commend Figen Murray and her family and friends for the excellent campaign they have continued, completely selflessly? I am sure it will save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of people. They are a great example to us all.
I confess to being unusually nervous—as indeed I should be—as I address my honourable colleagues across the House for the first time as the first Member of Parliament for Tiverton and Minehead. I would like to begin by thanking the two previous MPs for Tiverton and Minehead. My fellow Liberal Democrat, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), has happily been returned by his constituents as their MP, where he will continue to be a hard-working local champion. I am also grateful for the 23 years of service that my predecessor in Bridgwater and West Somerset, Ian Liddell-Grainger, in his own inimitable style, gave to my constituents in that part of my constituency. He is a doting grandfather, who will now have more time to spend with his grandchildren. I also want to thank Rebecca Pow, the former Member for Taunton Deane, who is a prolific gardener—vegetables are a particular favourite, I understand—and whose constituency encompassed some of the villages and towns now in Tiverton and Minehead, as well as the constituency of Taunton and Wellington.
As a new Member of Parliament, this place, even though it bears a resemblance to my alma mater, is a difficult and different environment to master. I know that I speak for all new Members when I thank all members of staff of the parliamentary estate, from Doorkeepers to police officers to catering and cleaning staff. I thank them all for their warm welcome, and for their tolerance and patience with the numerous questions they answer with humour and understanding. Thank you all.
Since September last year, my team, known as “Team Terrific and The Stalwarts”, have knocked on nearly 31,000 doors, delivered hundreds of thousands of leaflets, letters and surveys and spoken to over 12,000 residents. I know what matters to the people of Tiverton and Minehead because I have asked them.
I was raised in Somerset and have spent most of my adult life in Devon, from Holcombe Rogus via Hemyock to Bampton in the Tiverton and Minehead constituency. My husband and I chose to raise our family in Devon. In fact, all four of our children are born Devonians. Our eldest sons, Henry and Tom, were born in the old hospital in Tiverton. It is my sincere intention to support the NHS and social care systems in Tiverton and Minehead by keeping our local hospitals open in Minehead, Tiverton and Williton, and by supporting all our GP surgeries.
Ours is a very rural area and the need to keep local hospitals open is especially pressing given limited transport links and a higher-than-average elderly population. As mine is a rural and often disconnected constituency, transport improvements are one of my key priorities. With that at the forefront of my mind, I have convened a meeting with Peninsula Transport, the body that oversees all public transport in Devon and Somerset. Along with my transport adviser, David Northey, who has a deep history in this area as a former head of strategic planning at Great Western Railway, I have been hard at work for my constituents, putting together a transport plan and highlighting the challenges and solutions for rail and bus services across Tiverton and Minehead.
Minehead train station desperately needs linking to the main line at Taunton; I know that my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Mr Amos) would agree. We need also to secure the number 25 and 28 bus services in the north of the constituency and look carefully at rural bus routes to service the villages of Exmoor, such as Exford, Withypool and Winsford, along with local towns, particularly Wiveliscombe. Those will be key parts of that new plan for the local area.
Poor public transport provision creates a particular barrier to schoolchildren and students in Tiverton and Minehead. Some have no bus to take them to school, no way to walk to school or no way to cycle to get there. Other than the small A-level provision at West Somerset college, there is no—I repeat, no—sixth-form provision in my constituency. Students have to travel to Exeter, Taunton or Bridgwater if they wish to pursue their studies. That limits their aspirations and ability to succeed. Shockingly, West Somerset ranks 324th out of 324 on the social mobility index, and such transport problems explain some of why that is.
However, teachers and heads of primary schools across the constituency and of secondary schools in Tiverton, Minehead, Williton and Uffculme do not lack aspiration for their pupils. They are working daily to improve access to better education. That includes campaigning to have facilities worthy of 21st-century educational standards.
The first letter I wrote, within days of getting elected on 5 July, was to our new Secretary of State for Education, asking for a meeting to discuss the dire state of Tiverton high school. Nearly 25 years ago—I repeat, 25 years ago —Tiverton high school was promised a new build. The previous Labour Government put it on their priority list. The last Conservative Government sat on their hands and did nothing. The school is deemed by the Environment Agency to be a “danger of death” from flooding. There is asbestos in the sports hall, and children are being taught in dining and communal areas. It has capacity for 1,300 pupils but needs capacity for 1,800. Given the pledges made by our new Prime Minister and his commitment to schools, I know that I will get a fair hearing from the Secretary of State for Education. I hope that she will agree to meet a delegation of staff, parents and children from Tiverton high school in the near future.
Community plays a crucial role in Tiverton and Minehead. There are wonderful organisations providing support and help, from community food banks to support groups for carers, to Rotary clubs, conservation groups and the environmental networks with which I work to monitor and prevent the pollution in our rivers and on our beaches. Those organisations all make Tiverton and Minehead the wonderful, beautiful, special part of the UK that it is. When they meet to discuss important community issues, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill will ensure that they are safe. However, my party has previously had concerns about the impact on smaller-scale venues; I am delighted to hear today that the approach is more light touch than expected.
As a former director of the National Farmers Union, I have a deep passion for and understanding of my local farming community, who are spread across the constituency and facing harder challenges than they have for generations. That is thanks to the disastrous Brexit deal foisted upon them by the previous Conservative Government. In the face of climate change, increased rainfall, dryer summers and the rising cost of energy, they battle on. To them I say, “I will always back my farming community. Let’s work together to secure a future for farming across Exmoor, West Somerset and mid Devon. Come to my monthly farmers’ surgeries so that I can represent my farming community to the very best of my abilities.”
Becoming an MP has been my ambition since I was 17, when I joined the Liberal party at school. It has taken me four attempts over 43 years of campaigning, but now that dream has become a reality. Without my family, it would have been impossible. As a professional woman, I have broken several glass ceilings thanks to my inspirational grandmothers, Mabel and Jesse, who offered wise counsel; to Miss Whaite, now Mrs Michael Limb, my Latin teacher, who kept me sane at boarding school; and especially to my mother, who has always believed in me. Mummy, thank you—I love you. I am so proud to have her here today with my husband and our eldest son in the Gallery, so that she can see this moment.
Yesterday I celebrated my three-score-years birthday; I say to my Conservative colleagues, whose maths skills in government were found somewhat wanting, that that is 60. I share my birthday with Margaret Hilda Thatcher, who must be one of the best recruiting agents for the Liberal and Labour parties. I am proud that I share nothing with her other than a birthday. My passion for politics flows from my compassion for my fellow human beings—whoever and wherever they are, irrespective of background, race, religion, colour, gender, sexuality or ability.
It is impossible to mention everyone and everything in one’s maiden speech, but if there is one thing that I wish my constituents to know it is this: they are my world. I feel humbled and honoured to have been elected to represent Tiverton and Minehead in Parliament. They can help me do my job by coming to my surgeries at Tiverton and Minehead, Wiveliscombe and on Exmoor, by ringing my office and my staff, and by writing us letters and emails. I am at their service.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Fabulous at 60! Mabel, Jesse and your mum will be very proud. Now we have another maiden speech. I call Matt Bishop.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) and a privilege to speak to the Chamber today as the new hon. Member for Forest of Dean. First, I extend my good wishes to my predecessor, Mark Harper, for his 19 years of service to Forest of Dean. A few years ago, when I was chair of governors at St White’s primary school in Cinderford, Mark helped secure funding for a new school building. We worked together to finally get the school what it so badly needed, after 40 years of it crumbling. His help was instrumental during that time, and I appreciate all that he did for us.
I am the second Labour MP and only the third ever MP to represent the Forest of Dean constituency since its recreation in 1997. I agree wholeheartedly with what both my predecessors, Mark and the great Diana Organ, stated in their maiden speeches: that Forest of Dean really is the most beautiful constituency in the UK. I know that many others have also made that claim over the last year, but how many can boast that their constituency landscapes have graced the screens of iconic shows and films? Puzzlewood, for example, has served as the stunning backdrop for many shows, including “Doctor Who” and even a “Star Wars” movie. That brings the beauty of the forest to the big screen, allowing individuals from all over the world an insight into the place that I call home.
I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to visit the forest, where they will witness not only its natural beauty but a collection of individuals and groups who understand the importance of community. We have inspiring organisations such as the Forest Voluntary Action Forum, which supports many community-led projects, shaped with and for local people, and the Wilderness Centre, which provides exceptional day and residential visits for schools from the primary, secondary and independent sectors.
That community spirit is also evident through the actions of individuals. Just a few weeks ago, we experienced some localised flooding after the intense rainfall; as the constituency is rural, many areas, roads and houses became almost impossible to reach. During the floods, I saw local farmers in places such as Westbury-on-Severn and Sedbury coming to people’s rescue without hesitation, picking people up in their tractors and getting them home safely. I might have been one of the lucky ones who received that help. It is this spirit of solidarity that inspired me to move to the forest 17 years ago—the place where my wife grew up, and the place where we chose to raise our children, surrounded by a community full of kind-hearted individuals.
However, certain issues persist that require urgent attention. Many residents experience isolation because of inadequate public transport and a lack of community centres. There is a shortage of bus services, with limited routes and poorly maintained roads. With only 5% of the constituency in built-up areas, substantially improving public transport is vital for relationships to thrive and to combat the isolation that many residents feel. I welcome my constituents’ campaigns to turn the site of the former Dilke Memorial hospital into a mental health and wellbeing centre. Campaigning for a dedicated space within the community highlights the drive and determination of my constituents to ensure that no one is left behind.
Finally, throughout my career in public service I have been exposed to the great challenges in our society, and I appreciate the vital role that national Government, local councils, and the community play in addressing those issues. I served for many years as a police officer, including four years here in London for the Metropolitan police. On 7 July 2005, I was one of the first officers on the scene at the Tavistock Square bus bombing, where I saw at first hand the horror, destruction and chaos caused by such despicable acts of terror. I was also struck by the many admirable examples of courage and determination demonstrated by the emergency services, injured victims and members of the public. Perhaps now it is only right that we take a second to remember and pay tribute to all those who lost their lives or were injured during the attacks on our country on 7 July 2005. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
My time as a police officer has shown me the importance of ensuring that our residents feel safe, and I am acutely aware that the security of our communities, locally and nationally, must be a priority for the Government. That is why I chose this debate to make my maiden speech. I wholeheartedly support Martyn’s law, and I am pleased to see it implemented so early in this Labour Government.
Education is another particularly prominent issue in my constituency. As a former governor in multiple schools and as a local councillor, I have seen how national policy directly affects our local education system, which has long suffered as a result of funding decisions made over the past 14 years. During a recent visit to Forest high school in Cinderford, I was alarmed by the state of the school buildings, which were crumbling before my eyes. It is no exaggeration to say that classrooms were flooded, ceilings were collapsing, and the flooring was falling to pieces. We can have the best teachers in the world, but without a basic safe building, how can they provide the education that they want to provide? Our children deserve better, and they deserve better now. They deserve schools that inspire learning and growth, not schools that are collapsing. In recent years, the state of our schools has been forgotten. I, along with the new Labour Government, will not allow this to continue.
There is a song about the Forest of Dean which my constituents will know, called “The Land Between Two Rivers”, written by a constituent, Dick Brice.
Matt Bishop
Later. The song pretty much sums up our constituency. For too long those rivers, the Wye and Severn, have suffered from pollution and sewage issues. The communities in Newnham on Severn, Lydbrook, Lydney and many more villages and towns have rallied to demand action from the Government, and I am committed to bringing their voices to Parliament to reinvigorate the ecosystem and protect our wildlife.
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud to stand before you as a representative of the people of the Forest of Dean. This position is a responsibility I take seriously, and I aim to serve with the same dedication and spirit of co-operation that I observe in our community.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I join others in the House in paying tribute to Figen Murray and her fellow campaigners, who have been tireless advocates for positive change. I also congratulate two new Members on their maiden speeches. I can tell the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) that we could all do with a team of terrific stalwarts. I am sure that Mabel and Jesse will both be looking down, incredibly proud of her comments. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) for his service as a police officer and the courage that he showed in carrying out his duties.
There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind about the importance of today’s debate. The horrific events that took place at Manchester Arena are forever etched in our collective memory. My thoughts are with all those affected by those and other terrorist attacks that we have sadly witnessed in recent years. When we are shaken by such egregious events, that reinforces the fact that the first responsibility of any Government, and of all of us on the green Benches, is the protection and safety of our citizens. It is incumbent on us to take action to prevent these tragic moments in history from repeating themselves. That is why I believe that the Bill is necessary to bring peace of mind and reassurance, and to enable us to stand up to those who seek to harm us and tear our communities apart.
Notwithstanding my overarching support for the Bill, I note the significant requirements it places on the events, entertainment, and hospitality industries. Many in these industries are still recovering from the legacy of the pandemic. The financial requirements for compliance with the Bill add further pressures. I therefore invite the Minister to consider offering financial and logistical support, especially to smaller organisations that struggle to predict footfall. That is particularly pertinent to those premises that experience seasonal peaks and troughs over the course of the year. As the Bill currently stands, those local establishments will still fall under qualifying premises, as defined in clause 2(2)(c), and will be required to put in extra measures at personal cost.
Terrorist attacks evolve at a rapid pace—much faster, as we have seen recently, than the time it takes for legislation to pass through the House. I therefore ask the Minister, first, what consideration has been given to accommodating that? Secondly, will there be regular reviews of the threats and countermeasures through the governing body? Finally, in its current state, the Bill does not accommodate organisations run by volunteers and temporary staff. Large places of worship and sporting venues rely on the good will of volunteers and paid agency staff at peak times. I therefore ask the Minister to engage with such organisations, to find a training arrangement that suits their capabilities as well as meeting the threshold of safety and security sought in the Bill. Those queries aside, I welcome the introduction of the Bill.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
First, I thank Figen Murray for her tireless campaigning. I wish to speak in favour of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, which represents a vital step forward in our collective responsibility to keep people safe.
The tragic events in Manchester reminded us all too clearly of the need for practical measures to safeguard our public spaces and of our vulnerabilities. The Bill provides a framework to ensure that venues and businesses take appropriate steps to protect the public from the threat of terrorism, and I fully support its aims. The need for the Bill is clear. Terrorism remains a real and persistent threat, and we have seen in Manchester, Birmingham and London that terrorism and terrorists are blind to the loss of human life. Public venues are often the target of those who seek to harm us. The Bill will ensure that public spaces are better equipped to manage potential risk, reducing the likelihood of attacks and mitigating their impact if they do occur. We have a duty to protect our constituents, whether they are attending a religious service, a wedding or a concert.
About 2,000 businesses in Dudley could be affected by the legislation, based on VAT and PAYE registrations. It is our responsibility to ensure that those places are not only secure but supported in taking the necessary steps to keep their doors open and their customers safe. The Bill places a duty on venues and businesses to assess their risk and take reasonable steps to mitigate them. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach: the security measures will be proportionate to the size and type of venue. Larger venues such as stadiums will need to implement more comprehensive protections, while smaller ones can adopt simpler measures—I agree with that.
By providing clear guidance and support, the Bill will contribute to the collective safety of our communities. That said, we must be mindful of the challenges that it may pose, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, charities and places of worship. In Dudley, such institutions are the backbone of the community, providing support and a safe space for people to gather. Many of them are concerned about the potential costs and operational demands that the Bill may bring. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a risk-based approach to ensure that smaller organisations are not required to implement the same level of security as larger ones, and I am encouraged by the idea of providing tailored guidance and practical support. I hope that that will be further developed as the Bill progresses.
The Bill is an important and necessary step in protecting our communities from the threat of terrorism. It strikes the right balance between providing security and ensuring that the measures are practical and appropriate. I look forward to working with colleagues in the House and with the Government to ensure that the Bill delivers to our communities the safety and security that they so desperately deserve, and provides the necessary steps for those who have been affected.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
We have heard from many Members who have huge venues in their constituencies, including the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who mentioned Ministry of Sound. I take this opportunity to add a voice for rural venues such as those in my constituency.
Clearly, the Bill is necessary to protect the safety of the millions across the country who enjoy events. The legislation needs extremely careful planning and scrutiny to ensure that small venues are not put at risk by additional red tape. In rural constituencies such as North Cornwall, small to medium events are truly the lifeblood that brings together far-flung communities, and have been for generations. Under clause 4, thousands of community and volunteer-run venues will be designated responsible for any failures and are liable to face strict penalties.
I am invited to, and often visit, small venues around Cornwall, and I see at first hand the joy, spirit and positivity that they inject into their surrounding communities.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I am glad that the hon. Member mentions rural communities, because the stain of terror reaches across the United Kingdom. One of the victims of the Ariana Grande attack was Eilidh MacLeod, a 14-year-old schoolgirl from the isle of Barra, whose mother, like many other parents in hearing the report, felt the ground shake and heard the blast that took the lives of Eilidh and 22 others. The response in Barra has been to set up a musical trust in Eilidh’s name to allow other young people to reach their potential. That response, as well as that of the Murray family in their tremendous campaign, shows that terrorism will not divide us, and our collective response here shows that although it may cast a shadow on the hearts and lives of those left behind, it will not diminish us.
Ben Maguire
I completely agree that terrorism should never divide us—what an excellent phrase.
I fear that if we are not realistic and proportionate with the details of the Bill, cherished and beloved venues in my constituency, such the Hayward cider farm, the Royal Cornwall show, countless pubs—including the St Mabyn Inn, and the Golden Lion in Port Isaac—and the BEAT in Bodmin, as well as community centres, could take a hit, especially in the summer, when thousands enjoy the outdoors. Venues with lots of outdoor space can easily reach the 200-capacity threshold. Of course, the safety and security of event-goers should always be kept at the top of our priorities when planning large-scale events, but we must not look overlook the unrealistic necessity for thousands of smaller venues to comply with strict restrictions, facing fines in the thousands of pounds for non-compliance.
Clause 13 gives the SIA the power to issue compliance notices if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that a regulation has been contravened.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as training, there is a need to consider the regulation around the SIA? Over the past five years the SIA has granted licences to a staggering 95,000 door supervisors who have not been resident in the UK for five years, so we cannot even know their history or criminal records. Does he agree that personnel working in that field not only need to be well trained, but must have the confidence of the public?
Ben Maguire
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.
I hope that small venues are given the opportunity to remedy contraventions before any notice is issued. Likewise, clause 14 provides for restriction notices on non-compliant venues. The Secretary of State said in her remarks that penalties will be issued only to repeat offenders. On that point, I hope that there will be mechanisms and training to prevent such repeat offences.
I also have concerns about the penalties set out in clause 18, which provides for fines of up to £10,000 on standard duty premises. As I have said, that could finish off some of our smaller venues if they do not receive proper training or the opportunity to remedy such a contravention. On the protection of smaller venues, I am concerned about the provision that allows the Home Secretary to drop the capacity threshold from 200 to 100. The circumstances in which that can be done should be tightly defined.
The way a venue’s capacity is defined will also need careful thought. A community hall might be able to take 200 people in theory, but in practice that might be extremely rare. I am pleased to see that the capacity figure has been increased to 200 from the initial 100, which I welcome, and I will watch the progress of that provision keenly in Committee to ensure that it remains. Provided that those protections are put in place, the Liberal Democrats will of course support this crucial Bill. Safety and security must always be paramount.
I will end my remarks with a quote from Brendan Cox, the husband of the late Jo Cox MP and founder of Survivors Against Terror:
“Survivors of terror attacks aren’t looking for sympathy. They are looking for change that makes it less likely that others will endure what they have.”
I am pleased to support the Bill and to see support for it across the House.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
As so many have done, I begin by paying tribute to Figen Murray and the campaigners for Martyn’s law. Responding to such tragedy by trying to make the world a better place deserves our highest admiration.
I am pleased that the Government have introduced this important legislation so quickly in the parliamentary Session. The threat that the country faces is “substantial.” That means that it is complex, enduring and evolving, so it is right that in response we adapt and update the legislation we use to prevent and deal with terror. The terror threat consistently changes. We used to worry about attacks on national infrastructure or iconic sites; now we worry about them at concerts and in bars. That is why it is critical that we strengthen security at public events.
I am a representative of Edinburgh, a city known for putting on numerous events, especially in August. Its festival is the third biggest ticketed event in the world. I spoke to Edinburgh city council in advance of this debate, which told me that it was hugely supportive of this legislation, which will help not only the council but all the venues and premises in the city to prepare for a terrorist attack. Edinburgh offers itself as a pilot site, if the Home Office is interested in testing how the legislation will work in practice.
Combating the evolving terrorist threat means adapting and updating, which the Bill does. It also means recognising that combating terrorism requires a multi-pronged approach—one of the most important components of the Bill. It includes measures to prevent a terror attack and put obstacles in the way of terrorists, but what is new and important is that it provides for premises to develop the way in which they will handle an attack once it has begun. That is critical. Getting venues to think, prepare and develop protocols before an event and before the emergency services arrive on the scene is how to minimise casualties and save lives. That is an important component of our national defences against terror.
On the specific point about the use of the SIA as a regulator, I welcome that, and I think it is the appropriate place for regulation.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I praise the Government for bringing Martyn’s law before the House so swiftly, and I echo the words of campaigners in the memory of Martyn and all those killed in terrorist attacks in our country. I also give thanks to the security services. Given the planned introduction of the Bill and the recent announcement that the SIA will be the regulator, many businesses in the security industry, such as the brilliant Vespasian in Portsmouth North, have asked whether the Minister will review the current SIA’s core legislation and powers to support the industry, in order to implement the law and its invaluable work on our frontline to counter terrorism and save lives.
Chris Murray
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Discussions are to be held about the role of the SIA as it adapts to the changes.
The SIA is an appropriate body to regulate this legislation, but in 15 long years of dealing with the Home Office and its bodies and authorities, I have found that often these organisations are overstretched and struggle with the diversity of organisations that they have to deal with in the UK. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), said that there is no point in legislating if we are unable to operationalise. I implore the Minister to look into the SIA’s funding and resources, to ensure that this legislation has the desired effect.
National security is a reserved matter, but some aspects of the Bill touch on devolved issues, such as fire services, justice and policing. I hope that the Home Office will work constructively with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations to ensure that the implementation is as smooth as possible across the nations of the United Kingdom. I strongly support the Bill. I am very pleased to see it come so swiftly to Parliament, and I look forward to the impact it will have in the communities that want it.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I support Martyn’s law without reservation. It is important that we salute the campaigning and the courage of Martyn’s family, and it is appropriate that colloquially the Bill is named Martyn’s law. What happened in Manchester was shocking and chills us all to the core. It is reflective of so many brutal, wicked acts of terrorism that have been experienced right across this nation, not least in my own part of the United Kingdom.
Here we are today properly debating, under the rules of due process and doing things in order, rules and laws to help us deal with terrorism. But we are conscious that terrorists play by no rules: they do not live within the confines of regulation, restraint or anything that would meet the standards of human rights—quite the reverse. To that extent, society as a whole struggles on occasion to deal with the excesses of terrorism, because of its determination to live within the rule of law. That is all the more reason why we need to do everything we can, even in the small things.
In the main, this Bill is about the small things of dealing with terrorism, to try to put ourselves in the best possible position to deal with the potential threat of terrorism that, sadly, exists across this nation. In doing that, we have to be realistic that dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s is good and necessary, but fundamentally terrorism will be defeated across this nation only when there is no room for it; when it meets the full rigour of the law and that puts it out of business. That is the fundamental reality.
I want to make a few comments about some of the particulars of the Bill. I have some concerns about its potential overreach. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) touched on some of them. Small schools and churches will now be subject to further regulatory requirements. I chair the board of governors of a small country school. We already have to have policies on fire safety, health and safety, and dealing with emergencies. That is all good and necessary, but I would like the Minister to explain what practical additions will be put upon small rural schools and their boards of governors. What will they have to provide that they are not already providing in their emergency, fire safety, and health and safety policies? Boards of governors in particular will want to know that, because they operate within very constrained budgets. In the school that I am involved with, every penny is accounted for and needed for fundamental provision.
I am concerned that, in its global approach, the Bill might put unbearable bureaucratic and financial burdens on very small users. The impact assessment says that the majority of the cost will fall upon the businesses that have to operate within it. That also means small schools, churches, community organisations and all the rest of it. That concerns me.
Earlier an hon. Member asked what the Bill will do to deal with previously planted devices, which are often deployed by terrorists. It is hard to see the impact, without counter-terrorist measures such as x-raying. I make that point mindful that just this weekend we marked the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the Grand hotel in Brighton, where one of the most audacious terrorist attacks, which aimed to kill the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, was perfected by the planting of a bomb in that hotel weeks before. We need to consider what would help to deal with that kind of situation. That is why I am a little bit concerned that the Home Secretary said there would be no measures in the Bill to require physical steps to be taken. If a hotel, leisure centre or large arena has a deficiency in its CCTV coverage that is observable by the SIA or whoever else—as there was in Manchester, where the terrorists were cute enough to pick out the CCTV blind spots—is it not sensible, if we are going to put in place protective measures, that physical measures could and should be included, such as identifying gaps in CCTV coverage, so that in the event of an outrage there is at least a better prospect of bringing the perpetrators to justice? That might also act as a deterrent. In fighting terrorism, deterrence is very often as important as anything else. It is our duty to ensure that that is so.
I will just touch on a couple of other points in the Bill. I note that clause 31, on civil liability, states:
“nothing in this Part confers a right of action in any civil proceedings in respect of any contravention of a requirement imposed on any person by or under this Part.”
That causes me to question. Most or all our buildings are covered by the occupiers’ liability legislation, which is premised on the duty of care of the occupier to their visitors. How can we say, in clause 31, that if we are going to impose obligations in respect of taking steps to protect against the potential of terrorist attack and those steps are not taken, that will not create the basis for civil action? Surely that is an indicator and a contributor to the question of whether or not the duty of care was fulfilled to the visitor. It puzzles me why clause 31 is in those terms.
The final thing I wanted to say relates to the SIA. We are giving a lot of powers to an organisation which, frankly, has not always covered itself in glory. I speak of my own part of the United Kingdom, where the SIA has issued licences to some dubious characters. It is not beyond the wit of terrorists—some of us have seen this—to set themselves up as so-called security firms and apply for licences. Do not ever fall into the trap of thinking that terrorists act by the rules we act by and that they would not do that. Yes, they would.
The SIA has been found wanting. In Northern Ireland, we recently had a case of gross overreach by the SIA, where it brought a prosecution that the judge said had to be stopped and should never have been brought. The SIA spent £200,000 and the case involved illegal searches of property, so it is not a body that is a ready recipient for extra powers. I worry that we will overburden it, if it is to do the job in the way that it needs to be done. I therefore say to the Minister that maybe the SIA is not the right regulatory body, because it already has a huge burden of work and it has not always been successful in what it does.
We want to that we—the elected representatives of this House who want to protect our constituents from the most hideous things, namely terrorist attacks—do all we reasonably can, and that means getting this legislation right.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I rise to welcome the Bill and the cross-party support for it that we have seen in this debate. Seven years ago, I was in the education sector and I worked with a group of trainee paramedics. Those trainee paramedics were deployed on that night in Manchester to the scene of the bombing. They were students, and they ran into the danger and into scenes that are scarcely seen outside battlefields. The support they needed is the reason I support the Bill. I think it is right thing to do. I commend the campaigning by Martyn’s family and by all others who have campaigned for justice for victims of terror. This is the right Bill, because its provisions are common sense. The tiered approach is the right one to ensure that an undue burden is not placed on small businesses and that the legal duty on providers is a reasonable measure.
There was another group of students from that university who, sadly, were affected by terror that same year, just weeks before. They were referred to earlier by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). One is a friend of mine, Travis Frain, who I know Members across the House will be familiar with. He has been campaigning passionately for victims of terror for years, since his experience in that incident. He carried out a survey of over 300 victims of terror, and found that 76% of victims were either unable to access psychological treatment, or rated it to be poor or abysmal. That is unacceptable. That is why Travis has been calling for guarantees on minimum standards for access to psychological treatment and physiotherapy, as well as legal and financial assistance for victims of terror. He has also been calling, as the right hon. Lady referred to, for the publication of the review that was carried internally within the Home Office, so that campaigners can campaign on those recommendations and ensure they are put into action.
We know further actions are needed, but the Bill is an important first step to move towards justice for the victims. It is a fitting tribute to the victims, the families and all those who ran towards the danger.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the Secretary of State for her introduction and for setting the scene so well with passion, delivery and understanding. As I said earlier, there is no one in the Chamber who could oppose the Bill. There is the question of whether it goes far enough—Members have indicated some issues may need to be addressed further down the line—but that is for the future. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their speeches. Martyn’s law is aptly named after one of those who tragically died in the carnage of the attack on children and young people in the Manchester bombing. I do not think there is anyone who has not shed a tear over that. It lingers long.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak about this issue. As many Members will know, the people of Northern Ireland have an unfortunate history of terrorism which greatly influenced the way in which we lived our lives for many years, as we heard from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Those are scars that we live with and will live with for all our days, for they will never go away. We used to check under our cars. I served as a part-time soldier for some 14 and a half years, and checkpoints manned by soldiers or officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary were the norm as they attempted to protect life and prevent acts of terror. We became conditioned to ensuring that at any event, people had half an eye on the possibility of terrorist attacks.
I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, because he and I have been friends in the House for a long time, and I know that he brings to the House personal knowledge based on his own gallant service. We appreciate it very much, and I am putting that on the record for Hansard.
I want to give a couple of examples of what was referred to by the hon. Member for North Antrim. One is the indiscriminate shooting at a church hall in Darkley, during which IRA gunmen murdered three elders welcoming their 70-strong congregation of men, women and children with no affiliation to any organisations, and, indeed, with no other qualification other than to be Protestant. The gunmen came into the hall shooting, and stopped only when, after the pastor cried out, the gun jammed; and the gunman ran out to continue spraying the church with bullets from the outside with his semi-automatic rifle. The question that I pose here tonight is this: what will be done to ensure that churches—and schools, which the hon. Member also mentioned—receive the protection that they need?
After the atrocity of the Darkley murders, every church that I knew of in Northern Ireland ensured that there were men at the door and an evacuation plan for crèches and children’s church facilities in particular. Indeed, child protection training took place automatically after that event of many years ago, and I know that in that church, and in other faith buildings, evacuation procedures are standard to this day. Those who volunteer in the crèches are given routes to send children to freedom should something go wrong. This is our lived experience in Northern Ireland, owing to the evil men who pushed an evil agenda and destroyed the innocence of a nation—but not its spirit.
No one wants these horrors to be a reality, but in Northern Ireland they have been. Our restaurants have a history of being targeted. In the La Mon hotel, which used to be in my constituency, a napalm-type bomb not only took the lives of 12 members of the Collie Club who were having dinner there, but horrifically burned and injured a further 30 people. One of them was Billy McDowell, who died about four weeks ago. Since that time, our hotels have had procedures in place to deal with that dreaded warning phone call.
We have had horrific experiences. We do not like to boast about them, and I am not boasting now. We did things voluntarily because they were the right things to do, and I think that the Bill brings us closer to doing the same things here. The people of Northern Ireland dealt with these horrors and the evil nature that drives them. The police force was so specialised that former RUC officers still train police forces around the world, including in the Balkans, Africa, and countries in the middle and far east. Our expertise is one that I wish with all my heart we did not possess, but it was once rooted so deeply in our minds that someone leaving a shopping bag behind was a cause for the evacuation of shopping centres. That is why I believe that although we cannot live in a lockdown mode, such basic considerations must be standard. The Police Service of Northern Ireland have expertise, knowledge and skills that are transferable, and they should and must be part of the Bill.
I hope that the Minister, who I know will respond to the debate in a positive and helpful fashion because he always does, will tell us the things that we need to hear about the Bill, and about the goals for which the Government are aiming. Let me say this to him, very gently. The police must always be the last word in security. It cannot be individuals and it cannot be organisations; it must always be the police. We must ensure that young kids like my granddaughters, who have no experience of terrorism—and that is something for which I thank God—are kept safe by those who understand that no matter how unlikely it is for an act of terrorism to be perpetrated against kids at a concert, such as those in Manchester, it is a possibility. I have six grandchildren. The two eldest girls, Katie and Mia, do not know enough to view bags suspiciously, or to ask, “Is there something unusual about that?” I know that others have said this, and I say it now very respectfully. Not everyone sees the dangers; not everyone sees what is suspicious. Children are innocent, as they should be, and they should be able to have innocent lives.
We need to find a better way forward. The people in charge of that facility in Manchester need to be aware, for the sake of the children. That is second nature in Northern Ireland, but it must also be in the mindset of people throughout the United Kingdom, which is why I support the reasonable application of the obligations that we are discussing. I have no desire to raise the prices of tickets for events, meals in a large restaurant or beds in a resort and spa, but the basic assumption that such things could happen, and answering the basic questions about what we can we do if it does and who will know what to do, are the bare minimum at this stage.
Let me ask the Minister a few questions. They are intended, as always, to be constructive, and to help the conversation and the building of this legislation. What help and support will be offered to businesses to help them come to terms with what is reasonably expected, and what further support will there be in respect of a cost-effective way of meeting obligations? That, by the way, applies equally to churches and schools. We need to ensure that businesses are not deterred from expanding because they cannot meet costs. Will the Minister outline how we can be a part of the conversation about the introduction of procedures to keep people safe?
Terror is something that I wish was a thing of the past, but the shooting in Omagh in February 2023 of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell, who was coaching at his own son’s weekly football game, and the atrocity in Southport this summer when three beautiful young children were brutally murdered, are a heartbreaking reminder that evil people are still at work, and we need to do all that we can to stay safe and keep others safe with us. Tonight, through this potential legislation, we are taking a step in the right direction, which I trust will save lives and stop terror attacks.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Let me begin by paying tribute to Figen Murray and the Martyn’s law campaign, to Survivors Against Terror, and to all the security partners, businesses, charities, local authorities and victims groups that have informed the Bill and helped to get us where we are today. I also thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for the constructive tone that they have taken in debate, and for their offer to work with us to ensure that the Bill completes its stages rapidly. It is a tragic turn of events that a terrible incident is the catalyst for a change in the law, but I hope that the family of Martyn Hett can take some pride in the legacy that Martyn has left.
We have heard some very good contributions this evening, and in particular two very good maiden speeches, the first of which was made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour). It was lovely to see her family in the Gallery—they were obviously very proud of her—and to hear of a number of local priorities on which she will be working on behalf of her constituents. Although she said that she did not have much in common with the Iron Lady, whose birthday was yesterday, I could tell that there was an iron lady within her, and I look forward to hearing her future contributions in this place.
The second maiden speech was made by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). He paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, Mark Harper, who worked hard for the constituency, and told us how hard he would work for his constituents in this place. He challenged a number of Members on whether they could say that a television show had been made about their constituencies, and on which was the most beautiful. Well, I can, because that BBC blockbuster “Howards’ Way” was filmed in Hamble Valley. We are particularly proud of that, and the hon. Gentleman should be rightly proud of his constituency.
We have had some other really important contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) spoke as someone representing the locality of the terrorist attack in Manchester—his constituency is in Greater Manchester. He spoke very passionately on behalf of his constituents about the lessons of the inquiry, which were outlined in his speech. I could tell that he cares deeply about his constituency and what happens with this piece of legislation going forward, and I pay tribute to him for his speech.
The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) spoke about the compassion and kindness of the people of Manchester. When Conservatives go to the Tory party conference in Manchester, we are always welcomed very warmly in the bars and by the people of Manchester, despite expectations. We send them our best wishes going forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) rightly paid tribute to Figen Murray and the charities that helped her and her wider campaign secure a change in the law. My right hon. Friend also mentioned the former Security Minister James Brokenshire, to whom I was briefly Parliamentary Private Secretary and who passed away three years ago. She is absolutely right to outline the early work that he did on this change in the law, and we all very much miss him in this place. We also miss Sir David Amess, who was brutally murdered three years ago tomorrow, and we remember Jo Cox in this House as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) rightly outlined some concerns about the Bill’s shortcomings, particularly around organisations that have seasonal peaks. I will be interested to hear the Minister outline how some of the challenges for smaller businesses with seasonal peaks can be addressed in this legislation.
Our great country has come under attack far too often, and all Governments have worked tirelessly to protect the United Kingdom. We believe that that is why we must support the legislation in its aim. I am proud of the work that the previous Government, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, did to bring in Martyn’s law. It is a measure of how much work was done by his family and various organisations that both I and the Minister can stand here today to show that this Bill is needed, and that we can broadly support its measures and aims. Once again, I sincerely congratulate the Government on the fast-tracking of this Bill, and I congratulate the Home Secretary on the way in which she opened the debate.
The aim of Martyn’s law is to ensure that premises are better prepared for terrorist attacks, to help protect the public. As I have said, we welcome this Bill, but we need to make sure that we find the right balance between public protection and the requirements placed on businesses and community venues. As noted by Neil Sharpley, policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, this law will have an administrative impact on small businesses and there will be an additional cost to them. Michael Kill, the CEO of the Night Time Industry Association, said:
“We must ensure that the balance between heightened security and practical implementation is carefully considered.”
The shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), said that although we are supportive of the Bill, we remain concerned about the level of regulation that will be imposed on the venues included in this legislation. The Government’s impact assessment outlines that 155,000 small businesses with a capacity between 200 and 799 will have average costs of £330 per year, and that larger venues will have average costs of £5,000 per year, so I would like assurances that the Minister is looking at a range of options to mitigate those costs as much as possible. I would also like assurances about the burdensome costs on smaller venues, charitable venues and religious venues that have that level of capacity, as mentioned by both my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham.
I want to raise some concerns about clause 4 of the Bill and the “person responsible” element of the legislation. Although I accept that clear lines of accountability are necessary, what important safeguards will be in place for the responsible person in the horrible event that something should tragically go wrong? They could include anonymity, support structures that can be placed around the responsible person, or a line in the Bill stating that the SIA must use its powers and investigatory functions in the most constructive way possible.
I want to finish by thanking the Government once again for continuing the important work on the Bill. As I have said, we will work constructively with the Government throughout the passage of this Bill and raise concerns should we have them, as we have done this evening. I welcome the Minister’s approach once again, and praise the family and supporters of Martyn for their work in getting this important legislation on the statute book. As the official Opposition, we look forward to supporting its passage in this place.
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.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 29th October 2024
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 October 2024 - (29 Oct 2024)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have some rules to announce. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I beg to move, Date Time Witness Tuesday 29 October Until no later than 10.00 am Figen Murray; Brendan Cox Until no later than 10.20 am Andy Burnham Until no later than 10.50 am National Association of Local Councils; Society of Local Council Clerks Until no later than 11.25 am Ambassador Theatre Group; The Royal Ballet and Opera Until no later than 2.20 pm Metropolitan Police Service Until no later than 2.50 pm Federation of Small Businesses; The Counter Terrorism Business Information Exchange (CTBIE) Until no later than 3.10 pm Sport and Recreation Alliance Until no later than 3.40 pm UKHospitality; The Night Time Industries Association Until no later than 4.10 pm The Concert Promoters Association; LIVE (Live Industry Venues & Entertainment Ltd) Until no later than 4.30 pm The Association of University Chief Security Officers Until no later than 4.50 pm Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) Until no later than 5.10 pm Home Office
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 29 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 October;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 31 October;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 5 November;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 12 November;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 14 November;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 19 November;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2; Schedules 1 and 2; Clauses 3 to 12; Schedule 3; Clauses 13 to 34; Schedule 4; Clauses 35 to 38; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 19 November.
I am delighted to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I look forward to detailed discussion of the provisions in the Bill with my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches and with the right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition. On Second Reading, there was extensive agreement across the House about the merits of the Bill, not least among hon. Members who are now serving in Committee. I welcome that and trust that we will continue in that constructive spirit. I believe that the resolution before us will provide the Committee with enough time to scrutinise this important Bill and I invite the Committee to agree it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Dan Jarvis.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Dan Jarvis.)
The Committee deliberated in private.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make declarations of interest in connection with the Bill? None do, so we will begin to hear oral evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Figen Murray OBE and Brendan Cox gave evidence.
The Chair
I welcome our first witnesses this morning. The Committee and I are delighted that you are our first witnesses and I congratulate you on all your efforts in relation to the Bill. I will be grateful if you could introduce yourselves.
Figen Murray: My name is Figen Murray. I am the mother of Martyn Hett.
Brendan Cox: My name is Brendan Cox. I am one of the co-founders of Survivors Against Terror and have worked with Figen on Martyn’s law.
The Chair
Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. This panel will have until 10 am, and I call the Minister to ask the first questions.
Dan Jarvis
Q
Figen Murray: I have taken the liberty of writing something down that I would like to read out, please, if that is okay. I hope that will address some of that.
I begin by thanking absolutely every person who has had any involvement in bringing Martyn’s law to this point. It has been a long five and a half years since the campaign started, and the kindness and support people have extended to us have been quite incredible.
As I sat in Parliament on 14 October for Second Reading, I realised that the relatively long journey that still lies ahead—given all the different steps the legislation must still undergo—will not be an easy one. On Second Reading, my name was mentioned many times and many lovely words were said, but I need people to understand that I would not have progressed much without my co-campaigners, the campaign team, and the incredible support of my husband and my remaining children.
Seven and a half years ago, our life as a family was destroyed forever. I want you to note the word “forever”, as there is no coming back from this. As a family, we are damaged goods. The day Martyn died, something died inside all of us. Do not get me wrong: as a family, we are very close. Individually, however, we all carry our separate emotional scars that are now an integral part of each of us. That will be the case for every family anywhere in the world who has been hit hard by terrorism. Our numbers are growing, sadly. Outwardly, I function at a high level day in, day out, but make no mistake that my heart is in shreds—yet it is my broken heart that drives me to try to stop others from ever having to feel this way.
Coming back to Second Reading, I was buoyed that every party said that they supported the Bill. If security cannot unite us, what can? I welcome the all-party support. On Second Reading, I also heard some concerns about getting the balance right and keeping the Bill proportionate. I agree with that. Right from the start, we said that one size does not fit all, and that the Bill needs to be proportionate. It has never been intended to be burdensome.
My worry is that the increase in the capacity threshold from 100 in the draft Bill to 200 now risks getting the balance wrong. It excludes too many venues. The cost to businesses for Martyn’s law is a drop in the ocean compared with the €43 billion that the Rand Corporation estimated that terrorism cost the UK between 2004 and 2016, or even the £100,000 lost by Mr Fred Foster, a market trader at Borough market, during the attack in 2017.
However, we need to be clear that the risk from terrorism is real. Our terrorism threat level stands at “substantial”, meaning that an attack is likely. Although there have not been any successful terror attacks, it is easy to let complacency creep in. We must not forget that attack methodologies have now changed. People get radicalised and go out an use vehicles, knives, and home-made IEDs—improvised explosive devices—to kill others.
There are currently about 800 active investigations and about 2,500 subjects of interest who are being watched by the authorities as they are linked to terrorism investigations—the aforementioned 800—but there are a further 30,000 individuals who have expressed extreme views that could lead to them committing acts of terrorism. Those figures have not changed over recent years. The geopolitical situation, sadly, also means that extremists exploit the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza to recruit more people to follow their ideology. There is no sign of those figures reducing in the near future.
The director general of MI5, Ken McCallum, has also recently spoken about 43 near misses since 2017. Those are 43 planned attacks that were stopped just in time. Everyone in this room surely must appreciate that sooner or later an attack will not be stopped in time and people will yet again die or be injured or traumatised. There is no room for complacency. The threat is out there and it is real. Terrorists do not care who they kill. They aim to kill, shock and gain notoriety.
We have had attacks such as a planned knife attack on an LGBT community in Cumbria, a knife attack against an MP inside a church hall in Essex, a bomb outside Liverpool women’s hospital, another bomb at a hospital in Leeds, a knife attack in a park in Reading, a knife attack at a conference in London, a knife attack at a high street in London, a firebomb attack at an immigration centre in Dover, a letter bomb delivered to a Scottish university, a knife attack at a railway station in Manchester, and a vehicle attack at a mosque in London. If anyone thinks that where they live is too small or too rural to be targeted, they are wrong. Our experience in this country and around the world shows us that terrorists can strike anywhere.
A lot of venues are already busy preparing and implementing as much as they can. Manchester has trained over 2,500 people in free-of-charge face-to-face ACT training, and businesses and venues across Manchester are implementing the legislation as best as they can. Venues in Manchester are doing that voluntarily because the city was badly hit. People in Manchester understand the risk as they were directly affected, but we need this legislation on the statute books; without it, people will simply not take security seriously.
Security is often seen as low priority as people do not believe their venue is at risk from terrorism. A recent tabletop exercise in Manchester for the standard-tier venues resulted in most venues saying that the cost of implementing measures is either negligible or very low cost or effort, and that it enhanced customer experience as people felt safer.
At Second Reading, a few people worried about liability and the responsibility given to volunteers. Anybody who already has any responsibility for organising or managing community spaces and events already has liabilities under civil law. Martyn’s law will not create additional liabilities—they exist already. What Martyn’s law is more likely to do is to help communities know that they are discharging those responsibilities properly. Volunteers in various venues across the country already voluntarily take on responsibility for fire safety or health and safety, and this would be simply a small add-on. Martyn’s law is asking people at the standard tier to understand how to lock down, how to evacuate, how to invacuate or how to communicate with others. It is as simple as that on the standard tier.
Another concern was around churches and schools. Our children have the right to be protected from harm. Most schools already had lockdown procedures in place, anyway, long before Martyn’s law became a topic. Places of worship are places where people of all faiths should be able to worship freely and without fear. They need to be protected. We have seen attacks on places of worship in countries such as Sri Lanka, New Zealand—in Christchurch—and France. Since the Gaza conflict a lot of synagogues are currently on high alert as the threat is understood.
To sum up, Martyn’s law will save lives. Terrorism is here to stay. The public have a right to be kept as safe as possible when they are out and about enjoying the freedom our country offers. Martyn, Saffie, Nell, Sorrell, Eilidh, Megan, Olivia, Georgina, Courtney, Philip, Kelly, Elaine, Alison, Lisa, Michelle, Wendy, Jane, John, Angelika and Marcin, Chloe and Liam were all out enjoying a great evening that night and had every right to make it safely back home. I absolutely believe that had Martyn’s law been firmly established, they would still be alive now. Please consider what is the right thing to do. I will finish by saying once again that it is time to get this done. Thank you for listening.
Brendan Cox: I would add a couple of things to that; Figen has set it out incredibly powerfully.
As I mentioned in my introduction, I am part of something called Survivors Against Terror, which is a network of about 300 survivors of terror attacks: people that have been bereaved like myself and Figen and people who have themselves been injured in attacks. What draws that network together is a desire to reduce the likelihood of future terror attacks and to reduce the harm that they do. We do that by campaigning for the rights of families to things such as mental health support and compensation, by educating the public on the role they can play in the fight against terrorism, and by campaigning for effective laws that make terror attacks less likely in the future. That is how Figen and I first started working together, right at the start of this campaign.
I got involved for two reasons. First, frankly, I was inspired by Figen and her determination to make something good come out of something that was absolutely horrific, and to make sure that no other family unnecessarily goes through what her and her family have, but also, fundamentally, because the methodology of terrorism has changed, as Figen mentioned. The age of very complex attacks, often directed by people from outside the country and involving the need to assemble a device or to work out how detonators work, gave our security services lots of opportunities to intervene and disrupt terrorism plots. We are now in an age in which people are just using knives or cars, and the way in which we respond to that terror threat has not caught up.
It is impossible for our security services to keep our country safe with this new distributed methodology. We therefore have to have much more of a partnership approach: how can we all play a little role in making each other safer? I think this comes from our experience, but as the network of survivors supporting Figen and her campaign we do not want anybody’s sympathy, we want to make people safer so that these things and the impact they have had on our lives do not happen to anyone else. There is nobody more driven in wanting to defeat terrorism than those who have been directly affected by it.
There are two ways in which terrorists can win. One is by killing and maiming people. The other is by disrupting our way of life—making us live in fear and changing our way of engaging with each other. That is why, right from the start, proportionality has been central to our thinking. We do not want this to change our way of life. We do not want terrorists to win, either by injuring people or by changing our way of life, and that is why right at the heart of this proposal, from the beginning, has been proportionality. We want everybody to be empowered to play a small role in making us all safer. We do not want airport-style security outside village halls, as some of the papers might suggest we want.
The final thing I would say is that nobody wants to have a law named after their child. What we do want to do is to make sure no-one unnecessarily goes through what Figen and her family has. We want to make sure that there is a legislative response to the clamour of action that you have had in every inquiry post-2017, whether into the Manchester attacks or into the London attacks, to say that this is a loophole that has to be closed and now is the moment to close it.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I have had the great privilege of meeting Figen and Brendan over many months on this, so I have no questions.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Q
Figen Murray: I think it is that as many places as possible are covered. We as a campaign team are concerned about the threshold, if I am honest. I live in a small town —more like a village—and with the original 100 threshold, quite a few of the restaurants as well as the little theatre we have and the pubs would have been covered under the law. With the change in the threshold, my little town is now not coming into scope at all and is completely not secure under Martyn’s law. It concerns me. The change from the 100 threshold to 200 will exclude about 100,000 premises. It feels like quite a lot now no longer need to be within that scope. It worries me.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Q
Figen Murray: The Manchester Arena inquiry obviously had Martyn’s law as one of its recommendations. If I remember rightly, Sir John’s words were that it is needed as a matter of urgency. I think he referred to training, and he also recommended—which is certainly not covered in Martyn’s law under the standard tier—that people have lifesaving training. That is not for debate in Martyn’s law at the moment. But certainly the ACT training was part of the recommendation.
Brendan Cox: To add to that, the other thing that has been amazing—I think you are hearing from Mayor Andy Burnham later—has been the extent to which Manchester has already started to operationalise some of this, so when we are having the debates about proportionality, we can consider some of the real experiences of businesses that are already implementing this. It is worth really digging into that conversation, because what it shows is that lots of businesses that fall below the threshold are voluntarily taking part in the training and starting to implement Martyn’s law, because they know what it gives them. Who does not want their venue to be safer from terror attacks? It is something that organisations in general want to do, and that is why we have been seeing the adoption of this ahead of the legislation being published, even by venues that will not be covered by the capacity legislation.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Q
Figen Murray: We had in Manchester a tabletop exercise that Nick Aldworth and I were allowed to witness. They invited us in and they gave us the results of that tabletop exercise. There were medium-sized businesses, small businesses, and venues and businesses even under the scope, and the feedback was that implementing Martyn’s law would actually be either no-cost or low-cost and that it would enhance, in a lot of cases, customer experience, because people would feel safer. The most onerous thing, in some people’s opinion, was to ask their staff to do the 45-minute, free-of-charge ACT e-learning training. Basically, they had to pay one hour of staff wages, but on the whole, they felt it was good and the staff felt better having that knowledge, because they felt better equipped to deal with a crisis.
In fact, some of the venues in Manchester were also saying they do regular real-life practice of lockdowns, for instance. For some reason, Manchester has really embraced it. A few years ago, I got called into a council meeting and they basically said, “We want to support you. What can we do?” I just looked at them and said, “Don’t wait for the legislation. Just do it anyway.” And Manchester did. They worked together with counter-terrorism police and put on the free-of-charge, once-a-month, three-hour, face-to-face ACT training. The sessions are always oversubscribed; they are very well attended.
Brendan Cox: I think that the fact that it has been taken up so strongly belies some of the idea that this is a huge burden on businesses. Of course, with any methodology like this, you can come up with a costing for how much the opportunity cost of doing x, y or z is. You have the big public campaigns around “See it, say it, sorted.” Of course, there is a cost with that. You could measure that cost through the amount you spend on it, the opportunity cost of the things that people could be doing while they are listening to it, the distraction cost—there is a whole way in which you could come up with a very big figure, but the reality is that is a proportionate response to what is a very substantial threat when it happens. As Figen mentioned, our threat is substantial at the moment, and that is therefore the proportionate response that we are trying to come up with.
In the conversations on and implementation of this in Manchester, one of the reactions we got, which was a broader reaction from the public as a whole, was, “Doesn’t this already exist?” The public expect that public venues would have an obligation to keep you safe. You have an obligation on the temperature that you need to keep food at, the number of toilets that you have and to fill in your tax return, but you do not have any obligation to keep your often paying customers safe from a very substantial threat, which is judged to be substantial by the Government. That is a massive loophole, and that is what this Bill helps to fill.
The Chair
There are no further questions, so I thank both witnesses for their contributions this morning. We will move on to our next guest, who is Andy Burnham.
Examination of Witness
Andy Burnham gave evidence.
The Chair
We have until 10.20 am for this oral evidence session. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Andy Burnham: I am Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester. As colleagues will know, I left Parliament in 2017, two weeks before the attack at the Manchester Arena, so I have been closely involved with all the developments ever since.
Dan Jarvis
Q
Andy Burnham: Thank you very much, Minister. Before I get to the question, I will say a little more about my background, which has led me up to what I think. I was shadow Home Secretary at the time of the Paris attacks, and those at the Bataclan in particular. If that had happened here, this legislation would already be on the statute book. Obviously, as Figen said, we have lived through the terrible events of 22 May 2017, but in the seven and a half years since, the nature of the threat has changed. I do not think we could have imagined some of the incidents that we have seen since then, such as the terrible loss of a really loved colleague in Southend and the attack in Southport. We would not have expected that. I remember asking Theresa May at the time of the Paris attacks if we were prepared for an attack in an English city—even then we were thinking only of cities; we were not thinking outside of cities. I say that because all that has shaped my thinking over the years.
When Figen first came forward with the concept of this Bill, I took time to think it through with colleagues in our city region. We are part the Resilient Cities Network, which is a group of 100 cities around the world, and we are in the Strong Cities Network, so we are constantly sharing best practice with cities around the world, and it was our view that the lack of a clear set of standards for security in our venues was a real gap. We were conscious, though, that there may be an impact on venues, hence the measures that were brought forward had to be right but proportionate, and I think care has been taken over that.
As you have just heard, Manchester city council has done an exercise working with venues and surveying venues on some of the voluntary things that have already been done in our city region. As you heard a moment ago, the impact is negligible—it is low-cost—but venues also report that they think it has raised standards generally within the organisation and improved the visitor experience. The experience that people have when they visit—their sense of safety when they are in the city—matters a lot to us as a city region and we are working to raise it. We have gone ahead and, if anything, we want to keep going further and raising the bar.
I will finish by saying that my main message to the Committee this morning is that I ask all of you to please ensure that the Bill is not watered down any further—actually, I look to the Committee to strengthen it. Again, I believe that venues with a capacity of 100 to 200 should be covered by the Bill. I do not think it is right that there is no requirement for training within the standard tier; there should be a requirement for staff to take the free ACT training. The message from Greater Manchester is that we continue to support Figen and all the families who lost loved ones on that night. In one way, we support those measures for that emotional reason, and always will, but we also do so from a Resilient Cities perspective. We believe they will only strengthen people’s experience in our city. We think it is in the interest of parents whose kids come into our city to go to the many events that take place every weekend to understand that there is a basic level of security at all the venues across our city region.
Tim Roca
Q
Andy Burnham: That is a fair question. Of course, we have had those conversations. I have been at events—with Figen, actually—with our night-time economy adviser, Sacha Lord, where we have said, “Look, we think we should do this.” Then there have been conversations like, “Well, it’s difficult. The hospitality sector has had challenging times,” but as we have talked it through I think people have come round to the idea that security and safety is one thing that no venue should compromise on, because in some ways that is the first thing to get right. If you get that right, you will get lots of other things right. It is about raising the standard of what the industry does.
There is evidence that the Manchester visitor economy —I know Manchester is not far from your constituency and you probably know it well—has improved over the years and in many ways mirrors the offer that people can find in London, but we have a night-time economy adviser because we want to keep raising the bar. We are not complacent at all. There just has not been an outcry or backlash. People have worked with it. This attack happened in our city: we lost 22 people—young people, mainly, but people of other ages as well—on that night. It is incumbent on us to challenge ourselves about what we do as a city to respond to that, and to recognise that life is changing and the outlying towns and villages of Greater Manchester could see an incident of that kind.
There is a broader point here: speaking as police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester, I do not believe yet that the country has all of its procedures in place to face what we are experiencing. I say that with reference to fire and rescue services. Currently, it is still not clear what the role of fire and rescue services is in relation to what is called a marauding terrorist attack. How can that be the case? That clearly needs to be addressed. We have done local things, but this legislation should be only the start, in my view, of really ensuring that there are arrangements in place that provide clarity to blue-light services and venues, as well as others, on the basics of responding to an incident. I think there is still work in progress on that point.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Q
Andy Burnham: That is a really important question. The guidance that I want to see would advise them to have a night-time economy strategy. That is really important for a whole host of reasons, and it is not just about the most serious attacks. We see concerns about spiking or the unacceptable treatment of women and girls, and there is a whole range of issues that need to be addressed. If we want to have the levels of safety that we all want to see in our country, there has to a more serious look taken at some of what happens within the night-time economy. For me, that would include ending out-of-area taxi working, for instance. We have a situation in our city region right now where, if you go into the city centre of Manchester pretty much any night of the week, but certainly on a Friday or Saturday, you will see hundreds and hundreds of taxis with a Wolverhampton plate.
Linsey Farnsworth
indicated assent.
Andy Burnham: You are nodding, which suggests that other places see that. It cannot be in the interest of public safety to have taxis licensed 100 miles away. I would say to local authorities that we need to start calling for change on public safety on nights out. That would include arrangements at the local authority level to ensure that taxi drivers are adequately licensed, and that the relevant criminal record checks are done at a local level and not undercut by something happening a few hundred miles away. I think that is an issue for Parliament. The time has come to end out-of-area work and require that the local authorities where people are doing their job are the ones that license those vehicles. I would like to see wider guidance given to local authorities and legislative change to support them in taking steps to protect the public when they are on nights out, both in implementing this legislation and in improving the safety of what goes on in and around venues on nights out.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Q
Andy Burnham: As we have said, smaller venues have been working with Manchester city council and the feedback has been that it is a positive thing to do. Obviously, to have specific training on how to lock down or evacuate a venue is helpful not only for the most serious of incidents but more broadly. Let us be honest: venues face a wide range of incidents on an ongoing basis. There are risks to people’s safety throughout the year. It is something that is part of the night-time economy. I think that it has to be proportionate, but the measures in the Bill are proportionate.
I would go back to that request for mandatory training. If it is free training, why is that not in the standard tier? How does that impose a burden? Did we hear that it is an hour of a member of staff’s time? I do not consider that to be burdensome, to be honest with you. I consider it to be good practice that people are supported in their working time to access and do that training. It would clearly help in a terrorist attack, but it would probably help more broadly in terms of situational awareness, vigilance, and general good practice for running and stewarding a venue and ensuring that it operates well at all times.
I personally do not see why the threshold has been raised to 200. As we have just heard, many of your constituencies will now have many venues that are not covered. Given what we have seen this year, I think it is as likely for an incident to happen in one of those venues as it is in a pub with a capacity of 300 or 400. I do not see that as less likely. Furthermore, I do not think that what is being asked of those places is unnecessarily burdensome. You could even argue that it is more important for the smaller venues to do it, because they will have less resource to call on in the event of an incident.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Q
Andy Burnham: Mr Bishop made a point about recommendations from the Manchester Arena inquiry. The deputy Mayor, who is sitting behind me, has led a whole process to look at implementing every single one of those recommendations—to the letter. As I have said, what happened on 22 May 2017 has changed the city, but not in the intended way. It was intended to divide us, but it brought us together, as you have just recognised. It was also intended to weaken us, but in fact it will leave us with stronger arrangements. At no point in this process have I seen anything other than overwhelming public support for what Figen has called for. The public support has never been in any doubt whatsoever.
I want to come back to the point about the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. You may remember that, on the night, there was confusion within the fire service about what to do, and it took a long time to arrive at the arena. The service has gone through a painstaking, difficult exercise about what happened and how, and it is a very different organisation as a result.
I want to come back to this point: the role of fire and rescue services is not clear. We, along with London, are the only two fire brigades in the country to have put in place arrangements for all our firefighters to have training in marauding terrorist attacks and to have the capability to respond. That is not the case with the others. Again, I had no resistance to that training from the firefighters or the Fire Brigades Union; everybody saw that it was the right thing to do. But we are now in a position where neighbouring fire and rescue services do not have that capability. It is unclear what happens in an incident, and it should not be unclear.
The Greater Manchester experience is that we have done everything that this legislation is asking, and more. We continue to challenge ourselves and do more, but it has to be standardised nationally for the reasons we have given around the nature of the threat. The message from us is that none of it has been resisted or too difficult to implement with our public services. There is strong public support. I come back to what I said earlier to members of the Committee: please do not let this Bill be watered down any further. If anything, it should be strengthened. Amendments should be coming forward to strengthen it. The risk is that smaller venues will become the ones that are more targeted if we leave that flank open, and I hope that we will not. I think that the standard tier should go back down to venues of 100 or more.
Chris Murray
Q
Andy Burnham: Thank you, Mr Murray. We are really grateful for its support. A lot of collaboration is going on between Edinburgh and Greater Manchester at the moment; the director of the festival was with us just last week.
I have visited Edinburgh festival for the last three years, and I am left in awe at the arrangements in place there because of the depth of experience in Edinburgh of running major events with many facets and many venues, and because of the number of visitors who come into the city. There is a lot to learn from Edinburgh city council and how it manages things. The fact that it supports the Bill should say something. Those who have been to the festival know that a whole range of venues are used—all kinds of sizes. That is the point I made a moment ago in response to Mr Roca: if the smaller venues were not covered by the Bill, they would potentially become the ones more at risk and more targeted.
The point is about the whole ecosystem of venues, from the smallest to the biggest. Measures should not be disproportionate, sure, but if the Bill went through in its current form that would cause me anxiety, given my position. I would have to look at the venues that were not covered. To go back to the question that Linsey Farnsworth raised, that would not make the job of Edinburgh city council, Manchester city council or any other local authority easier. Having clarity in terms of the arrangements is not going to make the job of local authorities harder—the more arrangements are standardised, the better.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
The reason Martyn went to this gig was the reason a lot of people go to gigs—they love music. You love music. Greater Manchester, and Manchester itself, is fantastic for music. Could you explain what is happening in Manchester locally to reassure some of those small-scale live music people, who are saying that this could put them out of business—“We’re not the big boys, we’re not the arena, how can we cope with this and make everyone feel safe without changing our way of life?” As Brendan said, not changing our way of life is ultimately the purpose of this legislation.
Andy Burnham: It is a good question, Paul, and it goes back to the guidance for local authorities. The way we work—when I say “we”, I am thinking of the leader of Manchester city council, Bev Craig, and deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester, Paul Dennett; people you will know—is that we get close to the venues because we all love music and we are a music city region. You will know that there has been a threat to one of our venues night and day in recent times; at different points, we have had similar issues with other venues.
We cherish the infrastructure, and we work hard to keep it. We work hard to understand the issues that venues have, and how we can work in a practical way to help them. That is what I mean by getting close to the night-time economy—that is critical, and it is one of the things we do really well in this country. It is a big reason why people come and visit Britain: not just for the big arenas, but for the grassroots music scene as well. We had WOMEX, the Worldwide Music Expo, in the city last week; Councillor Besford has been very much at the heart of that, and he runs the English folk festival. We, like Edinburgh, often have events that involve the smallest and the biggest.
My point is: do not just impose things on venues. You have to sit down and talk with them and ask what we can do to help. This is my point about Greater Manchester Fire Rescue Service—if you have a capable fire service, they can go in and help. The blue-light services can help provide the training and help people comply with the measures in the Bill. This is not just about leaving venues on their own, saying, “Here is Martyn’s law, so get on with it even if it puts you out of business.” That is not how it is done. We are doing it a different way: get down there and listen to them all. They will all have different issues, so support what they do because they are important in bringing visitors to the city.
I am just giving you the Manchester perspective. That is the way we go about things. The music infrastructure in the city, and the broader entertainment infrastructure, is highly valued. There was an era when a certain nightclub was just left to close and there are flats there now. We do not think like that these days; we protect the infrastructure and that means supporting the venues. It is tough for them, so get close to them and support them. I appreciate that times are hard, but there are blue-light services everywhere that can help them raise their game from a security point of view.
I just think that we cannot talk ourselves into a sort of thing where it is all too big a burden. I can tell you from experience: a terrorist attack is a massive burden on a city and what it does challenges everybody at every level—and that is ongoing. Like Figen said, Manchester will never be the same again after what happened. It has changed us but it has strengthened us and made us more united, and as I say, I do not want any other city to go through that. The Bill is designed to prevent people going through that and part of what I would say is that the way we and Edinburgh do it is a good model for others to look at.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank Mayor Burnham for his evidence. We move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor Keith Stevens and Helen Ball gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Helen Ball: Good morning. My name is Helen Ball. I am the town clerk of Shrewsbury town council in Shropshire and I am also the chairman of the Society of Local Council Clerks nationally.
Keith Stevens: My name is Keith Stevens and I am the chair of the National Association of Local Councils, which looks after the 10,000 parish and town councils across the country.
Dan Jarvis
Q
My question is for Councillor Stevens. I know that you have had a long-standing interest in the process. As part of the pre-legislative scrutiny in the previous Parliament, I know that a number of concerns were raised around proportionality and thresholds, and also around the lack of clarity with regard to the regulator. I would be grateful for your view on the changes that have been made to the Bill since. Also, how receptive do you think local councillors will be to those changes?
Keith Stevens: Having heard what has gone before, as a parish councillor I was quite pleased when the threshold was lifted to 200 because that is proportionate. I will give the simple example of my own parish council. The village hall where we hold all our meetings has a capacity of, I think, 190. I have to be honest: we rarely get to 190 people at a parish council meeting. Normally, it is 20 people, including the councillors, as a maximum. That is why raising the threshold to 200 was welcomed by a lot of councils, because it meant that the rules were not quite as strict. However, I do not think that means that parish and town councils will not look at the security of any venue that any event is taking place in. Security is important and we always look at it.
Sorry, what was the second part of the question?
Dan Jarvis
Q
Keith Stevens: I think they are receptive to the changes and I think that local councils and councillors are very supportive of Martyn’s law. They have all seen the things, and most parish councils have quite good relationships with the security services. In my own area, we have regular monthly meetings to talk about the situation; actually, the police often use parish councils almost as the pulse of what is going on in the village. When there were all the problems last year, the police were in contact asking us to let them know whether we had heard any rumours that got off the ground. So, yes—very supportive.
Sonia Kumar
Q
Helen Ball: We have had conversations with a lot of parish councils and parish clerks over the last few months. A lot of village halls are quite distinct in where they are, so there is some concern as to how they would actually be able to enact evacuation and lockdown procedures, particularly when you have just got a large room and you may only have one entrance and one exit. There is that level of concern.
A lot of the problems that we have at the moment are more about the fear of the unknown; people have read the Bill and are looking at the worst-case scenario. We have tried to advocate—as a society and also as NALC, as part of our Martyn’s law working group—that it is a bit of a “Keep calm and carry on” situation, and that we can do this. A lot of it is a common-sense approach to security. The sentiment from our society is that the legislation should be welcomed and that regardless of whether there are bandings within certain buildings, we should develop a culture of terrorism awareness.
“What price is a life?” is the other comment that a lot of clerks have said of late. Why would somebody’s life be less important if they were in a building that has 199 people as opposed to 201? It is incumbent upon our sector to try to encourage a better culture.
Chris Murray
Q
Helen Ball: Let me give you a bit of my perspective as a practitioner. My involvement in that kind of terrorism management came two weeks after the Manchester bombings, because we were due to have an outdoor music event with 12,000 people in our park. We were starting to get comments from the public such as, “I don’t think I’m going to feel safe. Can I have my money back?” It was incumbent upon us to sit down with the event organiser and their security team, and the counter-terrorism officers and the local police, to put measures in place that would reassure the public that they were safe.
A lot of the kind of things in the current Bill are things that we have been doing. In effect, I, as a town clerk, have had to take on that kind of responsibility. I already had the responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, so it is not as if it is something brand new to us; it is just a different vein.
From our sector, clerks are exceptionally resourceful individuals. They have to be, because they have lots of plates spinning at any one time. So the right kind of guidance would be beneficial—perhaps guidance that we could work within the sector, including the security industry authority, to have very specific guidance that would help our fellow clerks. I think they would take it on board, because they see that this is an important piece of legislation that we have to work towards.
Keith Stevens: In the Bill, it would be good to have slightly more clarity on the responsibilities. If the parish council owns the land, and it is let out for an event, whose responsibility is it? Yes, I think it is down to the parish council to make sure the event organiser is carrying out everything per the rule, but whose responsibility is it if that person says, “Yes, I’ll do all that.”, and then does not? It is one of the slightly grey areas that could be made clearer.
Chris Murray
Q
Helen Ball: It is something that has evolved over the years. When I became town clerk in Shrewsbury 15 years ago, when we were renting the park for an event, it used to be a case of, “Fill out the application form, send me your public liability insurance and the cheque, then drop the keys off when you are finished—thank you very much.” Now we have more stringent premises licenses that require us to ensure that there are event plans and security plans, and that they are communicated with emergency services and the emergency planning team. It has become a morphed role anyway that we have absorbed. I do not really see how Martyn’s law is going to add significantly to that. It just gives us more strength in the argument with event organisers that we have legislation backing us.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Q
Keith Stevens: I don’t think so. One of the issues stopping people coming back or standing for councillor has been the standards regime. I was pleased that it was announced that that is being looked at, and it would appear to bring back the standards regime and the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I think that is the only reason why people have not come forward so much, and that is a growing problem not just for councils, but for charities, because of red tape and things like that. I think people will come forward and support their parish council on issues such as safety. People in the village have children and relatives, and they want to keep them all safe. That is where I think parish town councils are almost the key to safety in the community. They are the ones that know what is going on, and people follow their lead.
Helen Ball: I agree with Councillor Stevens. Parish councils are the beating heart of a community. The fact that they have community venues, parks and open spaces, as well as holding events in there, adds to the culture and the dynamic of that community. When you have that strong community infrastructure, you are likely to have a greater mandate from people wanting to stand. Both NALC and the Society of Local Council Clerks have regional structures, which means that we can cascade that enthusiasm and culture down to grassroots level.
Keith Stevens: I would just add that a lot of parish councils are custodian trustees for their village halls, and the village halls are run by a charitable management committee. In my view, it is beholden on the parish councils to make sure that all the community groups in their villages or towns also understand the effect of Martyn’s law. However, I have to mention that it will have a cost. There is not a cost on lives but there are a lot of smaller parish councils with a lower precept; the cost to them will increase, and we will need to undertake training programmes, which has been mentioned.
Ben Maguire
Q
Keith Stevens: The costs for the extra time of a clerk. A lot of parishes have a clerk who works five to eight hours a week, and they will have to find time to do some of those things.
Ben Maguire
In terms of training?
Keith Stevens: Yes, both training and carrying out the review. When Ms Ball carried out the review, it took quite a long time, didn’t it?
Helen Ball: Yes.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from members of the Committee, I thank Councillor Stevens and Helen Ball for their evidence this morning. We will constitute the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Paul Laffan, Stuart Beeby, Heather Walker and Alex Beard CBE gave evidence.
The Chair
For this oral evidence session, we have until 11.25 am. Can the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Heather Walker: I am Heather Walker. I am the chief operating officer at the Royal Ballet and Opera.
Alex Beard: I am Alex Beard. I am the chief executive of the Royal Ballet and Opera, formerly the Royal Opera House.
Paul Laffan: I am Paul Laffan, the group safety and security manager for ATG Entertainment.
Stuart Beeby: I am Stuart Beeby, the group operations director for ATG Entertainment.
Matt Bishop
Q
Alex Beard: In principle, these risks are ones that we face operationally day to day. We are already on the crowded places register, so we are already taking many of the actions implied in this legislation. In particular, the lens through which we do that is a risk-analysis approach, with support from the counter-terrorism security adviser and our specialist contractors.
Codifying the expectations of us through “reasonably practicable”, as well as having access to support in implementing this legislation through the relevant authorities and a regulatory body to refer to, are positive additions in principle. Of course, that is subject to there not being any cracks in the obligations between the various actors, and there being sufficient resource for the regulator to deliver its functions. I see this as building on the practice that is already in place. I would just like to stress that we are fully supportive of the legislation. We were involved in its consultation and we regard it as being a good thing.
Stuart Beeby: ATG Entertainment’s perspective is as a multi-site operator. We have 64 venues across Germany, America and the UK. 33 of those are in the UK, from Torquay to Glasgow. Similarly to the Royal Ballet and Opera, we have been involved in the creation of this Bill. While we feel we are already on a good footing with our processes and training and are fully supportive, it is a similar message from us if the process is too formulaic—a one size fits all.
Right now we work with all the security elements, be it contractors and risk assessments and the like or our counter-terrorism colleagues in the local constabularies. The challenges that we face running a 1,000-seat theatre in Torquay are very different from those at our two large theatres in Manchester or our 10 in the west end. So we are very supportive and feel that we are in a good position moving forward with training and processes, but we have an eye on how formulaic this may be with—forgive me—a cookie-cutter approach to it.
Sonia Kumar
Q
Paul Laffan: For us, we already have the processes built in. We have been doing this for a number of years to ensure that we are prepared, as we should be as a public space. Although our venues are vast and wide, the majority are quite straightforward in terms of what we do. The events themselves do not vary a great deal—it is either a play, a musical, a comedy or whatever—the operation of the building does not alter too much and the buildings themselves are predominantly listed, large buildings.
We would expect to conduct initial assessments, which we have already done, and to review them at a similar frequency to all our health and safety approaches; just regular touchpoints subject to any massive changes. We therefore do not feel that the risk assessment element would be overly onerous upon us. For others in our industry, where they have more dynamic spaces and second spaces, it could be slightly trickier; having that resource and knowledge could be challenging. However, we do not foresee its being a huge concern for us.
Heather Walker: One of our thoughts is that the public will need to understand how venues will operate under this Bill. As an example, post covid when we were all opening up, we all worked very closely together to make sure the kinds of mitigations and arrangements in place, so that the public felt safe coming back into theatres, were similar.
Whichever theatre you went to, you saw the same sorts of things in place. I think the nature of risk assessing for this arrangement, which I totally agree with, is going to mean different things for different people. Having different kinds of events, or a different audience profile attending those events, will perhaps change what mitigations you put in place. From the public’s perspective, they will need to understand that not everybody is doing the same thing. That might create some concerns about just how safe one place is compared with another.
Paul Laffan: If I may add to that, I think this comes back to “reasonably practicable” and how we apply that. Someone’s risk assessment can vary from operator to operator, person to person, so it is a question of how much guidance there will be around the expectations so that, when we are weighing up that impact likelihood, cost analysis, of “reasonably practicable”, we understand how we quantify that for a large operator with significant funds behind, it versus a small operator with far less funds. That then would raise concern for me that we may inadvertently create a higher risk profile for another venue; if ATG or the Royal Opera House spent a lot of money strengthening our own resolve and it makes another operator who does not have the same access to funds appear a more viable target.
Stuart Beeby: Our principle is “deter”. That is the key thing: the counter-terrorism strategy is not “defend”, but “deter”. That means that if there is hostile reconnaissance and you look professional and so on, if you are being targeted you could be pushing them along to what is considered a softer target, although dynamically they are actually complying with all the requirements of the Bill.
Paul Laffan: There would be some shape and colour around the risk assessment process and what some of the expected outcomes and the suitable and understood control measures are that would be pragmatic and proportionate to the risk, but also replicable across the entire industry. On Heather’s point, if as a customer I go to see “Mean Girls” one day and a ballet the next, I should not be surprised that there is security and a similar experience on the front end.
Tim Roca
Q
Alex Beard: It puts additional responsibilities on the SIA, which needs the resources and expertise to fulfil those duties. It is a big step up—that is my No. 1 observation.
Heather Walker: And it needs the time to put this in place so that it is consistent and appropriate.
Paul Laffan: Certainly from our point of view, it is a good appointment. It is the logical one, given what it already does in the private security sector. Our only real concern would be around its—forgive me for using the wrong word—ability to pragmatically apply the risk assessment and the review of processes in what is quite a different industry and setting across much of live entertainment, versus the classic private security sector, but we are sure that that will come out in its guidance as it starts forming.
It would be great to have clarity in the Bill on how the SIA will interact externally, such as with public planning. As we strengthen our own four walls, if that shifts the attack vector to externals, with things like vehicle-as-weapon, we have very little control over the public spaces outside our buildings, yet we will introduce a crowd of people leaving after a show. HVM—hostile vehicle mitigation—is an example. That is something that we always push for in planning applications and it is very swiftly declined, fundamentally on the basis of cost and whether it suits the planning aesthetic of pedestrianised areas. It is about understanding how much power the SIA will have in enforcing, collaborating and engaging with external bodies on behalf both of the Bill and of us as private entities.
Alex Beard: Ensuring that there are no cracks between the obligations on individual institutions and the role of the local authority and the statutory authority is absolutely key. Even when hostile vehicle mitigation is accepted as required or desirable, the time lag in implementing it can be very considerable.
Chris Murray
Q
Heather Walker: Security is both a moral and a commercial obligation for our visitors and our staff. It is essential that the public and our staff feel safe in our building; that is an important part of their feedback and how we keep on attracting them. The reasonable practicableness is a very subjective view. As an example, we do bag searches for everybody who comes into the building. Some might feel that having security arches is reasonable, but we have to balance that with the fact that we are a theatre—we are providing entertainment and this is a social space to come into with your friends and family. All these things are about balance and assessment. Having a CTSA to guide us through that is certainly extremely valuable.
Stuart Beeby: Our view, looking across the United Kingdom, is very similar. Things are affected, and there is a groupthink. We can demonstrate with statistics how long it took people to come back into places of mass gathering for great entertainment: post covid, it has taken a long time. I speak as the largest operator of theatre in the UK. There will be areas, particularly in some constituencies, where there are still independent theatres run by local authorities. The challenge with the cost base in live entertainment is very real, given the national living wage, energy costs and just the costs of producing. There has always been a high bar, but with those three it is a bit of a perfect storm. Unfortunately, cost is a reality that makes people look.
As we tried to paint a picture earlier, when we talk about the formulaic, you could get the same effect by scanning the ticket, having the table, checking the bag, having another queue for bigger bags or maybe not even allowing bigger bags into your theatre. You can do all that. If you come to our theatre at the Lyceum, with Disney as our partner, where we are doing 2,100 people with eight shows a week, you will see dogs there. I do not use dogs at the Savoy or the Princess theatre in Torquay, but that does not mean that you are less safe. There is an assessment.
We have to constantly manage that message. We do customer feedback, and you are right that we get the two bookends: “You made us do a bag search, it was raining, it was ‘An Inspector Calls’, the average age was 65 and we were out in the rain,” versus, “You were rushing us through, I had a bag and the check by your security staff seemed cursory.” We are constantly having to balance it.
There will be a real challenge on cost, which comes back to the application. For us, I guess it is about being very clear. It needs to be effects-based in terms of how it is assessed and the mitigations you put in place, because good training and being professional are just as effective as somebody being poor and just trying to whizz everybody through an arch, which would create a lot of cost. That formulaic piece is key.
We are constantly managing the message that these are safe spaces to be, because in the theatre the average age is still higher. It is still that demographic that is 45-plus with more disposable income and, particularly in regional theatre with your matinées, there will be more retirees, so they are very receptive to trigger events.
The Chair
As no other members of the Committee have questions, may I thank all our witnesses for their evidence this morning? That brings us to the end of our morning session. The Committee will continue taking oral evidence at 2 pm, here in the Boothroyd Room.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 31st October 2024
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 31 October 2024 - (31 Oct 2024)
The Chair
Good morning, everybody. I begin with a few preliminary reminders. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or, alternatively, passed them to Hansard colleagues in the room.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. The selection list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which that amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill.
Clause 1
Overview
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. It is good to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge, in his place. He and I have known each other for a very long time, and as this may be our final exchange—
Dan Jarvis
Well, as it sounds as though it will be our final exchange, I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his service and wish him well for the future.
The purpose of clause 1 is to aid the reader of the Bill to understand its content and structure, which I am sure will be a great relief to members of the Committee as we debate the Bill. As the clause provides an overview of the Bill, this seems an appropriate moment to set out a reminder of why we have sought to legislate.
The first responsibility of any Government is to keep the public safe; that is, and will always be, our No. 1 priority. Since the start of 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots, and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks. As the MI5 director general, Ken McCallum, set out last month, this country is today subject to
“the most complex and interconnected threat environment we’ve ever seen.”
As can sadly be seen from recent terrorism incidents, the public may be targeted at a wide range of public venues and spaces. We know, too, that the terror threat has become less predictable and potential attacks harder to detect and investigate. That is why those who run premises and events need to know what they can do, and what they should be doing, to keep the public safe. That view is supported by inquests and inquiries into terror attacks, which have recommended the introduction of legislation to improve the safety and security of public venues. That includes, but is not limited to, monitored recommendation 4 in volume 1 of the Manchester Arena inquiry.
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place, or appropriate measures taken, to keep us safe. Wherever people are and whatever they are doing, they deserve to both be and feel safe, ensuring protection of life and of our way of life.
While we recognise that the risks posed by terrorism are already proactively considered for some premises and events, there is a lack of consistency, which needs addressing. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill—Martyn’s law—will remedy that inconsistency. The Bill’s proposals have been subject to extensive development, and a draft version of this legislation was subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny under the previous Government. Indeed, the shadow Minister gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on that matter.
The Bill that we have brought forward has been adjusted to strike an appropriate balance between protecting the public and avoiding an undue burden on premises. We recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be suitable for all premises and events, which is why, for example, we have adapted the Bill’s requirements to include the “reasonably practicable” test. That will enable those responsible for qualifying premises or events to take into consideration what is within their control and the resources they have available to them, as well as what is suitable and appropriate for their venue.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to Figen Murray, from whom we heard so movingly on Tuesday. She has without doubt been the driving force behind this Bill. I am sure that all Committee members will agree that Figen is an inspiration to us all. With that, I look forward to the exchanges to come in the course of proceedings in this Committee.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to start with something that Figen Murray said this week in her evidence to us, which, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, was incredibly powerful:
“Martyn’s law will save lives.”––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 7, Q1.]
That is what she said, and that is what will happen.
As the Minister has pointed out and as Ken McCallum of MI5 has put so powerfully, the number of foiled plots shows that, sadly, the terror threat is not going away but getting more intense. That puts even more of an onus on all of us to keep the public as safe as possible, especially when they are at their most vulnerable —simply going on a night out to enjoy themselves. I think I speak for all members of the Committee when I say how moving it was to hear Figen read out the names of all the individuals who lost their lives in the Manchester Arena bombing.
Like many Greater Manchester MPs, I know that many of my constituents in Rochdale will welcome the Bill, not least because many of them regularly go to the Manchester Arena—indeed, many were present on that awful night in 2017. Brendan Cox put it perfectly when he said that
“nobody wants to have a law named after their child.” ––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 8, Q1.]
It is a tribute to both him and Figen that they have turned their own losses into campaigning to make sure that no other families suffer at the hands of terrorists.
We as a Government are also bringing in Awaab’s law, named after two-year-old Awaab Ishak, who died when he was exposed to mould at his family’s home in Rochdale. We are creating new duties on private landlords to make sure that no other child dies in the same way. And, of course, there is the Hillsborough law: a duty of candour on all public bodies to ensure that the state can never again fail to comply with public inquiries or deny bereaved families the right to fair legal funding. What links each of those pieces of legislation is that they have been driven by the sheer determination of individuals—of those who have suffered a loss but are determined to turn that into something positive for others.
As the inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing found, both the state and the private sector have more to do to make our public venues safer. This Bill at least makes a real start on delivering that change. Andy Burnham was right when he said that Manchester and Greater Manchester have shown resilience since the 2017 bombing. I would add that the city showed similar resilience after the 1996 IRA bombing, turning that awful event into a catalyst for the regeneration that we have all seen since.
With Martyn’s law, we can make our public spaces across the country more resilient. We expect public premises to have a fire safety plan, so it seems obvious to expect them to have plans in place to mitigate the threat of a terror attack. This version of the Bill recognises the need to balance safety with proportionality, while retaining flexibility to amend that proportionality at a later stage if that is needed.
Manchester’s experience of a voluntary version of this Bill has shown that if smaller venues are engaged with and supported in the right way, these changes can help our thriving night-time economy and do not hinder it. But it is simply unacceptable that, for bigger venues in particular, there has been inconsistency on whether they have strong enough security checks. The terrorists will win if they restrict our freedoms to do simple things such as going out to enjoy a concert or show. We can reduce that fear—the fear that all those terrorists feed off—if we make our public venues safer in the way the Bill intends.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I really welcome the bipartisan work that the Minister has done on this legislation and also welcome the Conservative party support. I would like to add the Liberal Democrats’ wholehearted support for this important legislation. However, I would like to flag with the Minister my concerns about training, or the lack thereof, under the Bill at the moment. I would like to work with him to explore that area in a bit more detail. That issue has certainly been raised a lot by constituents when it comes to smaller venues just over the 200-people threshold. I would like to clarify that in more detail before we reach Report. The hon. Member for Rochdale rightly raised the comparison with other safety procedures, such as fire. That is a powerful point, but I add that often those fire safety procedures come with training programmes for the staff responsible. I sound that note of caution.
I pay tribute to Figen Murray, Brendan Cox and everyone the Committee has heard from. I again give my wholehearted support for the legislation.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Clause 1 offers a comprehensive overview of the Bill’s structure, laying the foundations for essential protections across public venues. The Bill introduces a two-tier system, distinguishing between “standard duty” and “enhanced duty” premises, based on venue size. That tiered approach ensures that venues expecting 200 to 799 attendees may face manageable requirements, if needed, focusing on basic but effective protective measures that respect available resources. Meanwhile, venues expecting more than 800 attendees are subject to higher standards, proportionate to the risk.
Witnesses such as Matt Jukes, assistant commissioner for specialist operations in the Metropolitan police, said that
“the proposed measures in the Bill…are proportionate, and highly likely to be effective.” ––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 29.]
Another witness, Keith Stevens, the chair of the National Association of Local Councils, talked about the village halls where many parish and town councils meet, and was pleased that the threshold has now been lifted to 200 because that is proportionate. Those and other witness statements demonstrate that the balance of measures in the Bill will help prevent small venues from becoming overburdened, aligned with the Government’s commitment to proportionality and public safety.
By providing clear and adaptable guidelines, clause 1 provides an overview to the Bill that enables venues to enhance security in ways that suit their unique operational needs, promoting safer and more resilient public services across the UK.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge is withdrawing his amendment.
Tim Roca
Fair enough. But I will speak to clause 1 of the Bill. I will focus on small businesses, because we heard a lot in the evidence session about the impact on them. They are the lifeblood of our economy and key contributors to keeping our high streets vital and thriving.
It is important to reflect on the evidence we heard about the impact that the Bill will have on small businesses, particularly what Mayor Andy Burnham said about the experience they have had in Greater Manchester already. The city council in Manchester held partnership sessions with large and small businesses alike—over 2,000 people across 10 sessions representing 700 businesses. They then held the tabletop discussions that Figen Murray talked about, including with large spaces such as the Printworks, all the way down to small independent restaurants. The response of those businesses was clear. They believe that there is a need for the legislation, and they do not believe that the provisions are prohibitively onerous. They believe that, at most, it would cost them two hours of staff time.
I will quote from Gareth Worthington, the night time economy officer at CityCo and Manchester business improvement district, which I am happy to place in the Library:
“If a venue operator does not know how to evacuate their venue they should not be running that venue and if training can be provided to help make that evacuation safer then venues should grasp it with both hands.”
Businesses recognise that their first duty is to keep their patrons safe, and that sensible practical measures can be taken to reduce the chance of harm. Businesses are aware of the threats out there. The Minister alluded to those when he spoke: 43 late-stage terrorist plots foiled, and in the last year the number of state-threat investigations launched by the security services increased by 48%. The practical measures in the Bill are necessary, reasonable and proportionate.
Finally, I want to talk about Figen Murray, as she is one of my constituents. I cannot put it better than the way Mayor Andy Burnham phrased it:
“Figen responded to an awful, evil act of hate, with love…Everything she has done since losing her son has been about making the world a better place in his memory.”
He also said:
“Through her work with young people and her campaign for Martyn’s Law, she is helping to prevent future tragedies and give every parent peace of mind. She is a real icon of Greater Manchester.”
I am proud that she is one of my constituents.
Tom Tugendhat
Given that this is the last time I will speak on this Bill Committee, I want to pay tribute to Figen and Brendan for the work they have done.
There is always a danger with such Bills that we put the blame not on the perpetrator but on those who are actually victims. I say that because the businesses that must make provision, pay the cost and bear the burden are also victims of the perpetrators. Let us be absolutely clear: for all that this law lays out the responsibilities on businesses, the true responsibility falls on those perpetrating these attacks.
Today, as Ken McCallum would tell us, the Iranian state is a prime originator, and the Muslim Brotherhood is a feeder, of the evil we see perpetrated. It is the various jihadi extremist organisations that make this country less safe, and different aspects of other political parties also make it more dangerous. We must be absolutely clear that responsibility for the actions we are talking about actually falls not on the businesses but on those who encourage, tolerate and perpetrate terrorism. Let us be absolutely clear today that one of the principal vectors for this violence comes straight out of Tehran and through various organisations that are still operating in this country despite many attempts to close them down.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale, for Dudley and for Macclesfield. I am also grateful for the contribution made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall; the Government appreciate the Liberal Democrat party’s support, and I am happy to work, and have further conversations, with him before Report on the important point that he raised about training.
Finally, I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. I completely agree with his point about responsibility, and he is right. He will know that this new Government take these matters incredibly seriously, and I can give him and the rest of the Committee an absolute assurance that we will not rest in seeking to address the points he made and the concerns he dealt with admirably when he was the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Qualifying premises
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “200” and insert “300”.
This amendment sets the threshold for qualifying premises at 300 individuals.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 20, in clause 32, page 22, line 9, leave out “100” insert “200”.
This amendment sets the floor for standard duty at 200 individuals.
Amendment 21, in clause 32, page 22, line 12, leave out “500” and insert “799”.
This amendment sets the floor for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events at 799 individuals.
Clause stand part.
Tom Tugendhat
I tabled the amendments for the simple reason that a burden will fall on businesses and on individuals; we can belittle it and say that complying will take only an hour or two, but for many small businesses that is a significant burden. As was made clear in the evidence session only the other day, the burden on local authorities, including at parish level for parish halls, can change the way in which trustees approach this issue, which is why we looked to make the changes that I recognise the Minister has indeed made.
It is important to ensure that the burdens do not grow. That is why I have tabled some of the amendments before us, which change some of the fines and request a change from simply issuing an instruction to introducing a statutory instrument—a very specific moment when the Minister actually has to make a decision and bring the issue back to Parliament. We can belittle the hours, but trustees and volunteers at village halls make their own time available—I speak from personal experience, and others will have seen this as well—so if the burden is too great, plenty of village halls will simply close because we are asking people to take on more than they are willing to give.
That is why we have tabled the amendments, but as they all speak to the same point, which is not overburdening people, my remarks can be taken to apply to them as a whole.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendments. Before I turn to them, I will briefly explain why clause 2, which sets out the criteria by which premises are determined to be qualifying premises that fall within scope, is so fundamental.
I recognise that the scope of the Bill—particularly the qualifying thresholds—is an important issue to discuss. Once more, I assure Committee members that the scope of the Bill, including the thresholds, has been developed following detailed discussion with those responsible for premises and with security experts within Government. That has involved hundreds of stakeholder engagement meetings, two public consultations and the important pre-legislative scrutiny process. As a result, the Government’s firm view is that the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the public and avoiding an undue burden on premises.
Let me turn to the detail of amendments 20 and 21, which were tabled by the right hon. Member. He will be well aware that the Government have increased the qualifying threshold in the Bill from 100 to 200. As he correctly set out, clause 32 provides for the Secretary of State to be able to increase or decrease that figure and the threshold for the enhanced tier. As a result, the number of premises in scope of the Bill, and therefore required to comply, may be increased or decreased.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that that power is narrow, and regulations made under it will be subject to the affirmative procedure before they are made, to ensure the appropriate level of scrutiny by parliamentarians. The power is also limited in that the Secretary of State may not amend the figure to less than 100 in respect of the standard tier or to less than 500 in respect of the enhanced tier. That provides a floor, or absolute minimum number, below which the qualifying threshold cannot go.
The Government’s intention, in having the power in clause 32, is to be equipped to respond to changes in the nature or level of the threat from terrorism. We envisage that the qualifying thresholds would be reduced to either floor in only very limited circumstances, such as the nature of the threat changing significantly. The power therefore provides a necessary lever that can be used, if needed, to ensure that the legislation remains fit for purpose and continues to strike an appropriate balance between protecting the public and avoiding placing an undue burden on premises. The Government do not therefore support the amendments.
Finally, I turn to amendment 22. As I set out during oral evidence, setting a threshold inevitably raises discussion as to whether it is the right figure, and what falls on either side of the threshold will inevitably be questioned. Indeed, the Committee heard a range of views from witnesses giving evidence on Tuesday, many of whom spoke to what they believe the appropriate threshold to be. The discussion included arguments for setting it higher or lower than 200.
Ultimately, the Government have to take a view about what the most appropriate threshold is. After careful consideration of the pre-legislative scrutiny findings and consultation responses, and after taking into account the views of stakeholders and security experts, the Government have decided that 200 is the right judgment.
The amendment changing the figure to 300 would significantly impact the outcomes of the Bill, and particularly what the standard tier seeks to achieve. Furthermore, as we will discuss when we debate clause 5, the standard tier requirements have been redesigned to be relatively simple and low-cost for responsible persons to take forward. They do not require premises to make physical changes.
The Government’s firm view is therefore that 200 represents the right threshold to bring premises into the scope of the Bill. That figure strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the public and imposing a burden on premises. The Government therefore do not support the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment.
Tim Roca
I want to speak briefly to the point about thresholds, which has just been discussed. The consultations prior to the Bill were based on a threshold of 100 at the standard tier, and I welcome the ability the Bill gives the Secretary of State to reduce the threshold back to that, should the evidence warrant that. I think Members will be reassured by some of the safeguards the Minister has just talked about, which would have to be in place before any such change happened.
In the protect duty public consultation, half of respondents thought that the threshold should be 100. Moving it to 200 has already taken 100,000 premises out of the scope of the legislation, leaving 180,000 within it. Raising the threshold to 300 would in effect remove the standard tier altogether. Figen has been very clear on this point:
“Raising the threshold of 200 even higher would mean that proportionality would no longer exist”.
She has also pointed out that in her small town of Poynton, in my constituency, a threshold of 200 would already mean that not a single venue is covered by this legislation. A move to 300 would therefore be a mistake and fatal to the purpose of the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
Given the very obvious numbers on the Committee, there is no point in pushing the amendment to a vote, but I still believe that the burden on small businesses is too great. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Specified uses of premises
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move amendment 10, schedule 1, page 26, line 15, leave out paragraphs 3 and 4 and insert—
“Entertainment and leisure activities
3 Use (other than a use mentioned elsewhere in this Schedule) for the provision of entertainment, leisure or recreation activities of any description, where the activity is principally for the benefit of visiting members of the public.”
This amendment makes general provision about premises used by the public for entertainment, leisure or recreation activities and replaces references to specific types of such activities.
Dan Jarvis
The amendments in this and the following group seek to ensure that the Bill will work as effectively as intended, including by clarifying and simplifying the definitions of certain uses of premises and certain terms. They are not intended to bring any new premises into scope or to inadvertently bring unintended premises within scope.
Government amendments 10 and 11 simplify schedule 1 by creating a new category of “Entertainment and leisure activities”, which brings together the premises previously captured by paragraphs 3, 4 and 6. That will help to ensure that the legislation and accompanying guidance are simpler to understand for persons potentially within scope of the Bill.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment made: 11, in schedule 1, page 27, line 10, leave out paragraph 6.—(Dan Jarvis.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 29, line 29, at end insert—
“(but see paragraph 4(a) of Schedule 2)”.
This amendment makes clear that paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 (aerodromes) is subject to the exception in paragraph 4(a) of Schedule 2 for premises covered by an aerodrome security plan under the Aviation Security Act 1982.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 13, 14 and 15.
Dan Jarvis
Government amendment 12 simply highlights that the term “aerodromes” does not include those covered by the exception in schedule 2 with an aerodrome security plan under the Aviation Security Act 1982.
Government amendment 13 is a technical amendment to ensure that Scottish further education establishments are more appropriately described and to reflect any future changes to relevant Scottish legislation.
Government amendment 14 is a change to clarify that agricultural colleges in Northern Ireland are captured, and Government amendment 15 is a technical change to improve the accuracy of the definition of higher education institutions as applied in Scotland.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendments made: 13, in schedule 1, page 32, line 4, leave out from “listed” to “in” in line 6.
This is a drafting change.
Amendment 14, in schedule 1, page 32, line 13, at end insert—
“or established under section 5 of the Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland) 1949 (c. 2 (N.I.)).”
This amendment provides that paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 covers use of premises for the provision of further education at Northern Ireland agriculture colleges.
Amendment 15, in schedule 1, page 34, line 19, leave out from beginning to “the” in line 22 and insert—
“in Scotland, a higher education institution within the meaning of section 35(1) of”.—(Dan Jarvis.)
This is a drafting change.
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move amendment 16, in schedule 1, page 34, line 37, after “to” insert “visiting”.
This amendment clarifies that the use of premises for the provision by a public authority of facilities or services is only relevant for the purposes of Part 1 of the Bill if members of the public visit the premises in connection with those facilities or services.
Dan Jarvis
Government amendment 16 clarifies that premises used by public authorities for the provision of facilities or services are only in scope if the public visit the premises to use the facilities or receive those services.
Government amendment 17 clarifies that
“visiting members of the public”
includes members of the public who have paid to access, have invitations or passes allowing access to, or are members or guests of a club, association or other body. That more accurately captures the differing arrangements for public access that may be in place at premises in scope, such as private members’ clubs.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Amendment made: 17, in schedule 1, page 34, line 42, at end insert—
“References to “visiting members of the public”
20 In determining for the purposes of this Schedule whether premises are used by “visiting members of the public”, it is irrelevant that access to the premises may be limited (at all times or particular times) to members of the public who—
(a) have paid to access the premises,
(b) have invitations or passes allowing access, or
(c) are members (or guests of members) of a club, association or other body.”—(Dan Jarvis.)
This amendment contains provision about the meaning of references in Schedule 1 to “visiting members of the public”.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
We have previously spoken at length about the purpose of schedule 1, so I trust that the Committee are suitably satisfied as to why it should stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 2
Excluded premises and events
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Schedule 2 specifies certain types of premises that are excluded from the Bill’s scope, which is necessary where there are already similar legislative requirements or protective frameworks in place. This covers, in particular, certain transport premises and premises occupied by Parliament and the devolved legislatures.
Schedule 2 also defines a category of open-air premises that might fall in scope, but where it would be impractical or disproportionately difficult to deliver the requirements given the nature and operation of those premises. The category includes parks and premises used for grassroots sports, which generally do not have controlled access or defined physical boundaries. These premises are therefore excluded, except where they employ individuals to ensure that members of the public have paid to access the premises, or where they have invitations or passes to do so; in cases where entry and exit to the premises are controlled and payment is taken, it is considered that there is a greater capacity and capability to consider reasonably practical procedures and/or measures as required.
Schedule 2 also maintains the provisions in schedule 1 that places of worship and premises used for childcare or primary, secondary or further education fall within the standard tier, meaning that qualifying events cannot occur on those sites.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 3
Qualifying events
Amendments made: 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, leave out “all or part of”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.
Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, after “time” insert
“in connection with their use for the event”.
This amendment clarifies that, for the purposes of determining whether Part 1 of the Bill applies to an event, the number of individuals present on premises in connection with the event must be considered.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 3, line 2, leave out “all or part of”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.
Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 3, line 7, at end insert—
“(2) Where the condition in subsection (1)(e) applies only in relation to one or more parts of the premises at which an event is to be held, for the purposes of this Part treat what is to be held at each such part of the premises as a separate event (to be held at that part).”.—(Dan Jarvis.)
This amendment caters for cases where parts of the premises at which an event is to be held are open to the public generally and other parts are areas for which members of the public will need permission to enter.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Persons responsible for qualifying premises or events
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 4 defines who is responsible for qualifying premises or a qualifying event, and therefore who is responsible for meeting the relevant requirements. With regard to premises, paragraph (a) of subsection (1) provides that:
“a person is responsible for qualifying premises if the person has control of the premises in connection with their relevant Schedule 1 use”,
such as the operator of a hotel.
Subsection (2) sets out what is meant by “relevant Schedule 1 use”. If premises are used for one of the uses specified in schedule 1, that is the relevant use. That is the case even if premises are also used for other purposes not listed in schedule 1. Some premises will be used for more than one of the uses specified in schedule 1. In such cases, it is the person with control over the premises in connection with that principal use who will have to meet the relevant requirements.
Subsection (3) provides a regulation-making power that enables the Secretary of State to provide specific rules as to how the principal use is to be determined. We expect that the principal use will be readily apparent in the vast majority of cases, but the power will ensure that clarity can be provided if and when needed. Principal use is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Guidance will set out the relevant factors that should be considered when making a determination—for example, taking account of the amount of time for which the premises are used for each type of activity. The regulation-making power can be used if further specific provision is necessary.
On qualifying events, subsection (1)(b) provides that the person responsible is the person who has
“control of the premises at which the event is to be held in connection with their use for the event”—
for example, the organiser of a music festival. The relevant circumstances of the event will need to be considered to determine who the responsible person is. For example, if a concert is to be held in a park, and a company putting on the event has control of an area of the park for the purposes of delivering the concert, that company will be the responsible person. Conversely, if the local authority that operates the park puts on the concert, it will be the responsible person. Where the local authority is not the responsible person, it will still have a duty under clause 8(5) to co-operate with that person to enable them to comply with their requirements.
Subsection (4) specifies that if there is more than one person responsible for qualifying premises, or a qualifying event, they are jointly responsible for ensuring compliance with the Bill’s requirements, and may act jointly in meeting their requirements. In addition, clause 8(2), which we will debate shortly, imposes obligations on the responsible persons to co-ordinate with each other in meeting the requirements. Such a situation will arise when each of the parties has control over parts of the premises in connection with the relevant schedule 1 use. It does not mean, for example, that the multiple tenants of a shopping centre are jointly responsible for the shopping centre as a whole; rather, each will be responsible for their respective premises.
Finally, schedule 1 includes some specific provisions to identify the responsible person for particular types of premises. For example, in the case of a primary or secondary school, paragraph 16 provides that the responsible person will either be the local authority or the governing body of the school. Clause 4(5) provides that those specific provisions apply instead of the general provisions of the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Public protection procedures
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 5 places a requirement on those responsible for all qualifying premises and events to put public protection procedures in place, so far as is reasonably practical. This applies to both standard and enhanced duty premises and events. The intention of having such procedures in place is to reduce the risk of physical harm that could be caused to individuals present at qualifying premises and events if an act of terrorism were to occur.
The procedures will help to prepare people working at premises and events to take steps to reduce the risk of harm and move people away from danger. All qualifying premises and events will have to consider how to evacuate, move people to safety, lock down and communicate information. In practice, these procedures focus on simple, low-cost activities such as identifying safe exit routes and lockable doors. The Bill does not require standard duty premises to make physical changes to their sites. Premises must consider the procedures that are appropriate for them.
The procedures that the Bill requires are simple steps to reduce the physical risk to the public from acts of terrorism. They are similar to, but often with key differences from, other legislative procedures. For example, in developing evacuation procedures, those responsible may want to consider safe exit routes for full, partial or phased evacuations, and where they differ from evacuation procedures required by fire safety, such as how they are communicated and where people should congregate. With a focus on ensuring preparedness, security experts advise that these types of procedures are best placed to reduce the risk of physical harm. Qualifying premises will all be different. Further information on how the procedures would apply in practice is provided in the factsheets. Statutory guidance will support the development and implementation of appropriate procedures to allow premises and events to introduce procedures that are right for them, taking into account their circumstances and resources.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I wanted to speak on this clause because it is arguably the most important component of this legislation and could have the biggest impact. Obviously we all hope that terrorist events do not happen, but we must be alert to the possibility that they can, and to what we collectively need to do to prepare for that situation.
Enhanced-tier organisations, particularly those at the upper end such as stadiums, will already have many operations in place to prepare for that. They will do table-top exercises; they will do war games; they will designate staff; they will have protocols. But for the standard tier, in particular, will not automatically be doing that. As we see the terror threat evolving to target those smaller standard-tier institutions, it is important that we prompt them, through this legislation, to do that thinking.
The former US Under-Secretary of State for Homeland Security, Juliette Kayyem, talks about the distinction between “pre-boom” and “boom” with terrorist events. Pre-boom, we can do a lot of work to stop terrorists—put in checks and do things—but we have to think about what we do in the moment when the terrorist attack has already begun. That is not the time for institutions, particularly small institutions, to be thinking, “What is the exit route? What do we need to do? Who’s in charge here?” In reference to American school shootings, Juliette Kayyem says that the least useful person, once a school shooting has started, is the person who says, “We should have banned guns.” It is too late to be having that conversation, and the gun is already in the school. People need to be prepared for that situation.
The four requirements under subsection (3) are small, and quite intuitive, prompts that we are asking of standard-tier institutions; but in giving those prompts we could be encouraging them to take the small steps that will, when the terrorist event happens, affect the outcome and could really save lives. This is a really important clause.
The Opposition have made the point that the clause presents a burden on business, and it is true that it is bringing into scope organisations that probably have not had this burden placed upon them before. Admittedly, there is a component of burden being placed here—but actually it is not the legislation that is doing that; it is the evolving terror threat, which we are responding to. That is why it is important to note that the proposals made here—those four requirements—are straightforward. As I say, they are almost intuitive and commonsensical. They are not onerous and they are low-cost.
My constituency, the city centre of Edinburgh, is event central. We have hundreds of events there every week, and in August we host the third-biggest ticketed event in the world—double the number of people go to events in that month as go to the Olympics. But they are not all in one place. It is not one big stadium; they are spread throughout the city.
Some of those events, such as the Tattoo, would qualify for the enhanced tier, but many of them would be standard tier. If we can prompt them to make these changes, we really could make a huge impact. If we do not do that and there is a chilling effect because people feel insecure, the burden on organisations will significant; we need to take that seriously. That is why the distinction between standard and enhanced is appropriate, and I think the requirements being made of the standard tier are the right ones.
This very important clause codifies something that society should be doing anyway, given the evolving terror threat. The way we will know it has had an impact is that we will never hear about it again, because the prompts will mean that further action is not required and tragedies do not happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Public protection measures for enhanced duty premises and qualifying event
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 6, page 5, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from creating further requirements for enhanced duty premises by regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, in clause 6, page 5, line 8, leave out subsection 6.
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to omit or amend the description of public protection measures for enhanced premises and qualifying events without regard to the considerations set out in Clause (6)6.
Clause stand part.
Tom Tugendhat
This very simple amendment is in line with the others that I have already spoken about. It would limit the Government’s power to exert extra burdens on small businesses.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling this amendment. The Government consider that specifying further measures is an important power for the Secretary of State and must be available to ensure effective protection of the public through these measures.
Having the ability to specify further public protection measures through regulations means that the requirements of the enhanced duty can be amended to reflect changes in the terrorism threat, advances in technological solutions and our response to them. For example, there may be lessons learned from future incidents, further common types of attack may emerge, or best practice may evolve.
The right hon. Gentleman’s amendment would limit the Government’s ability to protect the public and safeguard them from harm. I understand that the intention behind it may relate to fears over the burden that future measures may create. However, the clause is drafted to constrain the power to be exercisable only where it is considered that the further measures will reduce vulnerability to, or the risk of physical harm from, an attack. It is intended to ensure that new requirements are limited to those necessary to protect the public, and remain in line with the overall objectives of the measures under the clause. Given the evolving nature of terrorism and the threat it poses, the Government consider it necessary to include this power, and therefore do not support the amendment.
On amendment 26, the Government consider it important to be able to remove or amend public protection measures from the list in subsection (3). For example, the Government might identify potential amendments to improve the measures through lessons learned and evolving best practice. This power is drafted so that the Secretary of State may remove or amend the types of measures only if they consider that doing so will not either increase the risk of physical harm to individuals or increase the vulnerability of the premises or event to the risk of acts of terrorism. That is in accordance with the overall objectives of the measures within this clause, as stated in subsection (2).
Were we to agree to the amendment, specified measures could be amended or removed without a requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to expressly consider how those public protection objectives would be effective in taking away or altering a measure in the list approved by Parliament. The Government do not consider that appropriate and therefore respectfully do not support the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments.
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Enhanced duty premises and qualifying events: documenting compliance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 7 places a legislative requirement on those responsible for enhanced duty premises and events to prepare and maintain a document that records their compliance in relation to putting in place procedures, under clause 5, and measures, under clause 6. This is necessary to ensure that premises are able to more easily demonstrate compliance, and the Security Industry Authority is able to assess that against the Bill’s requirements. Many premises will already be documenting similar mitigations in regard to existing security plans for non-legislative purposes—fire safety and health and safety legislation, for example.
Documents should contain statements that relate to the public protection procedures and measures that are implemented, or proposed to be implemented, at their premises or event. Documents should also contain assessments to provide a rationale as to how the proposed procedures and measures will reduce both physical harm to individuals present and vulnerabilities of the premises or event if an attack were to occur.
When complete, the document should contain the totality of the procedures and measures deployed and sufficient detail to enable the authority to assess whether those responsible for premises and events are compliant with the Bill’s requirements. In the first instance, those responsible for enhanced duty premises and events are required to provide the document as soon as reasonably practicable after it is prepared and within 30 days of any subsequent revision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Requirements to co-ordinate and co-operate
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 24, in clause 9, page 6, line 19, leave out paragraph (a).—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from specifying further matters relating to qualifying premises or a qualifying event on which the responsible person would have to inform the Security Industry Authority.
Clauses 9 and 10 stand part.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 8 places a requirement upon certain duty holders to co-ordinate or co-operate with each other when complying with requirements. Subsections (1) and (2) deal with instances whereby there is more than one responsible person, requiring those persons to co-ordinate so far as is reasonably practicable with the requirements imposed upon them. An example of this may be a joint venture between two parties with equal control. The requirement applies to all premises and events within scope of the legislation. It will ensure organisation between mutually invested parties and encourage unified decision making in relation to the requirements placed upon them.
Subsections (3) and (4) concern where one qualifying premises forms part of another. The persons responsible for both premises must so far as is reasonably practicable co-ordinate with each other in complying with the relevant legislative requirements. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that responsible persons in such scenarios, such as a shopping centre, combine efforts or actions to reach mutually effective and compliant outcomes in relation to relevant requirements. That might, for example, entail the shopping centre operator liaising with different units in scope to ensure there is a co-ordinated and effective evacuation plan.
Subsections (5) and (6) concern where a person has some form of control of an enhanced duty premises or event, but is not the responsible person. Where that is the case, they must so far as is reasonably practicable co-operate with each other in complying with the relevant legislative requirements. Examples of persons in control but not the responsible person would be a building owner who has leased the premises to a separate operator, or a landowner who has given permission for a qualifying event to take place on their land. The purpose of this requirement is to assist the responsible person in ensuring that appropriate public protection measures are in place under clause 6. In instances where they require relevant permissions or support from other parties who have some control over the premises, there is a duty placed on such parties to co-operate so far as is reasonably practicable.
Subsection (7) specifies that a requirement under this section does not extend to a requirement imposed by a penalty notice. Those responsible may require co-ordination or co-operation from other duty holders in regards to meeting relevant requirements, including compliance and restriction notices, but this does not extend to penalty notices. If there is a dispute in relation to scenarios of co-ordination or co-operation, clause 11 enables interested persons to apply for certain determinations by a tribunal. The tribunal may be asked to determine whether a person is a responsible person, or the extent to which a person who is not a responsible person has control of the premises. In summary, placing a requirement upon relevant responsible persons and duty holders to co-ordinate or co-operate will further drive compliance with the Bill’s requirements and therefore better protect the public.
I turn briefly to clause 9, which requires those responsible for qualifying premises or events to notify the SIA when they become or cease to be responsible for premises or events. Those responsible for premises or an event must notify the SIA of that responsibility upon commencement of the legislation. If a person becomes responsible for premises or an event after the legislation has commenced, they too must notify the SIA of that. The requirements of the clause will assist the SIA in knowing which premises and events within scope of the legislation are actively demonstrating compliance and so identifying those who are not. The time limit within which notifications must be made will be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. Clause 9 also sets out that the Secretary of State may, via regulations, specify the form and manner in which notifications must be sent and the information that is required to be included in a notification, such as information about the premises or event and contact details for the responsible person.
Clause 10 places a legislative requirement on those responsible for all enhanced duty premises and qualifying events to designate a senior individual where the responsible person is not an individual. Examples of responsible persons that are not individuals are bodies corporate, limited partnerships and unincorporated associations. The individual undertaking the role must be someone who is involved in the management of, or has some form of control within, the organisation—for example, a director or partner, rather than a lower-level employee. That will help ensure that the individual appointed has appropriate influence and seniority to drive forward compliance with the requirements. The senior individual may delegate actions that relate to the relevant legislative requirements to ensure they are complied with. However, they cannot delegate their overall responsibility for ensuring compliance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 31st October 2024
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 31 October 2024 - (31 Oct 2024)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Clause 11 will enable an interested person to apply to the tribunal for an independent determination on matters where disagreements may arise. An “interested person” can mean either the Security Industry Authority or a person who has—or, for an event, will have at some point—control of the premises or event to any extent. Interested parties may apply to the tribunal where there are disagreements or a need for clarity on whether a premises or an event are in scope and in which tier they fall, who is responsible for them, and whether a person is required to co-operate with the person responsible for them. A determination by the tribunal will be legally binding.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Role of the Security Industry Authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Review of the role of the regulator in oversight of public protection requirements—
“(1) Within 18 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report reviewing the role of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator.
(2) The report must include a cost-benefit analysis comparing the respective situation for each of the matters listed in subsection (3) on how—
(a) these have been carried out by the Security Industry Authority, and
(b) they might be carried by local authority teams if the regulatory duties were transferred to them.
(3) The issues which must be included in the analysis contained in the report laid under subsection (1) are—
(a) effectiveness in performing investigation and enforcement functions;
(b) relationship and synergies with other locally-based enforcement regimes;
(c) relationship and interaction with existing statutory licensing regimes; and
(d) effectiveness of provision of guidance as part of oversight, adherence and awareness of the new public protection requirements.”
This new clause would require a report reviewing the role of the Security Industry Authority, including a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the regulatory functions being carried out by the Security Industry Authority with those functions being provided alternatively at a local authority level.
Schedule 3.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 12 will allow the SIA to effectively operate as the regulator for the Bill by setting out its responsibilities, powers and role. The primary role of the SIA will be to provide support and guidance. However, it is also important that it has the powers necessary to investigate and monitor compliance, so that the legislation can be enforced effectively. Schedule 3 therefore grants powers to authorised inspectors to investigate whether persons responsible for premises or events are contravening or have contravened requirements of the Bill. The schedule outlines their powers to gather information, the use of warrants, their ability to enter premises without a warrant, and supporting offences.
Under the schedule, inspectors will be able to serve information notices to gather relevant information for inspection purposes. The notice could require a person to provide written detail relating to an investigation or to attend an interview. Inspectors may enter premises without a warrant, subject to certain conditions in paragraph 4. However, schedule 3 also provides for inspectors to apply for warrants to enter premises, with paragraph 6 setting out the powers afforded to inspectors once a warrant is issued. The schedule also creates criminal offences for failing to comply with information notices, obstructing authorised inspectors and impersonating inspectors.
Under clause 12, the SIA must prepare guidance about how it will exercise its functions, which must be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. Approved guidance must then be published and kept subject to review, and revised accordingly as needed. The SIA must also provide advice about the requirements of the Bill, as well as reviewing the effectiveness of the requirements in reducing the risk of harm and the vulnerability of premises and events in scope.
The clause also requires the SIA to comply with requests from the Secretary of State and provide an annual report, which is to be laid before Parliament. The SIA is the appropriate body to undertake this role, due to its years of experience in increasing security standards and ensuring public protection. I hope that the Committee will support clause 12 and schedule 3.
I turn now to new clause 2, tabled by the shadow Minister, the right Member for Tonbridge. Establishing the SIA as the new regulator for this legislation, which is the first of its kind, will take at least 24 months. That is in line with the timeframes taken to establish new regulatory functions in existing bodies over recent years. I am sure he will agree that it would not be possible or fair to judge a new regulator’s performance before the regime has been established. Once the SIA has taken on its new role, it will take time before there is robust data against which to evaluate its performance.
The legislation already establishes several checks and balances on the performance of the SIA, as is standard with arm’s length bodies. They include the production of an annual report on performance, enabling the Secretary of State to issue directions to the SIA, and ensuring that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint board members and approve statutory guidance for publication.
Further to this, I have confidence that the SIA is the right home for the regulator because it already plays an important role in safeguarding the public through its statutory and non-statutory work. With a wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation, it better protects the public. With the addition of its new function, the SIA will be able to raise security standards for both people and places.
The Home Office will maintain appropriate levels of oversight and accountability to ensure that the regulator is delivered as intended. Once operational, the Secretary of State will closely monitor the performance of the regulator to ensure that it carries out its functions under the Bill effectively. For the reasons that I have set out, the Government do not support the amendment.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I tabled the new clause on the SIA for the simple reason that its reputation goes before it. Work that was done in the Department under a previous regime demonstrated that there were alternatives, which we felt would offer not only better value for money but greater ministerial oversight and better accountability to those who are forced to use its services. But clearly, with the Government’s majority, it is for the Minister to decide.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 13
Compliance notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
A successful terrorist attack can have devastating consequences. It is vital to the effective operation of this legislation that the SIA can take action if it believes there is or has been a failure to fulfil the Bill’s requirements. Clauses 13 to 16 will enable it to do so. Clause 13 therefore gives the SIA the ability to issue a compliance notice.
A compliance notice requires the recipient to remedy non-compliance within a certain period and could require specific actions to be taken. For example, a notice could require the recipient to put in place an evacuation procedure within four weeks where no such procedure is already in place.
The SIA must allow a reasonable period for specified steps to be taken, and, before issuing the notice, must give an opportunity for representations to be made. Failure to comply with a compliance notice could lead to the SIA issuing a monetary penalty and, in relation to enhanced duty premises and qualifying events, would be a criminal offence. A person may appeal a compliance notice under clause 16. Due to the risk posed by terrorism, it is important that the SIA has the tools to address non- compliance where guidance and engagement fall short.
Clause 14 provides that the SIA may issue a restriction notice where it believes that appropriate public protection procedures or measures are not in place at an enhanced duty premises or event. The SIA may issue such a notice if it believes that the restrictions specified within it are necessary to protect people from the risk of harm if an attack occurred at or near a premises or event. To reiterate, a restriction notice cannot be issued for standard duty premises. For that reason, it is anticipated that it will be used in exceptional circumstances where immediate action is needed to mitigate the risk.
The notice can require the temporary closure of premises, prohibit an event from taking place, or impose certain restrictions on the premises or event. For example, it could limit the number of people who may attend an event at any one time. The restrictions would apply until appropriate measures are in place, or the notice expires or is withdrawn. A notice cannot last more than six months initially, but is subject to being extended for three months at a time.
I do not wish to pre-empt our debate on later clauses, but it is important to note that the SIA will be able to issue both non-compliance and daily penalties where a restriction notice has not been complied with. Where it is in the public interest, a person may ultimately be prosecuted for breach of a restriction notice, which is an offence under clause 24.
I turn now to clause 15. Once a compliance notice or restriction notice has been issued, it is important that the SIA has the flexibility to vary and withdraw it if needed to reflect positive steps taken by the recipients or to deal with their continuing non-compliance.
The clause also contains several safeguards. First, it specifies that a compliance notice or restriction notice cannot be made more onerous, in order to protect the recipient from changes that are more burdensome. It could therefore be used, for instance, to vary a notice to reduce the requirements in it or to extend the period for complying with it to allow the recipient more time to satisfy it.
The clause also includes the further safeguard that a restriction notice may be varied to extend the period for which it has effect by no more than three months at a time. That must happen before it expires, and only so long as there are reasonable grounds to believe that the reasons for the original notice still apply.
The SIA may also withdraw a compliance or restriction notice where it considers that the notice is no longer required. For example, a restriction notice may not be needed to protect the public from the risk of harm because non-compliance has been rectified or sufficiently reduced. That is what the clause seeks to achieve.
Finally, clause 16 provides a right of appeal against a compliance or restriction notice, or the variation of either notice. An appeal can be brought within 28 days of the notice being given, on the grounds that the decision to give or vary the notice was wholly or partly based on an error of fact, wrong in law, unfair or unreasonable, or for any other reason. Pending the outcome of an appeal, a compliance notice will have no effect unless the tribunal orders otherwise, but given the reasons for issuing a restriction notice, a restriction notice will ordinarily continue to apply.
The clause ensures that enforcement decisions of the SIA are subject to review by an independent judicial body. The tribunal may consider evidence that was not before the SIA at the time of its decision and, where it does not dismiss an appeal, the tribunal will vary or cancel a notice.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Penalty notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 5 to 7.
Amendment 28, in clause 18, page 13, line 17, leave out “18” and insert “10”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 30.
Amendment 29, in clause 18, page 13, line 18, leave out from after first “is” to “5%” in line 20.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 30.
Amendment 30, in clause 18, page 13, line 21, at end insert
“up to a maximum amount of £10 million”.
This amendment sets a maximum non-compliance penalty for enhanced duty premises at £10 million.
Government amendment 8.
Clause 18 stand part.
Amendment 27, in clause 19, page 14, line 24, leave out “different” and insert “lower”.
The amendment restricts the Secretary of State to lowering the daily penalties rate for non-compliance by regulation.
Clauses 19 to 23 stand part.
Dan Jarvis
This group of clauses sets out the means by which the SIA will be able to issue civil penalties for non-compliance. Although it is intended that the SIA will rely mainly on advice and guidance in the first instance, a credible sanctions regime with suitable monetary penalties is necessary to ensure that the regulator can secure compliance where it identifies serious or persistent non-compliance.
Where a person fails to fulfil a requirement, it is important that the SIA has the ability to issue financial penalties that can reduce the financial benefit of non-compliance. Where a person fails to comply with a compliance notice, restriction notice or information notice, they may be prosecuted for a criminal offence if it is in the public interest. In most cases, however, penalties will likely be the appropriate way of dealing with non-compliance.
Clause 17 enables the SIA to issue a penalty notice if it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a person is contravening or has contravened a relevant requirement—for example, if the responsible person for an enhanced duty premises has failed to put in place appropriate public protection measures. A penalty notice will always specify a non-compliance penalty to be paid by the recipient.
The maximum amount of a non-compliance penalty to be imposed by way of a penalty notice is set out in clause 18, which sets the penalty amounts at a level to counter financial gain from non-compliance. The maximum penalty is higher for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events because of the potentially more impactful consequences of non-compliance in the event of an attack.
In most cases, it is anticipated that penalty notices will be used in the event of breach of a compliance or restriction notice, but the Bill allows for a penalty notice to be issued regardless of whether a compliance or restriction notice has been issued. That will provide a powerful deterrent to those who would seek to evade the requirements.
Clause 17 also includes particular provision to ensure that penalty notices are issued fairly. A penalty notice cannot be issued more than once for the same contravention, and payment cannot be required less than 28 days from the issue date.
Government amendments 5 to 8 update the clause in respect of the maximum penalty for failing to attend an interview. Paragraph 3(1)(b) of schedule 3 gives the SIA the power to issue notices to require a person to attend an interview. Notices can be issued to a broad range of individuals, including employees, who the SIA considers may hold relevant information.
Tom Tugendhat
Simply to say that, although there needs to be a maximum sum to levy as a penalty, £18 million strikes any reasonable person as extremely high. Although we completely agree with compliance, the fines strike me as a little out of proportion.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments made: 5, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, at end insert—
“(za) in the case of a contravention of a requirement imposed by a notice under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3 (requirement to attend and answer questions), £5,000; paragraph 3(1)(b)”
This amendment sets at £5,000 the maximum monetary penalty that an individual may be given for failure to comply with a requirement imposed under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3.
Amendment 6, in clause 18, page 13, line 11, after “if” insert
“, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.
Amendment 7, in clause 18, page 13, line 13, after “if” insert
“, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.
Amendment 8, in clause 18, page 14, line 1, at end insert—
“(za) subsection (1)(za),”—(Dan Jarvis.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.
Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Offences of failing to comply with compliance notice or restriction notice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
As I have already said, the Bill gives the SIA powers to take a range of enforcement action, including issuing monetary penalties, to enable it to deal with non-compliance. Such action is anticipated to be the primary method of enforcement, allowing swifter resolution without resorting to criminalisation. However, where civil enforcement is not enough, the public will expect criminal consequences for cases of non-compliance, such as persistent and egregious failures.
Clause 24 makes it a criminal offence to fail to comply with a compliance or restriction notice that has been given in relation to enhanced duty premises or a qualifying event. It will be a defence for the accused in subsequent criminal proceedings to show that they took all reasonable steps to comply with the relevant compliance or restriction notice. The offences are triable either way and, if convicted on indictment, a person will be liable to a sentence of up to 2 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.
Turning to clause 25, receipt of accurate information will be vital to the effective functioning of the SIA and to ensure that any public safety risks arising from non-compliance can be addressed. Although we expect information to be provided in good faith in the majority of cases, clause 25 makes it a criminal offence to provide false or misleading information where the person either knows that the information they are providing is false or misleading, or is reckless as to whether it is.
That might happen where the responsible person notifies the SIA that they are responsible for qualifying premises but knowingly misleads the SIA as to whether their premises are in the standard or enhanced tier. A person in receipt of an information notice might also give false information to the SIA in responding to that notice. The offence does not criminalise genuine or honest mistakes, such as where a person provides information that proves to be inaccurate but did so in good faith. The offence is triable either way and, if convicted, a person may be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for no more than 2 years and/or a fine. The offence will provide a deterrent and an appropriate punishment for those who purposely provide false or misleading information to the SIA to avoid complying with the requirements or to evade enforcement action.
Clause 26 provides that a person other than the body may also be liable in some cases for a criminal offence committed by the body. The person must be a relevant person in the body or a person purporting to act in that capacity for the body. A relevant person is involved in the management or control of the entity, such as a company director or partner. That ensures that those involved in senior management can be liable for offences committed by the body. Those offences relate to serious misconduct and persistent, egregious non-compliance by the body.
Specifically, a relevant person may be liable alongside the body for the offences of failing to comply with a compliance, restriction or information notice if the body committed the offence with their consent or connivance or as a result of their neglect. They may also be liable where they have consented to, or connived in, the body committing the offences of providing false or misleading information, obstructing an authorised inspector or pretending to be an inspector. The provision is necessary to deter serious non-compliance by ensuring managerial responsibility within bodies. Members of the Committee will no doubt have seen the importance of similar measures in other legislation.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I want to make a few points on offences, following our evidence sessions on Tuesday.
Obviously, the situation in the aftermath of a terrorist attack can be very febrile: emotions run high, and media attention can be high. It is human psychology, sadly, to look for someone to blame, and we might have imagined, before we scrutinised the Bill, someone guilty of this offence finding themselves in the eye of that storm. When we questioned Shropshire council representatives on Tuesday, they spoke about the obligations that would be on them if they were the people affected. I was reassured to hear them say that they already felt that burden of responsibility and that this legislation did not impose any further such burden on them.
The legislation refers to non-compliance in general, not non-compliance in the aftermath—that is really important. I thought it would be good to put on record the reassurances we heard on Tuesday on these measures.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Guidance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 27 will place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish dedicated guidance to assist those in scope of the Bill in understanding how best to fulfil the requirements placed on them. The guidance will be easy to follow, requiring no particular expertise. It will help in determining how many persons may be reasonably expected to be present on the premises, and whether premises or an event are in scope and, if so, in which tier. It will provide guidance around the requirements to be followed, such as what an appropriate evacuation procedure should include or understanding what public protection measures it might be reasonably practicable to have in place at enhanced duty premises.
The published guidance must be laid before Parliament. It must be kept under review and may be revised accordingly. The revised guidance must also be published and laid before Parliament. The guidance may be used by the SIA in providing advice to duty holders and, where the SIA has taken enforcement action, a person will, in proceedings such as an appeal, be able to rely on proof that they have acted in line with the guidance to show that they have not failed to comply with a requirement in the Bill. I should be crystal clear at this point that the Government do not endorse guidance or advice issued by third-party providers. We continue to refer people to the ProtectUK platform and we have factsheets on gov.uk for all guidance and Bill updates.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Disclosure of information
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 28, page 20, line 1, at end insert—
“(A1) Any person may disclose information to the Security Industry Authority for the purposes of the exercise by the Security Industry Authority of any of its functions under this Part.
(A2) The Security Industry Authority may disclose information held in connection with the exercise of any of its functions under this Part to—
(a) any person for the purposes of the exercise by the Security Industry Authority of any of its functions under this Part;
(b) any person with functions of a public nature for the purposes of the exercise by that person of any of those functions.”
This amendment makes provision about the disclosure of information to, and by, the Security Industry Authority.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 28 provides that any necessary disclosure of information under the Bill will not constitute a breach of obligations of confidence owed by the individual or body making the disclosure. At the same time, the Bill ensures that the disclosure of information under the Bill is in accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation and any relevant prohibitions in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The clause provides assurance that disclosures required by the Bill should not contravene data protection and other relevant obligations.
Government amendment 9 ensures that the clause achieves the aims of the Bill. For the SIA to effectively carry out investigation and enforcement, it is vital that it can receive and use relevant information, especially that held by other regulatory and public bodies. Government amendment 9 therefore seeks to ensure that there is a clear and express information-sharing gateway for both the SIA and those who propose to share relevant information with it. The gateway is appropriately limited to either the SIA exchanging information with any person so long as it is for the purposes of the SIA exercising its functions under the Bill, or the SIA sharing information with other public bodies to exercise that body’s existing public functions. In relation to the latter, many of those bodies will derive their relevant functions from statute, but in some limited cases, the public functions will not be statutory, such as for sharing with central Government.
As clause 28 already provides, disclosures required or permitted by the Bill must be in accordance with the data protection legislation and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. That ensures that there will be compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. I hope the Committee will support the amendment.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I intend to speak only briefly on the clause. I welcome the data protection assurances given by the Minister. This is an important clause because it allows the SIA to receive and share information by way of disclosures to facilitate the exercising of its functions. This morning the Minister spoke about our security agencies having thwarted 43 late-stage plots. Integral to that would have been the sharing of intelligence. Sadly, that is not always the case, as we saw in Manchester—terror plots do happen.
Time and time again in inquiries following tragic events, whether that is large-scale disasters or children being harmed in the family home, we hear people confirming that things could have been so different if only agencies had shared information and disclosures had been made. Clause 28, as amended, will allow important preventive work to be undertaken and information to be shared. It will only serve to strengthen the SIA’s ability to ensure our safety.
Dan Jarvis
I very much thank my hon. Friend for her helpful contribution. I trust that hon. Members agree that these measures should stand part of the Bill.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Means of giving notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
We have already debated clauses 12 to 14 and clause 17, and the compliance restriction penalty and information notices that the SIA will be able to issue to fulfil its investigative and enforcement functions. Clause 29 sets out the valid methods of service by which the SIA can give these notices and to whom. The methods specified are post, email, delivery by hand and leaving a notice at the person’s proper address. That will ensure that the SIA can reach people effectively.
Clause 29 also provides that notices issued to a body corporate, limited partnership and unincorporated association can be validly served on specified persons within those entities. For example, where the notice is issued to a body corporate, it can be served on an officer or member of that body. Such a person could include, but is not limited to, the designated senior individual under clause 10. Issuing notices to such persons will ensure that they are made aware and will reduce opportunities for avoidance or non-compliance.
Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to make further provision about notices issued under part 1 of the Bill. That includes, in particular, their form and content, and the variation and withdrawal of notices. The relevant notices are compliance notices, restriction notices, penalty notices and information notices. The main provisions for these notices, which we have debated, set out the information that must be included in a valid notice, and how they may be varied or withdrawn. The power for the Secretary of State to make further provisions under clause 30 is considered necessary for adjustments to be made once the legislation is implemented.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Civil liability
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
The clause prevents a person from bringing a claim in private law against a person responsible for qualifying premises or events for a breach of statutory duty where they have failed to comply with requirements in the Bill. The Government consider it appropriate that means of redress for non-compliance with the new regime should be limited to enforcement by the SIA.
The SIA will have a range of enforcement actions, which are underpinned by some criminal offences, as has already been debated. It is not considered necessary to allow persons to bring private claims for simple non-compliance, such as seeking compensation for the responsible person failing to put in place public protection procedures. However, the inclusion of the clause does not preclude or otherwise affect any right of action that a person may have independently of the bail.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Powers to amend this Part
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 32, page 22, line 20, leave out from “for” to “in” in line 21 and insert
“enhanced duty premises to be standard duty premises.”
This amendment prevents standard duty premises from becoming enhanced duty premises at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Tom Tugendhat
This is a simple repetition of the amendments we have made throughout the Bill to alleviate the burden on small businesses and ensure that the balance is appropriate.
Dan Jarvis
I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendment. He seeks to remove the provision in the clause that would allow the Secretary of State, via regulations, to make standard duty premises be treated as enhanced duty premises. It would have the effect of limiting the Secretary of State to only being able to provide that premises that would ordinarily be in the enhanced tier be treated as if standard duty premises. That is already the case in the Bill for certain premises, such as places of worship.
As I have explained, the nature and level of the threat from terrorism can evolve and change rapidly, with different behaviours, methods and tactics emerging. It is therefore important that the Government can respond quickly to protect the public if it becomes evident that there is a particular threat to certain types of premises and that the public protection measures in the enhanced tier should be in place there to reduce vulnerability and the risk of harm.
I again reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that regulations to make amendments to schedule 1 under this power would be subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring the express approval of both Houses of Parliament. For those reasons, the Government cannot support the amendment.
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Interpretation of this Part
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
The clause is technical in nature, defining certain terms used throughout the Bill. For example, the clause provides that the meaning of “terrorism” in the Bill is the same as in the Terrorism Act 2000. The clause is necessary to provide the meaning of these terms for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Licensing: disclosure of plans of premises
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Current licensing legislation in England, Wales and Scotland requires that detailed plans for all licensed premises are kept on a register and made available for inspection by the public. These plans include sensitive information, such as CCTV and emergency exit locations, and we know that this information could potentially be utilised for hostile reconnaissance.
To minimise the accessibility of such information to hostile actors, we are amending the Licensing Act 2003, which covers England and Wales, and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to enable the UK Government to make regulations on the form and content of plans that will be kept on a public licensing register. The regulations will restrict the public disclosure of sensitive information that is likely to be useful to persons committing or preparing acts of terrorism.
Specifically, the regulations will set out that new licence applicants will be required to supply—in addition to the standard detailed plan—a new high-level plan, which will be available for public inspection. This second plan will not include any sensitive information, but will still enable members of the public to see information about licensing applications that might affect them. The standard detailed plan will still be available to licensing authorities and other responsible authorities, including the police and fire authorities, to enable them to make informed licensing decisions.
Schedule 4 provides that plans compliant with clause 34 must accompany premises licence and club premises certificate applications, which will include any variations or amendments. In practice, once the regulations are in effect, this will mean that the two-plan approach will need to be adopted by businesses applying for these licences.
The schedule further sets out that businesses with pre-existing licences may, if they wish to, seek to replace the existing non-compliant plan with a compliant one. The compliant plan would then be placed on the register and thus be available to the public. For the avoidance of doubt, this will not be mandatory for businesses that already have a licence—we are clear that that would not be proportionate. Taken together, these provisions will better protect licensed premises across England, Wales and Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 35
Regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Briefly, clauses 35 and 36 are general provisions required for the operation of the Bill. Clause 35 sets out the parliamentary procedure accompanying the regulations. Clause 36 details the territorial extent of the Bill: parts 1 and 3 of the Bill extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; part 2 of the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, with part 1 of schedule 4 extending to England and Wales and part 2 of schedule 4 extending to Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Commencement
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 37, page 25, line 5, after “force” insert “for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements”.
See explanatory statement to NC1.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 19, in clause 37, page 25, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) Parts 1 and 2 come into force for standard duty premises requirements on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint in line with section [Independent review of operation of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements].”.
See explanatory statement to NC1.
New clause 1—Independent review of operation of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements—
“(1) Within 18 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the operation of the enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements, including any recommendations for the implementation of the standard duty.
(2) The review in subsection (1) must—
(a) assess the level of costs and liability transferred to businesses and individuals arising as a consequence of the statutory provisions in this Act;
(b) consider any wider implications for businesses and individuals in meeting the new public protection measures and any potential need for additional statutory safeguards, support or guidance for businesses and individuals as result of the passing of this Act; and
(c) be led by an independent chair and comprise a panel comprising representatives from the hospitality, live music, performing arts, cultural and retail sectors, grassroots sports venues, small businesses and local government.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the Government’s formal response to the review specified in subsection (1).
(4) The Secretary of State may not make a regulation under section 37(2A) until—
(a) the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) the report specified in subsection (3) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”.
This new clause, together with Amendments 18 and 19, would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of the enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements before commencing the standard duty requirements.
Tom Tugendhat
I am afraid that amendment 18 is on the same point we have made throughout, which is about overburdening.
Dan Jarvis
Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for these amendments. While I completely understand the sentiment underpinning them, the Government do not support them. I would, however, like to assure the Committee that the Government are committed to learning the lessons from implementation, which is why a robust monitoring and evaluation plan to monitor the Bill’s effectiveness is in place. What is more, the Government have already committed to undertaking a thorough post-implementation review, which will assess whether the legislation is meeting its policy objectives, including analysing the costs and impacts on businesses and other premises in scope.
The Government have been clear that, following Royal Assent, we expect there to be an implementation period of at least 24 months, which will allow for the set-up of the regulator, while ensuring sufficient time for those responsible for premises and events in scope to understand their new obligations and to plan and prepare. Detailed guidance will be provided to assist those in scope to prepare for the requirements, as well as extensive communications and engagement with business and organisations.
Furthermore, as I have already set out, the Bill’s requirements in the standard tier are focused on straightforward procedures designed to increase preparedness and reduce the physical risk to the public from acts of terrorism. The procedures are intended to be simple and have no cost, other than staff time, to develop and implement, with no requirement to purchase or install any additional equipment beyond what they already have in place.
Tom Tugendhat
It’s your chairmanship! I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
I turn finally to clauses 37 and 38, which are further general provisions. Clause 37 provides that the Bill’s provisions will be commenced via regulations made by the Secretary of State, save for the provisions contained within part 3 and the regulation-making powers in parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, which come into force on the day that the Bill is passed. Clause 38 details how the Bill should be referred to once it has become an Act.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
New clause 1 has already been debated and is not being moved. New clause 2 has been debated already, but do you wish to comment on it, Mr Tugendhat?
Tom Tugendhat
On a point of order, Sir Edward. I will comment on it very happily, and merely repeat that the SIA is a regulator that has faced significant challenges over recent years and, again, I raise the question as to whether it is the appropriate regulator. As usual, however, the Minister would have the numbers in a vote.
The Chair
Thank you.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Dan Jarvis
With your leave, Sir Edward, I will take this opportunity to thank you for chairing this Committee and to thank all Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, not just today but in proceedings on Tuesday. I will also take the opportunity to say a particular thank you to all those members of my Department who have worked incredibly hard to draw this legislation together, in conjunction with the staff of this House. Their efforts have been very much appreciated. I am grateful for the cross-party nature of what we have achieved as we have progressed the Bill through the House.
Tom Tugendhat
It would be churlish of me not to thank you, Sir Edward, for the speed and efficiency with which you have guided us through this. This is also an opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the Minister, who has been a friend for many years—nearly 20 years, actually. It is a wonderful symmetry that, on my last day on the Front Bench for my party, I am doing what I did when we first met, which is scrutinising him.
The Chair
It has been a pleasure to serve you all, and it has been so easy—no controversy. Thank you very much.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 9th December 2024
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 December 2024 - (9 Dec 2024)
20:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 89 / Noes: 340 - Question accordingly negatived.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Developing and implementing training on public protection procedures—
“(1) The Secretary of State must take steps as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to ensure that—
(a) adequate training provision is made available for persons responsible for qualifying premises or qualifying events in respect of public protection procedures that includes—
(i) the monitoring of premises or events and the immediate vicinity of premises or events;
(ii) evacuation procedures and the movement of individuals into, out of and within a premises or event;
(iii) physical safety and security of occupants in a premises;
(iv) provision of security information to individuals on a premises or at an event; and
(v) other measures related to terrorism protection training;
(b) a training implementation plan is put in place to ensure all organisations and persons to which the provisions of this Act apply are encouraged to undertake training related to public protection procedures.
(2) Functions of the Secretary of State under this section may be exercised by any organisation or persons authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the steps they have taken in relation to subsection (1).”
This new clause, together with Amendment 28, would require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a training plan in respect of qualifying premises and events before Parts 1 and 2 of the Act are commenced.
Government amendments 1 and 2.
Amendment 27, in clause 19, page 15, line 5, leave out “different” and insert “lower”.
This amendment restricts the Secretary of State to lowering the daily penalties rate for non-compliance by regulation.
Government amendments 3 and 4.
Amendment 25, in clause 32, page 22, line 35, leave out “100” and insert “200”.
This amendment sets the floor for standard duty at 200 individuals.
Amendment 26, page 22, line 38, leave out “500” and insert “799”.
This amendment sets the floor for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events at 799 individuals.
Amendment 28, in clause 37, page 25, line 31, leave out from “force” to end of line 36 and insert
“on the day after the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on developing and implementing training on public protection procedures contained within this Act.”This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Government amendments 5 to 24.
Matt Vickers
I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to the Martyn’s law campaign, the incredible group of individuals who are the Survivors Against Terror, and all the businesses, charities, local authorities, civil servants and security partners that have helped to shape the Bill. Most importantly, I thank the tireless campaigner Figen Murray, and her son Martyn in whose name this Bill has been devised. I would like to reflect for a moment on Martyn and the 21 other innocent victims who were killed in the heinous attack in the Manchester Arena in 2017. The loss of their lives and the pain of their families and friends must never be forgotten.
I pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who is unable to be present today to speak on behalf of the official Opposition.
Martyn’s law was a manifesto pledge for the Conservative party, and we published a version of the legislation in draft during the last Parliament. We took the issue of public protection very seriously when in office. We delivered £1 billion of counter-terrorism funding for 2024-25, so our forces can mount a swift and effective response to any terrorist attack. Funding will total at least £1 billion in 2024-25 as we provided essential support for counter-terrorism policing and ensured the police had the resources they needed to meet and deal with the threat of terrorism. We enshrined our Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 in law, introducing tougher sentences and ending the automatic release of potential terrorist offenders. Those found guilty of serious terror offences will now be handed a minimum 14-year prison term and up to 25 years on licence.
Part of the reason for publishing this legislation in draft was a concern to get the balance right for the different premises to which it applies—their responsibilities, and how feasible it is for them to effectively comply with those responsibilities and with public safety. We are grateful to the Home Affairs Committee, which undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and made valuable recommendations, and to all those who responded to the Home Office consultation. It is because Martyn’s law is so important that it is imperative we get it right in this place. It is in that spirit of support, co-operation and openness that we have suggested small amendments to the Bill.
New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the effectiveness of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator of these new provisions for both this House and other places within 18 months of the passing of the Bill. This is in recognition of the challenges inherent in extending new regulatory powers to an existing body. The report would include a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the SIA’s regulatory functions and an analysis of the implications if those functions were alternatively carried out at the local authority level.
The SIA’s role in this Bill is extensive, and it is our view that a review after the roll-out of the new provisions will provide the Government with the opportunity to take stock and decide whether the existing arrangements are the most effective regulatory framework. If they are a success, that is fantastic, but if there are issues, it is surely best to address them early and, if necessary, make changes then and there. I know there has been some anxiety from organisations about a perceived lack of clarity in how the SIA will approach regulation and whether it has the institutional dexterity to understand such a diverse range of venues.
From my discussions with relevant representative groups, businesses and venue operators around the country, I know there is wide-ranging support for the changes in our amendment from the industry. They want to ensure their venues are as safe as they can be. Indeed, many have already taken steps unilaterally to improve security and are eager to work with the Government on further progress. However, there is a feeling that current advice and guidance is limited, and this lack of information is leading to anxiety, particularly at a time when business confidence is falling and new taxes are incoming. Therefore I ask the Government to ensure that affected venues and industries are given full advice on how to comply with the incoming regulations as soon as possible. By agreeing to a future review of the SIA’s regulatory effectiveness now, the Government can ease those anxieties and ensure that everyone is focused on the most important objectives: delivering the provisions in the Bill and bolstering our collective security. For that reason, I ask the Government to support new clause 1.
We have tabled amendment 27 in a similar spirit of openness and co-operation. It would prevent the Secretary of State from increasing by regulations the daily amount venues can be fined under this legislation. As the Bill stands, places that are classified as standard duty venues can be fined up to £500 a day for violation. For those classed as enhanced duty venues, the fine is £50,000 a day for violation. I know the Minister will have met many of the organisations that are required to make changes under the Bill, and I am sure that he, like me, found them to be actively supportive of the changes and genuinely interested in working collaboratively towards better safety regulations.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Without the regulations and guidelines being set out clearly, there is a risk that businesses will worry about being fined quite heavily just because they do not quite know what they should be doing. Does my hon. Friend agree that this amendment and new clause 1 will help cement that clarity in place?
Matt Vickers
All the people in the industry are genuinely and wholeheartedly committed to improving the safety of their venues, but there are anxieties and concerns about what that means. The review of who is in charge and who is responsible for ensuring compliance will get rid of those anxieties and foster confidence in the industry and let us move forward together with the industry.
We would like reassurance about how the Government intend to use the powers to increase the rate of daily penalties. The Bill allows the SIA to levy large fines for non- compliance with the requirements of this legislation in addition to the daily penalties. For a sector recovering from covid, those could be difficult to meet, as could a daily penalty of £500 levied on a small organisation run by volunteers.
We have heard from several trade associations about the potential impact. Neil Sharpley, policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, said the FSB is “broadly supportive” of the Bill but added that
“we are concerned about the administrative impact of the burden that will be imposed on smaller businesses, and we are concerned about the costs.”
Michael Kill, CEO of the Night Time Industries Association, said that
“it is crucial to address the proportionality of the proposed measures, within all settings. We must ensure that the balance between heightened security and practical implementation is carefully considered.”
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, I piloted the measure as shadow Minister on Second Reading. I welcome the Minister to his place and thank him for his usual courtesy.
This is genuinely not a political point, but does my hon. Friend agree that, with other measures currently burdening small business such as increases in taxation, business rates and national insurance contributions, this amendment helps because it allows venues to plan and make sure that not too much money is going out? That applies particularly to charities and smaller venues. That is why the remit of the SIA must be checked, and why this amendment should be backed.
Matt Vickers
I could not agree more. There is huge anxiety among businesses about challenges and pressures—whether the national insurance contribution increases on employers or the huge change to small business rate relief affecting small businesses in leisure, hospitality and retail, slashing it from 75% to 40%. These are challenging times, including for very small family businesses, and also, as my hon. Friend points out, for the voluntary sector and many organisations that prop up our communities and play a central role. By perfecting this Bill, we can relieve those anxieties and allow those organisations to follow on with confidence and comply with the measures in the Bill.
I would appreciate some reassurance from the Minister about how he expects to use the powers to change daily penalties. I hope he will demonstrate that the ethos of the Bill is collaboration between the state and private organisations, not the establishment of an increasingly costly financial penalisation system. We believe that would help to settle any underlying anxieties and allow both the Government and venues to focus on working together to ensure that the roll-out of this Bill is the very best it can be.
Amendments 25 and 26 stop the Secretary of State changing qualifying tier amounts by regulation. They are simply designed to provide future certainty to organisations as they work to become compliant with the Bill. They would remove the power of the Secretary of State to lower the threshold for the standard duty premises and enhanced duty premises from 200 and 799 individuals respectively. The current qualification levels have been determined after consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. These are significant policy choices and I believe the Government have reached this position after listening to that feedback. As I have set out today, the industry and venues are actively supportive of the Bill and actively want to play their part in improving venue security. We worry about the uncertainty caused by the potential of the Secretary of State to change the thresholds for the standard and enhanced duty premises in future. How is that power compatible with allowing the industry to plan long term, in the knowledge that the qualifying criteria for each tier will not change?
We want to ensure that venues have the confidence to commit the required resources to adopting the provisions of the Bill, knowing that the rules will not change suddenly. Impact assessments have shown the challenges that face different types of venues. Smaller venues and lower capacity premises such as places of worship, village halls and community centres showed particular concern about the impact on fellow smaller businesses and their ability to meet the revised requirements within the small resources available to them.
About four in 10—or 39%—of respondents from premises with a capacity of 100 to 299 agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack. Nearly half—46%—disagreed and said that only larger premises should have a legal obligation. About half—51%—reported that revised requirements would be difficult to take forward. Six in 10, or 58%, were at least somewhat concerned that the cost of meeting the standard tier requirements would affect their organisation’s financial ability to continue operating. Among those from places of worship or village halls, only around three in 10 agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack.
More than 54% of those from village halls and community centres, which typically have a smaller capacity than premises across other sectors—72% had a capacity of 100 to 299—disagreed and said only larger premises should have a legal obligation. Over half of those from places of worship and village halls felt the revised requirement would be difficult to take forward, mainly due to the perceived burden in time and effort. I therefore ask the Minister in what circumstances he would envisage needing to lower the floor for either standard or enhanced duty premises and what consultation would take place before the Government did so.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that proportionality is particularly important? While clearly venues like the Manchester Arena should have a properly worked out plan, it is inappropriate for village halls and church halls to worry about the cost and bureaucracy involved. Can we have the lightest possible touch for those small community venues?
Matt Vickers
That is right. The community organisations that are affected, whether parish halls, village halls, churches, or small businesses such as the local pub, are invaluable to, and sit at the heart of, our communities, and it is essential that we protect them. There is a balance between what everyone who supports the Bill wants from these protections, be they on the Opposition or Government Benches, namely to prevent the most horrific atrocities, and ensuring that those businesses and community organisations can continue to exist.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Bill’s provisions are appropriate for venues below the enhanced tier. They are proportionate, low-cost and not onerous. They are prompts to encourage organisations to do the kind of thinking that they should do anyway to prevent terrorism or any kinds of attack. The measures are not disproportionate at all, and the legislation is appropriate in that respect.
Matt Vickers
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. An existing regulatory body is being given an additional job; there is no harm in coming back after 18 months to review whether the provisions are working and are fit for purpose. Similarly, there is logic in the House having a say on the fees and penalties that might be applied, rather than that being delegated to the Secretary of State. Those logical changes could relieve some of the anxiety in the sector. Everyone wants the Bill to go forward and fulfil its objective of making our communities safer, but some of the anxieties in the sector about unexpected and unintended consequences for community venues and small businesses are real, so let us relieve some of them by agreeing the amendments.
Paul Holmes
I hope the shadow Minister will forgive me for intervening once again, but I expressed concern about the “responsible person” element at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading. As he has outlined, smaller charity and voluntary sector bodies, such as theatres and community organisations, welcome the aims of the Bill, as do I, but when voluntary organisations are responsible for allocating someone who will be legally responsible to the Security Industry Authority, that spreads fear among those organisations, given the bureaucracy that they already face. Does he agree that we need to look carefully at how great a burden we put on theatre groups, and in particular on voluntary community associations, which will be subject to the regulations?
Matt Vickers
We need to reflect, take time, and review the measures in 18 months, including the regulations. Many of our community and voluntary organisations already struggle to find the manpower to fulfil their functions, and this is another function. Its purpose is right, and it is right to take the legislation forward and provide these protections, but we have to consider the wider perspective and the proportionality for smaller venues, given the potential impact on communities.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is not in my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but I am church warden of a small parish church. Most parish churches would probably come under the 200-person limit, but the vast majority would be caught by 100-plus. Not only is there fear among volunteers who have to take on this responsibility, but significant risk of unintended consequences. Volunteers may not be prepared to take on the responsibility, and as a result, vital community infrastructure spaces may close to the public. Would that not be a terrible unintended consequence of this well-meaning Bill?
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend is right. We look at the numbers—100 and 200—and think of organisations we know, and events that we have attended in churches and parish halls. I used to be a Scout leader, and the paperwork, the burden and the challenges used to put us off, in many ways, from fulfilling some of our functions. People who might have come along to help one day get slightly put off by the challenges and responsibilities that come with doing so. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the shadow Minister not welcome the fact that the Bill increases the capacity from 100 to 200? His Government previously set the limit at 100—the figure that he is so concerned about.
Matt Vickers
I welcome the revisions; that is why we had scrutiny. The fact that the figures can be determined unilaterally is the concern. There is agreement across the House that it is right to take the Bill forward. We are looking at what we can do at the edges to mitigate the impact for smaller venues, but I agree in principle with what the hon. Member says.
Jerome Mayhew
I am particularly concerned about the Secretary of State or Minister having the power to reduce the number from 200 back to 100 by regulation. That is addressed by amendment 25. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the absence of significant evidence or consultation to support such a move, 100 is essentially an arbitrary number? Why 100, and not 125, 150 or 175? Does he agree that we need more evidence to support that regulation-making power being given to the Secretary of State? Does he therefore agree that amendment 25 is a sensible alternative?
Matt Vickers
I agree entirely. There is no reason why we should not bring that measure to the House for decision. There is no reason to delegate that power to the Secretary of State. It would be sensible to take that delegation out. We have just talked about the fact that some people think the number should be 100, and others think it should be 200. It would be logical to bring the measure back to the House, if required, in due course, and I hope the Minister agrees.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
We all hope that the Bill is absolutely right—that is what we want—but there is nothing wrong with increased scrutiny. Would it not be right for the Government to accept new clause 1, so that we can ensure that there is a review? Through that, we can get the evidence, and then we will know whether we have got it right.
Matt Vickers
That is entirely right. Most of the amendments are about looking at what we can do around the edges of the Bill to mitigate the challenges for small community organisations and small businesses.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
We have to be careful. Of course we want to work cross-party, and should be cognisant of small business, but on the other side of the debate, campaigners are worried that the Bill is already leaning too much the other way, and we will start to lose proportionality if we adopt the shadow Minister’s amendments.
Matt Vickers
I slightly disagree. A body is taking on this regulation. Reviewing this in 18 months to see whether it is working is sensible. Keeping the ability to make decisions on numbers, rather than giving it to the Secretary of State, is a logical way forward. We all want this Bill to work, and we all realise the meaningful and important reasons why the Bill was brought forward, but we are talking about mitigation. All the amendments are fair, logical and sound in how they try to balance the two interests. We want to make all venues safe, whatever their scale or size, but we need to do so in a way that allows businesses and community organisations to carry on delivering, at the heart of our communities.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Last week, along with Opposition colleagues, I met representatives of a number of hospitality businesses across different sectors. Everyone wants to make their venue more secure, and everyone acknowledged the importance of the legislation, but there are points to address on clarity and the uncertainty being caused. We have talked about the responsibility of volunteers, and where it starts and ends. Some venues will have queues outside, and it is not clear how the legislation will work in that case. An 18-month review is important, because it would allow us to look at whether the legislation is making people more safe and secure. Does the shadow Minister agree?
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend is right. When it comes to the Bill, the stakes are high for small community organisations and small businesses, so I see no harm in reviewing the regulations after 18 months, and in keeping those powers for the House, rather than delegating them to the Secretary of State. That is logical and makes a lot of sense for many venues. It is the way forward.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 2(2)(c), defining the premises that will be covered by the legislation, states:
“it is reasonable to expect that from time to time 200 or more individuals may be present”.
Under the regulations, that might read “100 or more”. Coming back to my experience as a member of the parish church, I would love there to be 100 or 200 people present, but the congregation is closer to six or seven. However, the capacity of the church—the structure—is sufficient to take in 100 or 200 people. While on the face of it, the legislation seems reasonable, does my hon. Friend share my concern that a facility that could welcome 199 people may not have the structures in place, or physically have the people available, to support the increased burden placed on it by the Bill? That would increase the risks of unintended consequences and closure. That would be dealt with by amendment 25.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend is entirely right. In voluntary organisations, men and women who tend to do something else by day give their time to volunteer in the evening or at the weekend. They have other things going on in their lives. They will not necessarily be expert on the laws surrounding venues and what goes on in them, but from time to time—once a year, or once every two years—they will be expected to know about these regulations and to comply with them. There is logic in keeping the number at the intended 200, as well as in reviewing the regulations. We would allow the regulatory body to come back on that point 18 months, in the review, when we would review those numbers. We are just saying that these things should not be delegated to the Secretary of State at this point.
Tim Roca
I welcome the progress of this important Bill. We know the danger of terrorism in this country for the constituents we represent. There have been 15 domestic terror attacks since 2017, as well as the tragic arena bombing. That excludes terrorism in Northern Ireland. There have also been 43 late-stage plots foiled by the security services. We recently heard from the head of the Security Service about a 48% increase in terror investigations in the last year alone, so the threat is absolutely real and it is always changing.
We have had various attacks, including the marauding-style terrorist attacks that we saw so tragically here in London some years ago. The Bill is a crucial to making sure that premises, businesses and venues do what they can to keep people safe. We know from businesses and venues that they understand their obligations to their patrons, whoever they might be, and they want to keep them safe.
We have had a healthy debate about the Bill’s provisions. There has been a sensible, mature, cross-party discussion about what works and what is practicable. I pay tribute to Manchester city council for the exercises it undertook. It worked with businesses to ensure that measures were both sensible and proportionate while keeping people safe. Across I think 10 sessions last year, and having spoken to 700 businesses and 2,000 people, it went through some of the measures in the Bill, and businesses overwhelmingly supported them. They understood the need for them, and that they were not onerous. Those ranged from businesses as large as Printworks, which many people in Manchester will know, down to local restaurants and bars, and the response was incredibly positive.
I say that because I want to reassure hon. Members from across the House about the proportionality of the measures in the Bill. In fact, I will quote Gareth Worthington, the night-time economy officer at the Manchester business improvement district:
“If a venue operator does not know how to evacuate their venue they should not be running that venue and if training can be provided to help make that evacuation safer then venues should grasp it with both hands.”
On the thresholds, we have arrived at a sensible place. We had a healthy debate in the Public Bill Committee on them, and I think they are reasonable. I reiterate that I think campaigners would perceive any tweaking of provisions on the thresholds or delegated powers for the Secretary of State as a watering down of the Bill.
Tim Roca
I shall not, because I think we have touched on that point enough.
Finally, I pay tribute to my constituent Figen Murray for her bravery in championing these measures. No parent would ever want to have the name of their child on a law if they could help it, but she has worked tirelessly to push forward these measures. I hope to see them enacted. I recommend the Bill and thank the Minister for his hard work on it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I echo the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca): this has been a constructive, cross-party legislative process. I also pay tribute to the Security Minister for the way in which he has engaged with me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, cross-party. My comments on the Bill are made in that spirit.
The purpose of the Bill, as well as new clause 2, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is clear. I am pleased that the House has been given the opportunity to champion Martyn’s family and their campaign. The Bill draws clear lessons from the tragic 2017 attack and brings fresh commitments to protecting lives.
Sir Ashley Fox
On that point, does the hon. Member not think that those volunteers in church halls and other small venues would be put off by the thought of having to go through a training course, implementing a training plan and all the other aspects of new clause 2? While those may be worthy objectives for larger venues, does he really think them desirable for small venues? Does he not perceive the risk that they may put off volunteers who would otherwise freely give of their time?
Ben Maguire
I spoke to many venues across my constituency this weekend, and actually they were more put off by the ambiguity of the Bill and the lack of specifics that they will be required to undertake. New clause 2 would give them that clarity and ensure that they knew exactly what was required of them under the Bill.
Dr Luke Evans
I think that the volunteer side in particular is concerning a lot of people. One thing that strikes me about new clause 2 is that, given that these are often volunteer organisations, who would fund the training? Has there been thought about who would pay for it and how much it would cost? Small venues like my village halls may struggle to make a couple of hundred pounds a year, let alone be able to afford further training. I wonder if the hon. Member would enlighten me on how that may work.
Ben Maguire
I suspect that that will be a question for the Minister when we come towards the end of the debate. It is certainly something that volunteers will seek clarity on so that they can know exactly what is required of them under the Bill. Without adequate training, we will end up with just vague asks of them, and they will not know exactly how to carry out their duties under the legislation.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
With due respect, the hon. Gentleman said that the cost was a question for the Minister, but since this is his proposed new clause, surely he should have some idea of the financial and other implications for the organisations that would have to comply with it.
Ben Maguire
I certainly would not suggest, and neither would the Liberal Democrats, that the training fee should fall on small venues, but the Government should consider it so that there is clarity for those smaller venues. I hope that answers the right hon. Member’s question.
The new clause covers evacuation procedures, monitoring of premises, physical safety and security and the overall provision of protecting lives. It would also establish a full training implementation plan, with the Secretary of State regularly updating Parliament to ensure that the right progress is being made. Crucially, it would ensure that our businesses are fully supported and given the clarity that they need. The public deserve to know that wherever they are—at a concert, a wedding or a local cider festival—staff are properly trained to respond to such emergencies. They should have confidence that venues are held to a consistent standard of preparation and readiness. For the venues themselves, the new clause would greatly improve safety, and would provide clarity and consistency on the standards that they must meet under this law.
Of course, there are concerns from many micro and small businesses about the financial impact and additional bureaucracy that these requirements may bring. That is why the new clause proposes a practical training plan to minimise the financial burden, with scalable and specific training.
Jerome Mayhew
I have already mentioned that I am a church warden of a small parish church, so I have practical experience. I also have other duties—I am the safeguarding officer, because there are insufficient volunteers who are prepared to undergo the quite significant training needed to maintain safeguarding duties in that organisation. I accept that, given the Church of England’s troubled history over the past 20 years, safeguarding is a necessary part of modern life, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the duties imposed on volunteers are cumulative in their impact? I can be a Member of Parliament, a church warden and a safeguarding officer, but can I also be responsible for the additional costs and responsibilities that he has in mind?
Ben Maguire
Certainly, the intention of new clause 2 is not to be a burden on our small venues, but to do the opposite and make sure that they have clarity on what they are supposed to do, what their responsibilities are and how they practically carry out the requirements contained in this legislation.
I was glad to receive the promising indication of a commitment in writing by the Security Minister. He said that if the Bill is given Royal Assent, an implementation period of 24 months will be set. That will give venues the time to understand their new obligations, plan and prepare and, if needed, provide training to staff. The Government promise that training will be supplied by a number of expert security partners. I look forward to hearing more details on that.
Over the weekend, I met various local venues in my North Cornwall constituency, such as the Sea View Farm Shop, which expressed concerns over possible fencing requirements. Its venue hosts small outdoor festivals with between 1,500 and 2,000 attendees. It is similar in scale to the nearby Rock Oyster Festival, and can be contrasted with much larger events such as Boardmasters, which hosts over 60,000 people. Could the Minister provide clarity on the requirements for outdoor events?
We are not seeking to push the new clause to a vote, but we seek reassurance from the Minister today about training for staff and operators for venues big and small. New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, proposes a review of the role of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator. We do not oppose a cost-benefit analysis of the role of the SIA, but we worry about the impact of additional responsibility on local government, which is already stretched to breaking point, without the accompanying resources to deliver that.
I welcome the intent to ensure efficiency and effectiveness, but I must stress the need for reassurance that smaller venues, such as the village halls that we have heard about and the community centres that, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) said, are often run by volunteers, will not be disproportionately impacted. In North Cornwall, we have venues such as the John Betjeman Centre in Wadebridge, village halls in Padstow, Lewannick and St Mabyn and many more.
I acknowledge amendments 25 and 26 to raise the minimum capacity thresholds for standard and enhanced duty premises to 200 and 800, respectively. These spaces are integral to our communities yet they operate with limited resources, often run by volunteers, and cannot shoulder excessive regulatory burdens. Any changes must prioritise support and scalability for these organisations, so that they are equipped to meet public protection requirements without being overwhelmed. This legislation will not be able to do that if it is too burdensome for businesses, which are not clear what their obligations really are.
Will the Minister confirm that the content of our new clause will be given due consideration? Keeping everyone safe is the absolute priority, but by providing clear guidance and training we can avoid burdening our already struggling local businesses, and ensure that they have the clarity that they need about the legislation.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I would like to start by expressing my admiration for Figen Murray for her unwavering advocacy of this Bill, in memory of her son, Martyn. Her defiant message to promote peace and positive change in Martyn’s name has been a source of inspiration to us all. Figen’s strength and dedication in pushing for meaningful reforms to prevent such devastating attacks is truly commendable. Her courage and commitment continue to drive this important work, and we are deeply grateful for her contributions.
As a former police officer, I believe that this legislation represents an important step forward in improving our national security framework and in providing our communities with greater protection from the evolving threat of terrorism. The Bill is needed as the level of threat remains complex, evolving and enduring. By implementing stronger security measures, providing clearer responsibilities for venue owners and enhancing co-ordination between relevant agencies, this legislation will help safeguard the public in places where they gather, work and celebrate. In an increasingly unpredictable world, it is vital that we remain proactive to protect our communities and strengthen the resilience of our society. The Bill is a crucial part of that effort.
By designating a person responsible for considering the risks and for planning a response in the event of a terrorist attack, we are taking a proactive and structured approach to security. The role is about not only managing immediate responses, but fostering a culture of vigilance, communication and preparedness within communities and organisations in general. The legislation will ensure that our response is as effective as possible.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I thank him for his service in the police. Three victims of the Manchester Arena bombing were from my constituency —Sorrell Leczkowski, Courtney Boyle and Wendy Fawell —which is why I am so supportive of the Bill. He is talking about the duties of venues and their managers, but does he agree that it would be helpful for the Government to give clear guidance about their responsibilities for outdoor and public spaces when managing the particular regulatory framework that the Bill will create?
Matt Bishop
I wholeheartedly agree that that is a very important part of the legislation.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
What has been striking about the debate so far is the extent of cross-party consensus on this matter. My worry is that the Bill contains a set of proposals that we might be supporting because they are something that we deem possible to do, whereas we may be neglecting some things that are harder to do. In the inquiry into the bombing, several aspects of the story were very concerning, from the way the asylum system worked through to the Prevent programme. While 90% of MI5’s counter-terrorism casework is Islamist, the latest data shows that the number of Prevent referrals for young people suspected of Islamist radicalisation has fallen from 3,706 in 2016-17 to only 781 in 2022-23. As a former police officer, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have to do something to ensure that Prevent is properly targeted at the real threats we face?
Matt Bishop
I wholeheartedly agree; anything to support Prevent training in schools and education is very important.
The legislation will ensure that our response is as effective as possible and minimise the risks to lives and infrastructure. It is essential that everyone, from leadership to staff members, understands the importance of this role and supports the planning and implementation of all safety protocols.
However, the Bill is not just about securing physical spaces; it is about fostering a sense of security and trust in the places where we work, gather and celebrate. At a time when the threat of terrorism can cause widespread fear and uncertainty, knowing that protective measures are in place allows people to go about their daily lives with greater confidence. It is about protecting not just our buildings, but the social fabric that holds our communities together.
Being a member of the Bill Committee was insightful. It was an opportunity to closely examine the provisions of this important legislation and engage in constructive discussion with my colleagues, other stakeholders and those sadly affected by terrorism. In Committee sittings, I was pleased to hear that various businesses and venues are already implementing the standards of the Bill in their operations, which are intended to ensure that public premises and events are better prepared so that if the unthinkable happens, they are ready to respond.
The response to the Bill highlights the commitment of many organisations to the safety and security of the public, and their recognition of the importance of proactive measures in the face of potential threats. It demonstrates a shared understanding that protecting people from harm is the responsibility of not just the Government, but everybody in our society. The Bill seeks to formalise and build on those efforts, ensuring that security practices are consistent, comprehensive and capable of meeting the evolving nature of the terrorist threat.
I acknowledge the concerns raised during this debate and in Committee, which I believe have been addressed to make the Bill more effective, fair and responsive to the challenges at hand. As we move forward, it is crucial to remember that this is a shared responsibility; as I said, the Government cannot act alone.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about shared responsibility, and how it is the responsibility of us all to protect each other. As a former police officer, is he not worried about a degree of vigilantism, with untrained people taking the law into their own hands and doing things that perhaps, as a police officer, he thinks police officers would be best placed to do?
Matt Bishop
That is a fair point, but I am not worried that the Bill will cause that. I think that the wider general public will allow the police to deal with the matters in hand when they need to, but there may be, as I mentioned, several opportunities to act on this together.
Public venues, businesses, local authorities and communities themselves must all work in tandem to create a robust, unified front against terrorism. By integrating efforts across sectors, we make our society stronger, more resilient and able to respond more effectively to threats while ensuring the safety of every individual.
Terrorism is not a static threat—it constantly involves, and so must our response. The Bill will ensure that we remain ahead of emerging risks. As we have seen in recent years, attacks are becoming more unpredictable, more dispersed and harder to anticipate. The legislation will give us the tools and the framework needed to adapt and respond to those ever-changing threats. The legislation is about more than policy; it is about the future we want to build for our children, our families and our communities. We owe it to future generations to ensure that they inherit a society that values safety, peace and resilience. By taking action now, we lay the foundation for a stronger, safer tomorrow.
Paul Holmes
Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I had to nip upstairs to sit in a Bill Committee programming session.
I am delighted to be here to speak on this legislation. As I mentioned earlier to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I had the privilege of working alongside the Minister when I was the shadow Home Affairs Minister who took the Bill through Second Reading. I say again to the Minister, and to the Home Secretary, that I am a big fan of his, as he knows. That is for genuine purposes: for the way he treated me as the shadow Home Affairs Minister at the time, with informal consultations and phone calls, and for genuinely opening up the spirit of cross-party working on this legislation. I congratulate him and pay tribute to him, his Department and all officials working on the legislation for making sure the Opposition were involved. I am very pleased that he is in his place this evening so that I can thank him for that spirit of co-operation.
We know that the Bill is a key piece of legislation and a commitment that the Conservatives made at the last general election, and I am delighted that the Government have taken it forward. As he will know, I spoke of some concerns on Second Reading that I want to chase the Minister on, if he might be so bold as to try to answer them at the end. I have a number of concerns that I will speak about briefly, as you will be delighted hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot promise to be too brief, but I will be as brief as I can. You will have to excuse me if I am out of breath—I did run upstairs and then back downstairs to get here in time, and I am not the fittest person in the Chamber.
I pay tribute to Figen Murray and Martyn’s family. As I said on Second Reading, it should not require circumstances such as those we have seen to bring about a change in legislation. However, Figen Murray can rest assured that Martyn has played a huge role in changing the law for the good, and Martyn’s family have a right to be proud of that legacy.
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 1 and amendments 25 and 27, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). We all support the aims of the Bill and want to see the legislation succeed. We want to make venues across the country safer and to ensure they have the correct apparatus in place so that people who use hospitality or other venues across the country, of all shapes and sizes, can do so with confidence that a system and a regulatory framework are in place. We want people to be safe when they use those venues. My constituents expect that. I expect that for myself and for my family.
Just last night, my family and I used a hospitality venue for a good couple of pints. That will be one of the venues covered by this regulatory framework. Sitting there, looking forward at the parliamentary agenda, I thought how venues such as that one have a number of concerns. Those are the things I want to talk about this evening. In our constituencies, we have voluntary sector organisations, theatre groups, community centres and charities of all shapes and sizes who volunteer every day to do their best by their community, to represent the community and to work for the community in the best way possible. I remain concerned that, as has been outlined by a number of my hon. Friends, including the shadow Minister, there remains an undue burden that will be placed on those organisations, because of some of the environmental factors—I wondered how to put that, as I do not want this speech to be political at all—that have been placed on them in recent months.
Patrick Spencer
Will my hon. Friend speak for a moment about the situation facing small football clubs? They often have many people turning up week after week to watch their team play and are on a tiny budget with tiny margins, no money to spare and no money available for training. In such circumstances, surely those clubs will be really hard done by under some of the provisions in the Bill.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is correct. My constituency has a number of small football organisations, some of which are subject to legislation that is currently going through the Lords more slowly than we would necessarily expect a piece of legislation to progress. The income of small football groups will be the focus of that Bill. However, my hon. Friend is right: not only does this Bill cover small football venues and football clubs, but it covers all sorts of organisations, some of which I have mentioned.
There are small community theatres, for example, which are the backbone of many small communities. People want to go to them with their family and watch amateur dramatics. The plays are sometimes better than in the west end—I have seen them—and the scale of some venues means that they will be in the lower tier under the Bill, but they have very small incomes. There are also charities with very small incomes that have been affected by fiscal decisions in the Budget. I assure the Minister that I am not being political, but as the impact assessment shows, and as the constituents I have spoken to have said, many charities will be affected by increased costs through their national insurance contributions and the different taxation that will come in.
From what I have read, the average cost for smaller venues will be £330 a year and the cost for larger organisations will be £5,000 a year. Those are the latest figures that I can find, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that additional cost of £330 a year for smaller venues, because to many organisations, that will place a big burden on them. I met representatives of small theatres recently who were concerned that they have not been invited to a roundtable with the Minister to discuss the implications for the sector. I would be grateful if he outlined whether the Government intend to meet them, based on their concerns about the Bill.
I will bring my comments within the scope of new clause 1. Given the issues that I have outlined, I think the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford to have a review process for the SIA is perfectly sensible. When we set up a new organisation that has some kind of independence, regulatory enforcement capacity or management capacity, it seems purely sensible that after the period set in the new clause, we look to see whether its action has been proportionate, whether there has been overreach and whether it is doing its job properly. Has it taken the full responsibilities outlined in the legislation? Members may not think that it is overworking; it might be that it is underworking and we need to give it more responsibilities in the long run.
It seems perfectly sensible for the Government and the Minister to come to the Floor of the House. They should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. Opposition Front Benchers, me and all my colleagues want the Bill to succeed, but we want it to be proportionate. When we set up an organisation with such responsibilities and an organisational jurisdiction, we want to ensure that it is reviewed, that it is conducting itself and taking its responsibilities seriously, and that the system is working.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 1 is not about a presumption of finding fault, but about ensuring that the proposals work correctly? It is so important that the regulator and the regulatory role work perfectly so that the Bill can be implemented in the way that is expected.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is reasonable and a very good colleague in the way she carries out her duties in this House, so it will come as no surprise to hear that I absolutely agree with her. I do say that about some Government Members, so I am not being partisan—[Interruption.] Most of the time. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point.
That is why the Minister should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. We do not want to disrupt the passage of the Bill. We do not want to disrupt the good intentions and the outcomes that everybody, on both sides of the House, wants. As a Conservative, I naturally think that the state should not be big or oversized. When we set up organisations such as this, it is natural that the House and Members will want scrutiny functions to make sure that the organisation acts within the spirit of the law and within its jurisdiction and responsibilities. I think that is perfectly reasonable.
Dr Luke Evans
For me, when we think about creating the regulator, it is about ensuring that it is effective. It needs to be staffed and funded appropriately, and we need to ensure that it does the job that the House expects it to do. The idea of having a system to report back is important when we make these provisions. When my hon. Friend was shadow Minister, did he give any thought to how many businesses come within scope, and whether there are resources in the regulator to even provide those assessments, so that we can make sure that it is held accountable and that this is effective legislation?
Paul Holmes
I would like to say that I have given that great thought, but as hon. Members across the House will know, after we came back in July, my tenure as a shadow Home Affairs Minister was rather short—[Interruption.] I thank the Minister, who said, “Shame”. That was after being shadow Northern Ireland Minister, shadow Foreign Affairs Minister and other Ministers, too. But I took this piece of legislation very seriously. The Government should make that decision, but I hope that the SIA is properly resourced and that it conducts its duties in the right way. That is why I think new clause 1 should be accepted this evening.
I do not want to overstay my welcome, but I will speak briefly about one of the concerns that I raised on Second Reading about the responsible person element of the Bill. I remain seriously concerned about this, and it was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). Although I accept the scope of the Bill and the impact that it will have on the statute book, many organisations, particularly during cost of living crises and at this time of year, rely on their volunteers, and if we place undue and burdensome regulations on them, volunteers will simply not come forward and be in the voluntary sector. Charities are going through a difficult time. I remain concerned that if we tip slightly too much towards being overburdensome on those very small organisations, we will see a dearth of people in the voluntary sector. No one wants to discourage people from volunteering—we do not, and I know the shadow Minister and the Minister do not—but I worry that the thresholds set out in the Bill will have unintended consequences. I ask the Minister to look seriously at new clause 1 and amendments 25 and 26, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford.
Many will be happy to know that I am drawing my comments to a close. However, I am personally delighted that this Bill is before the House in record time, five months after the Government came into office. I hope that the Minister will see that the Opposition are working, and will continue to work, in a constructive way to get this on to the statute book. It is sad that, in order to have a relatively major piece of legislation changed so rapidly, we had to go through the atrocities that we saw in Manchester and terrorist attacks around the United Kingdom. However, I know that the legacy that Martyn leaves is one that his family will be greatly proud of, as this country should be. This is a mainstream, major piece of legislation, and I hope that by working together, we will ensure that people who go to venues for many years to come will be protected, and they will be protected in Martyn’s name.
Chris Murray
I welcome the fact that the discussion in the House today shows real cross-party support for the aims, principles and objectives of the Bill, and that the amendments focus only on nuances and more technical aspects. That shows that we are all united in trying to achieve this goal and in preventing tragedies such as that which happened in Manchester from happening again.
In trying to understand those nuances and where the more technical sides should be drawn, it is useful to reflect on the legislation’s key dimensions and advantages. First, obviously, it makes terrorist attacks less likely. The terrorist threat is substantial and we know that it is changing. It has gone from large-scale infrastructure and iconic sites to much more workaday, normal locations.
The most recent terrorist attack that we tragically saw in this country was an attack on a children’s dance class. It is clear that the terror threat is evolving and we must evolve with it, which is why the Bill is important, but it is also important because it minimises the death and destruction that result from a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks may still happen despite our best efforts, and it is important for us to plan for that eventuality and make the right decisions in order to be ready when they do happen.
The former President Obama’s Under-Secretary of State for Homeland Security, the Harvard professor Juliette Kayyem, has talked of the “boom” of a terror moment or crisis, and divides planning into “pre-boom” and “post-boom”. Pre-boom is what must be done to prevent an event from taking place, but it is equally important to plan for the post-boom moment. We must ensure that even those running small venues have done some thinking in advance of an attack. What are the escape routes? Who needs to have the keys? What happens if they send people in this direction rather than that direction?
The Bill incorporates a distinction between enhanced and non-enhanced tiers, and that too is important. In my constituency we put on some of the biggest and best events in the world. I am utterly confident that those in the football and rugby stadiums and theatres who are in charge of security planning do all this thinking anyway, but there are many smaller venues where it has not occurred to people that that is necessarily their role, but which are now in the line of fire. It is important for people to recognise that responsibility, because the public have a right to expect it. The Bill codifies what should be happening anyway. We must bear that in mind as we decide where to set the thresholds, who falls in or outside scope, and what level of burden we expect organisations and venues to face.
In Committee, it was reassuring to hear several of my concerns being allayed. One of them has already been discussed, namely the impact on business and the potential for a burden. There is no denying that something of a burden will be placed on some organisations where no one has done any thinking or preparation for a potential terrorist or other attack, but the Bill contains very proportionate elements that do not impose much of an extra burden. Its requirements are intuitive, they are not onerous, they are straightforward and they are commonsensical. As I said in an intervention earlier, they are essentially prompts for organisations to do the kind of thinking that we would hope they were doing already to avoid an attack. That not only avoids attacks, but mitigates their impact.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the proportionality of the Bill, which we discussed in Committee. The word “burden” has been used a great deal this afternoon. In his evidence to the Committee, Andy Burnham said:
“I just think that we cannot talk ourselves into a sort of thing where it is all too big a burden. I can tell you from experience: a terrorist attack is a massive burden on a city and what it does challenges everybody at every level—and that is ongoing. Like Figen said, Manchester will never be the same again after what happened. It has changed us but it has strengthened us and made us more united, and as I say, I do not want any other city to go through that.”––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 16, Q11.]
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a proportionate Bill, and that the burden of a terrorist attack far outweighs any burden caused by its provisions?
Chris Murray
Absolutely. There is a small element of burden in the Bill, but it is light-touch and proportionate, and the alternative scenario is significantly more burdensome. In my own city of Edinburgh, the impact of a terrorist attack and of people not feeling secure in the aftermath could be destructive not just to the lives affected by the attack, but to the whole economy on which our city is based, which is event-focused. It is right for us to draw that distinction, and to seek to get the balance exactly right.
Nick Timothy
The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent speech about the “protect” element of the counter-terrorism strategy. It is clear from the Manchester attack inquiry report that the asylum system is a big part of the story.
Salman Abedi and his brother Hashem—who planned the attack and prepared the explosives, and was as guilty of the attack as Salman—were born in Britain to Libyan asylum seeker parents. Their father, Ramadan Abedi, was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an Islamist militia. He was granted asylum in this country, but travelled back and forth between Britain and Libya throughout that time, which is a story that we often hear about people who are granted asylum here. Given the number of people who come here illegally and across the channel, whom we have no ability to investigate and on whom we cannot make checks, how does the hon. Gentleman think we might reform the asylum system to prevent such things from happening again?
Chris Murray
I am struggling to understand quite how that falls within the scope of this debate, but it is important to discuss the issue of how we deal with terrorism. As we have seen in the history of this country, terrorist attacks can be both foreign and domestic. They can be homegrown, or they can come from overseas. I have talked about the need to prepare for an attack before it happens, so that mitigations can be introduced. They can be long term, which means looking at where the threat is emanating from, or they can be immediately in advance of an attack, which means introducing security measures. My argument, however, is that the benefit of the Bill relates to what happens after the attack has taken place. We need to help the smaller venues that now find themselves within the scope of terrorist attacks to prepare for those attacks. It is not a question of who committed the offence, but a question of how they are prepared to deal with that event.
Dr Luke Evans
I was fortunate enough to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s Westminster Hall debate on the Edinburgh fringe and its success around the world. That is a prime example of where the Bill might be helpful. Has the hon. Gentleman given any thought to how those small venues can work together? If they share best practice, that can create an environment of security. I wonder whether the fringe organisations themselves have thought about this, given that they are, by their very nature, likely to be a target. Sharing best practice may help to strengthen the entire environment when people visit it.
Chris Murray
That intervention was slightly more in scope and was also about Edinburgh, so I was happier to take it.
The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, in advance of the Bill Committee debate and the debate that we are having now, I spoke to Edinburgh city council and to some of the event organisers, who told me that it is exactly because Edinburgh has become a place where fringe events take place regularly that these considerations have been normalised. Our city has put a lot of the necessary infrastructure in place, along with the thinking and the organisational requirements—and there is also a corporate memory between the small venues—to cope with terrorist events. As Andy Burnham pointed out in his evidence, Edinburgh is one of the national leaders on this front. However, I recognise that not every community has that advantage, which is why the Bill will extend to other communities the measures that already benefit mine.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Member said earlier that these were “prompts”, and that what we should consider was what happened after an attack. What is worrying is that the Bill goes beyond that. It talks about occasions on which it is suspected that a terrorist offence might take place or is taking place. That is not an “after”. The Bill creates an obligation for those who are in charge of the event in question to prevent individuals from entering. Before an event or while it is happening, there is a security obligation on some of these small groups to prevent people from entering the premises. That is not a prompt; it is a huge burden on the organisers.
Chris Murray
The right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Again, having been on the Public Bill Committee, my argument is that the Bill is proportionate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I look forward to the other contributions to the debate. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, terrorist threats are now a way of life, be they lone-wolf attacks, aggression and poisonings by Russia, attacks by terrorist groups from across the world, or Iranian attacks on those who support a free Iran. Such attacks focus our attention on where we are. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and I look forward to his comments. I wish to be constructive in my comments, and I have a few questions to ask. Hopefully, the Minister can give me some reassurances.
In Northern Ireland, terrorist attacks were the norm for some 30-odd years. I declare an interest: I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for three years, and in the Territorial Army for 11 and a half years. Why is it that when my fellow soldiers in the Ulster Defence Regiment and my part-time colleagues the Territorial Army went to a restaurant or café, they sought out a place where they could watch everything that was happening? They could see who was coming in and who was going out, and they had an escape route, so that they could get out quickly. That was the life that we led. In this debate, we are asking our churches, our charities, our missionary groups and those who run community halls to consider things of which they have no experience. I am not saying that critically; I am saying it observationally, because I want them to be aware.
When the gallant Minister got the call to serve in uniform, he answered it. I put on the record our thanks to him for doing that, which tells us a lot about the Minister and his psyche. I look back at some of the atrocities and I am reminded of the Darkley massacre, in which the Irish National Liberation Army burst into a church and killed a number of people who were attending—innocent people. Had it not been for the bravery of some of the people on the door, more probably would have been killed. I think of Tullyvallen Orange hall, near Newry, where the IRA killed a number of Orangemen, simply because they were Orangemen.
The point I am making is that that was our life in Northern Ireland, and now we are asking our churches, our charities and other groups across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to look at providing better security. We are asking people with no experience to do that—people who have never considered there to be any need to do so—but we are doing it for a purpose.
We all support this legislation. I want to put on the record that I support it, and I understand the reasoning behind it. We were all incredibly concerned about the Manchester atrocity; it is an example of what we have to try to stop.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I completely understand that we are asking people to consider something that they have never experienced or had to consider, but is that not what we do with fire regulations?
Jim Shannon
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, this is not about fire regulations; it is about making sure that nobody dies, which is different. It is much, much more than fire regulations, which require people to check whether an extinguisher is working. This Bill is about making sure that nobody comes in to kill anybody, so it is a different scenario. I respect the hon. Gentleman, but we have to get a bit of focus.
I am reminded of the community hall where the Rev. Robert Bradford was killed. The caretaker was on the door when the IRA came. They shot the caretaker and the reverend, and his plaque is at the back of this Chamber. I am ever mindful of his courage and the stand that he took. These are the things that we deal with. We are not better than anybody else, but these are the things that we have faced down the years.
I want to focus on churches. On Second Reading, I spoke about Northern Ireland’s unfortunate experience of these matters, and about the need for churches and places of worship to have a plan in place. I made it my business to go and talk to my churches and to get their thoughts. They want to be part of the process, so we need to see how we can help them. I note that a few of my questions have been asked by other hon. Members, so I will restrict my remarks to churches’ questions about their roles and responsibilities. I ask my questions constructively.
On new clause 2, which I understand will not be moved tonight, I have spoken to a number of churches and key holders in my constituency, and they have all told me that they include terrorism plans in their annual child protection training, which they undertake at their own cost. Those are massive steps for people who may have faced some of these things in the past, but who suddenly find themselves thrown into the cauldron because of where they are. One church highlighted that it ran a special awareness event after the Southport atrocity in recognition that the church hall, where most of the adults gather, is a different building from the one used for church events.
I just want to understand how the process will work. This hyper-awareness is good as long as it is not driven by fear. I want to focus on that fear. I think it was the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) who referred to the fear that some people experience on these issues. In church services and meetings, where there are children and elderly people present, or in community group meetings, we do not normally have to deal with these things, but now we have to, because it is important. The legislation is important. That is why the Minister is bringing it forward, and why the House will support it.
We need to ensure that the larger venues and churches have support, so that there is no fear—just a plan of action. People can focus on the fear and become incredibly worried, or they can focus on a plan of action to ensure that if something happens, they can stop it. That is where I wish to focus. I will give the example of Queen’s hall in Newtownards in my constituency, which can hold about 300 people. The events that I have been to there are nearly all charity events. It holds charity events, church events and fundraising events for missionary organisations, and they all galvanise a lot of people and bring them in. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) referred to the onus being on the organisations. I always try to be constructive, and I ask the Minister constructively what that will mean for how such places function, and how they will focus on looking after the people.
I also ask for clarity on the help that churches can expect to receive on training, to ensure that they are compliant with the standard tier expectations. They are not saying that they will not do what the Bill asks. They will; that is not the issue. I am just thinking about how we can help those churches, charity groups and others to gain the experience that they will clearly need. Will funding be made available to the charitable sector for the provision of training and assistance? Will a dedicated professional be available to churches on this issue? Will they check that churches are compliant and have a fit-for-purpose plan of action? That is my request on behalf of the churches that have spoken to me.
We must remember that churches can be largely self-governing, and the smaller churches outside the mainstream of the Presbyterians, the Anglicans, the Methodists and the Roman Catholics do not have bodies to break this down for them. I am asking on behalf of those smaller churches. I attend a smaller church—the Baptist church—but I am also thinking of the Elim church and the Brethren halls, of which my Strangford constituency has a great many, with large congregations. I make these queries in a constructive fashion, and I know that the Minister will give the answers, not just to me but to everyone in the House.
Dr Luke Evans
I too have lots of churches in my constituency, and while I fully support the legislation, I do worry about some of the rural churches. There is a risk of a fine, if they are not compliant. Does that mean that there is a risk that those venues, which are already under stress, would not be able to open? I hope that is not the case, and that the Minister can allay some of my fears, but given how the legislation is written, that could be a prospect. That would be very damaging for many of the rural churches in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member has made his point very well, and I am sure that the Minister will answer it. I just want to make sure that the churches, the charities, the missionary groups and the community groups across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are able to meet, and that they get the necessary help to ensure that normal life continues. The churches all need to know what to do and when.
It took me a long time to be able to talk about the Southport stabbings, because they left horrors in the mind of every one of us. They shocked many on the mainland, but in Northern Ireland they recalled to our memories horrific attacks and the days of having men at our doors during a service. Times have changed, and so too have procedures, but we still have enough trauma to recognise the danger. The churches and charity groups tell me that they want to be equipped, and to be able to respond. This legislation calls for the churches and the charities to be equipped. I am asking the Government, and in particular the Minister, to ensure that there is help and support, in case the unthinkable does take place.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
This legislation is a fitting tribute to Martyn Hett and the lives of 21 others that were tragically cut short in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack. It is also a testament to the tireless efforts of Martyn’s mother, Figen Murray, who has campaigned with such dignity and determination to ensure that no family endures the pain that hers has suffered. This Bill is about increased resilience for us as a country. It seeks to make our public spaces safer by requiring premises and events to take proportionate, practical steps to prepare for and mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack. It is about ensuring that if the unthinkable happens, lives are saved and harm is reduced. I speak with personal conviction on this matter. Having served in a counter-terror role, I have seen at first hand the devastating consequences of terrorism and the critical importance of the prior preparation that this Bill lays out. It is essential that our laws and systems keep pace with an ever-evolving risk.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Manchester, in a way, stimulated or catalysed this legislation. It is bigger than that, but it is no more tragic, for it could not possibly be, as he has described. He is also right to say that terrorists are becoming more adaptable, so we have to adapt the way we deal with them. Legislation is part of that. It is difficult, because legislation takes a long time to perfect, if properly scrutinised in this House. The amendments that have been tabled today are an attempt to improve the Bill, not to frustrate it. Does he agree that the Minister and the Government will need to regularly review the provisions of the legislation—there is reference in the Bill to reviews, guidance and so on—and that that will become an ongoing part of how we deal with that increasing adaptability on the part of those who seek to do us harm?
Mike Tapp
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. Any threat that this country faces is continuously reviewed by the Ministry of Defence, MI5, the police and the Government, and we adapt our approaches to suit.
That brings me to the fact that since 2017, MI5 and the police have disrupted 43 late-stage attacks, yet we have seen 15 domestic terror attacks in this country. These incidents underline the ongoing and difficult nature of the threats. I am sure the whole House will agree that we have the finest intelligence services in the world, and we owe it to them to enable their work as much as we possibly can from this place. This Bill is another step towards achieving that. The approach it proposes is both practical and proportionate for small and large venues. I commend the Government for engaging widely in the development of the Bill and for working with businesses, local authorities and security experts to ensure that it is both effective and proportionate. It is right that we in this House support the Bill, and in doing so, we send a clear message that we will not only remember those we have lost but act decisively to protect those we serve.
Jerome Mayhew
Mention has been made during the course of this debate of cross-party consensus and what a good thing that is. In some senses that is absolutely right. We should have absolute cross-party consensus on honouring the memory of Martyn Hett and all those who were killed and injured in the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017, but I raise a note of caution because sometimes when we stop being adversarial in this place, we create legislation that is not as good as it could be. That is particularly the case where we have a very emotive issue such as this, and where there is a huge amount of personal sympathy across all the parties in the House. There is a risk that extreme circumstances provoke a natural reaction of saying, “Something must be done. This has to be prevented from ever happening again,” and we end up with bad law.
There is a good example of this risk in the Bill’s progression from its development under the previous Administration, through the election and out the other side. The initial intention of clause 2 was that the standard duty would apply to premises with a capacity to welcome 100-plus people. In my view, this would have had a wholly disproportionate impact on the kind of community buildings that I represent as a church warden, as well as on the village halls that we have already discussed. Pretty much every village hall has the capacity to accommodate 100 people. Every church, bar the very smallest chapels, can expect to welcome 100 people at a wedding or funeral from time to time. There is a tiny, infinitesimally small risk of terrorism in these typically rural areas, yet the previous Administration’s Bill would have imposed very significant costs and time commitments on volunteers. I have already mentioned a couple of times that I am a church warden and, again, I emphasise the risk of unintended consequences when we are all so keen to get on that we do not challenge each other.
Sir John Hayes
To reassure my hon. Friend on that subject, he will understand that those of us who have served on the Intelligence and Security Committee are fearless in holding Ministers to account, as this Minister will no doubt find out, and similarly fearless in challenging the agencies, which do such a wonderful job for us. He is right that the agencies need to be questioned appropriately and scrutinised fully.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, about proportionality, it is, of course, right that our response to risk measures the real character of that risk and is proportionate to it.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention, and I am reassured by his comments.
In a previous life, I was a barrister specialising in health and safety risk and risk management, and I was later the managing director of the leisure company Go Ape—Members might not have heard of it—and was responsible for the risk management of over 1 million customers a year. We could have killed every single one of them, so I am deeply familiar with the appropriate mechanisms for risk management. One risk that has to be taken into account is that, if the response is too great or too onerous for the assessed risk, people might not think it is reasonable, leading to omission.
Effective risk management requires mitigations to be put in place that bear some relation to the severity of the anticipated adverse event multiplied by its likelihood. I am very concerned that the previous Administration’s initial proposal that these duties should apply to premises with a capacity of as few as 100 people would have broken that association between a reasonable response and the assessed risk.
I am therefore grateful and impressed that the Government have listened and changed clause 2(2)(c) to raise the standard duty threshold to a capacity of 200. To my mind, that seems a reasonable compromise to protect smaller facilities, which are, of course, most likely to rely entirely on volunteers, and are unlikely to have the financial capacity to undertake the kind of paid-for training suggested by the Liberal Democrat new clause 2 or to have enough volunteers who are prepared to accept this additional burden on their free time. I think this strikes the right balance. However, I am concerned that paragraph (a) in clause 32 introduces a power, through regulations, to reduce the figure back down to 100 without giving a reason. Why is that?
I therefore support new clauses 25 and 26, which would set minimum thresholds of 200 for the standard duty and 500 for the enhanced duty. A cross-party approach has taken the Bill this far, and it is important that that approach is maintained.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I join other Members in paying tribute to Figen Murray for the tenacity and courage with which she has campaigned—a campaign that has done so much to bring us to this point. Any of us who have been touched, even indirectly, by a terrorist attack know the pain, the loss and the shock. That pain is only made worse if there is a suspicion that anything, no matter how slight, might have been done to have avoided or reduced the harm done. In fighting this campaign, Mrs Murray really has done Martyn’s memory proud.
As has been obvious throughout this debate, there is a huge amount of consensus on the need for the measures in this Bill. It is a good Bill. The draft Bill before the election was a good draft, it was improved by pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Bill that this Government introduced and that has come out of Committee is better. The decision before us tonight is not whether we want these measures, because I think we agree, without exception, that we do. The decision before us is what can be done to make this the very best Bill it can be—one that provides the protections that are so clearly needed, as we heard from witnesses in the Committee’s evidence sessions and throughout the debate around the Bill, both inside and outside this House, without putting an unnecessary burden on those venues that do not need it for the purpose that we seek.
It is precisely because this Bill has broadly struck the right note that I rise to support new clauses 25 and 26, tabled in the names of the shadow Minister and the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) respectively. In doing so, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to hospitality, although I intend to speak primarily not on the hospitality sector, but on the voluntary sector and volunteer-run venues.
I am thinking, in particular, of a venue in the constituency I represented until this year’s general election. The Brierley Hill Civic is a medium-sized venue in the Black Country and, about a decade ago, an asset transfer process was started to transfer it from Dudley council to Dudley council for voluntary service. Over that time, Dudley CVS has done a fantastic job—a really professional job in every sense of the word—in providing a first-class venue for the area. It will typically host a few events each year that top 500 attendees, although they do not reach as high as 800.
The standard duty in this Bill is absolutely appropriate for a venue like Brierley Hill Civic. The concern is about how Dudley CVS, which is primarily run by volunteers, would be able to fulfil the enhanced duties if the threshold were suddenly lowered, taking the venue into the enhanced duty category. That would cause them great difficulty on a practical level as well as a financial level, because as a non-profit-making organisation, they have to balance the books.
Sammy Wilson
I fully understand the reasoning and the demand for a Bill such as this when it became known that, after a terrorist event, lives were lost because of bad organisation. If it is possible to introduce legislation that helps to avoid a situation that we have seen develop in the past, then of course we should do it. However, we have to be cognisant that when we introduce legislation, it has consequences for the people to whom it applies.
As we have heard time and again during the debate, Members believe that this legislation is both proportionate and practical. If Members genuinely believe that that is the case, there is absolutely no reason why new clause 1 should not be supported. We are entering a new field and imposing new regulations on bodies that were not regulated in relation to terrorism before, so surely it is important that we find out whether or not the objective and the intention is actually fulfilled. One way to do that is to monitor the effect over a period of time.
I have some concerns about the legislation, which people have already raised. In many cases, I do not think that the measures are practical. Secondly, I do not believe that they will not have an impact. That is not what Members expected and it is not what they want. Members across the House have said that they think the legislation may put people off engaging in activities that they would have undertaken in the absence of the regulations—activities that make a valuable contribution to their communities.
There is always a danger that people interpret the legislation that comes before the House, and sometimes our own rhetoric encourages them to do so. They may think a result of this legislation will be that it reduces the danger of people suffering a terrorist attack. To be clear, that is not and cannot be the purpose of the Bill. Terrorist attacks can be stopped only if we have intelligence, the security forces can act on that intelligence and we act in time. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) pointed out, the legislation is more about what happens after the event. However, it is not only about what happens after the event. The legislation puts obligations on people before they make a decision to undertake an event. Some of the wording in the Bill raises concerns.
Chris Murray
To clarify, I was not saying the legislation was only of value after an event. I said that part of its value was the impact it had on planning for the period after an event. On the burden the right hon. Gentleman talks about on people making preparations, does he accept that it is important that they consider the potential impact of events and think in advance about that in taking those decisions? That is how we will avoid the kind of atrocities we have seen.
Sammy Wilson
Let us look at some of the language and the requirements in the Bill that are totally reasonable. For example, the Bill sets out that people who are organising events should have plans
“for evacuating individuals from the premises”.
As far as I know, that already happens. At many of the events I attend, before the event even starts, somebody stands up and says, “Here are some house rules: in the event of a fire, the exits are here, here and here. Leave in an orderly way. When you get outside, meet at a certain point, so we can check everybody is out of the area.” There are measures in the Bill that are reasonable and that I would assume people are already doing. If they are not doing them, then it is not onerous on them to start saying that at the beginning of an event.
However, the Bill applies to retail as well. It is easy to communicate that kind of information to people if they are in a theatre or at some kind of concert, but it is a bit more difficult to communicate that to individuals when they are moving in and out of retail premises. We have to be careful about the practicalities of what we ask people to do.
Let me set out some of the things I have concerns about, which I believe are unreasonable to require of organisations. First, “public protection procedures” have to be
“followed by individuals working on the premises or at the event if there is reason to suspect that an act of terrorism is occurring, or is about to occur, on the premises”.
I suppose it is fairly obvious if something is “occurring” —we know if something is happening—but what if it is likely or “about to occur”? Are organisers meant to liaise with the police and get intelligence from them—intelligence that the police may not be able to divulge, or may not even have? What onus does it put on individuals in terms of preparation, given the random nature of terrorism? We have seen somebody go into a pre-school class with a knife. Nobody could have anticipated that.
Furthermore, when an event is occurring, or might be about to occur, the organiser has to prevent individuals from entering the premises. If I were organising an event, I would want to know what kind of security requirement that puts on me as the organiser. Am I meant to ensure that a security presence is there? What kind of security presence? We have talked quite a lot tonight about the fact that many events of 200 people could be organised by ordinary community groups. I think of theatre groups in my constituency. The only interest that people who organise such events have is acting. They do not have any of the skills that might be required to prevent people from entering the premises, so do they need to have security apparatus, such as security people?
The next measure about which there is a degree of ambiguity is the requirement that organisers do not divulge security information relating to the premises or event. I understand that they should not send out plans of the building in which they will be operating, showing the doors through which people can come in and get out, and the easy and hard ways into the premises. However, the Bill goes further than that. The organisers cannot give information about the event. The whole purpose of an event is to publicise it. Where will it be held? At what time will it be held? How many people can be facilitated? How do people get tickets? The point that I am trying to make is that there is language in the Bill about which I would have a lot of questions, were I an individual who was subject to it, because if I did not get it right, there would be a fine of up to £5,000 or £10,000.
Ben Maguire
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is making a compelling case to support new clause 2, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would provide for training to address some of the ambiguity that he describes?
Sammy Wilson
I do not believe that training would address the ambiguity, because the ambiguity is in the wording of the legislation with which people will be required to comply. We all know what happens with training schools. As soon as training is mentioned, people start rubbing their hands and thinking how much they will charge for it. We are talking about training for a one-off event.
When we introduce such legislation, we have to be careful not to put a burden on people. I know that Members have said that this is not a burden, but I hope that I have explained why I believe the Bill puts a burden on people whose main job is not security. I understand common-sense requirements being made of event organisers, but if someone’s main job is not security at such events, they are more likely simply to drop the event.
I also support the amendments about the ability of the Secretary of State to change regulations, because that ability relates to not just the size of the premises, which can be decreased, but the purpose for which the premises will be used, the people who can be held responsible, and the scope of the premises that can be covered. The powers in clause 32 to amend the legislation are fairly extensive, and if the Secretary of State decides that there are to be changes in those four areas, the legislation that we approve tonight could be radically different in a year’s time, because the review depends upon whether there is a need to reduce the vulnerability of events, as per clause 6(5).
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I pay tribute to Figen Murray and her campaign team. That she has somehow been able to channel personal grief into a fierce determination to change the law is beyond inspiring. We should be clear that we would not be here tonight without her campaigning efforts. The whole House owes her a debt of gratitude.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today. As ever, I will endeavour to respond to the points that have been raised. I am particularly grateful for the constructive approach that has been taken to considering the Bill, today and at previous stages. I place on the record my thanks to the Opposition for the constructive way in which they have approached the Bill throughout its passage. It is time that this cross-party commitment to improving the safety and security of venues is delivered without further delay, and I am proud that we are moving one step closer tonight.
As hon. Members have heard during the passage of the Bill, the threat picture is complex, evolving and enduring. Since 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots, and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks. In October, we heard from the director general of MI5 that the country is subject to the most interconnected threat environment that we have ever seen. Sadly, terrorists can seek to target a variety of locations. The examples of terrorist attacks that have been raised during the passage of the Bill are a sombre reminder of that. I pay tribute again to all victims and survivors of past attacks, as well as their loved ones, and all those affected. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting anyone affected by a terrorist attack.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister and, indeed, the Opposition on the Bill. Of course, all hon. Members hope that future attacks will be prevented by the Bill, but, as has been mentioned, it is also about planning to ensure increased survivability for those impacted by an attack. With that comes the need to ensure that the support we provide to victims is fit for purpose. What efforts will the Minister make to improve support for victims of terrorism?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the most humbling parts of this job is meeting those who have been the victims of terrorism and their families. I think of people like Figen Murray, Brendan Cox, Travis Frain, Dr Cath Hill—all people I have spoken to recently. We are working across Government to progress this important work, and I intend to meet victims and survivors in the new year to hear more about their experiences and say more about what we will do as a Government to support them.
The Bill will improve protective security and organisational preparedness across the UK, making us safer. We heard about the excellent work that many businesses and organisations already do to improve their security and preparedness. However, without a legislative requirement, there is no consistency. The Bill seeks to address that gap and complement the outstanding work that the police, the security services and other partners continue to do to combat the terror threat. As a result, qualifying premises and events should be better prepared to respond and to reduce harm in the event of a terrorist attack. Additionally, certain larger premises and events will have to take steps to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
The public have a right to feel safe, and that is what this legislation seeks to deliver. I am grateful for the considered way in which the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) approached the debate. It is clear that the focus of the Opposition’s amendments and concerns is on, among other things, the impact on business and smaller organisations. I assure him that that has been a central consideration for the Government, informed by extensive engagement, as well as pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee and two public consultations under the previous Government. As a result, the version of the Bill that this Government have brought forward includes important changes to ensure that we can achieve public protection outcomes and that there are no undue burdens on businesses and other organisations.
The Government have, of course, raised the standard tier threshold from 100 to 200, which creates a more appropriate scope. We have also added a reasonably practicable standard of requirements for the procedures required under both tiers. That concept is in line with other regulatory regimes, such as health and safety, and is designed to allow procedures and measures to be tailored to the specific circumstances of a premises or event.
Sir John Hayes
Mindful of what the Minister said about consulting and acting in accordance with the consultation, and of what I said earlier about the changing character of the threat, I ask him to commit from the Dispatch Box to considering, as the legislation begins to have effect, changing the guidance and improving regulation where necessary, sensitive to those circumstances.
Dan Jarvis
If the right hon. Gentleman bears with me for a moment, I intend to say more on the matter, but I assure him that if he is not satisfied, I will give way to him again.
We have introduced a fairer basis for calculating whether a premises or event is in scope. Replacing capacity with the “reasonable expectation” of the number of people who may be present will reflect the actual usage of premises or attendance at events. I am confident that this version of the Bill strikes precisely the right balance.
I turn to amendments 25 and 26 tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West for the Opposition. Clause 32 will allow the Secretary of State to increase or decrease the qualifying threshold for either tier. We anticipate that the thresholds would be reduced to either floor only in very limited circumstances, such as if the nature of the threat from terrorism were to change significantly. That will enable the regime to maintain an appropriate balance between being able to protect the public and managing the burden on those responsible for premises and events. The amendments proposed would remove that ability.
Furthermore, the power is narrowly drafted, and regulations made under it will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In requiring the approval of both Houses before they are made, parliamentarians will be able to scrutinise any proposed changes. The Government therefore do not support the amendments.
I thank the hon. Member for amendment 27. I thought he made his points in a reasonable way, as he often does. While I understand the sentiment, the Government do not support the amendment, but let me explain why. It is intended that the Security Industry Authority will rely on advice and guidance in the first instance. However, a credible enforcement regime with suitable monetary penalties is necessary to ensure that the regulator can secure compliance, particularly where the regulator identifies serious or persistent non-compliance.
The maximum daily penalty amounts are set at a level to counter financial gain from non-compliance, recognising the breadth of organisations in scope as well as the potentially more serious consequences at larger venues. It is important that the Secretary of State has the power, by regulation, to change those maximum amounts, including to increase them if necessary—for example, if the amounts were to prove ineffective in ensuring compliance, or the figures needed updating to reflect changes in economic circumstances in the longer term.
Critically, when determining penalty amounts, the Bill requires the SIA to take into account a range of factors, including the seriousness of the contravention, any action taken to remedy or mitigate its effects, and an organisation’s ability to pay. That will ensure the penalties are effective but proportionate. I reassure Members that changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure, unless they are simply to reflect inflation.
The hon. Member raised concerns over the role of the SIA as the regulator, which I believe is the motivation for tabling new clause 1. There are several reasons why the Government do not support the new clause. The Government are confident that the SIA is the right delivery option for the Martyn’s law regulator, owing to its years of experience in increasing security standards and ensuring public protection. It already plays an important role in safeguarding the public through its work regulating the private security industry. The SIA has long-established inspection and enforcement functions that ensure compliance with its licensing regime, and it already works with security partners to promote best practice around counter-terrorism protective security.
Dan Jarvis
If the hon. Member will bear with me, I am going to address some of the points he raised.
Furthermore, it will take at least 24 months following Royal Assent for the SIA to begin undertaking its enforcement duties. It would not be fair of us, nor indeed possible, to judge its performance before it has begun carrying out its new functions, which seems to be the effect of the new clause.
Dan Jarvis
I will make a bit of progress.
I can also assure the House that the Bill already contains provisions to ensure the appropriate oversight of the SIA. Ultimately, the Bill gives the SIA the tools that it will need to deliver its new enforcement functions successfully. We are committed to exploring wider opportunities to strengthen the SIA so that it can carry out its public protection role and deliver the Government’s ambitious agenda.
I turn to the amendments on training provision tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire). I thank him again for his interest in that important issue. As he knows, the Bill has been developed to ensure that those working at premises and events are better prepared to respond quickly to evolving situations in the event of a terrorist attack occurring or being suspected. Those workers make rapid decisions and take actions that could save lives. There is no specific training requirement in the Bill, but it is essential that workers with responsibility for carrying out public protection procedures are adequately instructed—and, where appropriate, trained—to do so. Training and instruction will be tailored to the premises and events in question, and to the procedures that they have developed, rather than our using a one-size-fits-all approach.
Dan Jarvis
I will make a bit more progress.
The Government think that the focus of premises and events should be on how to ensure that their people can effectively carry out their roles, rather than requiring the completion of generic modules or courses. We understand the importance of training, and so have committed to publishing free dedicated guidance and support. That guidance will ensure that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have the information required to understand and identify training needs. The Government also intend to signpost a range of training offers, including the significant support that we offer in the shape of access to expert advice and training on ProtectUK, which already includes free access to the “Action Counters Terrorism” and “See, Check and Notify” training packages. Furthermore, following Royal Assent, the Government intend for there to be an implementation period of at least 24 months before the legislation’s commencement. We are confident that that will allow sufficient time to understand the new obligations and to plan and prepare accordingly, including by training staff where necessary.
I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to respond to points made by a number of hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) made important points about the threat of terrorism. He also rightly paid tribute to Manchester city council for its work with local businesses. What he said about proportionality should reassure any businesses that might have concerns.
As a former police officer, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) speaks with great authority on these matters, and I pay tribute to him for his service. He rightly made the point that the Bill is not just about securing physical premises but has a wider value, and that protecting the public is not just a matter for Government; others also have an important responsibility in that area.
Let me turn to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been very patient. I have to say, I am a little mystified that he is not on the Opposition Front Bench. He seems an effective performer and responded well on Second Reading. [Interruption.] I am not sure that I am helping him, but I thought he made a strong contribution again tonight, and I found his words about Martyn’s legacy particularly moving. I am grateful for his constructive approach this evening and previously. He helpfully highlighted concerns about smaller venues, particularly small theatres. I assure him that there has been extensive consultation with smaller venues, although I am sorry that it did not include the constituency venue that he mentioned.
All hon. Members have village halls, churches and community halls in our constituencies, and we all recognise the hugely important role that volunteers play. The Government raised the standard tier threshold from 100 to 200 people specifically in response to the feedback, including from those operating smaller venues similar to ones that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley mentioned. We assess that that has resulted in a reduction in the proportion of village halls in scope of the Bill’s requirements from 56% under the original proposals to 13% now. I assure him that we will continue to work closely with smaller venues to ensure the easiest transition to the new arrangements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) said that the nature of terrorism is constantly evolving, and that we need to plan to protect against it. He pointed out that the Bill contains straightforward measures—prompts, essentially—that are light touch and proportionate. He also very helpfully referenced the Edinburgh example. I hope that that provides positive evidence of the potential benefits to businesses of the measures.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was constructive, as he always is. He speaks with great experience and authority on matters relating to terrorism, so I always listen carefully to what he has to say, and often find it profoundly moving, as I have again tonight. He mentioned churches, which he has raised with me before. The Government acknowledge that places of worship have a unique and important role in communities right across the country, and have considered them very carefully in the context of this legislation. We have consulted extensively with churches and with places of worship more generally, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to work closely with them to ensure that they have the support and guidance they need. That is a commitment that I make to him.
Dan Jarvis
I am conscious of time, so I will keep going, not least because I want to briefly reflect on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp). He spoke with personal conviction and experience, and I know that he understands the importance of preparation and planning—I will not say the second bit of that phrase. He also rightly paid tribute to our intelligence services, and I echo that tribute.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) spoke with authority, not just as a Member of this House but as a church warden, and made a really interesting point about critical challenge. I hope he will appreciate this point: the Bill is the result of two very extensive public consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny. It is forged from all that work. That is why I am confident that the measures in the Bill are proportionate and reasonable. However, I was grateful for the constructive challenge he offered.
The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made a number of constructive points about thresholds. I hope the responses I have already given have provided him and the venue in his constituency with the reassurance they want. Finally, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) spoke with passion, as he always does, and raised a number of entirely reasonable concerns. I am afraid that we will not agree on every aspect of them this evening, but I hope that he will at least acknowledge that the Government have worked incredibly hard to ensure that the Bill is proportionate and not unreasonable, given the nature of the threat we face.
I will touch briefly on the Government amendments, which make only very minor and technical changes to the Bill to ensure that its purpose and intent is clear. They include small drafting changes for consistency, to remove unnecessary text, and to clarify technical detail.
In closing, I again pay tribute to Figen Murray and her campaign team, and thank them. Their campaigning for this legislation has been an inspiration to us all. Figen’s son Martyn lost his life in the Manchester bombing. As the Home Secretary said on Second Reading,
“To suffer such a horrendous loss and somehow find the strength to fight for changes…is heroic.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 624.]
This is a vitally important Bill. The public deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events. It is therefore right that appropriate and reasonably practical steps be taken to protect staff and the public from the impact of terrorism. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. Security will always be the foundation on which everything else is built, and for this Government, nothing will matter more. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for his considered response to the debate. However, while entirely supporting the objectives of the Bill, we do not see why the Government cannot commit to a review of the effectiveness of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator, given that the Bill places an entirely new set of requirements on venues and an entirely new set of responsibilities on the SIA, so we will press new clause 1 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I start by thanking everyone across the House who has contributed to the debates on the Bill for their incisive and necessary contributions and their considered scrutiny. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather) who has done such an excellent job in whipping the Bill through. I also thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for their work on the Opposition Front Bench during the earlier stages of the Bill and the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for taking over so ably on Report. I look forward to continuing to work with him in his new role.
Hon. Members will be aware of the Bill’s history, coming as it does out of the tragic events of the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017. I take this opportunity once more to pay tribute to the 22 victims of the horrific Manchester Arena attack, and to Figen Murray, mother of one of the victims, Martyn Hett. Her campaigning has been crucial in driving the Bill forward. We would simply not be here debating this legislation without her.
During these debates, I have been particularly moved by the contributions of hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of constituents who have been affected by the attacks in Manchester, Borough Market and elsewhere, and the important reflections and lessons we can learn from recent history in Northern Ireland. The Bill is one part of our already extensive efforts across Government, including those of the police and security services, to combat the threat of terrorism. I take the opportunity to thank them for their vital work in keeping our country safe; we owe them a debt of gratitude.
As hon. Members have heard me say more than once in this place, the first responsibility of any Government is to keep the public safe. This cross-party commitment to improve the safety and security of venues in the wake of the Manchester Arena attack must be delivered without further delay. The Bill was a manifesto commitment, and I am proud that we have been able to introduce it so early in the Session. I thank colleagues from across the House for their support for the Bill, which has enabled it to progress through its stages in this place so smoothly. I am also grateful to the previous members of the Home Affairs Committee for their report; its recommendations have been crucial in shaping the Bill.
I also take the opportunity to say an enormous thank you to the following people: Ella Terry in my private office; the Bill team of Tom Ball, Chloe White, James Fair and Izzy Hancock; Michelle Chapman and the policy team; Kris Lee and his legal team; Joel Wolchover and Tim McAtackney at the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel; and Debbie Bartlett and Shaun Hipgrave, whose leadership over several years has been exemplary. I also thank all the many civil servants, including those in the Home Office analysis and insight and comms teams, who have worked on the Bill with great diligence and professionalism. Many of them have done so for several years. Finally, I thank the fantastic staff of this place for their work in supporting the Bill’s logistics, in particular the Doorkeepers and the parliamentary Clerks’ team.
I finish with a gentle word of encouragement to colleagues in the other place. It has been wonderful to have seen consensus on the Bill in this place. I hope that they will agree with us on the importance of the Bill and that this manifesto commitment can proceed as smoothly through the other place as it has done here. After several years, and as Figen has said, it is time to get this done.
Matt Vickers
Recent years have seen too many tragedies and too many precious lives taken by terrorist attacks—hurt that will never truly heal. Despite those tragedies, inspirational people such as Figen Murray and Survivors Against Terror have shown us that good can come from bad, and that the power is in our hands to act, even in the shadow of grief. Martyn’s law and everyone who has worked to make it a reality are an embodiment of that spirit.
Implementing this legislation will require us all to work together. National security is a collective endeavour. Organisations affected by the changes are acutely aware of their responsibility. They understand the importance of protecting their customers from terror, and are committed to ensuring that people can attend concerts, exhibitions and performances with the confidence that they are safe. That spirit of collaboration and mutual responsibility ultimately will make the provisions in Martyn’s law a success.
The responsibility goes both ways. Just as we expect venues to take the necessary steps in the Bill, they expect the Government to approach its implementation in a measured and sensible manner. I want to finish by thanking the Government for continuing the important work on the Bill, and to reiterate to the Minister my willingness to work with him on its passing and implementation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 December 2024 - (9 Dec 2024)
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Tuesday 7th January 2025
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 December 2024 - (9 Dec 2024)
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on the first Home Office Bill to come before this Parliament under the current Government. I want to start with why we are here today. It has been more than seven years since an appalling act of terrorism was perpetrated as a music concert drew to a close in the Manchester Arena. Twenty-two people were killed and many more injured on that terrible night in May 2017. We think of them today and hold their loved ones in our thoughts and hearts, as we do with everyone who has been impacted by terrorism.
Noble Lords will be aware that this legislation has been a long time in preparation, including—and I acknowledge this—by the previous Conservative Government. It has been a long time coming but is now before us today. This Government wanted to move swiftly to introduce the Bill following the general election, to deliver on our manifesto commitment and the promise that the Prime Minister made to Figen Murray, who has campaigned tirelessly to introduce today’s proposed law. Figen’s son, Martyn Hett, was among those killed in the Manchester Arena attack. The fact that we are debating this Bill today is a direct result of her tenacity and persistence, and that of her colleagues in the campaign team. The commitment and courage that she has shown in campaigning for changes that will benefit others is, quite frankly, extraordinary. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to her for all that she has done and continues to do in the field of terrorist prevention. The Bill we are debating today is the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill but, in essence, for the reasons I have just mentioned and due to the campaigning spirit of Figen Murray, this Bill is now Martyn’s law.
Noble Lords across this House will agree that the number one priority of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. Sadly, since the start of 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks, including the Manchester Arena attack I referred to. These incidents have shown that the public may be targeted at a wide range of events and public venues and spaces. The nature of the terror threat has become less predictable and potential attacks harder to detect and investigate. While we recognise that the risks posed by terrorism are already considered at some premises and events, the absence of legislation and requirements means there is no consistent approach, which then results in varied outcomes.
Engagement with business has highlighted that counterterrorism preparedness often falls behind areas where there are long-established legal requirements, such as health and safety. If that were not enough, the Manchester Arena Inquiry and the prevention of future deaths report from the London Bridge and Borough Market inquests called for clarity of responsibility for venue operators regarding protective security. That simply is what this Bill aims to do. It is designed to bolster the UK’s preparedness for and protection from terrorism. It will achieve this by requiring for the first time that those responsible for certain premises and events consider how they would respond in the event of a terrorist attack. Further, at larger premises and events, additional steps will need to be taken to reduce vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
To be in scope of the Bill as qualifying premises, 200 or more individuals must be reasonably expected from time to time to be present at the particular premises at once. In addition, the premises must be used for one or more of the uses specified in Schedule 1 to the Bill—for example, as a venue, restaurant or bar. For those premises that are in scope, a tiered approach has been established by the Government, with requirements varying accordingly.
We have tried generally to put premises where 800 or more individuals are reasonably expected in an enhanced tier. Premises where between 200 and 799 individuals are reasonably expected to attend will fall into a standard tier. Events will be in scope only where 800 or more individuals are reasonably expected to be present on site for the event at any point and where the other conditions in Clause 3 are met, including that there is an appropriate level of control of access to the event. These qualifying events will also be in the enhanced tier. In limited cases, the Bill ensures that some qualifying premises will be placed in the standard tier regardless of numbers, such as places of worship. This recognises that places of worship play a unique and important role in communities across the country and are often readily accessible and welcoming to all.
This means that there will be certain requirements for those premises. Those responsible for the qualifying premises and events will be required to notify the Security Industry Authority that they are responsible for qualifying premises or events, and to have in place appropriate public protection procedures to reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals in the event of an act of terrorism at or near the premises or event. These two requirements apply to all in scope of the Bill but are the only obligations on those responsible for premises in the standard tier.
What does “public protection” mean? Public protection procedures are intended to be simple and low-cost. There is no requirement to put in place physical measures under this requirement, but there are four categories of procedure. First, evacuation—meaning the process of getting people safely out of the premises—needs to be identified. The second is a word I had not come across until recently: invacuation, which means the process of bringing people safely into safe parts within the premises if required. The third is lockdown, which is the process of securing premises to restrict or prevent entry by an attacker by, for example, locking doors or closing shutters. The last is communication, which relates to the process of alerting people on the premises to the incident and directing them away from danger.
In recognition of the potential greater impact of an attack, premises and events in the enhanced tier will be required to consider additional requirements. This includes the requirement to assess the public protection measures that are appropriate to reduce the risk of harm or vulnerability to a terrorist attack and, so far as is reasonably practical, to ensure that such measures are in place. These public protection measures are as follows: first, measures relating to the monitoring of premises and events and their immediate vicinity, which could include monitoring for warning signs and suspicious behaviour that might indicate a potential attack; secondly, measures relating to the movement of individuals into, out of and within the premises at an event, such as search and screening processes; thirdly, measures relating to the physical safety and security of the premises or event, such as safety glass or hostile vehicle mitigation, where appropriate; and, fourthly, measures that relate to the security of information about the premises or event that may assist in the planning, preparation or execution of acts of terrorism.
In the enhanced tier, the organisations responsible will be required to provide the Security Industry Authority with a document setting out their public protection procedures and measures, and how these may be expected to reduce the vulnerability and risk of harm from terrorism. Where the responsible person is a body and not an individual, it will be required to designate a senior individual to have responsibility within the body for ensuring compliance with the legislation’s requirements. However, I assure the House that this person will not be directly or personally liable for compliance. Part 2 amends the licensing legislation in England, Wales and Scotland to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information in those premises plans.
None of this is practical unless we have compliance and enforcement on top. I hope noble Lords will agree that it is no use having these requirements if an effective enforcement regime is not in place to ensure compliance. The Government have determined that, given the Security Industry Authority’s years of experience of increasing security standards around public safety and its wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation that better protects the public, it is the most appropriate body to oversee enforcement. My department, the Home Office, will work closely with the SIA to develop its new regulatory function, building on existing expertise and knowledge in both the Home Office and the SIA. It will, I hope, bring in the right people, with the right expertise, to ensure an effective and proportionate regulatory approach.
The Government are clear that they will expect the SIA’s role to be supporting and advising businesses in the implementation of the legislation in the first instance, if approved by this Parliament. However, it is necessary for the SIA to have an appropriate toolkit of powers and sanctions to carry out inspections and enforce the new regime. This will include the power to issue penalties for serious or persistent non-compliance. To reflect the potential for more serious consequences at larger premises and events, we have included in the legislation weightier penalties for the enhanced tier. These sanctions will be primarily civil, with a small number of criminal offences to underpin the regime and deal with serious non-compliance. Looking at Clause 20, I assure noble Lords that the SIA will be required to consider a range of factors when determining the amount of penalty, including the ability of the premises or event to pay any penalty.
The Bill also requires the SIA to prepare operational guidance, which will set out how it will discharge its duties. Such guidance will be approved by Ministers at the Home Secretary level.
I reassure noble Lords that there will be a significant amount of time following Royal Assent, if this House approves the Bill, before these requirements will be commenced—at least 24 months. We are doing that so that those organisations can plan and understand, guidance can be delivered and there can be a transitional period to ensure that the objectives are achieved in a way that is helpful to all. That will ensure that those responsible for premises and events will be given time to understand and, where necessary, act upon the new requirements. The Government will also continue to work closely with businesses and organisations to help them to prepare for the new requirements.
As the Home Secretary said when this Bill was debated in the House of Commons, wherever they are and whatever they are doing, people deserve to be safe and feel safe. This Bill is designed to complement the tireless and excellent work that our security services, police and other partners already do to keep us safe. To that end, I echo the words of the Home Secretary in saying thank you to everybody across the national security sphere for all that they do. This Bill is about action when a terrorist event occurs, but I reassure the House that the Government’s focus will always be making sure that the public are protected and that we use the powers of government to secure the safety of the public from potential attack in the first place.
Noble Lords will no doubt be familiar with the Bill’s long history, which I have touched on, and the extensive engagement, scrutiny and debate that have gone into the proposals. The proposals I have outlined have included a draft version of the legislation, which underwent pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Select Committee in the Commons, under the previous Government. The Bill has been developed with the aid of two public consultations, conducted by the previous Government in 2021 and 2024. Under this Government, as under the last, we are trying to get the issue right for this House and for the public.
Throughout these processes, a number of concerns have been raised about the legislation’s potential impact, some of which may be reflected in this House today—but I hope that I have listened to, understood and acted on those concerns as reflected. This Government have substantially adjusted the Bill, with some changes from the last Government’s proposals, to strike the right balance in achieving public protection objectives but without placing undue burdens on business or other organisations. Crucially, this Government have raised the threshold for the Bill’s scope from 100 to 200 individuals attending an event. Furthermore, premises and events will meet that threshold, or the 800 threshold for the enhanced tier, only when it is reasonable to expect that at least as many people will be present there at the same time. This approach has been designed to ensure that they are not unfairly brought within the scope based on size alone.
We have also further clarified that the requirements are not one size fits all, which I hope helps the House. Rather, they are to be based on a more location-specific approach. That reflects the fact that the procedures and measures in place at particular premises and events might not be appropriate, reasonable or practical at another event.
Finally, on the reason why the practical standard now applies to public protection procedures required in both tiers, this is a concept which we expect the majority if not all of those in scope to be familiar with, as it is utilised in other regulatory regimes, such as health and safety. We are confident that, with those changes, the Bill strikes an appropriate balance.
That is the Bill before this House. I expect that there will be comment and discussion on this Second Reading, which I welcome. Before I finish, I pay tribute once more to Figen Murray and all those who have campaigned tirelessly for change. It falls to us with this legislation to carry the heavy burden that they have carried since 2017 and to get it on to the statue book as a matter of some urgency.
I thank those in the House of Commons for their scrutiny of the Bill to date and my honourable friend the Security Minister, Dan Jarvis, for his leadership on that. Those in the other place worked constructively and collaboratively to ensure that the Bill is in the best shape possible. I am sure we will experience the same from noble Lords across this House, and I am grateful to those noble Lords who attended the briefing I held yesterday or other meetings organised to discuss the Bill in detail. There is a wealth of experience in this House, and I know that many Members will feel the contents of the Bill personally. I look forward to the scrutiny today and in the coming weeks by noble Lords from across the House. As I look at the list of speakers, I know that they will bring fruitful contributions and suggestions that we will consider, look at and reflect on in due course.
The Bill deserves urgent support to get it through this House. The public rightly deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events. We think we have the right balance. We hope the Bill, as designed by the current Government, will be given a Second Reading and will complete its passage in this House, but we know there will be contributions and discussions today. I think it is important that locations take appropriate steps, as far as reasonably practicable, to protect staff and the public from the horrific events of terrorism.
It does not happen very often, but this Bill, if passed by this House, will save lives. It will aid people to save lives. It will be a testament to the people who have lost lives in the past and I commend it to the House.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to address the House at the outset of this important debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill represents a critical step forward in our collective efforts to safeguard the public from the ever-evolving threat of terrorism. As we did when we first introduced this Bill, we on these Benches recognise our solemn duty to protect the security of our citizens while preserving the freedoms and liberties that underpin our society. The Bill seeks to strike a balance between these imperatives, and I welcome the Government’s decision to bring it forward.
I wish to speak to the work done by Figen Murray, the mother of Martyn Hett, who, among others, tragically lost his life in the Manchester Arena terrorist attack. Figen’s advocacy for this law, alongside that of Detective Chief Inspector Nick Aldworth and Brendan Cox, is a testament to how, from great tragedy and hurt, some good can come. It is fitting that the Bill is more commonly known as Martyn’s law, and I join once again in offering sincere condolences to the relatives of the deceased.
The horrific events of recent years, both at home and abroad, have underscored the need for robust measures to prevent attacks and mitigate their impact. The Bill places the onus on those responsible for high-risk premises to take practical steps to ensure public safety. The introduction of a Protect duty to ensure that venues assess risks and take proportionate actions to mitigate them is a principle that I wholeheartedly support. We live in an age when threats to our national security are diverse and very dynamic. The ability to respond swiftly and effectively, whether to physical threats or those emanating from cyber domains, is paramount. This legislation reinforces the message that we are serious about countering terrorism and protecting our citizens in public places.
We Conservatives believe in the principles of responsibility and accountability. The Bill reflects those values by requiring venue operators to play their part in safeguarding the public. It encourages businesses and organisations to take ownership of their security arrangements and supports a culture of preparedness that will undoubtedly save lives. Furthermore, by focusing on proportionality and risk-based assessments, the Bill will ensure that smaller businesses and community venues are not unduly burdened—a welcome consideration that reflects the realities that local enterprises face across the country.
However, while we broadly support the Bill, it is our duty as legislators to scrutinise it carefully to ensure that its implementation is both effective and fair. There are issues that require clarification, and I therefore have a few questions for the Minister. First, on cost and resource implications, many businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, are still recovering from the economic challenges of recent years. What financial and logistical support will be made available to ensure compliance, particularly for venues that lack the expertise or resources to implement these measures?
On the practicality of enforcement, how will the Government ensure that the Protect duty is enforced consistently across the country? Will there be a clear framework to avoid a patchwork approach that might leave gaps in our national security network? On co-ordination with local authorities, local councils will inevitably play a role in supporting the implementation of the Bill, so has sufficient thought been given to the capacity of local authorities to provide guidance and oversight, particularly in areas where resources are already stretched?
On cybersecurity considerations, in an increasingly interconnected world, how does the Bill address the intersection of physical and cyber threats to premises? Are venue operators equipped with the knowledge to protect themselves against both forms of attack? While the principle of proportionality is embedded in the Bill, how will it be applied in practice to ensure that smaller community venues are not inadvertently discouraged from hosting public events due to perceived administrative or financial burdens?
The Bill is a vital step forward in our efforts to protect the public from the scourge of terrorism. It embodies Conservative values by emphasising responsibility, proportionality, and a collaborative approach to security. However, as always, the devil is in the detail. It is incumbent on us to ensure that this legislation is implemented in a way that is practical, fair and effective. By addressing the questions I have raised, we can strengthen the Bill and ensure that it delivers on its promise to enhance the safety of our citizens without placing undue burdens on those tasked with its implementation. This side of the House looks forward to engaging constructively with the Government and noble Lords across the House to refine this important legislation. Together, we can ensure that our country remains secure and free, a balance that lies at the heart of our Conservative values.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to the Bill and for the very collaborative approach he has adopted so far, which is extremely welcome. I echo his words and those of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in paying tribute to Figen Murray and the work of the campaign team, which has been tireless and, I hope, will be ultimately successful in passing this Bill very soon.
Keeping people safe, protected and secure when they are in public venues has to be a key responsibility of the state. For that reason, these Benches welcome the introduction of the Bill and will continue to work with the Government and on a cross-party basis to ensure that we have at the end of this process the best possible legislation, which is both proportionate and workable in practice.
The Bill has been broadly welcomed by all key interest groups, including the victims’ families. It is important that we continue to reach out to all those with detailed or personal understanding and knowledge. In that regard, I am very grateful for the briefing we have received from the Martyn’s law campaign team and Figen Murray. In all our deliberations, it is essential that we remember the potential human impact of not getting this right. The Manchester Arena terror attack was utterly heartbreaking. Deliberately targeting children and young people at a concert is beyond evil. It is so important that we learn lessons from that and other terrorist attacks. Inaction is simply not an option.
The nature of terrorism is changing. There are increased global tensions, including ongoing wars in the Middle East, Sudan and Ukraine. There is growth in state terrorism and information—and misinformation —wars are constantly developing. Threats are no longer necessarily from organised groups. Lone individuals, often with mental health issues and motivated by things they believe that they have read online, can organise random attacks resulting in devastating death and destruction, as we so tragically witnessed over the Christmas holidays in Magdeburg in Germany and New Orleans in the United States.
All this means that we have to change how we think about security, terrorism and potential attacks. As the very powerful briefing note we received from the Martyn’s law campaign team reminded us, we need to ensure that this new law
“will mobilise society against these enduring, and ever-changing, threats and make us more resistant to terrorism, and more resilient as a society … As the tactics of terrorists change, so must our strategies to defeat them”.
As the Minister reminded us, there have been many stages to reaching the Bill we are debating today, including pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation, which have resulted in some substantive changes to the previous draft introduced by the Conservative Party. Notably, the threshold has been increased from 100 to 200 for the standard-sized venues or events. This has not been universally welcomed, with some believing the figure is still too low and others feeling it is now too high.
This is no doubt a subject we will return to in more detail in Committee, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could say in his concluding remarks how the Government intend to assess the appropriateness of setting the threshold at 200, and what criteria and timeframe they will use to make this judgment.
It is very important that there is public trust in this legislation. So many organisations will be directly impacted, from local government to the entertainment industry, the voluntary sector, small businesses and the insurance industry, to name just those that made contact with us ahead of this debate. It is important to keep consulting them to ensure that unintended consequences stemming from this legislation are kept to a minimum.
One issue raised by a great many organisations is the need for greater clarity regarding training and guidance. I know that some welcome commitments, specifically on training, were given to my honourable friend Ben Maguire MP in Committee in the House of Commons, but I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about how the Government intend to ensure an overview of the quality of the guidance and training. In particular, it would be helpful if he could say by whom and how trainers and training courses will be approved.
Closely related to the issue of guidance is the issue of communication and information flow. It is vital that all organisations that will have to comply with this new legislation are aware of what they have to do, in what timeframe, what their responsibilities are and why it is important. They will also need to know what financial assistance, if any, will be available to them. I am sure that the Government are planning a significant information campaign about this legislation, but it would be extremely useful to hear a little more about their communications plans from the Minister in his concluding remarks.
There is also the equally important issue of the information flow from the security services, on which I am sure other noble Lords speaking in the debate will concentrate. It is particularly important for larger venues, especially during times of enhanced national threat levels, that there is an adequate communication between larger venues and the security sector. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about how the interface between the security services preventing terrorism in the first place and those responsible for ensuring security in premises will work in practice.
My final area of concern is enforcement, on which the Minister concentrated rather a lot in his speech. Like him, I believe there is no point in passing new legislation if it is not enforced. Last week, following the New Orleans attacks, there were reports in our media that many of the permanent anti-terror barriers have still not been built in the UK following the 2017 attacks. Several key bridges in London, for example, have not yet introduced the necessary safety barriers. I appreciate that such outdoor attacks would be beyond the scope of this Bill—which is about protecting premises—but the wider issue of enforcement and implementation is incredibly important, not least in terms of ensuring public confidence in the process.
As I understand it, the SIA, the new regulator, will have the power to enforce the anti-terrorism measures springing from the Bill. The public need to have confidence that the measures will be backed up by rigorous enforcement and accompanied by the necessary funding. Can the Minister say whether he is confident that the enforcement measures in the Bill will be strong enough? How will they be monitored? Does he not agree that the SIA will require additional resources and funding?
Getting this Bill right is terribly important, but so is getting the balance right. People must never be too scared to go out and live their lives; nor should we produce laws that end up stifling creativity or local activity and volunteering. We need to ensure that the provisions in the Bill are proportionate. The costs of implementation must not be overly burdensome for small organisations. However, that has to be weighed against the cost of not having effective protection strategies in place. First and foremost, there needs to be confidence that systems and security measures are in place to protect people in public venues. As the Minister said, there has been an extremely long wait for this legislation, but I hope we can now work quickly and effectively, and as thoroughly as we can, to get it done.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, this Bill has been forged in reaction to a despicable terrorist attack, dignified by the name of one of its victims, promoted by his courageous mother and subject to a high degree of cross-party consensus. Those are all admirable things, but they also underline the need for serious and dispassionate parliamentary scrutiny.
It is sometimes said that the meaningful scrutiny of Bills is nowadays the province of this House only, and examples of that are not unknown. However, having followed the progress of this Bill through the Commons, with particular reference to the work of the Public Bill Committee and the Home Affairs Select Committee—the independence of which on this matter was notable— I have a lot of respect for the evidence they have taken and the work they have done. That is now reflected in the reformulated and, I must say, improved Bill. I particularly welcome the test of reasonable practicability, so familiar from health and safety legislation, and the changes to the lower threshold for qualifying premises, which is strongly supported by the National Association of Local Councils. It will take out of the scope of the Bill over 100,000 premises—including small parish churches, village halls and town centre cafes—that cannot reasonably be expected to host as many as 200 people.
I remember discussing with Tom Tugendhat, when he was the Security Minister responsible for the Bill, whether it was necessary to put the limit as low as a capacity of 100. He of course held the line at the time, but it was interesting to see that, once released from his responsibilities, he tabled an amendment in Committee that sought to raise the revised lower limit from 200 to 300.
I am grateful to the Minister for meeting with me on this issue. I hope he will forgive me if I remain slightly sceptical about the likely value of the obligations placed on the smallest standard duty premises. A £3,313 average cost over 10 years is not a trivial amount for a financially marginal business or a village hall struggling to raise funds. Yet compliance with the standard duty, as can be seen in Clause 1(1), is intended not to reduce the vulnerability of such premises to acts of terrorism, but to reduce only the risk of physical harm once an act of terrorism is imminent or has started. As the Minister covered in his opening speech, Clause 5(3) demonstrates what that will mean: guarding and locking doors, ensuring that people know where the exits are, and so on.
Bearing in mind the modest extent of the standard duty, I wonder how much the centrally available guidance, which operators are supposed to download, will add to the common sense of those who operate small venues and know them inside out, particularly when, as is thankfully the case in most places, the risk of a terrorist attack is almost vanishingly small. The Minister probably feels that by shifting the minimum threshold to 200 he has reached a widely acceptable compromise, and he may well be right.
However, I remain concerned by the ease by which, by affirmative regulation, 100,000 extra premises could be brought within the scope of the Bill, and many more made subject to the enhanced duties. After a terrorist attack, it can be tempting for any Government to be seen to take immediate action to tighten up the law. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady May, to whom it was my great privilege to report as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, was made of stronger stuff, and so, I suspect, is the Minister. But others do succumb to temptation of this kind, and activating such a power would be an obvious and tempting response.
I make two suggestions. Just to concentrate minds a little, could the operation of Clause 32 not be made conditional on the Secretary of State being satisfied that changing the threshold is justified on the basis of the terrorist threat? That is in the Delegated Powers Committee memorandum; why not put it in the Bill? This would not prevent it being done, but it would make it more likely that it will be done for the right reasons. Secondly, the Delegated Powers Committee memorandum claims as a precedent for this power Section 2 of the Fire Safety Act 2021, which indeed provides for a similar affirmative power to change premises to which the fire safety order applies, but that section contains a statutory obligation to consult. Bearing in mind the extensive consultation that arrived at the figures of 200 and 800, surely at least some consultation would be appropriate before Ministers intervene to change them by regulation.
I have a couple of other points. Noble Lords will have seen a submission from LIVE, which describes itself as the live music industry body in the UK. LIVE makes the point that music festivals, venues and events are already regulated under the Licensing Act 2003, with, where appropriate, highly developed counter- terrorism measures secured by licence conditions. This is overseen, it says, by safety advisory groups which take advice from local police forces and local counterterrorism security co-ordinators. Is that a picture the Minister recognises and, if so, can he give us some more detail on what the regime in the Bill will add to what is described? I do not doubt it will add something. Will the mechanisms described by LIVE persist after Martyn’s law has entered into force? How will any overlap be dealt with, and how will the existing mechanisms be integrated into the approach of the SIA? It would be good to hear more about this since, as the Regulatory Policy Committee points out, the Bill’s impact assessment provides no evidence that a new regulator with national inspectors would be efficient compared with local authority compliance, and the new regulator is of course given very strong enforcement powers.
Finally, I noticed from Schedule 2 that certain premises are excluded from the Bill. Premises occupied by the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are excluded, but those occupied by the United Kingdom Civil Service are not. I wonder if the Minister can tell us why. Also excluded from the Bill are premises occupied for the purposes of the devolved legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I assume that these premises, or some of them, are considered to fall within Schedule 1; otherwise, no exclusion from the Bill would be necessary. No doubt other precautions are in place, but although we are frequently urged to do our fire safety training, I do not recall hearing anything about the threat of terrorism, which is perhaps rather greater here than it is in my village hall. I should be grateful if the Minister told us what difficulties there are in applying the standard and enhanced duties to Westminster as they are applied to Whitehall, and explained why parliamentary buildings are exempt.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, as a bishop whose diocese includes around 300 places of worship, most of which will find that this Bill directly applies to them, I have, along with my right reverend friends on these Benches, a very obvious interest to declare. But as the Bishop of Manchester, I have a more specific reason for wanting to see this Bill reach the statute book. Martyn Hett, whose name is immortalised in the informal title by which we know this Bill, was killed some three minutes’ walk from my cathedral. We are all grateful for the persistence of his mother, Figen, over these last seven years, and for achieving the degree of cross-party consensus that has brought us to this point today.
In the immediate aftermath of the Manchester attack, it fell to me to help lead my city and its people in how we responded. I spoke then of the crucial difference between defiance and revenge. For me, that comes direct from my reading of the Christian scriptures, but the application is for those of all faiths and none. The terrorist sought to divide us. Acts of revenge by one part of the community against another would have played into his hands.
Instead, we showed our defiance. We came together in one of the most moving examples of a community embracing its diversity and showing its love that I have ever seen. We in Manchester were helped in responding to the atrocity by the support given to us by national leaders, not least the then Prime Minister, the now noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, whom it is a pleasure to see in her place among us this afternoon.
Crucially, by being defiant we did not allow the extremists to determine how we lived our lives. We did not cower behind our front doors. We did not retreat to the safety of those who looked, thought or believed like us. We got on with our lives, while being somewhat more vigilant than before. That same principle needs to lie at the heart of this Bill. Its provisions need to be such that they do not lead to mass cancellations of events, nor to the closure of social, commercial and religious venues which cannot afford the costs of compliance. What we enact in this Bill must be proportionate. It must balance the very real risks that we face with the need for us to live as we choose, not as the terrorists seek to dictate.
I think that we have got that balance broadly right in the form that the Bill has reached us. I am grateful for the various amendments made in the other place. It is right that we focus on the expected attendance at an event rather than some technical capacity of a building. Many of my churches are built to hold the largest occasion likely ever to be required. While I pray for the day when every service is as packed as it is on Christmas Eve, I need to be realistic, and we all need to pursue measures commensurate with the numbers that we expect. The same will apply to many other venues.
I am grateful, like other noble Lords, for the standard tier commencing at 200 rather than 100. This will save smaller events, often community-led and dependent on volunteers. It will help vital local venues remain open to serve their community. However, increasing the figure to 300 would go too far. I am minded to oppose any changes to the number during the future stages of the Bill.
While we are still at an early stage of our consideration of the Bill in this House, I hope that either today or at a later stage the Minister can offer faith and voluntary sector groups, along with other less commercial venues, training that is free, easy to access and available in a wide range of languages and formats. We all need to be fully equipped for the responsibilities that this Bill assigns to us. Given that places of worship across all main religions form between 10% and 20% of the affected premises at a guess, I ask the Minister for his assurance that His Majesty’s Government will produce guidance specifically to address these contexts before the Bill is enacted. I assure him that I and others stand ready to help in that task in any way that we can.
I thank those who drafted the Bill for recognising that places of worship are special and are allocated accordingly to the standard tier irrespective of capacity or likely attendance. As other noble Lords have noted, this appropriately recognises the relationship between those buildings and the communities that they serve and the deep experience that faith communities have of working with police and specialist security providers for those occasional very large events that we host.
Much will no doubt be said, later today and as we go on, about the role of the SIA as regulator. As with the other provisions of the Bill, the regulator’s powers and responsibilities need to be proportionate to the task. We do not want a toothless tiger or an overbearing and unaccountable overlord, but I will listen carefully to the arguments made on the powers, responsibilities and accountabilities of the regulator as the Bill progresses.
Finally, while reiterating my thanks and those of my colleagues on these Benches to Figen Murray, I also single out Brendan Cox, whose wife Jo was murdered while fulfilling her parliamentary duties. I have had the privilege of meeting him on a number of occasions and offering my support to what he, Figen and others have been doing over these last few years to address the ever-present threat of terrorist atrocities. However, Jo’s death reminds us that one of the main ongoing terror threats in the UK, as recognised by our security forces, comes from those inspired by extreme right-wing voices. These seem to be increasingly tolerated, perhaps even encouraged, on some social media platforms. Beyond the scope of this Bill but building on the exchanges that we had at Oral Questions earlier today, I urge His Majesty’s Government to complete the implementation of the Online Safety Act now, as a matter of urgency, so that fines based on total global earnings can be levied against those who seek to undermine our parliamentary democracy from outside the UK.
It is not enough for us to focus purely on security at public events; we need to get upstream. This year, 2025, must be the year when Britain takes decisive action against those who seek to radicalise others or to normalise violence in pursuit of political ends, whether they come from within the UK or beyond our shores, and no matter how wealthy or how powerfully connected they may be.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.
I will also start by paying tribute to Figen Murray: tempered by her own experience of the tragedy of the Manchester Arena terrorist attack, her work promoting the principles behind the Bill has been nothing short of extraordinary. Not only has she campaigned, but she has researched the subject and was awarded an MSc by the University of Central Lancashire in 2021. Her thesis, which I have read—particularly as I am quoted in it—argues that legislation needs to be part of a wider initiative to inform the public, so that people can be empowered to be more vigilant and more conscious of their personal safety. A legislative framework and public awareness not only have to go hand in hand but are mutually reinforcing.
In 2016, Mayor Sadiq Khan—I congratulate him on his knighthood in the New Year Honours List—asked me to report on London’s preparedness to respond to a major terrorist incident. One of my recommendations, published six months before the Manchester Arena attack, was that, as a condition of licensing, venues should have to be reviewed by a police counterterrorism security adviser and to have taken the necessary action as a result of that review.
The point of this, which is implicit in the Bill before your Lordships’ House, is that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. Each venue is different and faces a different type of threat, but the principle of carrying out a basic assessment of the risk and taking sensible, proportionate security measures is simple, straightforward and should be unavoidable.
Concert halls, theatres and other venues must, by law, take fire precautions as well as meeting other regulatory requirements. It seems extraordinary, therefore, that, until the Bill passes, there is no requirement on them to take advice on reducing the risk of a terrorist attack and to take sensible precautions. In some instances, bag checks may be enough; in others, they may want to look at other measures. In extreme cases, metal detectors or knife arches may be more appropriate for the largest of venues. Similar rules should also apply to sports stadia, large shops and shopping malls.
This principle was accepted by the previous Government. The 2019 Conservative manifesto said:
“In the wake of the terrible events in Manchester in 2017, we will improve the safety and security of public venues”.
Last year’s manifesto was even more explicit:
“We will urgently introduce Martyn’s Law … This will ensure premises are better prepared for terrorist attacks by requiring them to take proportionate steps to mitigate risks”.
Thus, there is wide political consensus about this measure and, after the delays of the last few years, I am pleased that this new Government are at last taking action.
Let us be clear: terrorism has not gone away. Only last week, we saw the car ramming in New Orleans. Ken McCallum—also knighted in the New Year Honours List, and whom I also congratulate—warned in October that:
“Since March 2017, MI5 and the police have together disrupted 43 late-stage attack plots”.
“Some of those … were … in the final days of planning mass murder”,
at the point when the intervention took place.
The nature of the terrorist threat has changed. It no longer necessarily comes from organised groups. In my second report for the Mayor of London, completed three years ago, I warned that attacks are increasingly committed by individuals who operate alone, frequently self-radicalising and learning techniques online. Attacks of this nature are inevitably harder to detect and prevent in advance. They may also be opportunistic and mean that the range and nature of potential targets have widened to include far more venues that previously would not have been considered under any circumstances.
What is more, while the majority of those planning attacks would appear to be Islamist extremists, an increasing proportion are domestic and extreme right-wing. As Ken McCallum said, MI5 and the police are increasingly encountering would-be terrorists who are more volatile and with only a tenuous grasp of the ideologies they profess to follow, and it is becoming harder these days to determine whether a particular act or planned act of violence is ideologically motivated or driven by another factor such as mental health. It does not really matter what the ideation or motivation is: the effects are the same, and the needs for the sensible precautions being included in this Bill remain under all those circumstances, irrespective of whether it is traditional terrorism or something else.
Of course, as I warned three years ago, in online spaces, extremism is increasingly prevalent and, more worrying still, has become almost normalised; this point has just been made by the right reverend Prelate. This spills over into greater polarisation in the real world, which, in turn, can and does lead to violence. That is the context of modern terrorism, and that is why anyone can be a target. The first volume of the Manchester Arena inquiry reported:
“None of those directly concerned with security at the Arena … considered it a realistic possibility that a terrorist attack would happen there”.
Yet, as we know, it did, and 22 people were killed and 1,017 injured. That is why this Bill is needed.
Nowadays, it is taken as a given that the places we visit abide by health and safety regulations and will take appropriate fire precautions. It is surely not unreasonable to expect them also to take appropriate and proportionate protection measures against terrorist violence. Now, of course, better security checks and a Protect duty will not prevent terrorism, but they make soft targets harder. Where many people congregate together, they have a right to expect that the appropriate and proportionate measures to protect them will have been taken. The aim should be that all venues have their own Protect plan and, in the event of an incident, be geared up to guide and shelter those who visit. At the very least, those responsible should have considered the implications—how to evacuate, how to invacuate, what doors should be locked, and so on—and that this has been conveyed to those working in the location concerned. It is much better to have thought about it, even just a little bit, before an event happens than to be doing so in the heat of an attack.
The principle has to apply to other sectors as well. In the past, most places of worship—again, the right reverend Prelate has talked about this—have often seemed to operate on the basis that an attack would not happen to them because of their innate goodness, but they, too, need to plan and take sensible precautions. They have been the subject of attacks in Europe and elsewhere. Of course, it is difficult: places of worship are intended to be open places of sanctuary and peace, but that does not mean that they cannot be targets, and sensible and proportionate measures should be taken there too.
In my 2016 review, I made a series of recommendations on strengthening the Protect responsibilities, which I think remain valid today, including that the Home Office will need to provide more funding for CT security advisers around the country; that counterterrorism advice should automatically be taken by those applying for venue and event licences; that there should be short- form advice on CT matters for small and micro businesses rolled out using local authority and neighbourhood policing networks, so that everyone has access to that sort of sensible advice; that owners and operators of shopping centres and other large venues should ensure that Project Griffin training is being given at regular enough intervals to deal with the high staff turnover that those businesses and organisations experience; and that there should be specific training for other sectors.
I also suggested that the Department for Education should build on the model of having a designated governor responsible for safeguarding, to ensure that each school appoints a governor responsible for ensuring security and preparedness against an attack—to at least think about it in advance. Each school should have a preparedness plan, and those plans should be tested. Schools have fire drills where they evacuate pupils, so they perhaps need to have lockdown drills to invacuate pupils or at least to have considered how those might operate.
I hope that the Bill gets a smooth passage through your Lordships’ House. I believe that we owe it to the victims of the Manchester Arena attack, the two London Bridge attacks and all the other attacks of recent years. It is our responsibility to give them, and the public who visit those venues, the security that this offers.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, the attacks that took place in Magdeburg and New Orleans over Christmas and the new year, as have been referenced by other noble Lords, show that we cannot be complacent about the terrorist threat. There is a danger, when terrorist attacks do not take place for a period of time, that we are lulled into a false sense of complacency, and we must not be. That is one of the reasons why this Bill is so important. I welcome the fact that the Government have brought it forward so early in their legislative programme, and I welcome the fact that it has such broad cross-party support.
As we debate and talk about this Bill today, my thoughts are with all of those who were the victims and affected by the Manchester Arena terrorist attack. Having visited some of the survivors in hospital shortly after the event, and having met more survivors thereafter subsequently, I realised the absolute horror of what took place on that night and the horror of a terrorist who deliberately focused on attacking children and young people. That night was a traumatic night for all involved, and, of course, as we know, that will be with them for the rest of their lives, but our response has to be that we do what we can to ensure that, in future, if a terrorist attack takes place where an event is taking place of that sort in premises where there are significant numbers of people, fewer people lose their lives and, as far as possible, injuries are reduced. That, of course, is the key focus of this Bill. As Clause 5(2) says:
“The objective is to reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals if an act of terrorism were to occur on the premises, at the event or in the immediate vicinity of the premises or event”.
I also would like to commend Figen Murray and all those who have worked with her for their dogged determination in making sure that this legislation is now before Parliament and is—we all hope, shortly—to reach the statute book.
I want to make just a few points about some aspects of the legislation and slightly more widely too. My first point is about the SIA, and I think that it is important that this House properly considers the role of the SIA and the capacity of the SIA to undertake the tasks that it is being required to do as a result of this Bill, tasks which are different from the original purpose set up for the SIA, which was very much in terms of the licensing and consideration of the suitability of individuals to be part of the security industry. This is a significant expansion of its work, and we need to ensure that it understands and has the training that it needs in order to be able to undertake its tasks in relation to this, and I just ask the Government that they think very carefully about the SIA and its role, because I think it is right that we should debate that and consider it.
I also am concerned that we do not allow or do not see a situation where venues are almost bombarded by consultants who are all too keen to advise them on the steps that they should be taking, regardless of whether those steps are actually what is required in the legislation or not. That will be particularly the case, I think, for smaller venues, whose responsibilities will not be so great but which could be lulled into thinking that they have to do significantly more as a result of the advice that they receive from such consultants. So there is a very real issue there, I think, that has to be considered.
I want also to go a little beyond the Bill, if the Minister and the House will indulge me. This is about premises that exist already. One of the great things we did at London 2012 was to ensure that, when all those new Olympic venues were being built, security was built in and planned in at the earliest stage of planning those buildings. I just wonder whether the Government could look at encouraging—this would probably be in other legislation, perhaps planning or building regulations —efforts to be made at the earliest possible stage to build that security in, particularly for large-scale events venues, so that we do not have to look at it as an afterthought.
I also want to talk about communications, which has been raised by other noble Lords—communications in several senses. The first is communication between those responsible in a venue and the emergency services. I have been thinking of a situation where the people responsible in a venue know what to do, something has happened, and they possibly start evacuating, but the emergency services and the police—who would undoubtedly be, as they always are, the lead in this—might actually wish to see different action being taken. The communication between those two, and the staff in the venue understanding the role of the police and the emergency services and the importance of recognising the primacy of the police in that situation, will be an important part of the education.
One of the issues that arose in the response to the Manchester Arena attack was the lack of communication between the emergency services. Again, this is perhaps not something that is technically for the face of this Bill. But it is an issue that needs to be considered as we look at the whole question of the response at premises should an attack take place, making sure that the rules of engagement, the rules of communication, between the emergency services are rather better understood, and that the proper JESIP training takes place so that we do not see those gaps in communication.
Another point on communication is cyberterrorism, which my noble friend Lord Davies referenced. As we look at and think about the Bill, it is about premises, locking gates, evacuating people, having the right exits and so forth. But some of that will be about communicating, and cyberterrorism could actually mean that the means of communication with members of the public in a venue are affected. Indeed, if perhaps a venue has automatic door-locking systems, they could be affected. So, in looking at what people need to do, it is important that the potential impact of cyberterrorism is looked at as well.
As I said, this is an important Bill. It does something that, on the face of it, seems to be very obvious: that people who are responsible for venues, or for holding large-scale public events, just think about the safety and security of people within those events and about what needs to happen if there is an attack—if something goes wrong. But sadly, as we saw at Manchester Arena and elsewhere, what is obvious is not always done. That is why the Bill is so important, because it will bring home to people the responsibilities they have to ensure the increased safety of those people who attend events at their premises. The responsibility we have is to make sure that this Bill is the best it can be.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill and a particular pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, who has a long and distinguished record in this area of policy. I share her concerns about the appropriateness of the SIA as a regulator and, as she is aware, I have a few of my own.
Because of my noble friend the Minister’s characteristically collaborative approach and his and his officials’ openness to discussion not only in this context but outside aspects of the Bill, I have had the opportunity, as other Members of your Lordships’ House who will speak in this debate had yesterday, to discuss aspects of the Bill with him at his invitation. I shared those discussions to some extent, but I do not intend to take up much time today on the details of that; I will wait to see how far those off-piste conversations get me before I decide what I will say further. But in any event, I thank him and commend him for his comprehensive and helpful introductory speech. I am very conscious that he will live up to the offer he has made to be engaging and collaborative.
When measuring the effectiveness of legislation, the simple law of cause and effect should be adhered to. We should always ask ourselves two questions. First, why is the Bill needed? Secondly, does it do what it purports to do and address the problem that led to its creation in the first place? I believe that this legislation offers an answer to both questions. As your Lordships’ House has already been reminded—as if a reminder were needed—it is tragedy that has brought us here today. I do not intend to rehearse the circumstances at length, but I pay my own tribute to Figen Murray, whose indefatigable campaigning, with others, is not only a model of its kind but reflective of her selfless determination to ensure that no other parent should have to suffer the same grief she has suffered. Indeed, that is itself an answer to the first question I posed. The Bill is necessary to help protect our people from co-ordinated malign terrorist activity, to protect their families from unimaginable grief, and to increase our collective preparedness for acts of terror where they seem feasible.
The answer to the second question I posed is less stark but none the less positive. As we heard, the Bill establishes a tiered approach, linked to the activity that takes place at premises or an event, balanced against the number of individuals it is reasonable to expect might be present at the same time. It does not, and does not purport to, prevent terrorism, save, perhaps, at the margins. That is the job of the police and the security services.
In recognising that, I note the extraordinary work of the security services in disrupting 39 late-stage terrorist plots since 2017. In that context, can the Minister indicate what percentage of those plots would have affected premises within the scope of the Bill? Again, I realise that it is not a Bill designed to mitigate terrorist activity but to ensure that staff and volunteers know what to do in the event of an emergency. I ask that question because, when reading proceedings in the other place and the briefings that I suspect we have all received—I do not think they were sent to me for any particular reason other than that I was on the list of speakers—the bombings of two Birmingham pubs in 1974 came to mind. The Mulberry Bush and The Tavern in the Town were the two pubs in question. I re-read some of the things I was familiar with, and the testimony from a survivor who was in The Tavern in the Town tells us that everyone who was in the pub was either injured or killed. That was 111 people in total, with similar figures tragically reflected in The Mulberry Bush. If that information is correct, neither of these pubs would have been within the scope of the legislation.
The briefing that I and other speakers received from Survivors Against Terror suggested that the threshold has significantly reduced the impact of the Bill and that we should support, as it does, reducing that threshold, either now or in due course, to 100 or below. I am not making a case for this; I am simply reflecting the case that was made to us all. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister is familiar with the detail of its advocacy for such an approach. Interestingly, the Birmingham pub bombings, and possibly other atrocities, support that approach too.
The iterative approach by which the Bill has emerged from its chrysalis phase under the last Government into the proportionate, measured and effective shape of the legislation we are gathered to examine this afternoon, is testament to the value of our proceedings. It is Parliament’s scrutiny—principally in the other place, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, reminded us—that has achieved this.
In July 2023, a previous attempt at this legislation was described as a “not fit for purpose” by the Home Affairs Committee, which also outlined serious concerns about its proportionality. I do not often praise them, but the previous Government received this feedback in a constructive spirit and launched a further public consultation to remedy these shortcomings, the findings of which enabled the new Administration to fashion this improved legislation.
This spirit of constructive cross-party unity around this Bill has its dangers—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, reminded us—but, from my perspective, it is not merely enormously helpful from a practical standpoint but also holds symbolic value in that, in response to the amoral exercise of terrorist violence, we show the value of quiet diligence and a willingness to work across the House to find the remedy for it.
One of the comparatively small areas of contention has been the existence of the discretionary powers afforded to the Secretary of State to reduce the numerical threshold for the standard tier from 200 to 100 people. I recognise that the current number has been chosen for good reasons, not merely financial but in terms of freeing small businesses and organisations, such as village halls and community cafés, from more than necessary regulatory burdens. But, while they are all equally important in absolute terms, some venues of equivalent sizes are at significantly divergent risk of terrorist attack: for instance, a pub or a café near a military base that habitually hosts off-duty soldiers incurs a more significant terrorist threat than a hospitality business located elsewhere. With the proviso that the responsibility for monitoring such threats lies elsewhere, is any scope being considered to take specific venues of this type into either the standard or the enhanced tier?
My final point of clarification at this stage in the debate is that, subject to some minor qualifications, the extent of this Bill is for the whole of the UK. However, it has implications for policy areas that are devolved. I understand that officials are discussing these areas. I know from my experience as Secretary of State for Scotland that that process has proven positive many times before in relationships between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Government in Scotland, for example. Can the Minister confirm that these discussions will be appropriately supported by Minister-to-Minister dialogue to preclude any difficulties in this respect further down the track? They can arise very quickly.
Despite my few points of clarification, I emphasise that I support this Bill, its intentions and the way in which they have been reflected in the drafting of its provisions. As it stands, this legislation is referred to as the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, but we all know, as we were appropriately reminded by noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, in his speech, that it will forever be known as Martyn’s law. I believe we owe it to his memory, and to all those who have been victims or survivors of terrorism, to ensure that it undergoes that transformation as soon as possible.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, having spent just over half of my life in one or other House of this Parliament, I regret that I have become more resistant than I should be to campaigns. But I am proud to support the campaign that has led us here today, and I congratulate the Government and, indeed, the Opposition on their support for this legislation in general terms and on their willingness to improve the Bill as we work our way through it. I particularly congratulate Figen Murray, whom I have met on a number of occasions, and her supporting team, on everything they have done. They have taken a balanced and constructive approach and have been ready to listen to arguments on some of the difficult issues that have already been discussed during today’s debate. Of course, we should never forget all those who suffered as a result of the Manchester Arena attack.
I also congratulate Sir John Saunders, who conducted a magnificent inquiry into the Manchester Arena attack, using all the skill that he gained as a judge in Birmingham Crown Court and later as a High Court judge. It was an absolute model of its kind and we owe Sir John a great deal.
What we are discussing here is not something that fills a gap but something that completes more fully counterterrorism law and provisions in this country. Making these particular provisions is going to be very useful in that task.
In supporting the Bill, I do however want to raise a few issues that I urge the Government to consider. The first echoes what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady May, in relation to the SIA. I had some dealings over the years with the SIA and, as the noble Baroness said, it has been dealing mostly with security guards and other individual issues, so it is embarking on new and difficult territory. The two-year introduction period, which is long, nevertheless allows for full and proper implementation to be achieved. It will need that time and it will need every bit of help that it can be given, including by us as legislators.
Part of the SIA’s task is to produce legal guidance on the provisions of the Bill. I hope that some scoping of that legal guidance has taken place and I also hope that we can see at least a draft of such a legal guidance before Committee, so that we can consider and comment on such guidance. There is a great deal of expertise in your Lordships’ House that would assist the SIA and it is perfectly reasonable to ask for that to be seen as part of the legislative process.
I turn next to a difficult issue about civil liability. There may well be cases where normal civil liability—that is to say, mostly for negligence or breach of statutory duty, under ordinary civil claims procedures—might be justified and appropriate in relation to the failure to meet the requirements set out by the Bill, the Act as it will become, and the legal guidance that has been issued. Clause 31(2) appears to share that view. However, Clause 31(1) as described and explained in paragraph 166 of the Explanatory Notes—I will not read it now because it would take too long—excludes claims for breaches of statutory duty. I do not begin to understand the rationale for that. As a veteran of industrial injuries claims—hundreds and hundreds of them in my time as a barrister—I know that it is absolutely common- place to plead in a claim both breach of statutory duty and negligence, and often judges give judgments in which damages are awarded for both breach of statutory duty and negligence. Why is that excluded here? I believe it is an inadvertent mistake that should be reviewed.
I turn next to the question of corporate civil liability. In some parts of the Bill there are provisions that appear to extend corporate civil liability—but they do not. What is provided in the Bill is that, if a company commits an offence, an officer, as described in Clause 26(2)(a) may also be liable for the offence that has been committed. But it does not make the company liable if an individual who works for that company has committed an egregious act that otherwise might give rise to criminal liability. The bar against establishing the liability of a company in any civil proceedings is high because, to use the vernacular phrase often used by lawyers, there is a requirement to show that someone who is the eyes and ears of the company is responsible for the wrong that has been committed. That has not been extended in this Bill, even though it has been extended elsewhere in legislation in the recent past. So I ask the Minister to examine that issue and I would be very happy to discuss it with him further. Indeed, I pay tribute, as others have, to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, who could not have been more available to all of us in this House who wished to discuss this Bill with him.
I turn next to planning and licensing considerations. Planning considerations arise when an application is made for planning consent for a new venue, obviously, or for significant alterations in the planning provisions for a venue. The issues raised in this Bill should become central to such planning applications. Equally, it should become central to licensing authorities’ considerations when they are deciding whether permanent or temporary licences should be granted. Indeed, I would suggest that those who are already involved—I know there are distinguished organisations, particularly in Manchester, involved in training commercial entertainment and retail centre providers—should be asked to train planning officers, councillors and licensing authorities in these matters.
I echo something that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady May, about consultancies. I fear, having represented at one time a lot of villages in rural Wales, that those village hall committees may find themselves paying not £300 a year but a great deal more to some good and some pretty awful consultancies, which do not have very much to offer and where such things could be offered in a different way. We owe a duty to those who run village halls and similar entities to be assisted to avoid unnecessary costs arising from the Bill. If there are necessary costs, so be it, but not unnecessary costs.
I emphasise—and this has not been said—that the Bill does not remove from the public their sense of responsibility. How many of us have been to venues where we waited in a queue while somebody brought into that venue—be it a theatre, nightclub or restaurant where there is security—large bags full of unnecessary quantities of possessions that are almost impossible to examine in a meaningful way without the mechanics or machinery for search? The public must understand that it is their responsibility when they go to such a venue not to take with them haversacks on their backs containing their overnight clothes and equipment for the weekend. This is something that requires all of us to do our duty as citizens.
Finally, I regard this as a very good Bill. If the Minister can provide reassurances on the subjects that have been raised by me and others, it would be very welcome. What we are doing is improving the safety of the public, albeit arising from tragic circumstances that should never have occurred.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for his very reasonable opening statement. I regret not being able to make his consultation meeting yesterday.
I have a dilemma with this legislation. On the one hand, it is clearly true that we all have a responsibility to consider how we as a society face up to the sickening evil of major terrorist attacks. We all have huge sympathy, of course, with the families of victims. We understand their outrage and anger at the failings, and we admire their work to try to ensure that what happened to them does not happen to others in future. On the other hand, we as legislators have a duty to take a wider perspective and to assess whether proposed measures will genuinely reduce risks without imposing disproportionate burdens.
I am not the first person to make these points; they were made a couple of years ago by the Commons Home Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament. It is striking to me that both consultations on this legislation, in 2021 and last year, produced quite a wide range of responses, with concerns about implementation and costs being just as strong as recognition of the need to act further against terrorism.
This Bill was in the manifestos of both main parties, which is unusual—although perhaps not as unusual as it should be. It will clearly pass in some form, but we still have a duty to scrutinise. History shows that, when there is wide consensus on legislation, it often ends up being quite difficult legislation to make workable in practice. That is what we have to look at.
Against this background, I welcome the rethinking for which the Government have clearly been responsible with this version of the Bill. It is clearly better and more proportionate than the one introduced by my own party when in government. Equally, I believe there is a case for further thought in some areas, as many noble Lords have already noted.
Personally, I think the case for the measures in this Bill is much stronger for major events and major venues—that is, those in the so-called enhanced tier—where there is clearly a need to respond to the IOC’s call back in 2018 to clarify the legal responsibilities, and where the size of events and premises, such as major halls, theatres, et cetera, requires a degree of co-ordination and pre-planning. If legislation can help in that, it is sensible that it should.
I cannot help echoing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about the exclusion of Parliaments, devolved Administrations and indeed schools from this legislation. I wonder whether we are seeing another example of the phenomenon of the Government imposing duties on others while excluding themselves—a point that we discussed in this Chamber yesterday.
I have three concerns about the standard tier. The first is a point that has been made by other noble Lords. I welcome the fact that the threshold has been increased to 200 but I still believe there is a case for increasing it further—for example, to 300, as the then shadow Security Minister proposed in the Commons last year. I agree with those who have asked the Minister to set out more fully in winding up just why this threshold has been chosen and what the Government see as the potential pressures, in either direction.
My second concern is the nature of the burden on small organisations. This Bill will produce a burden. Unless the threshold changes further, it will hit small organisations and voluntary organisations, particularly perhaps those that have events that occasionally go above the threshold and thus permanently come within the scope of the duty. Indeed, the fact that the Government have excluded certain categories reflects a recognition that there is a burden imposed by the Bill.
The cost of £330 annually for smaller voluntary organisations is not trivial. In effect, it pushes up the cost of insuring, say, a village hall by between a third and a half every year. For organisations that are under pressure, that is significant. I note that the Night Time Industries Association has similar concerns about smaller venues. I agree with it and others who have made the point about the need for clarity on the relationship between the powers in this Bill and those in the Licensing Act. Perhaps the Minister could address that point as well.
My third concern is about the consequences—perhaps unintended, but arguably foreseeable—of legislating at all. When you give something the force of law you do two things. First, you increase the risk to individuals of non-compliance. As a result, you increase the risk of risk-aversion: the pressure to do more than is necessary just in case, to make sure that the law is fulfilled. In other areas, the observed behaviour of regulators is that they often encourage this through defining and spreading so-called best practice. The Bill imposes the reasonably practicable duty on the responsible individuals, but it is a subjective test, drawn from a different, albeit related, area of legislation. I think it will be subject to mission creep, as these vague forms of words often are.
The second thing you do when you create a duty through legislation is, in effect, to create an industry that depends on that regulation, that has a potential interest in maintaining and developing it and which, in practice, often has a big influence on setting and defining the levels of standard practice and in seeing them promulgated by the regulator, industry bodies and others. I think that is foreseeable in this case too, and the Henry VIII clauses in the Bill certainly give the Government the power to support that kind of mission creep over time, and to give it the force of law over time if they are so minded.
This all means that what may be a limited and justifiable burden at first may well grow over time, and that is often hard to reverse. The problem is that none of this adds to productive activity. When you give something the force of law it has to take priority over other activities. Again, for smaller businesses and voluntary organisations this means that it must often take priority over the actual purpose of that organisation. That is what giving something legal force means. When we are adding so much to the burdens on those organisations already, we have to think very carefully about the value added.
There is a particular risk in areas of voluntary activity. For example, one in eight village halls is still apparently caught by the Bill, according to the impact assessment. The risk in voluntary areas is that people are just not ready to devote the extra personal time or take the extra risk and the burden, so facilities simply close rather than take on board the burden of compliance.
I hope, and actually I believe, that the Government will not just dismiss these concerns, which came strongly out of the consultations and the evidence sessions. I hope and suspect that we will see amendments covering them, and I hope the Government will take them seriously. As the Minister noted, if and when the Bill passes it will have a lengthy pre-implementation period in which they can be addressed too.
I note that many noble Lords have asked whether the SIA is the right regulator. I note that the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health has proposed the creation of an advisory board for the SIA for these purposes, and some form of that could be well worth the Government considering.
Let us reflect on what the Bill will do. It will mean that most businesses and organisations serving the public in any numbers need to consider the risk of a terrorist attack all the time. You may say they should, and certainly the threat, regrettably, is substantial—very high. However, even now, the risk of any individual person facing an actual terrorist attack remains extremely low. The Bill may reduce the risk slightly further as regards events or premises but, equally arguably, might only deflect it. After all, we have plenty of evidence that the risk exists in other places too, most notably on the street or in parks, both of which have been the location of serious attacks in recent years—indeed, very recently.
We cannot reduce the risk to zero through prevention measures and, as a society, we should not try. An attempt to do so may cause more harm and more problems of other kinds. To take one analogy that is perhaps imperfect but it makes the point, just as our streets have filled up over the years with street furniture, barriers, controls or whatever in a partly—but only partly—successful effort to reduce road deaths, they have also become more ugly, complex and difficult to navigate for many people as a result. The Bill may well see many public facilities go down the same route and, as we have seen from the barriers on our bridges across the Thames, once they are introduced, these measures rarely get removed.
I hope we do not have to—and I do not want to—live in a society where all our public facilities become like airports, with security checks, barriers and cordons, and with security officials barking at us if we put a foot wrong. We have already gone some way down that road. That is all the more reason to be sure that the Bill’s provisions are genuinely proportionate, reduce risks in a worthwhile way and do not take us further down a path that risks never being reversed.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill, and the collaboration and working manner of my noble friend the Minister. The Bill is about improving the safety of the public, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
I am well aware, coming from Northern Ireland and having been a former public representative for a long period, of the impact that terrorism had on our local communities and people, and of how it robbed families of their loved ones, livelihoods, homes and businesses and placed many restrictions on their lives as a result of the ensuing security measures. Thankfully, political dialogue became the prime order of the day. It showed that terrorism had failed and that compromise and the Good Friday agreement succeeded. That is the issue that we have to address—the need for compromise and political development—but in many cases this new form of terrorism may not lend itself to political dialogue.
Although I support the Bill, I realise that there are some challenges, and I have some questions for my noble friend the Minister about its implementation. I am very much in favour of the concept of the protection of premises from terrorism, considering what happened in London in March 2017, when I was a Member in the other place and we were all in lockdown in the Chamber, what happened on London Bridge and what happened at the Manchester Arena in June 2017. In that regard, I pay tribute to Figen Murray and the Martyn’s Law campaign team, who have demonstrated such tenacity, fervour, diligence and determination in the face of tragedy and adversity.
However, I do not want any additional financial burdens to be placed on the owners of premises to protect their properties and restrict their civil liberties without a clear indication of adequate financial and other support measures being put in place. What assistance, including the provision of finance, will be provided to the owners of premises to ensure full protection from the ravages of terrorism? At the end of the day, there must be proportionate risk.
I have received representations from the Heritage Railway Association. In this, I am minded of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who chairs the APPG for Heritage Rail; I know that similar representations have been made to that group. I have a heritage railway in my town of Downpatrick, and its members feel that the Bill’s provisions and its application to heritage railways are not realistic or proportionate to the risk. Many heritage railways are staffed by volunteers who operate on a part-time basis. I have also received representations from the insurance industry and from Martyn’s Law, which support this legislation and want it to move forward, but I would like my noble friend the Minister to favourably consider the position of heritage railways. The Heritage Railway Association believes that the legislation is premises-based, and its guiding principle is to require different levels of terrorism protection by reference to capacity in terms of the premises. For the purposes of the Bill, heritage railways and tramways are treated like hospitality and entertainment venues, including all parts of a railway line from end to end.
I understand that a Minister wrote a letter to the Heritage Railway Association, dated 23 December, stating that a railway line itself and passengers on a train are excluded from the Bill’s scope—I understand from his gesticulation that it was my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench. I hope and believe that that exclusion may help to reduce the likely impact on some heritage railways, but I feel it needs to be clearly stated in the Bill. As it stands, the legislation would effectively place many heritage railways in the higher-capacity category, adding significant and costly compliance burdens. What assurances can my noble friend the Minister provide about this issue to assuage the fears of the volunteers in the heritage railway movement, and could they be placed in the Bill?
It is also felt that organisations including heritage, cultural and tourism attractions that rely on volunteers will face higher training costs or, if volunteers choose not to take on responsibilities required under the Bill, those organisations may be faced with the costs of engaging additional personnel to meet compliance requirements. What provision will be made for the training of volunteers and the owners of heritage and tourism premises? This factor was raised in a representation received today from the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health’s personnel.
The Heritage Railway Association feels that the Bill as drafted perhaps does not address the realities of dealing with those burdens. The threshold for eligibility is too low and that could make some businesses, particularly those in the tourism and cultural sector, unviable. Perhaps the Minister could advise whether effective consideration will now be given to their inclusion on the excluded list.
Coming from Northern Ireland, I suppose there is a fear about the provisions in the Bill extending there. I would like the Minister to clarify that. Why are the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive not included, since this issue was discussed by the Assembly commission? It has overall responsibility for the management of the Assembly and for the Parliament buildings at Stormont, so what is the issue there?
Do the provisions extend to tourism and heritage attractions? What additional assistance will be provided to the owners of premises? Will small premises be excluded, and what are the size thresholds for eligibility for businesses to comply with this legislation?
Finally, considering the political and febrile history of Northern Ireland, what discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Justice Minister regarding the implications of this legislation? With the need for additional investment in police resources in Northern Ireland, what discussions have taken place with the chief constable regarding the implications and consequences of implementing the legislation, including capacity levels for enforcement?
In conclusion, I support the thrust of the Bill. I support it in its entirety because, undoubtedly, terrorism in any form is a divisive, cancerous menace in our society, and that is irrespective of where it comes from.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, it has been so heartwarming to listen to every speaker. Every bit of wording has been correct and it is so heartwarming to hear that, after so long, we are going to have something set in stone to protect future lives.
The events of the Manchester Arena bombing are seared into our collective memory. The shock and horror that we felt as the news unfolded on our television screens remain deeply ingrained. Any act of terrorism is abhorrent, but an attack targeting an event attended by thousands of young people is an evil of unimaginable cruelty.
Today, we remember the victims: Saffie-Rose Roussos, Nell Jones, Sorrell Leczkowski—apologies, I knew I might get that wrong—Eilidh MacLeod, Megan Hurley, Olivia Campbell-Hardy, Chloe Rutherford, Liam Curry, Georgina Callander, Courtney Boyle, John Atkinson, Philip Tron, Kelly Brewster, Elaine McIver, Angelika Klis, Marcin Klis, Alison Howe, Lisa Lees, Michelle Kiss, Wendy Fawell, Jane Tweddle and Martyn Hett. These names are not just a roll call; they represent lives filled with dreams, love and potential, all cruelly taken that night. My heart goes out to their families, who will carry the pain of their loss forever. As many grieving families will attest, you never truly move on from such heartbreak; you simply learn to live alongside it.
Let us also not forget that over a thousand other concertgoers suffered physical and psychological injuries that night. Many young people witnessed death and destruction first hand, a trauma that they will carry for the rest of their lives. The impact of this attack ripples far beyond those whom we lost.
Among those affected, as we have all said, is the tremendously courageous Figen Murray, Martyn Hett’s remarkable mother. I have had the privilege of meeting Figen several times; most recently, I was privileged to present her with the Women of the Year achievement award for her extraordinary efforts to make change in her son’s name. Figen is indeed an incredible and dignified lady, whose tenacity and grit are an inspiration to everyone in this Chamber. In fact, I recall her sharing how, during the trial, she was allowed to bring her knitting into court—a simple but meaningful comfort for her. As a knitter myself, I appreciated how this small act of compassion from the police and security helped her to endure the harrowing process that she listened to on a daily basis.
Despite facing her own health challenges, Figen has also achieved other extraordinary things. She walked 200 miles, from the site of her son’s death to London, to raise awareness of Martyn’s law—a campaign born of her pain but driven by her hope that no one would suffer as she and other families did that night.
I welcome this Bill, which has been a long time coming. If implemented effectively, it has such potential to save lives. The need for such a law is painfully clear. The Manchester Arena bombing was not an isolated incident. While successful attacks have, thankfully, been fewer since 2017, the threat of terrorism has not gone away. Only last year, Assistant Commissioner Matt Jukes, the UK’s most senior counterterrorism officer, warned:
“It’s hard to remember a more unstable, dangerous and uncertain world”
and that Britain faces
“the most acute period since the Cold War”.
As the tactics of terrorists evolve, so too must our strategies to combat them. Over the past decade, we have seen a shift from centrally co-ordinated, sophisticated plots to decentralised and crude attacks. Individuals radicalised by hatred are prepared to inflict unimaginable violence on innocent civilians, as we saw only last month. This changing landscape presents significant challenges for our law enforcement agencies yet without adapting our approach, we leave ourselves vulnerable. The greatest power of this Bill lies in its ability to increase public and corporate awareness of the threats that we face. It mobilises all parts of society to respond to the ever-changing risks of terrorism, helping us become more resistant to attacks and more resilient as a nation.
I understand the concerns about whether the requirements of this Bill are proportionate. I too would not wish to see businesses burdened with unnecessary regulations and more red tape. However, the measures outlined are far from excessive. The duty created by this Bill is tiered, balancing the risk of a potential attack against the capacity of premises. Smaller venues expecting 200 to 799 attendees would be required to implement simple, practical steps to protect the public. Larger venues expecting over 800 attendees would be required to take more robust measures to prevent attacks. Manchester City Council has already demonstrated the feasibility of implementing the principles of Martyn’s law. Licensed businesses in the city have embraced these measures, and feedback indicates that they do not find them unduly burdensome when it comes to cost or time.
There has been debate about the threshold for the provisions of this Bill. The initial proposal, as we have heard, was a threshold of 100 attendees, but the Government have set it at 200, while some amendments have even sought to raise it to 300. My concern is that the higher the threshold, the less effective the Bill becomes. I would welcome the Minister’s explanation for the Government’s choice of 200 as opposed to 100, which was originally proposed.
The Bill represents such a vital step in addressing the persistent threat of terrorism. Its provisions are reasonable and proportionate, and its potential to save lives is immense—after all, is that not what we are here to do today? By supporting this legislation, we honour the memory of those lost and injured in the Manchester Arena bombing, ensuring that their legacy is one of action and progress. I am delighted to see such cross-party support.
It has taken all these survivors and families to get us where we are today. I would like us to recognise that they all have three things in common in their lives: fortitude, tenacity and sheer guts. They have the fortitude to stand no matter what, the tenacity to stick with it, and the guts to deal with whatever and whoever stands in front of them and puts up another barrier. This sums up the energy and the passion it takes for anybody to come to Parliament and say it as it is, for legislators to truly understand. This sums up Figen Murray and all other campaigners. The pain never leaves you; I know what it feels like. I am delighted to take part in this debate and honoured to speak about those who cannot be with us today.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing this Second Reading debate, and I speak to support the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, otherwise known as Martyn’s law.
This is practical legislation that will empower communities to fight the ever-present threat of terrorism. Indeed, the need for this Bill and its contribution to the UK’s counterterrorism response cannot be understated. Since May 2017, the UK’s security services have stopped 42 late-stage terror attacks, there have been 15 successful terrorist attacks, there are 800 live investigations for terrorism offences, and there are 2,500 subjects of interest and 30,000 persons who are taking an unhealthy interest or curiosity in this area. These are not my figures; they come from the police and the director of MI5.
The nature of the terrorist threat facing the UK is changing and it is imperative that we have a comprehensive and robust approach to protecting our communities. We need look only at the recent vehicle terror attacks at a Christmas market in Magdeburg, Germany, and in New Orleans and other places since—to which noble Lords have referred—to see how vulnerable public locations can be. Copycat atrocities are being seen all too often.
Martyn’s law, as we have heard, is named after Martyn Hett. Martyn was one of 22 innocent victims murdered in the 2017 terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena. This has been campaigned for by his mother, Mrs Figen Murray OBE, referenced by most noble Lords. Mrs Murray is not just a grieving mother, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has already mentioned; she understands terrorism and the complexities surrounding it only too well. She has never looked for sympathy, and she holds a master’s degree in counter- terrorism. She is a quite remarkable woman. I am most grateful for her personal help in preparing this speech and will refer to her again shortly.
I also thank Mr Nick Aldworth, a former counter- terrorism national co-ordinator, who has given me excellent advice, and Mr Brendan Cox, the husband of Jo Cox MP and founder of Survivors Against Terror, who has been involved with this Bill throughout.
Although this is one of those rare pieces of proposed legislation that comes before us after being driven forward by private citizens, it is not unique. Nevertheless, it is hugely important and imperative. As we have heard, the Bill has entered this House after years of development, which has included contributions from our security services, counterterrorism policing officers and experts from across the security industry. Its very existence was recommended by Sir John Saunders—already referred to by my noble friend, if I may, Lord Carlile of Berriew—as a finding of his extensive inquiry into the Manchester Arena attack. It has not just been developed on a whim; it is deadly serious and involves the safety of millions of people. This legislation has been the subject of two rounds of public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny by the last Government’s Home Affairs Select Committee. By any measure, the Bill arrives before us having been well considered and refined in response to the views of the public, which is demonstrated by the wide cross-party support in the House of Commons.
Chief among these considerations has been to make the Bill a proportionate contribution to countering terrorism. Its standard duty requires premise operators to establish highly achievable procedures that will make businesses more resilient to terrorist attacks. In most cases, these procedures will be at no cost to the premises, as they simply require the creation of a plan for how they will respond to an act of terrorism. Only those that derive their revenues through having the greatest numbers of people on their premises will be expected to do more, through the enhanced duty. This will require them to take measures that will stop acts of terrorism being successful at their premises.
Wise choices about the scope of the law’s application have been made. Proof of the Bill’s proportionality is that there are 1 million premises in the UK to which this law could apply. A sensible threshold, I believe, of 200 persons present being the point at which premises engage with the law means that only 180,000 of those premises are now in scope. These are the places where we gather to commune, socialise and be educated or cared for. The people who use these spaces deserve to be protected. I anticipate that some in this House might consider 180,000 premises to be an example of overregulation, but I suggest that those in London and Manchester in 2017, and those on the streets of London, Birmingham, Manchester and Belfast in the 1970s, would probably take a very different view. They might suggest that 180,000 premises is not enough.
The Bill recognises and respects those different views of the threats we face. In recognition of the ebb and flow of terrorist intentions, it contains a sensible mechanism through which the Secretary of State might vary this threshold in times of need. Dynamic threats require dynamic responses, and the Bill supports that. It takes an encouraging approach to enforcement, with the creation of a new regulatory role within the Security Industry Authority, which I was pleased to see. I know that my late dear friend Lady Henig would have been delighted to see the authority she chaired so ably involved in its implementation. I echo the calls to ensure that the SIA has the ability to fulfil its new enhanced role.
There is a clear declaration in the guidance notes to the Bill that the regulator will act as
“an educator in the first instance”.
This is a further recognition of a proportionate approach. However, if the premises operators wish to be reckless with the safety and security of others, the Bill has the teeth to encourage compliance.
The eighth anniversary of that terrible attack in Manchester will be on 22 May this year. Mrs Murray told me:
“No legislation was put in place to enforce security at that time. There was no legislation to mandate that venues keep people safe. There are laws about the number of toilets venues must have; laws about noise levels a venue is allowed to create—but nothing to help keep people safe”.
This is a good Bill, with good intentions and good outcomes, which my party wholly supports. It has been tailored to proportionately meet the needs of those affected by it, and it will serve to make this country stronger and more resilient. I commend it to the House.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support this legislation, which commemorates the lives of terrorist victims from the past and obviously intends to reduce the chances of more deaths and injury in the future. Therefore, for all the reasons that have been described, it has my full support. It is the latest manifestation of the UK counterterror strategy Contest, which is there to Prevent, ideally stopping people becoming terrorists; to Pursue, so that, if they do become terrorists, they are locked up and put before the courts; to Prepare, so that, in the event that terrorists get through, we make sure that we recover as quickly as possible; and to Protect—that is this strand—the targets that terrorists may find the most attractive.
For a long time, where people have gathered in large numbers, venues have tried to reduce either the likelihood of an attack getting through or, if one did get through, the damage caused. But I am afraid this has been inconsistent and has lacked an evidence base on which to operate. In my view, this is the ideal opportunity to make sure that does not happen.
I will make only five points. I will first briefly respond to some of the points raised. There is clearly a debate about where we should draw the line: it could be 200 or 100, and some people prefer 300. I would be careful about altering it from 200. In 2018, at the request of the royal commission in New Zealand, I visited to look at the terrorist attacks on the Christchurch mosques, when 51 Muslims were murdered and 84 other people were injured. They were two small mosques—small in the numbers of people who gathered but terrible in the outcome of what happened when one man with an automatic weapon swept through them. So I would be really careful. Of course, they were places of worship. Although there is an exclusion in this legislation for places of worship, the fact that they are places of worship can actually amplify the target. Thousands of people can gather at—and do visit every day—some of our national venues such as Westminster Abbey. We have to be really careful before, in trying to accommodate their difference, we leave people who visit more vulnerable.
Secondly, I raise something that is not directly relevant, although it is relevant to the issue of communication in emergencies. The Minister may want to reassure himself about the latest level of the Airwave project, which is now eight years late, running at £12.5 billion and has no procurement in place to deliver the new system. It is indirectly impacting on the ability of the emergency services to respond to these terrible events together. We all ought to take this seriously, and it is worth at least contemplating when considering this legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady May, raised a good point about who is in charge when emergency services attend. Is it the people who are already running the venue? There is some good experience there post the Hillsborough event, and the Green Guide makes some clear recommendations about how this happens at football grounds. Rather than reinvent this, it may well be worth at least considering the advice there.
On CTSAs, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, got it right: there are very few of these people across the country, and they will need enhancing. There are tens of them throughout England and Wales, and I suspect that, given the number of premises involved here, there will have to be a significant investment to make sure that can go forward in the future.
The first of my five points is to support the point from the noble Baroness, Lady May, on design. This is about the design of new buildings, of course, but also the retrofitting of existing buildings. Design can help to reduce the number of attackers, can help to reduce the impact of attacks and can allow people who can escape to do so—or keep them safe where they choose to be. But this needs some clear thinking. Our shopping malls are open plan—they are not compartmentalised—but it is possible to design them so that they could become compartmentalised in the event of an attack. But it is not straightforward, as this place found out when PC Palmer was murdered. Do you lock down or do you open up? If you open up, where do you go and how do you communicate with people? Of course, people are in a panic and are not always able to hear you clearly. What advice will you give them when you at the time are not sure exactly what is happening? These are very difficult problems, but design can play a major part in making sure that we give the people who are operating these places a good opportunity to respond as well as they can.
Secondly, on technology, many of the venues that we are talking about—not the smaller ones, perhaps, but even some of them—have CCTV. We often have debates in this place about the horrors of AI and the terrible things that facial recognition can do, but actually it can do some pretty remarkable good things as well. If CCTV is available at some of our bigger venues—think about ExCeL and some of our big shopping malls such as Westfield in London, of which there are two—it can play an important part in spotting unusual patterns of behaviour in individuals. AI can assist with that, but I argue that the Bill is silent about how it might help. I will come back to why I think it is particularly important that it says something about this.
Facial recognition is another great opportunity. I am not necessarily talking about randomly checking people’s faces and whether they should be there or are terrorists. I am talking about checking them against lists of people who we know are dangerous: terrorists on control orders, people who have been released on parole from a terrorist sentence, or people on bail who have not yet been charged. These are significant characters, and I guess that any operator of a significant venue would like to know whether they have bought a ticket to some of these events, are strolling around their car parks or are carrying out reconnaissance in the days preceding their attacks, as we saw in New Orleans, to make sure that they are as effective as they can be.
How do we enable our CCTV to be as effective as it can be? If we cannot get this right for counterterrorist legislation, we will struggle to get it right for volume crime and general surveillance of public areas. This is a live debate, and we should not go to one end of the spectrum and say that AI and facial recognition are always bad. They can be, but they can also be incredibly effective, and we should not dismiss technology just because we occasionally have some concerns about privacy.
The third thing that I urge the Bill to say something about is different regulatory bodies. As we have heard, the venues are covered by different regulatory bodies: the Health and Safety Executive, local authorities looking after football grounds and some of the venues for alcohol licensing, and fire brigades, which inspect these places too. So there is a chance that they approach the same problem inconsistently—not intentionally, of course. We need to make sure that all our regulatory bodies approach these issues consistently and do not end up giving inconsistent advice—not least given that we have many local authorities but intend to give this to one national body, the SIA.
Of course, the methods of security are regulated by other people, too. The SIA already regulates the security operatives who work at these places. The Biometric Commissioner has interests in how data is collected, and the Data Protection Commissioner has an interest in privacy, while the Surveillance Commissioner has an interest in how all those systems come together. I would argue that we need them to consider the terrorist threat in a wide, not a narrow, way and that, when we come to things such as facial recognition or AI application, we need them to give consideration in a generous, not a narrow, way.
At the very least, we need the venue operators to know that, when they are trying to get agreement on how they operate their systems, they will get an open hearing and they do not have to approach the same problem in 172,000 ways—because there are 172,000 venues out there that will have to resolve some of these problems. Of course, the smaller ones are larger in volume, but some of the bigger ones are pretty high in numbers, too. So we need to consider at this stage how the various regulators are going to work with this legislation and make sure that it works effectively.
My fourth point is about research. We have already heard concerns about whether the SIA will be well equipped by the time this Act comes into force, and I can understand why those concerns are there. It is a relatively small organisation and there have been mistakes in the past: security operatives have had convictions for manslaughter and we have seen various things that have not gone well. But that could be said of many public organisations—so it can learn and it can improve. But the Bill is silent on where it is going to get its advice. It will of course need good research and academic support to work out how to deal with a crowd that is panicking. There is a science in this. We have had to see it through football matches and learn how to deal with large crowds, and how crowds respond. So I should like to hear a little more about how it is anticipated that the SIA will get its advice and develop research over time, because it seems to me that it should be able to develop commissions of research so that it can respond to new problems—because new terrorist attacks will come up and it will be vital that the SIA is dynamic and responds to the new threats.
My final point is about powers of search. At the meeting earlier, I said that you might think, “Well, that’s just what policemen say, isn’t it? That they need a power of search”. But my point is that all these venues often have security operatives. Sadly, in the Manchester attack we saw that the terrorist who attacked entered at the end of the event into an area that was not protected and was not being excluded, and was carrying the device that murdered so many people. But of course, if some of the security operatives had tried to approach and deal with him, they had no power of search. It is expected that security operatives are able to search as a condition of entry to the premises—you either get searched or you do not come in. But of course some of these people are trespassers—not all are terrorists—and with some people you cannot be sure whether they have a right to enter. So I wonder whether it is worth thinking about whether security operatives should have some kind of right, because the alternative is that you have to call the police, which will be inefficient; it will be slow and might be too late. So we should give some consideration to security operatives’ powers, used properly and reasonably, in a way that enhances security.
Finally, I realise that, on some of my points, the Minister might say, “Well, actually, there’s going to be advice issued and there will be secondary legislation”, so I am quite content that some of those points might have to be covered there. But I would argue that some of the regulatory issues need to be considered in the Bill because, if the regulator is faced with controlling legislation that gives it very clear direction and is then faced by secondary legislation that gives advice, it may have to go with its first statutory, primary legislation. So it is worth saying something about this in the Bill to help the other regulators. Things such as stop and search would certainly need primary legislation: in my view, it should not be the subject of secondary legislation, if it is considered applicable.
My final point is that I wish this Bill speedy progress, as the Minister said, so that we can implement it quickly. Although I agree that two years is a good period in which to implement it, in that we want to build the credibility of the SIA and make sure that the businesses are ready, I would keep an open mind that, if the businesses and the SIA achieve that more quickly, we should implement more quickly, too. Two years is quite a long time and we are already saying that the terrorist threat is high. Those two years could be a time in which we have some awful attacks that could have been prevented had we all got our act together a little earlier. So I would keep an open mind about the implementation date, should the evidence show that in fact the systems are ready and we are able to implement more quickly.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who made some very wise points based on his considerable experience in this area. I, too, very much support this Bill. Like other noble Lords, I remember all too well the night of the Manchester Arena attack during the 2017 general election, as well as the generous and defiant response of the people of Manchester, as the right reverend Prelate rightly reminded us in his contribution. We all remember today with admiration Martyn Hett and his mother, Figen Murray. As the briefing note from Survivors Against Terror puts it, Martyn was living his best life—as were the other 21 victims who lost their lives that evening and the more than 1,000 people injured in that appalling attack.
It will not surprise noble Lords to know that I associate myself with everything that my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead said, or that I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the diligent and dedicated way in which she reacted to evil acts such as this, and how she and others worked with the brilliant men and women of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent others like it.
While the Prevent and Pursue elements of the Contest strategy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, alluded, receive considerable attention sometimes, it has always seemed to me that the Prepare and Protect elements receive comparatively less, especially when one considers that these are the elements in which so many more of us can play our part. We need a whole-society response to countering the ever-present and evolving threat of terrorism. The owners and operators of cultural and heritage venues want to play their part in that solemn task, and they take their responsibility very seriously. My purpose in speaking in this debate today is to reflect some of the points they have raised with me and other members of the shadow Culture, Media and Sport team regarding how they can do that most effectively. In particular, I am grateful to those who took the time to join my right honourable friend Stuart Andrew, the shadow Secretary of State, and our colleagues for a round-table discussion about the Bill last month, as well as the cultural and security professionals I had the pleasure of speaking to at the International Arts and Antiquities Security Forum in County Durham in October.
It is clear from talking to those people that there is nervousness about the Security Industry Authority’s ability and capacity to act as the new regulator in this area. The role envisaged by the Bill, as noble Lords have noted, is quite a departure for that organisation, which already has a mixed reputation in the sector. Is the Minister satisfied that the authority has the resources and expertise—and indeed the confidence of the sectors it will be regulating—it will need to succeed? Has it begun its engagement with the people who are on the front line in each of the varying sectors it will be regulating? This Bill has been long in gestation, as noble Lords have reminded us; the authority does not need to wait for Royal Assent to begin engaging with the people who have the practical knowledge about how it can best be implemented.
In the absence of that sort of engagement, as my noble friend Lady May said, these organisations will be bombarded with consultants. Indeed, a number of those whom we spoke to in our round-table discussion said that they are already being contacted by what one described as “snake oil salesmen” purporting to advise them on how to implement a Bill that has not yet become law. Of course, many of those organisations have dedicated professionals who have worked out detailed and well-considered plans to maintain the safety and security of those who visit them. Those plans are, by necessity, sensitive and confidential documents, and many are wary of sharing them externally, even with a new regulator, potentially opening them up to new vulnerability. Therefore, it is vital that the new regime that this Bill brings about enjoys the confidence and support of those with whom it will work.
A number of speakers mentioned the tiers that the Bill sets out. A capacity of 800 or more tips a venue into the enhanced tier, so a moderately sized theatre such as the Lyric or the Noël Coward becomes in the same category as Wembley Stadium or the Glastonbury festival. I welcome the exemption that the Government have introduced for churches and other places of worship, but there may be a case for more granular tiering, or perhaps a super-enhanced tier for the very largest venues and events.
The seasonality of venues is also worth considering. A venue which is extremely busy for only one day, or one part of a year, such as a live music festival or an annual sporting event, would stay in the enhanced tier for 365 days of the year. There is also the complexity of multi-event venues. For instance, a conference or exhibition hall, such as the ExCel centre, which has been mentioned already, might stage a number of different events, of different sizes, all at the same time. Are these to be considered separately or counted cumulatively?
The Bill defines the premise operator as the freeholder or leaseholder, and the event organiser as the entity overseeing the delivery of an event. As the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre have pointed out, a number of theatres operate within multipurpose venues, such as university complexes—Northern Stage in Newcastle is one example. The Society of London Theatre and its members can provide useful insights into these operational differences and how they might be overcome; how can we make sure that the SIA takes account of this practical, first-hand advice?
A number of speakers raised concerns about physical thresholds—the grey areas or “zone Ex” as people leave venues. Where do the boundaries of a venue’s responsibility begin and end? The Bill seeks to enhance security measures in what it refers to, but does not define, as “the immediate vicinity”. The vicinity of an event space, including transport routes and the public realm, is, by definition, beyond a venue’s perimeter and control. As LIVE, the body representing the live music industry, has set out in the briefing noble Lords will have received, event organisers and security personnel have no jurisdiction over crime and disorder in the public realm; only the police do. That needs to be reflected in the Bill. In particular, LIVE argues that the SIA should not be allowed to serve a notice requiring action outside the premises or outwith the control of the person who is being served the notice.
UK Theatre also raised the concern that external measures, such as bollards, should not get in the way of the essential operations of our cultural venues. The public space around a theatre can be essential for its operation. The changing of sets, where equipment for one show is dismantled and another installed, is critical, particularly for plays in repertory or an opera, where a number of productions are staged simultaneously.
As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, set out, we need to ensure consistency with existing legislation, such as the Licensing Act 2003, and data protection laws. Many venues have seen the burden of complying with subject access requests relating to the use of closed circuit television rise exponentially. If they are being encouraged to make greater use of CCTV, which can provide protection to the people who come to their venues, or indeed facial recognition technology, as we have just heard, what support will they be given to comply with data protection regulation and the potential burden there?
Many venues operate as franchises. On whom do the new duties fall? Will these be on the parent company or on the franchisees? Who ought to pick up the bill for compliance? All this speaks to a need for sector-specific guidance but, as the sectors understand it, that is not currently planned. Is that the case? If so, will the Minister urge the SIA to reconsider that? I echo the very reasonable request of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, that the guidance that it is minded to prepare should be made available before Committee.
Finally, we must be mindful of the burden on the venues and organisations that will play their part in this important new law. Many are run not for profit while others are very small businesses in which profit margins are extremely tight: 43% of grass-roots music venues in the UK made a loss in 2023, to give just one example. They are reliant on a mixture of their own full-time staff, contactors and volunteers. They are squeezed already by the additional burdens of the new and higher national insurance bills that the Budget brought. For this Bill to work and to make the difference that we all want it to, the duties that it places on businesses and venues need to be practicable, effective and proportionate. I hope that these are aims we can keep in mind as we scrutinise the Bill further.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it seems appropriate that we are discussing the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill today, on the 10th anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. Armed with Kalashnikovs, two Islamists, enraged by the satirical magazine’s depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, stormed into a workplace and murdered 12. There was a memorial protest at Trafalgar Square this morning: well done to the organisers, OurFight.uk, and all attendees, because it is important that we do not forget.
Ten years ago, “Je suis Charlie” rang out as an international call to action in defence of the Enlightenment principle that no idea, belief or figure is beyond scrutiny or satire. We were united then against the culture of fear that Islamist terrorism was trying to impose on free speech and a free society. Sadly, within months, too many liberal apologists in the arts, literature and media started to argue that the cartoonists had been a bit too offensive to Muslims, and that perhaps the staff were asking for trouble. Since then, terrorist atrocities have become too normalised in European cities, in my opinion.
I am all for any measures that tackle terrorism head-on, but I have concerns about this particular legislation. I have heard the message to this House from Dan Jarvis, Minister of State at the Home Office, who, to quote him, gave
“a gentle word of encouragement to colleagues in the other place”,—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/24; col. 758.]
meaning us, calling for consensus and stressing that the Bill should proceed smoothly. That sentiment has been echoed here today, and in the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, who has urged us to deliver without further delay.
I am also aware of the emotional weight on our shoulders here. The Bill has been called Martyn’s law, as we have heard, in honour of Martyn Hett, who was so brutally and tragically murdered in the Manchester Arena attack in 2017. I am very conscious that these legal changes have been vigorously and compellingly argued for by Martyn’s mother, Figen Murray, for years, as we have heard. Despite the undoubted admiration that has been expressed here today for Figen’s courage and determination, I think we need to take a step back.
Our obligations as legislators means that we need to remain cool and dispassionate in bringing in laws, ensuring that legal changes are fit for purpose and proportionate, and that we consider the unintended consequences. In that sense, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Frost, that however emotional this might be, and however serious it is, we have to be cool-headed. There are certainly points of concern and clarification that need to be probed during the stages of the Bill, and we should not have undue haste.
On a positive note, I welcome some modifications that this Government have made to the Bill. I am glad that concerns raised in consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny were listened to, especially the raising of the standard tier from 100 to 200, which will remove a large number of village halls, for example, from scope. I actually disagree with Figen, Brendan Cox, Nick Aldworth and the Martyn’s law team, who urged us, in a briefing today, to return to a starting threshold of 100. I am rather concerned that the Bill gives the Home Secretary discretionary powers to lower it to 100, without any clarity as to what might justify such a move.
I am pleased that education settings are now classified as standard duty premises regardless of capacity, although I am rather mystified that universities and higher education institutions are not included. We have already seen the way that the costs of security measures have been used as an excuse to close down debates on university campuses. The last thing we want is to turn universities into fortresses against public debate in any way.
It is positive that the Government claim to want a lighter-touch approach but, as we know from bitter experience, any powerful national regulator can lead to mission creep, and the paraphernalia around regulation is what worries me. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady May—though it is not reassuring—who is not in her place, that the consultants she talked about are already queueing up at the doors of those of us who organise events, offering to give us cheap advice on how we can comply with this law.
I declare an interest here. The Academy of Ideas, of which I am director, organises public events and debates ranging from our annual Battle of Ideas festival, now in its 20th year, which attracts thousands of members of the public, to more modest salons, seminars and panel discussions. We work with a wide range of venues of all shapes and sizes. The Bill will impact on our work through the potential added costs in hiring venues, liability, bureaucracy, et cetera.
More crucially, the aim of our work is to reinvigorate the public square and cultivate political and social engagement, for all ages but particularly for young people, at town hall-type gatherings, to open up conversations for the public with the public in public. That broader public square may be adversely affected by this law if we do not keep our eye on it. Civil society, people self-organising and getting together and grass-roots gatherings risk being curtailed. We need to think hard when we are told by small venues and event organisers, such as voluntary organisations and community groups, from church halls to small football clubs, that people will be put off volunteering by too much regulatory responsibility and paraphernalia. We need to probe what the consequences of such legal burdens could be in terms of loss of community infrastructure and assets.
In the most recent consultation, many respondents still expressed reservations about not just the financial implications and the fear of big fines—you cannot underestimate that—but the time spent on burdensome and bureaucratic admin. Venues are worried about their ability to meet legally mandated requirements with the limited resources available to them. There is genuinely some panic about how people will cope.
The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, was spot on to note that the Protect duty must not be so prescriptive as to prevent people enjoying normal life. Yet consider the plethora of venues swept up by this law: pubs with beer gardens, swathes of the hospitality industry, which is already on its knees, libraries, museums, galleries, entertainment venues and even childcare facilities—lots of places where people socialise. These are places where normal life happens. I appeal to her idea that we must ensure that, although it might not be the intention of the Bill, there are no consequences which will lead to a more restricted public square and more impoverished normal life; otherwise, the terrorists win.
The Minister says that the Bill will save lives. That is quite a “gulp” moment. We need to be clear about whether it does. We are told that it will lead to a reduction in terrorist attacks or less vulnerability to them, but it is a bit disconcerting that the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report and the Regulatory Policy Committee both queried the lack of evidence about whether the proposals will lower the threat of terrorism. Will lives be saved? I am still not convinced.
I understand the explanation about the changing nature of the threat, with DIY lone wolf attacks emerging out of the view of the security services, but if this means that greater swathes of public space can be possible targets, where anything can be used as a weapon—we think of the lethal use of the car in the recent awful New Orleans and German Christmas market attacks—is a focus on protecting bricks and mortar not rather missing the point? But if everywhere is a target and everything is a weapon, how will we avoid living in a police state? The worry is that the legislation could lead to energy being expended on a process-driven, box-ticking approach that may miss, for example, the deeper cultural and social challenges that we face.
It was harrowing to read in Sir John Saunders’ Manchester Arena inquiry, which others have commended and which is crucial to this discussion, about the preventability of Salman Abedi’s suicidal atrocity and the catalogue of failures in the months and even hours before he detonated that terrible bomb at the Manchester Arena. Venue regulation formed only a tiny fraction of Sir John’s recommendations. It seems pertinent to look at what the first volume of the inquiry told us about security at the venue.
In plain sight, Abedi was lurking around the arena for an hour and a half, acting suspiciously. We are told that he looked shifty and nervous and was fidgeting, carrying a huge, bulging rucksack and praying. One of the waiting parents, Christopher Wild, was so alarmed that he reported concerns that Abedi might be a bomber to security guards at 10.14 pm—16 minutes before the explosion happened. Mr Wild was fobbed off.
Maybe the training in this Bill would make those guards act differently. But let us also remember that we know from the inquiry report that one guard was suspicious but did not confront Abedi because he was
“fearful of being branded a racist”.
This points to the dangers of narrowing the threat of terrorism to organisational or technical issues. It suggests that we need to tackle more difficult challenges, such as the corrosive creed of identity politics, that can act as a barrier to acting on our instincts or using common sense for fear of being demonised—or recognising that promiscuous use of accusations such as “racist” and “Islamophobic” can paralyse individuals in society from doing the right thing. As we are all vividly aware at present, myriad local authorities, social workers, educationalists, care home staff and police officers failed to expose or intervene to stop gangs of men of largely Pakistani heritage committing industrial levels of rape and sexual abuse of girls throughout the UK, for fear of appearing racist, stirring up community tensions or being seen as—maybe I should not say this—jumping on a far-right bandwagon.
This Bill will not work if we do not confront that chilling impact of trepidation about speaking out over suspicions, exposing the ideologies fuelling and inspiring modern-day terrorism and doing the right thing. Je suis toujours Charlie.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a humbling experience to sit through this debate and listen to every speech, for a number of reasons. The most important is the degree of expertise from all over the House from so many different angles—whether the police, the Church of England, former Ministers, lawyers, academics or other experts—who are united on the purpose of this Bill and want to see it work and for it to be brought into effect as soon as possible. I share that view completely.
I will, though, as the Minister will know, raise a subject which I hope he can be even more helpful on tonight than he has been in private meetings about it. I declare my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association, which represents around 200 lines and railways around the country. They are run largely by volunteers but attract several million visitors a year and make a major contribution to the tourism economy.
The title of the Bill makes it clear that it is to deal with the security of premises: buildings like the Manchester Arena, profitable organisations running huge events for thousands of visitors with the paid resources to provide comprehensive security protection for visitors and the professional expertise to manage it. I whole- heartedly support that aspect of the Bill.
However, I underline the points made by my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick about the heritage rail sector. I am sure the drafters of the Bill did not have in mind when they were putting it together the case of a small country station run by a handful of volunteers and providing a unique visitor experience, which is just able to cover its costs, often with the help of generous donations from those who work on the railway. Originally it looked as though the Bill would treat the big arena and the small station the same. If that had happened, it would certainly have undermined the future of some—maybe many—railways already reeling from the escalating cost of fuel and raw materials. But, importantly, the Minister has moved on that, which I welcome.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I talked to Robert Gardiner, the chairman of the Downpatrick and County Down Railway, one of the member railways of the HRA, which has a long history of dealing with the very real terrorist threats that existed in Northern Ireland for many years and has direct experience of being used as part of a terrorist plot in the past—fortunately, directed not at its passengers but, sadly, at the British Army.
Mr Gardiner made the point that the railway is happy to work with the security authorities to protect the safety of the railway and its passengers without special legislation, but the crucial words are “reasonable” and “proportionate”. They are the key words for the small and impecunious volunteer organisations which need to be supported and taken account of in the consideration of the Bill.
There is a case for the security of heritage railways to be dealt with in the same way as for the national rail network in Great Britain, which is outside the scope of the Bill because its security is managed by the Department for Transport through the national rail security programme. This programme does not currently apply to heritage railways but there are many similarities, particularly at the around 40 stations used for interchanges by both heritage and mainline railways. I hope the Minister may be able to give me some encouragement that they at least will be treated alike and that the heritage sector will not be treated any differently.
The Minister was kind enough to write to me on 23 December. It was actually to me that he wrote just before Christmas, not to a Member of the House of Commons. He clarified in his letter some of the areas where doubt existed. He told me that the Home Office has decided that while heritage railway stations should be included within the scope of the Bill, rather than covered by the Department for Transport’s national rail security programme, the Bill would not apply to the trains themselves nor to the railway line linking the stations—again, an important assurance. That was very helpful in making the scope of the Bill clearer, but it would be more helpful still if that clarification was included in the Bill. I hope the Minister may be willing to consider this in the later stages of the Bill’s passage.
There is the question of stations. They are not big structures like a concert hall but are generally a collection of small buildings of a former country station, more akin to a sports ground with a pavilion, which could actually be exempt from the Bill. It would be really helpful if that could be recognised in the schedule dealing with premises to include enclosed buildings but to exclude open platforms or those covered simply by an open canopy.
A proper transition period is important, and the Minister has agreed to that. I was originally going to ask him for two years rather than one year, but he has already made it clear that that is the Government’s intention. A proper transition period is important because budgetary provision will need to be made for training and physical works as well as for undertaking the analysis of risk as newly defined, and for carrying out the work. So that is helpful, and I warmly welcome it.
I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in convening the all-Peers meeting yesterday which I and a number of your Lordships attended. He is aware of the concerns that I have and has listened carefully to them, and I hope that the modest amendments I have proposed to table will clarify and make the Bill more workable and less onerous on smaller enterprises which would otherwise struggle with it. He encouraged me to table amendments for Committee and I intend to do so.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, the very fact that we are discussing this topic today highlights that we are living in dangerous times and that we have a fundamental problem in this country when it comes to security.
Government’s first and foremost duty has always been to protect the public, and while the Bill laudably aspires to do just that, as with any draft legislation of this magnitude, there are a significant number of areas that require much greater clarity and careful scrutiny as the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House.
I fear that I am going to sound a little more negative than many speakers this evening. I fully acknowledge that the Minister has considerably improved the Bill from some of the early drafts I have read, and he has gone a long way to answering a lot of the questions, but there are still a number of very difficult issues.
I start by touching on the changes the Bill proposes to make to the Licensing Act 2003. I fear that the House needs better to understand from the Minister how the integration of security duties into licensing requirements could place additional responsibilities on local councils, or on the already pressured court and enforcement systems. While councils and councillors are more than accustomed to managing licensing regimes, the Bill could impose further burdens on already under-resourced councils, including the need to oversee compliance with enhanced security measures. I therefore ask the Minister to outline how the Government intend to support local authorities with these changes, and what will be expected of the courts or existing local authority licensing regimes in implementing the proposed changes.
Furthermore, we need to better understand how the Security Industry Authority and the Licensing Act will work together to ensure there is no duplication or conflict. Co-ordination between these frameworks, and their practical implementation, will be critical. If the Government intend to use the SIA, there is a real risk of overlapping responsibilities with other bodies, and the Bill as drafted does little to explain how these responsibilities will be allocated. Will the Government provide clearer guidance on how the organisations involved in the implementation of the Bill will work together, rather than hinder one another, and how will the Government ensure that they support the bodies that will have new powers or responsibilities under the legislation?
If the SIA is to become the regulator for this new duty, we must consider the practical implications. How will venues and event organisers differentiate between inspections for compliance with this duty and standard SIA inspections? I am particularly concerned about the powers of entry. If my understanding is correct, SIA inspectors do not currently operate under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, so the Government will need to clarify whether they or another body will be granted additional powers for the purposes of the Bill, or whether these inspections will rely on existing frameworks.
If the power of entry or RIPA will not be used, who will be the authority responsible for ensuring that building owners comply? Surely the courts and councils will not have these responsibilities, unless more funding and resources—particularly for training provision—are provided by the Government. The House would benefit from the Minister’s clarification of these points, as the need for security measures must always be balanced with the need to ensure that the rights and liberties of both businesses and individuals are protected and maintained.
I also worry about the cost of the Bill and the financial burden that the draft legislation could place on businesses across the UK, which are already working to balance the books under extreme rising costs. To implement these requirements, businesses face costs of between £3,000 and £52,000. As a result, some businesses could be unable to afford to adapt. I am therefore seeking today from the Government an understanding of any finance that may be available to support businesses with initial adaptations to the legislation.
Additionally, I would like to hear from the Government about the possibility of improving planning law—either through this Bill or through additional means—to ensure that the design of new buildings both complies with this legislation and ensures that we can design out terrorism, as we have been trying to do over the past decade or so in designing out crime.
I would be interested to know whether, on the back of this Bill, councils will therefore be encouraged to consider such measures in assessing planning applications, and whether the Government are minded to bring in new legislation or statutory provisions on the incorporation of counterterrorism measures into the design and construction of new buildings. While this is not directly related to the Bill, the House needs better to understand how the Government plan to move forward in this area.
Some measures in the Bill may be necessary; they are a sad acknowledgment of the reality we face in Britian today. However, when it comes to anti-terrorism measures, or indeed measures to protect the public from terrorism, I cannot help but feel that we are firefighting an industrial blaze with a water pistol. It is deeply disheartening that we must legislate for protections against acts of terror in spaces that should be open, safe and welcoming to all. We have seen horrific acts committed in recent weeks and the fabric of our cities and venues changing in the face of the onslaught of people who seek to exterminate the existence of our values and destroy our way of life.
Today we are discussing how venues will have to share the burden of responsibility when it comes to countering terrorism. The additional burden in both time and expense that this will place on them prompts an important question: what steps are the Government taking to address the root cause of terrorism in this country? We cannot go on adapting our way of life to constantly counter those who wish to cause us harm. The Government should urgently update this House on what is being done on a society-wide basis to root out terrorism and the cause of terrorism in these islands.
We know from past and recent cases here in the UK that terrorism is not born in a vacuum. Terrorism in Britian today is fuelled by ideological extremism, social dislocation, weakness in our immigration and asylum systems, and a lack of trust in and respect for authority. Local authorities across the UK have a vital role to play in countering these root causes, yet many have faced significant challenges, particularly when it comes to resources. I am therefore keen to understand, in the wake of the reorganisation and creation of combined authorities, who will be responsible for countering terrorism at community level and how they will do it. I therefore seek clarity today from the Minister on what powers and resources government will hand over to reformed or devolved local authorities—particularly elected mayors—to ensure that they can effectively address the underlying factors that allow terrorism and ideological extremism to breed as an undercurrent in many communities across the UK. As we all know, it is far better to cure and we must grasp this problem before it is too late.
I welcome some of the intentions of the Bill. However, as it progresses, it is essential that these key areas are addressed to ensure that the legislation is both workable and proportionate, and that we balance protections with freedoms. We owe it to those whom we seek to protect, and to the venues and organisations tasked with implementing these measures, to provide them with a clear, fair and effective framework. I fear that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to clarity on what is being asked of whom, and the indirect consequences of this legislation. We must therefore provide businesses with support and certainty, and I urge the Government to listen to the concerns raised by industry in this regard.
In finishing, I say that I do believe that the legislation is significantly better than where it was before; I just feel that this House needs to do a lot more scrutiny.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome this Bill, as well as the discussions in the other place and what Minister Jarvis said. I am so pleased that it has come to this House speedily. I thank all of those who sent me briefings, who have been in touch with me and with whom I have had meetings, including Figen Murray and her colleagues.
Doing nothing is not an option. The public can be, and have been, targeted at a wide range of public venues. The terror threat is not predictable. Attacks are hard to deflect. Everyone needs to be part of the measures to keep people safe. “Reasonably practicable” is in the text: that is a familiar foundation of health and safety. However, as so often, there are concerns about an additional responsibility being imposed on local authorities without necessary resources—or proportionality, which is the key in the case of bodies with considerable resources and more liberty to resource. The measures in the Bill are proportionate: they are the result of two very extensive consultations, pre-legislative scrutiny and the legislative process so far. They are not unduly onerous and they have proceeded smoothly so far.
However, for local authorities, we have to find a way of giving them further support. We must ask whether there should be an extra way in the planning department, without having a planning Bill, through which we could amend planning legislation—perhaps through statutory instruments—to make this support go hand in hand with this Bill, without having to delay everything. We also have to look at resources for local authorities, because we know how strapped they are. This is a necessary and essential part of our day-to-day life. This should lead to speedy conclusions, legislatively and in terms of resources.
It is already almost eight years since the Manchester Arena attack and the attacks on London Bridge and Borough Market. As the Chief Coroner recommended after those attacks, protective security must be enhanced and duties must be clarified, with appropriate guidance on the implementation of duties and an assessment. As public authorities need to work together, there has to be joined-up partnership between private security firms, the police, local authorities and government. This cannot be done in silos; it has to be joined together. The more I have listened to colleagues today, the more I know that it is correct to recommend that we try to have this working together.
We must consider the reality of places and spaces, with consideration of terrorist attacks becoming part of planning procedures. We also have to ensure that there is more training for staff on how to use CCTV cameras. Staff have to check that they are actually working and that there are not just blank tapes inside. There has to be proper training and we have to work out how it will be paid for. It also has to be linked to the police and so on.
I know that there is a working relationship between private security and the police, but it now has to be stronger. As many Members have said today, we also have to consider the cost of consultants. We need to have a list of the consultants and to identify who are just working on the back of a brown envelope. That is very important because many lives are at risk.
Physical protection measures are only one part of the necessary security measures; they are component parts and embody an important principle. The owner of a public space has the responsibility for the safety of the public. This is an important piece of the counter- terrorism measures; it is paramount that it is included.
I have previously thought about something that my noble friend Lord Harris said about the protection of schools. Perhaps we could look at schools with local authorities, which could work joined up with the Department for Education and some other bodies. We have to look at both primary and secondary schools. We have been relatively lucky so far that we have not had in the UK what we have seen in other parts of the world, but we have to be conscious that this could happen in any state school, religious school or wherever else. We know that this could happen—I am sorry to say that. My noble friend’s recommendations are very important.
Also, in all places of worship, this is becoming more important than we have previously thought. We go to church, to synagogue or wherever else, and we do not really think about this. We just go in, see our friends, wander around and leave—but we know now, the more that we think about it, that we could be at risk. There needs to be some training, but that has to be linked to the police and the local authority; it should not be left to churches and other religious spaces to work out for themselves how this should be done using private security and other advice. That is very important. Resources must all be joined up together. This Bill could use statutory instruments—but not in the long term—to make this happen. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest, having for a long time been a member of the board at the Rose Theatre in Kingston, the capacity of which is over 800 when you include staff, volunteers and performers. I declare the interest because I still refer to them as “us” and “we”.
There is a lot of experience in the Chamber today, among not only the speakers but the people listening too. My experience is minor, but because I feel quite affected by it, I am declaring it as an interest as well. On 7/7, when the Mayor of London was in Singapore, after the announcement about the 2012 Games, the officers at City Hall told me that I was the most senior politician in the building—I was chair of the assembly at the time. I realised rapidly that the officials needed someone to report to, and that my role was to be supportive and make sure that those in operational roles were able to get on with the job without any interference from people such as me. That was my big learning from that. Subsequently, the London Assembly looked at communications on the day, including the role of the media. I echo a good deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady May, said about communications.
It was inevitable that words such as “balanced” and “proportional” would be used a good deal today, and they have been used by those who have made representations to us. What they mean to the user is of course affected by where that person is looking from. I would add the words “objective” and “measured”. It may be difficult not to focus on the most recent event, but not every situation is coverable and the Bill does stop, or seek to stop, all terrorism.
As my noble friend Lady Suttie made clear, Liberal Democrats support the Bill. Personally, I would have preferred the title to mention people, or at least the Bill to give them some priority over premises, because this is about people. I welcome the amount of consultation and general work in the lead-up to this. That needs to continue, as many noble Lords have said, including in the preparation of regulations and guidance. I accept that regulations will be needed. I do not think that from these Benches we will be quite as critical about regulations as we often are—although we reserve the right to be a bit of a nuisance.
I asked the Rose Theatre for its views, and it gave me only about three lines. Basically, it said that it wants easy to follow guidance. It will not be entirely easy, because events differ, numbers of volunteers and casual staff differ, incidents differ, and there are different factors and responses required—evacuation or invacuation —and the right response may be counterintuitive. Premises do not follow a single pattern, and the Bill extends beyond buildings.
At this point, I ask the Minister if the Government have in mind further clarification of the term “in the vicinity”. That is clearly troubling owners and operators as to how far their responsibility extends and what, in practical terms, they can do. It troubles me because of consequences for compliance and, perhaps, insurance cover.
We have made it clear that our principal concern is about training. I have seen the letter from the Security Minister to my honourable friend Ben Maguire MP, which says that guidance will signpost a range of suitable free training offers. I am interested in the term “free”. I know that it is envisaged that the SIA will provide a good deal of guidance, but like other noble Lords I think that the legislation seems to create quite a market for trainers, not all of them as skilled as they would present themselves. I gather it is not envisaged that the SIA will have to approve training programmes or trainers. I would like to explore at a later stage whether there is scope for some sort of franking approval, so that it is the properly skilled consultants who are relied on, as it is likely that people will think that it is the responsible thing to do to get in someone to make sure that they are doing the right thing.
The SIA is in a pivotal position—again, the noble Baroness, Lady May, talked a good deal about this. Under Clause 12, it is to prepare guidance about how it itself proposes to exercise its functions. I find “guidance” a rather curious term here. It is to have extensive powers. For now, I will just mention non-compliance penalties: the maximum of the greater of £18 million and 5% of qualifying worldwide revenue. That is an awful lot of power. It also suggests quite a lot of scope for avoidance through how accounts are structured and gives the SIA a lot of scope in determining—the word is how it “regards”—what comprises revenue. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, mentioned the briefing we received today from the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health. It raised some of these points about how the SIA will operate, given its new functions, so can the Minister say something—anything—about its governance?
On insurance, perhaps I am too cynical in envisaging the scope for squabbles about the extent of cover and exclusions relating to alleged non-compliance and the assessment of what is “reasonably practicable”, but I think I have a fellow cynic sitting across the Chamber from me at the moment. I may also be too cynical about legislating for co-ordination and co-operation, but I do not think this is a novel provision.
Related to this, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about Clause 31, which provides that the Bill gives no right of action in respect of non-compliance. I do not really understand how this can work. One question is whether non-compliance can be used in evidence in civil proceedings. The noble Lord shrugs his shoulders—exactly; that will not show in Hansard, I am afraid. I also want to pursue the observations of the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation on Clause 18—he refers to a number of provisions and queries their impact—and on Clause 32, as it affects alterations to thresholds. He draws attention to the shortcomings of unamendable regulations, which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned. If it would be helpful for the Minister, I would be happy to table amendments for these matters to be discussed in detail later rather than today.
Planning and licensing have rightly been mentioned, but perhaps we should add building regulations, which may be more relevant on a day-to-day basis. Various organisations have raised concerns about the costs, and we have heard what the Minister had to say on them. We must acknowledge the burden, including costs, which local authorities will incur.
The Government’s explanation for the particular treatment of places of worship is that they, to quote the Minister’s letter,
“are different to other premises … in being readily accessible and welcoming to all, without the same commercial drivers … usually having no restrictions on entry, or staff routinely present.”
A lot of community organisations would say, “Well, that’s us too.” The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, had quite a lot to say about this; I agree with very much of what he said. The Government also refer, with regard to places of worship, to
“developing measures to better mitigate threats through local police engagement”,
but that must also apply across the board. Of course, a lot of places, particularly places of worship, have their own security arrangements.
Recently, I visited a synagogue that I had not been to before. Its entrance was not easy to spot, but the Muslim cab driver who took me did spot it. He said, “It must be here: I can see the security”. If there is a danger in this Bill, it is perhaps that people will see the regime as a complete substitute for other measures, including their own common sense. There will be points raised in the form of amendments because it is what we do here, but from these Benches, supporting the Bill, our amendments will be because we want to see the Bill as clear and effective as it can be.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister identified, the principle that the first duty of government is the protection of its people is one that is redolent in this legislation. In an era when terrorism remains a persistent and evolving threat, as the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, both noted, it is essential that we equip ourselves with the tools necessary to mitigate risk and enhance public safety. This Bill, by introducing a Protect duty, sends a clear message that safeguarding our citizens in public spaces is a shared responsibility. As the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Hogan-Howe, noted, this legislation completes the triangle of counterterrorism law and, indeed, it gives substance to what was previously a thinner field in the Prepare and Protect arena, as identified by my noble friend Lord Parkinson. All in all, this Bill is a significant step, but its practical implications warrant close scrutiny.
One of the most encouraging aspects of this Bill is its emphasis on partnership. Public safety cannot be the sole preserve of law enforcement or the intelligence services. Venue operators, local authorities and private security firms, together with the owners of establishments covered by this Bill, all have a role to play. However, to make this partnership effective, we must ensure that all stakeholders are properly equipped to meet the challenge. This includes access to training, resources and clear guidance on best practices. Prior to implementation, the Government should establish a comprehensive support framework to help businesses and organisations meet their obligations under this legislation. I understand that this is planned, but we have yet to have the detail. I have no doubt that the Minister will provide further detail on that in due course.
As was so well put by my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and a number of other noble Lords around the House, there are significant concerns about the identification of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator in the context of this Bill. It may be that there are other bodies—for example, local authorities—which would be better at providing this regulation, and there may be an argument that it is consistent with the roles in respect of licensed premises. However, that can be explored further in Committee. At the least, as moved in the other place by my honourable friend Alicia Kearns, we believe that there should be a report reviewing the role of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator, to be laid before Parliament 18 months after Royal Assent. This would allow stakeholders to review and provide input on the appropriateness of the Security Industry Authority enforcing the measures in this Bill —in due course again reviewing whether their enforcement is done properly and to appropriate standards and ensuring that people attending venues are safe.
We also need to be alive to preventing the expansion in costs caused by gold-plating the provisions in these Bills in accordance with suggestions by consultants, about which we have heard so much across the House this evening and was particularly noted by my noble friend Lady May and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
In passing, I endorse the call by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the House be shown at least outlines of the draft guidance, which is suggested in the Bill at Clause 12(2)(a), to be generated by the SIA, and the guidance to be generated by the Secretary of State in Clause 27. I also endorse the call that the Government provide an indication as to whether such guidance would be sectoral, for the reasons identified by my noble friend Lord Parkinson in his speech.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, stated, the Bill provides an opportunity to leverage technology in our fight against terrorism. Advances in surveillance systems, AI and data analysis can play a critical role in identifying threats before they materialise. I therefore encourage the Government to look at ways to encourage innovation in this area. Could we, for example, incentivise the adoption of security technology? Could we establish a recognition scheme for businesses that go above and beyond in their security measures and in relation to measures and steps taken to address the problems in communication, as noted, again, by my noble friend Lady May and others? Such initiatives would not only enhance public safety but encourage a proactive security culture.
As my noble friend Lady Newlove made clear, one of the hallmarks of our society is the freedom of our citizens to gather and enjoy public spaces without fear. It is vital that, in our pursuit of public safety, we do not inadvertently stifle the very freedoms which we seek to protect. If I may echo the powerful points made in different ways by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that is another way in which terrorism wins. This Bill must not lead to an environment of excessive regulation or create barriers for community events. It is all a balancing act.
I therefore ask the Minister to clarify how the Government intend to monitor and evaluate the impact of this legislation, post commencement, on civil society and volunteering. This goes directly to the issue which I have no doubt we will explore in Committee as to the threshold. I agree with many of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The House will want to look both at the threshold and at the power of the Secretary of State to lower that threshold.
Terrorism knows no borders, and our approach to security must reflect this reality. While the Bill focuses on domestic venues, we must not lose sight of the international dimension. The UK has a proud history of leadership in counterterrorism co-operation. How will the measures in this Bill align with broader international efforts? Are we sharing best practices in relation to the protection of public spaces with our allies and learning from their experiences? This exploration of factors is all part of the cool-headed approach encouraged by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and I would endorse such an approach in Committee in this House.
Finally, I highlight the importance of community resilience. No piece of legislation can be a substitute for an engaged and vigilant society. This Bill provides an opportunity to foster greater awareness and preparedness at grass-roots level. Simple measures such as public awareness campaigns and community training programmes can make a significant difference. Empowering ordinary citizens to recognise and report suspicious activity is one of the most effective ways to prevent attacks.
The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill is now a necessary piece of legislation. It reflects our commitment as a party to safeguarding the public and addressing the challenges of the modern age. However, as my noble friend Lord Frost observed, we must ensure that this Bill is implemented with care and foresight by fostering partnerships, embracing innovation, safeguarding freedoms and preserving community volunteering. We can create a security framework that is not only robust but reflects our values. We on these Benches look forward to working with colleagues across the House, as we have done hitherto, to ensure that this Bill delivers proportionately the protections that all our citizens deserve.
I have a few final questions to pose to the Minister. What assurances can the Government provide that businesses and venues will have sufficient time, importantly, and resources to comply with the new requirement before the penalties are enforced? Will implementation take place only when the relevant authority, possibly the SIA, is able to cope with the implementation of the provisions in the Bill? It may be that 24 months, although it is a period that has found some favour in the House, may not be long enough for the SIA to arrange its affairs such that it can administer the system. Is it right that the regulator would adopt a pragmatic and understanding approach to enforcement, particularly at smaller venues, at the outset of the commencement of the Bill’s provisions? Secondly, will there be specific government-funded training programmes to help smaller venues understand and meet their obligations under the Bill? Thirdly, is it intended that the new measures will integrate with other existing counterterrorism efforts on intelligence sharing and operational co-ordination?
On a specific point, there is a provision in the Bill for enhanced-tier premises to submit revised security plans to the SIA whenever they are changed or created. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson noted, there are concerns about the routine provision of these highly sensitive documents to the SIA. Would it not be better simply to have a dip-sample approach, such that every premises has to update its plan and make it available for a spot check by the SIA? This would have the benefit of reducing the administrative burden on both the participants and the SIA. No doubt that can also be explored in Committee. Finally, will the Government keep these measures under review to ensure they continue to strike the right balance?
While I look forward to the Minister’s responses, I also look forward to continuing the co-operative and iterative cross-party process that the Bill has hitherto enjoyed. I am sure that it will achieve its vital aims effectively and fairly in the end. It is a matter of grave regret that we need to have such a Bill, but it is clear, given the present and enduring terror threat, that we need such a Bill.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions in the House today. There has been a great deal of expertise and reflection shown, and the serious issues that have been addressed demand a serious response from the Government.
I particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Davies of Gower, for their broad support from the Opposition Front Bench, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her similar approach to cross-party agreement. There may be some areas that we need to look at and examine between us, but I am grateful, and the House and public need to know that there is a broad support for the Bill from the House.
I start with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, because she mentioned victims and they have to be at the heart of our consideration in the Bill. The reason for this Bill is to prevent more victims in the future, as she mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, held very high office at the time of this atrocity, and I could tell from her contribution how that impacted her and she carried it upon her shoulders. She is one of the few people who has seen the vast vista of the impact of this on individuals, the community and the Government.
I was struck also by the speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. In reflecting on the impact on his city, he also reflected on something that came out of the contributions of all Members, which is the spirit of this nation and that city to ensure that we have integration and a positive approach to our society, and that we do not bow down to terrorists or their threats but do what the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, and uphold the security of our people as the first tenet of good government.
Figen Murray has been mentioned and we have focused on her great efforts, but I think she would also recognise Brendan Cox and others who have supported her, and I want to refer to them from the Government Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris of Richmond and Lady Fox, also mentioned Sir John Saunders, chair of the Manchester Arena inquiry. He deserves our credit and support for focusing the minds of the political class on the solutions to this problem. He said in his report:
“Doing nothing is, in my view, not an option”,
which was repeated by my noble friend Lady Goudie, and he is right: doing nothing is not an option.
Today, after seven years in gestation, two consultations, a Home Affairs Select Committee report and the power of Figen Murray and her campaign team, we have brought to this House and the House of Commons a Bill that will, I hope, address the issues raised by Members and deliver the prevention of victims that began with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove.
Your Lordships made a number of points and I will try to cover them in broad terms. The points that I will try to address are cost, guidance and communication, enforcement and the SIA, the threshold issue, exclusions, the terror threat and a number of other individual issues that I will come to in due course.
First, I hope I can give confidence to my noble friends Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lady Ritchie that the devolved Administrations were involved in discussions on this at administrative and ministerial level, and will be during the passage of the Bill and in particular during its implementation in due course. But the issues that have been raised are important and I will try to address them in the time that I have.
The cost to business was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Frost, Lord Udny-Lister, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Davies of Gower—in his Front-Bench contribution—my noble friend Lady Ritchie, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. The reason we decided to reduce the number of venues in scope was to ensure that costs are proportionate and do not fall on a range of bodies that it would have been disproportionate to hit.
The changes that we made to the Bill that was produced earlier have taken the number of properties or venues in scope from 278,900 to 154,600 in the standard tier and to 24,000 in the enhanced tier. Overall, the costs have therefore decreased from the estimated £2.17 billion over 10 years to £1.83 billion. For standard-duty premises, we estimate the cost to be around £330 per year, in time and money, and around £5,210—not £52,000, which I think one contributor mentioned—for enhanced-duty premises. Those are the costs, but our focus to prevent victims and to ensure that we put in place some preventive measures is relative. We have tried to assess costs and ensure that the Government take as light a touch as possible to achieve our objectives, while acknowledging that obviously there will be some costs.
We have to take these actions. I appreciate the potential difference of opinion between the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Udny-Lister, and me about some of the burdens—as they described them—but I regard this as an important issue of the security of people who use these venues. Therefore, that is a burden, like many other burdens in society, that we have to accept, adopt and adapt to. That is one of the reasons we have tried to make it as limited as possible.
The second issue that was raised was that of guidance. The noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, all mentioned guidance. Guidance will be set down by the Government on the requirements of the Bill. We will publish it as soon as possible, but I do wish to get it right. I cannot give a timescale on the guidance at this point, because I want to make sure that the Government undertake engagement with key stakeholders across relevant sectors, in industry and in government, to support our understanding of the Bill and the ultimate Act and to address any questions posed.
Guidance was also linked to training. Following pre-legislative scrutiny, it was determined that we did not want to prescribe specific training obligations that applied to both tiers, and that that was not necessary or desirable, but it is entirely reasonable that practical procedures and measures are implemented. Therefore, we will be looking to issue guidance in due course to support identifying suitable training opportunities in an effective and cost-effective way for the individuals concerned. In fact, the noble Baronesses, Lady May of Maidenhead and Lady Harris of Richmond, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, mentioned that.
There has rightly been a debate about the SIA enforcing and having the ability to oversee this potential legislation. First and foremost, the SIA has a full regulatory approach to this matter. There is a two-year implementation period. That goes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, from the Front Bench. The noble Lords, Lord Udny-Lister, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady May, all mentioned that aspect of the role. We have set out the powers of the SIA in the Bill. It will be given powers to gather information, to inspect premises for such events and to ensure that we assess compliance with powers of entry and interview, consistent with other regulatory regimes.
The SIA will be accountable to Home Office Ministers. This Government have four and a half years left of their term, and this legislation will be implemented after a two-year period as a potential minimum—it may be longer. We will implement the legislation only when the SIA is ready to adopt that role. Home Office Ministers such as myself and my honourable friend Dan Jarvis will be accountable for the performance of the SIA in the period up to it taking on that role, so that the Home Office can make sure that it does the job we want it to do. The SIA has already been engaged in this, it obviously knows the Bill and the direction of travel, and it is working with senior officials in my department to bring forward proposals. It is important that we give the SIA that power.
We can undoubtedly debate this issue further during the passage of the Bill, but we can already understand how the SIA deals with the security industry. Guidance, support, training, point of contact and the inspection regime are issues we will work through and no doubt discuss further in Committee and at Third Reading, but they are solvable and, with political ministerial control, will be about delivery. It is not about passing legislation but delivering an effective mechanism that has that balance between inspection, guidance and training. It is not about setting up an organisation that is not fit for doing that job; we want to make sure that this is a good job done. I hope that will reassure a number of noble Lords who have raised this issue.
The impact of the threshold has been a key issue. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, with his experience, mentioned that, as did the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Frost. The Government have to take a decision on this. Some people have argued for 300 as a minimum threshold, and some for the original figure of 100. I have heard a number of other figures put into the domain at different times. We have had to settle on a figure, and that of 200 is in response to the consultations and the feedback we have had. We have therefore taken out a large number of properties that would have been in the scope. The threshold is something we just have to settle on. I am hopeful that, for all the reasons that have been mentioned, we do not focus so much on the threshold but on the Bill’s ability to encourage good practice as a whole. But we are where we are with the threshold, and colleagues will have to look at that.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, mentioned the 800 figure and the understandable issue that it is in use for maybe one day a year, and there are different thresholds on other days, for perhaps even a month. We have to have a settlement, and we are trying to make things simple. If we had a different regime for different days or months of the year for organisations that might have an 800-plus threshold on certain days of the year, that would overcomplicate the regime we are trying to introduce and create more implementation difficulties downstream. I hear what the noble Lord says, but I hope that he can also hear what I am trying to say about the simplicity of a regime as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred in private discussions, and today on the Floor of the House, to the powers of the Secretary of State—I wrote “SOS” in my notes, and it sometimes it feels like an “SOS” in this job. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Murray, also mentioned the power of the Secretary of State to make those changes. I have heard what individuals have said, but, again, we have had to make a judgment that, at some point, the Secretary of State might need to look at what has happened with the wider terrorist activity in the country and make a determination accordingly. We can revisit that, I am sure, in due course.
My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—there are too many Harrises—the noble Baronesses, Lady May, Lady Newlove and Lady Hamwee, my noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Udny-Lister, all mentioned the wider terrorist threat. There is a growing threat, and New Orleans, Germany and the 10th anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo attack have shown us that that terrorist threat moves. There is a public responsibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for all of us to be vigilant about how that threat evolves.
There is a need for us to look at long-term conflict resolution, as my noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned. There is a need to look at all the terrorist strategy elements that we can, including facial recognition, AI, and stop and search, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned. Those are all part of the issues we need to look at in the wider terrorist prevention field, which are, in a sense, separate to the Bill but are still drivers for all the reasons why the Bill is necessary. I take that on board and we can have further discussions in due course.
A number of specific issues were mentioned, which I will try to cover in the short time I have left. The first is the issue mentioned, quite rightly, by the noble Baroness, Lady May, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Udny-Lister, and others, about how we design and build terrorist activity out of buildings in new build—it is an extremely important point. The National Planning Policy Framework—the devolved Administrations have their own national policy frameworks—already includes security considerations, as appropriate for new builds, to ensure the health and safety of communities. But I will consider and take away those points as they are very important. They are not in the scope of the Bill but it is important that we talk to the appropriate Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and in the devolved Administrations, just to make sure that we are on the ball on those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the issuing of instructions and the overriding of the tenets of the Bill by the emergency services on the day. It is not the intention of the Bill to have the responsible person, in the event of a terrorist attack, not follow the instructions of the most senior person in the police, fire or other agency that arrives on their doorstep. I make it clear from this Dispatch Box that in that co-operation the lead person should be the responsible professional officer who deals with this on the day. I hope that reassures noble Lords who raised the issue.
We have had some correspondence and discussion around why places of worship are treated differently. We have taken a view—again, it is challengeable in this House but we have—that 200 or more individuals present should be a standard tier impact issue for places of worship, because they play a unique role in our community and across the country. Although they are not invulnerable to attack, I hope that we will continue to work with faith communities to look at how we can help support them in any vulnerability on terrorist issues. I know that is an important issue.
The noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Harris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, asked why schools are treated differently. There are existing safety and safeguarding policies and procedures in place, such as access control measures, lockdown, and evacuation procedures for schools, so we have not tried to impose further burdens because that is good practice that they are already following.
I will reflect on the question of exclusions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, including this building as a whole, if he will let me, and write to him in due course about those particular issues.
On the civil liability issues mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others, the Bill provides for new requirements on those responsible for qualifying premises, and the effect of Clause 31 is only to prevent these requirements giving rise to a distinct right of action in civil proceedings. I reassure the noble Lord that no provision in the Bill seeks to remove or limit current civil liability. The noble Lord is looking at me quizzically. The lack of time means that we do not have the opportunity to discuss that in detail now but there will be opportunities to discuss that in due course outside this Chamber.
On the issue about railways, raised by my noble friends Lady Ritchie and Lord Faulkner, I wrote to my noble friend Lord Faulkner on 23 December, as he knows. I hope that has satisfied him but, if it does not, we can potentially look at it further. Heritage railways will be in the scope of the Bill—but the buildings, not the railways, if that helps.
The noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Udny-Lister, mentioned licensing conflicts. The licensing regime is separate. There are different regimes; we do not believe the two regimes will conflict.
On the question raised by a number of noble Lords—they know who they are; I will not list them all—about local authorities, in line with established good practice on new burdens assessment, we will undertake an assessment on that, which is in progress and will be discussed and taken forward further.
Finally, I give thanks to those who have contributed and those outside this House who have put pressure on political leaders to make these changes. To extend a hand of friendship to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who said as his first words today that the first duty of Government is public safety—I agree. The first duty of this Bill is public safety. The first duty of this House is to help prevent further terrorist atrocities. We want to understand what has happened to date. We want to take action. The Bill will, I hope, ensure that with all the other measures the Government take, we are putting in place a further deterrent to terrorist offences and giving hope to people that we can honour the memory of those who died in Manchester in 2017, including Figen Murray’s son, Martyn Hett. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 5 to 12, Schedule 3, Clauses 13 to 34, Schedule 4, Clauses 35 to 38, Title.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 3rd February 2025
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (3 Feb 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower
“Purpose: protection of premises from terrorism(1) The purpose of this Act is to protect premises from terrorism.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely to protect premises from terrorism.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to insert a new clause before Clause 1 that aims to clearly establish the purpose of this important Bill: namely, the protection of premises from terrorism. Before I begin, I was very sorry to hear that there has been a stabbing and subsequent death at a school in Sheffield this afternoon. I know I speak for the whole House when I say our hearts go out to the victim, their family and the people of Sheffield at this difficult time.
The events of recent years have made it tragically clear that terrorism remains one of the gravest threats facing our nation. The horrifying attacks at the Manchester Arena, London Bridge and Borough Market are seared into our national consciousness. These atrocities were targeted not just at individuals but at our entire way of life. They were aimed at places where people come together to live, work and celebrate life. It is the duty of government to protect our citizens and public spaces from such evil, and that is precisely what this Bill seeks to achieve.
I again pay tribute to Figen Murray. Without her work in campaigning for this Bill, it is unlikely that it would have come before your Lordships’ House. We owe a duty to the victims, survivors and families to get this Bill right. Legislation must always be crafted with clarity of purpose. A Bill without a clearly articulated objective risks confusion during implementation and unintended consequences.
That is why this amendment is so essential. It explicitly states:
“The purpose of this Act is to protect premises from terrorism”,
and requires the Secretary of State to have regard to that purpose when
“taking any actions under the … Act”.
The Bill is of the highest importance, and the Official Opposition will take a constructive approach to scrutinising it to ensure that we can deliver these urgently needed security measures in the best way possible. We have already tabled a number of priority amendments to the Bill.
During a meeting with me and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst last week, the Minister indicated that the measures under the Bill may not be implemented for at least two years. I am sure the Minister will confirm that today. I must express my concern about that timeline. Two years is a considerable length of time between the passing of a Bill and its measures taking effect. As we have seen all too often, terrorism does not wait. Therefore, we will be tabling additional amendments to ensure that the Bill comes into effect as soon as possible, to ensure the Government deliver on their promises promptly and effectively.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord in the desires that he expressed, but in my view those desires are not assisted by this amendment. It is otiose and tautological compared with the rest of the Bill. Sir John Saunders, in his recommendations in volume 1 of his three reports on his excellent inquiry into the Manchester Arena events, emphasised that it was necessary to place the duties on individuals—to make sure that individuals took their responsibilities properly—and that indeed has been the objective of the campaign led so well by Mrs Murray.
In my view, if one reads Amendment 1 and then the Long Title of the Bill, one sees that the Long Title covers everything included in Amendment 1 and an awful lot more. My view is that we should not enter into a discussion about what in the abstract is required of premises; that is not what the Bill is about. It is about placing on individuals enforceable responsibilities, the failure of which would provide serious consequences for those individuals. That is why we are here, and that is why we should stick to the Long Title without this amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am minded to support the amendment, but maybe that is because I am a little uncertain about how we are going to ensure that what we all want, which is to protect the public, is guaranteed by the Bill. I worry about a certain mission creep. At Second Reading, a lot of people quoted Sir John Saunders saying:
“Doing nothing is, in my view, not an option”,
but I also quoted Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, who quoted him as saying:
“Equally, the Protect Duty must not be so prescriptive as to prevent people enjoying a normal life”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/24; col. 625.]
As I understand the aim of the amendment, it is simply to ensure that we do not forget what the point of the Bill is. Whether we like it or not, regulatory powers have a tendency of leaving their original aim and growing or going elsewhere. In that sense, I want to ensure that we do not forget what the Bill is about, and that means this amendment. It might seem silly to say that, and tempting to say, “We won’t forget what this Bill is about”, but a lot of the evidence in relation to the Bill does not indicate that the specific measures in it will actually keep people safe from terrorism. I do not doubt that it puts a huge amount of responsibility on individuals, but I do not know that the end result is going to be what we intend it to be. I was of a mind to think that the amendment might help to keep focus; that is one of the things that I was attracted to.
One of the things that is nagging me—and I am going to raise it here because it seems an appropriate place—is that, if we are going to say that the aim is to protect people from terrorism, we also need to know what we mean by terrorism. I am not being glib. The Government themselves have noted that the Bill is partly in response to the changing nature of terrorism—we now have lone-wolf terrorists; it is not straightforward, so we cannot just rely on the secret services and so on—so the changing nature of those terror threats requires this regulation. However, I do not know that we are closer to knowing what that definition of terrorism is. We can all say, as we all will, that we want to pass a piece of legislation that will keep people safe from terrorism, yet we have decided that we do not know how to define terrorism.
Let us think of the official confusion in relation to Axel Rudakubana. As one journalist pointed out last week, saying that he was known to the authorities is an understatement. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out that this is about putting responsibility on individuals but, in that instance, it is hard to name an authority or individual who did not know the threat embodied by that young man, including the police, social services, mental health services, counter-extremism services, education establishments and Childline. He actually said, “I am going to be a mass murderer”, and we know about the ricin, the al-Qaeda manual, and so on. Yet he was not labelled a terrorist. I worry that, if we are confused about our definitions, in relation to this Bill as well, there could be problems.
I have a final point on this. I also worry precisely because we have decided, or declared, that terrorism is changing—I do not challenge the idea that there is something in this—such that somebody who created ricin and had an al-Qaeda manual was not labelled a terrorist. He did not fall through the net—he was caught in the net—yet, none the less, as has been pointed out, nothing was done.
At the same time, we have an expansive slippage between the notions of extremism and terrorism. It has become very unclear what we mean. It might be a joke, but it was revealed over the weekend that the report commissioned, albeit rejected, by the Government, featured a reading list indicating dangerous, far-right extremism that could lead to terrorism. A viewing and watch list was included, featuring Michael Portillo’s “Great British Railways” programme and “Yes Minister” as potentially indicating a problem.
You know, that is, like, “What? How mad”. The reason I am mentioning it is that I do not want mission creep in relation to definitions, or in relation to the regulatory aspects of this Bill. I am terrified of the unintended consequences for community organising, civil society, venues and so on. I just think there is nothing wrong with a very specific reminder of what we want this Bill to do. That is what attracted me, at least, to this amendment.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I of course approve of the Government’s overall intention behind the Bill. However, I have serious concerns about how it will be implemented and whether it is necessary to have this wide range of powers on quite small organisations, events and places that will have events coming within the scope of the Act—when it is an Act—only once or twice a year. We could have real problems there.
My concerns are similar to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, from whom we just heard. There is a real need for focus, and for the Secretary of State, when making regulations, to get them sharply on the point. This is especially so in relation to the likely impact on smaller businesses as well as voluntary and community-run organisations in the standard tier premises. There is a lack of evidence that the Bill will adequately reduce the threat of terrorism to smaller organisations, if indeed they are likely to be at risk.
There will be problems too for one-off and occasional events, which may attract quite large numbers, but in informal surroundings. There will be a big burden on them. How will it really work? So, the purpose is necessary. Just because there are going to be 850 people at an event, do we really need the whole panoply of this Bill?
In 2023, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee produced a report, which, for those who have not looked at it recently, is well worth looking at. It was a careful and well-evidenced report that addressed the then draft Bill. I know that things have moved on since then, but the conclusions reached by that committee on the evidence to which the report referred highlight areas that need to be addressed in the approach to be adopted today.
The committee pointed out that in the 2010s—a slightly different period from the one that my noble friend Lord Davies opened on—there were 14 terror attacks. A lot of those involved knives; there were also vehicle attacks, bombs and one firearm. This was in the 2010s. The majority were out of scope of what is in the Bill: they were on the streets, on Crown premises such as barracks, or on transport. Those would not be covered by the Bill, yet they were the bulk of the attacks. This Bill is irrelevant to them.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I have to admit to being unclear, after what I hope will be a short debate of 20 minutes, as to what exactly this amendment is for. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, wanted a mini-Second Reading debate, because that is what we have had. I remind him, and noble Lords who have spoken, that this is Committee and not Second Reading. The arguments should therefore be addressed to the amendment concerned.
I am also unclear, when I look at Amendment 1, what it actually adds. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said that the Long Title of the Bill really spells it out. If that is too much for anybody who is unclear what the Bill is about, simply look at its title: “Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill”. Does that not really rather sum it up? Why do we need this clarificatory line to say:
“The purpose of this Act is to protect premises from terrorism”?
You just have to read the title of the Bill; it says that already.
Noble Lords have talked about mission creep and the problems of defining terrorism. Can I just make one point quite clear? If, as a citizen, you become involved in an act of violence, you are not going to worry about whether the individual concerned meets a particular category of terrorism. What you want is immediate action and somebody coming to protect you. The Bill is about trying to prevent that initial act of violence. This amendment adds nothing and is pointless. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, whom I respect on so many issues, said that the Opposition’s purpose is to get the Bill implemented as soon as possible. I suggest that introducing amendments like this will not add to that cause.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made one point with which I agree. It is that there is a need for focus. Unfortunately, this amendment is not focused. He talks of the threat of terrorism: the Long Title and the text use the term “acts of terrorism”, and that is where the focus needs to be.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, this has been a short debate on Amendment 1. If the Committee will indulge me, I am keen to very briefly set out an overall approach from these Benches to Committee stage. I reiterate that we support the Bill. We recognise that families and survivors have already had to wait a very long time to get this important legislation on the statute book, but we believe it is also important to get clarity on certain areas of the Bill and to probe the thinking behind some of the drafting, so that it can be the best Bill possible. I also pay tribute to Figen Murray and the campaign team. They have done an amazing job, but there remain areas in the Bill that are very much a framework. Greater clarity, as well as reassurances from the Minister, would be helpful.
I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, regarding Amendment 1. In fact, I was sitting in my office this afternoon thinking, “Isn’t that exactly what the Long Title of the Bill says, so what is the added purpose?”. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but I am afraid that I too did not really hear the additional purpose of his amendment. As I see it, the purpose of the Bill is about public confidence and public protection, as well as the protection of premises. In other words, it should be about people as well as just premises.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it is about people taking responsibility for themselves. It is about making sure that people feel safer when they go to a venue or an event. On Saturday, I happened to go to a theatre in central London where I was asked to open up my rucksack. I also went to a very small private museum on Sunday, staffed by volunteers, where I was not only asked to show my rucksack but had it confiscated and put in a locker. These things do not necessarily cost money, since at that museum they were volunteers.
The Bill should be about introducing measures that minimise the risks, making sure that venues and events have a plan in place and a person responsible for implementing that plan
“to reduce the vulnerability of the premises”
as it says in the Long Title of the Bill. The Bill is also about making sure that there is a plan in place in the tragic event that an attack happens. One of the main problems that I see with this amendment is that it sets out only part of what the Bill aims to do. Yes, the Bill is about protection of premises from terrorism, but it is also about having plans in place to minimise the number of casualties in the extremely unfortunate case that an attack occurs. We should remember that people who are involved in an attack have injuries for life—and not just physical injuries. They can also have emotional and mental health injuries. For that reason, from these Benches, I am afraid that we cannot support this amendment.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this short debate on Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He was right, at the start, to remind us of the reason why this Bill has been put in place, as did the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. That is because of attacks on Borough Market, on Manchester Arena and on London Bridge. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned a death today in Sheffield, about which I pass on my sympathies to the family. I cannot comment in any more detail at this time, but ongoing investigations will take place.
I understand the intention of the amendment, but, if I may, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey have endorsed what I would have said from this Front Bench about the Bill. The Bill has a Long Title, which I which will not read for the convenience of the House, but it is on the face of the Bill, and that is relatively clear as to what the purpose of the Bill is. The Bill is designed, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, to ensure that premises and events in scope are better prepared for an act of terrorism, should one occur. We have taken some expert advice on what that should be, and the consideration is that there are certain measures that could be put in place which, if they were in place prior to a terrorist attack occurring, could potentially save lives.
For ease of Members, although we are jumping ahead slightly, I refer them to Clause 5, which sets down a number of public protection measures that are required. This goes to the heart of what of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned about what we should do in the event of an attack. In Clause 5, the Bill sets down a range of measures, including
“evacuating individuals from the premises … moving individuals to a place on the premises or at the event where there is less risk of physical harm … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.
They are specifically in Clause 5 and, later on, in Clause 6, setting out clear objectives for both public protection procedures and measures. Those procedures are designed to reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals if an act of terrorism were to occur.
I am straying into the sort of Second Reading debate area that we have had, which I do not want to do, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and others mentioned the issues around the scope of the Bill, the cost of the Bill and other issues there. We have taken a measured approach and have made some changes, based on consultation, raising the level of the threshold in the Bill from 100 to 200, with a later second tier of 800. That will reduce the number of venues taken into the scope of the Bill from 278,900 down to 154,600, with 24,000 in the higher tier; so we are cognisant of the fact that there were, potentially, a number of areas where that would have brought a lot more premises into scope and created much more difficulty for people.
What we are trying to do with this legislation is to establish the principle that we have requirements in place which are there for low-level training and support for individuals to be able to understand what happens in the event of a terrorist attack. Again, I said at Second Reading that, downstream, we have to undertake a lot more work to prevent any attacks in the first place; but, in the event that one happens at a premise in scope, we have to ensure that measures, as in Clauses 5 and 6, are in place. I think that the Explanatory Notes, the Long Title and the clauses that I have mentioned meet those objectives, but that is for the Committee to determine.
I will add one more point, if I may. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talked about the two-year period for implementation. By all means, let us have a debate about that downstream, but, again, what this Committee is trying to do—and what the Government are trying to do in supporting this House and supporting the objectives of Figen Murray and the campaign—is to make sure that the measures in place are effective; are implemented in an effective way; have proper oversight and regulation from, as we will discuss later, the Security Industry Authority; and that we give consideration to all other bodies impacted by the Bill to allow time for them to undertake the training, undertake and understand the legislation and put preparations in place.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the participation of noble Lords in relation to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about it being tautological, but it is not intended that it should be a repeat of something. As I said, the idea is to make it a Bill that has clarity, with an articulated objective. That is the purpose of the amendment and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that it ensured the point of the Bill. Clearly, there is a disparity of opinion in the House, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment brings the definition of a “building” in line with other areas of legislation.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to bring the definition of “building” in this Bill into alignment with the definition provided in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984. At first glance, this may appear to be a purely technical adjustment, but it is one that holds practical significance and improves the coherence of our legislative framework. Consistency in legal definitions is essential for ensuring that legislation is clear, workable and enforceable. By adopting a well-established definition already enshrined in the Building Act 1984, this amendment offers several distinct advantages.
First, it ensures legal certainty. The term “building” appears across numerous pieces of legislation that deal with construction, planning, safety and environmental concerns. Diverging definitions introduce the risk of ambiguity and could result in unintended consequences or legal disputes.
Secondly, it supports efficiency and clarity for all stakeholders—whether they are local authorities, developers, legal practitioners or enforcement bodies. A single, consistent definition avoids the need for unnecessary cross-referencing and interpretation, reducing administrative complexity and the scope for conflicting judgments.
Thirdly, this amendment aligns with wider efforts to create a streamlined and harmonised regulatory environment. With the increasing need for integrated approaches to construction and building safety, clarity in our definitions becomes all the more vital. Moreover, this amendment ensures continuity. The definition under Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 has stood the test of time and has been tested in practice. It is familiar to professionals across the construction and legal sectors and therefore provides a trusted and robust foundation for any regulatory measures contained in the Bill.
In conclusion, this amendment may seem modest, but its impact on the clarity, coherence and efficiency of the legal framework is significant. I urge your Lordships to support this sensible and pragmatic change, which would uphold the principles of legal certainty and good governance. If the Minister is unable to agree with my proposed definition, I hope that he will at least take on board our concerns about the definition of premises and look to bring forward an improved definition on behalf of the Government so that we can get the Bill right.
I will now speak to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. This amendment proposes to include in the definition of building any permanent or temporary structure. This amendment draws inspiration from Section 30 of the Building Safety Act 2022. It seeks to clarify that the public protection requirements should apply not only to permit edifices but also to temporary structures, such as those erected for events such as Christmas markets or other seasonal activities.
I commend the intention behind this amendment. The safety and protection of the public must be at the heart of any legislation concerning the built environment. Temporary structures often serve as focal points for large gatherings, where the potential risks associated with terrorism can be just as significant, if not more acute than in permanent buildings. When saying this, I have in mind the horrific terrorist act on 20 December 2024, in which a large 4x4 was driven into a crowd at a Christmas market in Magdeburg in Germany, killing six people and injuring at least 299 others. Equally, we saw over the Christmas period a vehicle attack in New Orleans. I can fully understand why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has tabled his amendment, which is similar to mine, and aims to probe whether the scope of this Bill will apply to temporary structures.
I will also speak to Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to Clause 5. This amendment seeks to leave out the words “immediate vicinity” and replace them with “or at the event”. This is a probing amendment, intended to clarify the scope and meaning of the term “immediate vicinity”. I commend the noble Baroness for bringing forward this important question, as the phrase “immediate vicinity” is inherently vague and open to interpretation.
When drafting legislation, particularly provisions that relate to events, gatherings or the use of premises, clarity is paramount. The lack of a clear definition raises several practical concerns. First, from an enforcement perspective, ambiguity around the term “immediate vicinity” may cause confusion for regulatory authorities and event organisers. How far does “immediate” extend—is it 10 metres, 100 metres or further? Does it take into account natural barriers, such as walls, fences or roads? Without clear guidance, there is a risk of inconsistent application and potential disputes.
Secondly, for those responsible for ensuring public safety or compliance with regulations, the lack of a defined perimeter could lead to uncertainty. Event organisers need to understand precisely which areas fall under their responsibilities for security, crowd control and other measures in this Bill. A clearer definition would also aid in drafting licensing conditions and emergency response plans.
Thirdly, we must also consider the practical realities of modern events, which are often sprawling and multifaceted. Many public events, such as festivals, markets and sporting events, naturally extend beyond a single well-defined boundary. In such cases, the concept of “immediate vicinity” may prove too narrow to cover all relevant areas where public safety measures are required. By replacing “immediate vicinity” with “or at the event”, this amendment seeks to broaden and clarify the scope, making it more effective for the diverse nature of events and gatherings.
In the context of this discussion, we need to be very clear about which premises will be affected by the Bill. I have used my amendment to probe this, alongside the other noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. There may be existing regulatory frameworks that adequately address the safety requirements for temporary structures, such as those enforced by local authorities or event-specific safety regulations. Care must be taken to avoid unnecessary duplication which could impose additional and potentially disproportionate administrative burdens on organisers of short-term events.
In conclusion, I wish to use my amendment to open a discussion on the nature of a premises. I commend the spirit of the amendments from other noble Lords, which also seek to address this issue. I look forward to hearing from them and would encourage ongoing dialogue with stakeholders to explore how best to address the safety concerns around temporary structures, without placing undue burdens on event organisers or enforcement bodies. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 3, which is in my name. Like the amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, my amendment addresses the definition of qualifying premises in Clause 2. My amendment proposes that the definition in Section 30 in the Building Safety Act 2022 is the more appropriate place to look for guidance, given the nature of this Bill.
The definition in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 was designed for a measure which laid the basis for a wide-ranging system of building regulations relating to the construction of the buildings themselves, whereas the focus of this Bill is rather different. As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, it is concerned as much with the people as it is with the buildings. That suggests that it is better to look for a shorter definition in the Bill itself, rather than borrowing from the 1984 Act, so that we know exactly what we are dealing with.
It seems to me that a definition is necessary here to make it clear—if that is what the Government wish—that the protection of the Bill should extend to temporary buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has done quite a lot in introducing the purpose of this amendment for me in his introduction. Like him, I have in mind the horrifying episode in Magdeburg in December, when a lorry drove into a crowded market and caused appalling injuries to people. When that happened, we had a market in Edinburgh, which was set up as temporary buildings in a fairly crowded space; it was full of people. If you are a terrorist, you look for a soft target and it struck me that that was another extremely vulnerable target, because people would be in considerable difficulty unless arrangements were made for evacuation in a hurry and so forth, and unless there were other measures to avoid the perpetration of acts of that kind.
To an extent, my amendment is a probing amendment. On the one hand, I am seeking an assurance that the Government have considered this problem, given the paramount purpose of the Bill. It must be beyond argument that the purpose extends to securing the safety of members of the public who gather together to visit markets of that kind, where what is on offer is displayed in hastily erected facilities that are here today and will be gone tomorrow. As I said, those who are planning acts of terrorism may see these as soft targets and exactly the places they would want to go. If the protection of the Bill is to extend to these places, it is better that the Bill should make this plain.
There is another reason I suggest that it would be helpful to include the words in my amendment. The public protection measures provided in this Bill need to be enforceable if they are to be effective or, to put it another way, they must be capable of being enforced. It would be unfortunate if attempts to extend these measures to temporary buildings of the kind that I have in mind were to be frustrated because it was open to argument in a court that they did not fall within the meaning of a building for the purposes of this Bill. One wants to avoid uncertainty of that kind, which is why it is better to spell it out in this Bill in the very few words I suggest.
I also have in mind the point the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, mentioned when discussing Amendment 1. One has to be very careful not to overload the people who are trying to provide entertainment services to the public with measures that make these enterprises either too difficult or too expensive to operate. There is a real question for the Government to consider on whether temporary situations of this kind are to be protected in the way the Bill is designed for.
My amendment is probing because I suggest that this issue is one that needs to be carefully thought about. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. It may well be that he will return on Report with an amendment, if he thinks that is right. It might be my amendment, or—the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, might be fond of this—it might be that it does not extend to temporary buildings, which is another way of looking at the problem he has raised.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, we are with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on this. If the market to which he is referring is the one I am thinking of, dispersing people from that site would be very difficult, with a bloody great rock and a castle in the way.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his support of my amendment, but I am afraid I am going to question one part of his amendment. The section in the Building Act 1984 refers to a
“permanent or temporary building, and … any other structure or erection”,
including
“a vehicle, vessel … aircraft or … movable object”—
there is mention in the section of hovercraft. I find it difficult to see how this would be quite the right reference for the Bill.
We have Amendment 20 in this group, which seeks to take out the reference to “immediate vicinity”, and is a probing amendment. This would mean that the objective would not include reducing the risk if an act of terrorism occurs in the immediate vicinity of premises or an event. That is not what we are aiming to achieve; we are aiming to understand, and allow interested organisations to understand, what “immediate vicinity” means. A lot of organisations that briefed us are concerned about this; owners and operators want to comply with the law, take all reasonable steps and do the right thing, but they are not quite sure what that means.
We have heard about grey space, which is the public space outside a building where, by definition, event organisers and security personnel have no control, and only the police can control them—for instance, an area where people queue on a pavement to enter premises but are outside neighbouring premises, or queues which cross over one another.
I assume that the words
“so far as is reasonably practicable”
are the key to what immediate vicinity means in any given situation. Does that phrase mean only what is physically practicable, as a matter of physical layout and the scope for protective measures, or where it is appropriate for an owner to control what goes on, or is it also what is financially practicable, and is that related to the scale of an event or the activities taken over a period as a whole, or to the financial position of an owner of operator? The Explanatory Notes say that what is reasonably practicable is to put in place particular procedures, but I am not quite sure that that answers the point.
It strikes me that what is in the immediate vicinity of any building may affect insurance issues, such as the premium payable by the owner or whether a claim by an owner is met by insurers.
As well as the Minister clarifying the point today, if he is able to, can he tell us whether the Home Office has considered the need for guidance, perhaps with examples of what is in the immediate vicinity? However, as I typed that, I thought that that could be confusing, because if an example is not there then people may think that it would not apply. What help can the Home Office give, or ensure that the Security Industry Authority gives, to help the assessment of whether an area is within the immediate vicinity of premises?
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will deal with Amendments 3 and 20; I do not wish to say anything about Amendment 2.
So far as Amendment 3 is concerned, I am sure we have all attended many events that have taken place in large, demountable premises. It is a long time since I have been to the International Eisteddfod in Llangollen, but certainly the last time I attended the arena was a demountable premises—I would have called it a building—that could be packed up on lorries, taken away and stored somewhere. We have all been to sporting events in premises like that. It is a bit of a puzzle to me as to why, in Clause 2(2), the Government diluted the word “premises” by referring to buildings in Clause 2(2)(a). I urge the Government to consider, before Report, putting a definition of premises and/or buildings in the interpretation section at Clause 33. It is my belief that, subject to whatever decision we reach in your Lordships’ Committee about the number of people attending an event which brings those premises within this Bill, we need to include demountable premises.
I turn next to Amendment 20. I mean it when I say that anything that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee or Lady Suttie, say, I treat with great seriousness, having known them for a very long time. When I hear the noble Baronesses say something together then I treat it with even more respect. However, I have looked at their amendment, alongside Clause 5(2). I urge the Government to consider whether their amendment dilutes the effect of this Bill, rather than achieves their aims—and I do not wish that to happen.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I will respond to that very quickly, because I was waiting for the “but”. It is a probing amendment. I looked for ways to introduce the concept of immediate vicinity in order to question it, and this was the first time where I could do so. I hoped that that would be clear. I certainly am not seeking to dilute the Bill, merely to seek clarity.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I understand and accept what the noble Baroness was attempting, but Clause 5(2) refers to
“if an act of terrorism were to occur on the premises, at the event or in the immediate vicinity of the premises or event”.
To me, that seems to fulfil all requirements.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am slightly wary, because I want to probe what we mean by the definition of buildings. I find these issues interesting. but I am less interested in them technically and will probably be accused of steering into Second Reading territory.
I genuinely think that trying to clarify what we mean by “building” is important. It speaks to my fear that the Bill might unintentionally dampen down civil society, have an impact on grass-roots activity and lead to a hyper-regulation of public spaces. I do not think that is what it intends to do, so I urge the Government not to expand beyond a narrow view of what a building is.
I was struck when a village in Lincolnshire was forced to cancel its Christmas fair, after it had been told to block off roads due to the risk of a potential terrorist attack. In a discussion on this, somebody noted that it was because there were worries about the impact of Martyn’s law, when it becomes law. I did a little digging and discovered a number of organisations that said that councils and other organisations were citing Martyn’s law guidelines—as we know, it is not a law—in a risk-averse way, pushing back against large gatherings such as bonfires and so forth.
My nervousness is that this law will be used to push a precautionary principle when it comes to civil society. I get anxious about that, so the last thing I want to do is to interpret any gathering, temporary or otherwise, where there are a lot of people, as a building or structure. Somebody just made a point in relation to markets and Christmas markets. One organiser said, “If this carries on, I doubt we will continue, as it takes all the joy out of it”. I just remind the Committee, to go back to the Home Secretary’s point, that the aim of the Bill is not to destroy the capacity of ordinary people to gather, because that would be to let the terrorists win. So, whatever way we come down on our definition of buildings, let us not forget that there is a cost to pay if we overinterpret this to say that, “There is a large group of people; terrorists can attack them; close everything down”. In which case, the terrorists will have won, and what is the point of that?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, whichever way we look at this, I suggest that it is absolutely plain that we need a clear definition of “building”. A number of good points have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, made a good suggestion. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is also a good one. There is merit also in taking at least part of the Building Act, but “building” needs to be defined. Thus, I think it must be clear, when one considers it, that Section 121(2) of the Building Act is not completely apposite, because it does include the words,
“a vehicle, vessel, hovercraft, aircraft”.
One could include the definition there but exclude expressly those words or any other bits. One could do it by reference to the Building Safety Act, or it may be that the best route is to go to the definitions section at the back, look at the two existing statutes that are in place and take a good definition combining those where appropriate. I suggest that we certainly need a proper definition of “building” at the back, which must include demountable, collapsible buildings—things that very often look almost like a tent. Are large tents to be included, or a circus site event which could hold 500 people? If we are going to protect people, let us get it right.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has put his finger on it. It seems to me that, if it is a large tent and 500 people are gathered within it, then somebody ought to be making arrangements to ensure that people are protected. That is what the Bill is about. I have listened with great fascination to the discussion about where we draw the definition of “building”. I always tend, because I am prejudiced that way, that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, gives us a view on definitions, we should take serious note of that, because in my experience he is usually right. I leave it to the Government to come forward with what they think is a satisfactory definition that embraces what we need.
Ultimately, what we are trying to say with this legislation is that people who organise public events, whether they are formal events, community events, concerts or whatever else, should be thinking in advance, “Is this going to be secure?” That also means thinking about what I will do if somebody over there commits a terrorist act that has an implication for the people who are gathered in my event. I hope that my noble friend, when he replies, will say that the Government will look again, will gather together all those with strong views on the definition of “building”, temporary or otherwise, tents or not, and work out what works best. I think that our objective here is quite clear: that people should have a responsibility for the protection of people when they have gathered them together for whatever purpose.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 20. First, I say in passing, on the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about the scope of the Bill, that terrorism is very well legally defined. It is either violence or the threat of violence for a political purpose. How that is interpreted depends on the political purpose and the act. It is a broad definition, and some may wish to change it, but it is well understood within the criminal law.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I may be accused of intruding, because I have not been here for the whole thing. It just interests me that, on one side, we are talking about what is in Clause 5, what we do when a terrorist incident takes place, and on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was mentioning how we prevent it. From a Northern Ireland perspective, we had places and events every day of the week that were open to terrorist attack. Yes, having the facilities in place to enable us to take action if it takes place, but then there is also what we do to try to stop it taking place, making it more difficult for the terrorists to do it. We therefore channelled them, unfortunately, into working around what we have put in place.
When we are talking about buildings—I am sorry that I am not technical enough—what about the places outside where people are waiting? I do not understand why we need a building, alone, for the Bill, because people are under threat when they come together in large numbers. That is crucial. We had many events that did not involve buildings at all. Listening to this, I just think that we are not quite linking the two things together to make a good argument, a good reason and a good result for, first, trying to prevent it and then making sure that our protection is far enough away that it does not endanger people.
I shall give a simple example and then I will stop. We had vehicle checkpoints on the border, and they were easy to bomb and blow up to begin with, because people drove into them. It was not suicide, so it is not that far different, but proxy, where people drove into the middle and blew it up. Then we started using electronics—I know these cannot be used for every event—where we moved the protection further away, so that people had to come through that first. But then you create a queue on the other side. All I am saying is that to me, the lay person, I am not sure that we are not slightly confused about where this terrorist attack is going to take place. I cannot think that they consider only buildings.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to be involved in this, but I have a history of ministry in this country, including over the summer months, and after Easter, there are many gatherings that all meet in large tents. Big tops can house up to 10,000 people. If the clause is limited to buildings, so many vulnerable places and open spaces will be left out.
In this country in the summer, there are incredible gatherings—particularly of young people—that do not take place in what you would call a building. They will be in the big top. Subsection (5) tries to define “premises”, which is a much more flexible word than concentrating on “buildings”. Of course, some meetings will be taking place in buildings. The heart of all of this, however, is large gatherings of people—particularly of young people in the summer. Noble Lords would be absolutely surprised by how farmers lend their land for these kinds of concerts, which can go on for a while.
The people who organise these events, such as spring harvest, hold the responsibility for the protection of people, as laid down in the Bill—not because it takes place in a building but because of the event itself. So I would want to look for a tighter definition than what a building is, because I think we know what a building is. I want the events, where they take place and those responsible to have the same due regard as those who have big theatres. So, will the Government continue their flexibility in their definition as they did in subsection (5)? They may borrow some of the phrases from these amendments, but just remember that we get gatherings that are just so vast, you would not actually be providing protection against terrorism for that many people.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I have three brief points to make in response to this rather interesting short debate. My first point relates to Amendment 20, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. As my noble friend said, it is very much a probing amendment that resulted from organisations that organise events and have premises but are unclear as to the definition. They are people who want to do the right thing but want a greater explanation on the record from the Government as to what it actually means in practice.
My second point continues the flattery of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. If the noble and learned Lord is asking a question, I feel it is one that has to be answered. He is asking the right question although, as he acknowledges, perhaps he has not come up with the right answer yet in terms of the wording. I hope the Government will return to this before Report with some of the suggested wording, taking on board the various points that have been raised.
My third and final point relates to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In many ways, the noble Baroness hits the nail on the head; we should not let the terrorists win. But that is what the Bill is about: it is about getting the balance right between not letting terrorists win and yet letting the public feel safe to go to events and public buildings and not worry, because they know that somebody, somewhere has thought about what to do in the case of an attack.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That was an interesting group. I thank noble Lords for tabling the amendments; they are worthy of discussion and I hope I can answer each point in turn.
Essentially, there are two issues: the definition of “building” and the definition of “immediate vicinity”. I will try to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, in their amendments.
Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord De Mauley, seeks to amend the definition of “premises” in Clause 2(2) so that the term “building” refers to the definition at Section 121 of the Building Act 1984. The Bill has carefully defined qualifying premises and qualifying events to ensure that it is able to appropriately catch the wide range of premises and events that there are, and the definition in the Building Act sadly does not align with this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, sort of stole my notes on this, because she commented that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, includes a number of moveable objects, such as transport items and transport purposes. I confess I did not know that before the amendment was tabled, but research helps on these matters. Having looked at what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has said, there are parts of the definition in the Bill that are not replicated in the Building Act. The term “building” is commonly used and the Bill relies on this ordinary meaning. We do not want to over-define terms that are already well understood, particularly where doing so may create confusion or indeed loopholes.
For those reasons, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the extension to transport objects—including hovercraft—means that the definition of “building” in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 is not really appropriate for this definition today. I hope the noble Lord can accept that and I hope my comment reflects what has been said in Committee today.
I turn now to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It was interesting, and I understand the intention of his amendment. I have not been in this House long, but I sense that the noble and learned Lord’s contributions are ones the House listens to; so I understand and accept the point he has brought forward today.
Clause 2(2)(b) specifies that “qualifying premises” must be wholly or mainly used for one or more of the uses specified in Schedule 1. These uses cover activities where the premises are accessible to or used by the public. I hope I can reassure the noble and learned Lord that temporary buildings can form part of such premises. I hope that will give him the reassurance he seeks in relation to his amendment.
The amendment would extend the scope of Clause 2 to include temporary buildings or structures even if they are not a feature of the usual activities undertaken at the premises. For example, where a field is not in scope, erecting a very temporary structure for the purposes of an event, such as an annual village fete, could draw the field into scope of Clause 2 under this amendment. It may not normally meet the conditions elsewhere, by the very nature of the building being put up, but it would then be drawn into scope by his amendment.
The Government are mindful of the many temporary and one-off events that occur across the UK, many of which will draw large crowds and consist of temporary structures such as tents and staging areas. It is the Government’s intention to capture these events under Clause 3. We have carefully designed the criteria to do so, in a way that strikes a balance between achieving public protection and avoiding undue burden on businesses, organisations and local communities, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, again including the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst.
To that end, we are not looking to legislate for all events and Clause 3 carefully clarifies this. As such, open access events that do not have such checks in place will not be in scope of the Bill. The Government do not consider it appropriate or practical for events that do not have these types of controls and boundaries in place to be in scope. Again, I understand why the noble and learned Lord tabled his amendment, but I hope that on reflection he can accept the points I have made and will not take his amendment further.
Amendment 20 is important, because it asks for genuine clarification. I hope I can give clarification to both noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, on this amendment, which seeks to examine the meaning of “immediate vicinity”. I want to first reassure that the duties under the Bill do not require responsible persons to implement procedures or measures that are beyond their control. Self-evidently, there are some things in the immediate vicinity that will be beyond their control: for example, erecting safety equipment on pavements or other land for which they are not responsible outside the premises.
As I have already set out, the purpose of the Bill is to require people in control of qualifying premises and events to take steps aimed at reducing the risk of physical harm to people in the event of a terrorist attack that might directly impact their venue. An act of terrorism close to a building may also result in physical harm to people inside that building, as well as to people queuing, entering, exiting or even just passing by. Therefore, when considering appropriate procedures and measures to reduce physical harm from, and vulnerability to, terrorism, it is right that duty holders also think about what they should do for their premises in the event of an attack taking place just outside.
We have not deliberately chosen not to define “immediate vicinity” for the purposes of this Bill. The Bill relies on what we term the ordinary meaning of those words. What constitutes the immediate vicinity of a premises or event will depend on its specific circumstances. If the Bill were prescriptive and, for example, to stipulate a certain distance from the premises, it would undermine the flexibility with which requirements can apply to a range of venues in an array of different places. For example, the procedures appropriate for an inner-city pub are likely to be quite different from those for a sprawling visitor attraction in the countryside.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am grateful. Will the Minister undertake to think again on the point I made about certainty when you meet resistance from people with a temporary facility wondering whether they have to go through all the trouble and expense of complying with the measures in the Bill. The problem is that it is quite easy for a lawyer to construct an argument to point to the Building Safety Act, which says that “building” means any “permanent or temporary” building. It does not say that here, so it raises a question as to whether temporary things are covered at all. The way to cut out that argument completely is to include those few words, which I am not sure would do any harm at all to the Bill.
I am not asking for an answer now, but I would be grateful if the Minister would consider very carefully whether there is an advantage in certainty, given that it is important that these measures are capable of being enforced, to avoid arguments going round in circles as to what “building” really means.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I have tried to impress on the Committee that we think that the type of circumstance that the noble and learned Lord has suggested is covered by the Bill. I will obviously examine Hansard and the contributions again in the light of the discussion, but I remain convinced that the Bill meets the needs that the noble and learned Lord is concerned about. However, reflection is always a good thing and I will certainly examine his comments in detail.
I had a sense of a looming intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, before I sit down, but I am obviously just generally nervous of his potential interventions coming my way.
I hope I have satisfied noble Lords and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie. With that, I hope that the amendments are not pressed. I will look at Hansard and at the comments made.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I will not try to answer any points about Amendment 20. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned it but did not really emphasise whether his amendment, or a similar amendment referring to temporary structures, would do any harm in this context. I do not think it would, but it is a discussion that we should have.
The Minister is quite right to be wary of any body language demonstrated by the noble Lord sitting immediately opposite me—you never know what is coming.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has made his case and I have made mine. His words are always worthy of examination, and that I will do.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Section 30 of the Building Safety Act 2022 or Section 121 of the Building Act 1984, that is the question.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, makes some strong points, particularly in regard to whether it is capable of enforcement. That is an extremely important point. A number of other important points have been made by noble Lords. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, about people attending events without having to worry and having a relaxed time is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, makes an extremely helpful point about wanting a good definition, which includes collapsible buildings, and he talked about circuses with up to 500 people. All in all, this is a definition that requires some further discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is right that it is for the Government to come forward with a definition that satisfies us all. On that basis, perhaps we can go away, have a discussion, and come back at Report with something that satisfies all of us. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sandhurst
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the other in the name of Lord Sandhurst to Clause 2 seek to remove the reference to “from time to time” and provide a benchmark by which the attendance at a premises may be measured.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I can be quite short on this. The purpose of this amendment is to address the use of the words “from time to time” in the context of defining the premises to which the obligations will apply—whether from time to time 200 or more individuals may be present or, in the case of the enhanced duty, 800. It is a probing amendment. I acknowledge straight away that “not less than once a month” may not be the right definition, but there had to be something, and “from time to time”, I suggest, is simply too vague.
Is it to be once a year? If you have an event every year, that is “from time to time”. As is presently defined, the premises are caught if
“it is reasonable to expect that”
a given number of individuals may be present “from time to time”. An annual event might be caught, but what happens if it is just someone who does something from time to time? As a lawyer, I am very uncomfortable with this, and I can see the arguments that lawyers much cleverer than me will produce.
The premises are ordinarily qualifying premises only in the sense that they have a capacity of 200 or 250, but they may have an annual day to which 750 come one year and 900 come another. Will that come into this category? They may even have an annual day to which a bit over 800 might be expected. If that is so, the full panoply of the Act will fall: not just to the qualifying premises events but to the enhanced premises events. It is important to be clear about what you want to catch, who will be subject to enhanced obligations, and what is proportionate and necessary to keep people as safe as we reasonably can without creating unnecessary barriers and boundaries. I ask the Government simply to look very carefully at the words, “from time to time”, and to consider whether a better definition could be employed.
Amendment 11 suggests a provision that, where premises are
“assessed as low risk by an independent safety assessor”,
they are to be
“exempt from the duties imposed under this Act”—
in other words, you can have an opt-out. It might be that that would be applicable only to lower categories of events, but it is certainly worth looking at. If you have a good record, you would not do it tomorrow. However, in a year or two, everyone will have experience of how this works—the regulator will have that experience—and, if they see that a given place is well regulated and well run, it will not need to be within the full panoply of the Act.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, despite supporting the Bill in general, I strongly support Amendment 11, which I will speak to. An assessment of risk, which is generally agreed to be appropriate in all aspects of modern life, seems to be absent from the Bill. Any premises or event, regardless of the real risk of it being attacked, must take a series of potentially very costly precautions.
It is worth noting that of the 15 terrorist attacks to which the impact assessment seems to refer as the main basis for the Bill, six were in London, two in Manchester and one in Liverpool, and all were in urban areas. In fact, all of them were in areas that had tarmac underneath them; not a single one was in a rural area. Does that suggest that it is right to treat events in rural settings as being as high risk as those in urban areas? It is like applying 20 miles per hour speed limits throughout the entire country: it might marginally improve safety, but at a cost of bringing the economy to its knees. In their search for economic growth, is this really what the Government want? I urge them to introduce a little good sense and allow there to be an assessment of risk in these situations.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I urge the same in relation to that amendment: having a specific risk assessment and some flexibility and common sense. I will ask the Minister about how you can have that flexible attitude to buildings.
I was very impressed by the letter from the Minister on places of worship. It was very sensitively handled, and it understood, as it said, the unique work of faith communities and so on. It did not say that no faith community buildings would be exempt, but it understood that they could be treated differently, with a certain sensitivity for what their roles are. We heard a number of very good speeches on that at Second Reading which asked the question, “Well, if you can look at a church or another place of worship in that way, why can’t you look at somewhere else like that?”
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too shall be very brief. We believe that all three amendments would have the effect of watering down this draft Bill and reducing the number of premises that would be covered by it. These amendments are working on the assumption that smaller events and venues are less at risk. Can the Minister say whether the Home Office has done any analysis on whether it is indeed the case that smaller venues are less at risk from terror attacks? Is that not, in itself, an assessment of the unknown? It seems to be the case that terrorism and extremist-related attacks are increasingly unpredictable and random in nature.
Noble Lords have talked about the compliance burden. Again, I would like to know a little more about how the Minister would see that in reality. Am I right in assuming that, in the 24-month rollout period before the Bill is implemented, the Government will continue to carry out extensive consultation with the sector and adopt a pragmatic, realistic and common-sense approach, following their consultation with the industry?
As I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I feel that this is about striking a balance between not discouraging creativity and not causing a considerable financial burden to small venues and small events, while maintaining a sense of security in the public. Public confidence and a sense of security play a huge role in people’s minds when they consider whether they will go to an event or venue. People feeling unsafe is not good for business.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11, standing in my name, as well as Amendments 4 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst.
Amendment 11 seeks to establish an exemption for premises which have been assessed to be in a low-risk category by an independent assessor. As the Minister knows, we have concerns about which premises will be required to implement security measures under the Bill, and we feel that there should be some flexibility for the premises that are affected by it.
It may be that the correct flexibility would be delivered by Amendment 22, in the name of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, which will be debated later in Committee, or by Amendment 8, in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. However, the overriding point here is that there must be some flexibility in approach.
Not all premises that are currently caught by the Bill are in need of these additional measures, and it equally may be the case that the Bill as drafted will miss a number of premises that are in need of them. We hope the Government will listen to these concerns and engage positively so that we can ensure that the right premises are required to put in place the appropriate measures to protect the public from the risks of terrorism. This amendment would make this judgment an independent one, taking the discretion out of the responsibility of the department and giving premises that are at low risk access to a route to exemption. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s remarks in response to this debate, and I hope he will engage with me as we seek to deliver the flexibility I have spoken about today.
I will now speak to Amendments 4 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, which seek to clarify the Bill’s language around the frequency of a premises breaching the capacity threshold. As drafted, the Bill says that the measures will apply when a premises reaches the threshold in the Bill “from time to time”. This is far too vague, and the organisations affected by the Bill need clarity now. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst has rightly seized on this point and argued forcefully for the need for clarity today. While I expect that the Minister will tell us that this can be addressed through guidance, it is important we get clarity in the Bill.
To establish a way forward, I ask the Minister to set out what timeframe the Government expect to appear in the guidance. If the Government can answer that question today, can he explain why that timeframe cannot appear in the legislation itself? It is our view that setting the timeframe in law would give businesses and other organisations which will be regulated under the Bill certainty that this definition will not be altered through guidance. I hope the Minister can see how the lack of clarity on this point in legislation could leave space for the timeframe to be changed over time, which could see more venues caught by the rules than is appropriate, and Parliament would have no input in that process.
As I said in the opening debate in Committee, the seriousness of the issues involved in this Bill means we must get the legislation right. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to this probing amendment and look to table constructive amendments to Clause 2 where necessary at Report.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am again grateful to noble Lords for the constructive way in which they have approached the amendments before us. If I may, I shall start with Amendment 11, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. The first and foremost point I want to make on Amendment 11 is the one that is made to me as Minister by the security services. The threat to the United Kingdom from terrorism is currently substantial. Terrorists may choose to carry out attacks at a broad range of locations of different sizes and types, as attacks across the UK and around the world have shown. As I have explained during the passage of the Bill, the Bill is not about preventing terrorist attacks—that is the job of our security services and the police. The objective of the Bill is to ensure that public protection procedures and measures are put in place to reduce the risk of physical harm if an attack occurs and the vulnerability of premises and events to attacks.
The key point for the noble Lord is that this is not related to the particular premise or a particular time, be it rural or not and inside or outside the scope of the Bill. It is about ensuring that the threat, which is substantial, is recognised, and that can happen at any premise and at any time. That is why we believe the amendment to be well-intended but not in keeping with the objectives of the legislation, so the Government cannot support Amendment 11 for those reasons. If the Government took a position on setting a size threshold in the Bill and considered the noble Lord’s amendment the right approach, we would end up discarding a large number of premises that could, due to the threat being substantial, be subject to attack. That point was made very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in her contribution.
Amendments 4 and 9 have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. They would change the provision of Clauses 2(2)(c) and 2(3)(a), which provide that, to be in scope as qualifying premises, 200 or more individuals must be reasonably expected to be present on the premises at the same time in connection with uses under Schedule 1 “from time to time”, as we have stated. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord would change “from time to time” to refer to the number of individuals expected “not less than once a month”. This would change both the number and range of premises caught by the Bill either at all or at enhanced duty premises.
The Government’s intention in bringing forward the Bill is to ensure that we examine that, where significant numbers of people gather at premises, steps have been taken to protect them against terrorism. This should be the case whether the relevant thresholds are met on a daily or monthly basis or less frequently. An assessment based on the number of people expected at least once a month would not take into account the myriad ways in which different premises are used and attendances fluctuate over the course of a year. For example, there is the seasonal nature of sports grounds and visitor attractions, and a monthly assessment would take those premises out of the equation.
Therefore, I hope the noble Lord is again offering me a probing amendment to examine, but I cannot support its current phraseology.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are trying not to define what “from time to time” is because, for example, if a premise on one day of the year met the threshold, that would be from time to time, or it might be monthly or daily. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would mean a prescriptive assessment on a monthly basis, and that in my view would not be sufficient, given the substantial level of the threat.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
I understand the difficulty that the Minister is in, but the point I am trying to make is that it is important that those operating the premises know what they are required to do. Unless they know what “from time to time” means, it is very difficult for them to do that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Without straying into other parts of the Bill, I would hope that people and premises that fall within scope of the Bill, be it a 200 or an 800 threshold, would have clarity over their responsibility areas. If they look at Clause 5, “Public protection procedures”, they will know exactly what is required of them for those public protection matters that fall within the scope of the Bill. So, whether it is “from time to time” as in one day a year or as in every week or every month, if we are more prescriptive, as would be the case under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we would take out a number of premises that—even if it was only one day a year, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned—would still meet the criteria of the scope of the Bill. My judgment is that the measures in Clause 5 are important but not onerous. They are about training, support and examination of a number of areas. Therefore, if from time to time, one day a year, a premise falls within scope to meet the objectives, the responsible person needs to examine the premise and look at the measures needed in place. That is the reason.
I say that not because I want to impose burdens on a range of bodies but because the terrorist threat is substantial. While the terrorist incidents have occurred in large cities, there is no likelihood that they may not occur in other parts of the country. Therefore, those measures are required within the scope of the Bill. From my perspective as the Minister responsible for taking the Bill through this House, it is important that they are required on a “from time to time” basis, not on a very prescriptive monthly basis. That is why I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendments.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
In the case of an enhanced premises, where there is an event of 1,000 people once a year but for the rest of the year there are never more 200 or 300 people going through, does that bring it into that category? You are normally just “qualifying” premises and so must have the facilities and systems in place to deal with a terrorism event if, heaven forbid, such happens, but if, now and again, you get to 800 people, does it mean that you have to search everyone coming and going throughout the year or is it only when there is the event? That is where I have concerns.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope that I can help the noble Lord. There are two categories. There is a 200 threshold and an 800 threshold. If a premise crosses the 200 and/or the 800 threshold, it will be responsible for undertaking certain activity as prescribed by the Bill, common to which are the items in Clause 5. From time to time, if an event is over 800, it will have to go to the levels of the Bill for those thresholds of businesses and premises over 800. That is the nature of the proposal before the House in this Bill.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, regarding Amendment 4 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we need to define exactly what we mean by “from time to time”. Is it a decade? It must be defined if organisations are to understand their responsibilities. At the moment, it is unclear. In my Amendment 11, I seek merely to establish an exemption for premises that are assessed to be in a low-risk category by an independent assessor. We have genuine concerns about which premises will be required to implement security measures under the Bill.
I have heard what the Minister has said, but I am not entirely convinced. This is an issue that we will take away and consider before Report. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment leading the group was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, so he should have replied and he must formally withdraw it.
Lord Frost
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would raise the minimum threshold for a premises to be a “qualifying premises” to 300.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, without making this a Second Reading debate, as we have discussed, I want to repeat the degree of scepticism that I expressed at Second Reading about the value of this Bill. Of course, the threat of terrorism is real; of course, it is important to deal with it by every possible means, but it is equally possible that this Bill will end up with a lot of bureaucracy, paperwork and assessment without doing anything to deal with the threat of terrorism whatever. However, it is the Bill that we have, and we need to do all that we can to make it workable and get the detail right. That is why I have tabled Amendment 5.
I can be quite brief, because this is a fairly simple concept and a core provision in the Bill—as to where premises are caught and affected by the standard duty. This threshold will determine the success or failure of the Bill; it is this threshold that will capture popular opinion about the Bill when it eventually comes into force, and it is this threshold that determines whether, if you are a volunteer or run a business of any kind, you can carry on as you did before, being prudent about the terrorist threat, or whether you have a new set of formal legal duties that you must pay attention to. As I said at Second Reading, when you make something law, you are telling people that they must pay attention to that above the purpose of their organisation. That is what making it law means.
This is where the Bill is going to bite. This is the area where volunteers may decide that they no longer want to continue in what they are doing. It may be the area where they give up. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, it may be the area where it takes away the fun, the point, the raison d’être of the activity from those who do it. Therefore, it is important to get the threshold right.
As I said at Second Reading, I accept that the Government have taken a step, raising the threshold from 100 to 200, which has significantly improved the Bill. However, my Amendment 5 would raise that threshold to 300. I have two points to explain why that higher threshold is worth considering.
First, I do not think that we have had a proper explanation yet of why 200 is the right number. The shadow Minister raised this question in Committee in the Commons. The responding Minister’s only explanation was that
“300 would significantly impact the outcomes of the Bill, and particularly what the standard tier seeks to achieve”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill Committee, 31/10/24; col. 68.]
That is obvious, but why? We need a little more understanding of why it is 200 rather than 300 and why it is any particular figure other than the arbitrary seeking of a number. One Minister said something like that in the Commons: “We’ve got to decide a number, and this is that number”. However, it is such an important number that it deserves some proper thought.
Secondly, lots of activities are still caught by this 200 threshold. The impact assessment says that it is 154,000. That is down by nearly half from what it would have been at 100, but it is still a lot—that is one premise for one activity for every 450 people in the country. For a threshold of 200, that is quite a significant figure. An occasional capacity of 200 people is quite a small number of people. One in eight village halls are still caught by this threshold. The Music Venue Trust says that a sixth of its premises are caught between the 200 and 300 thresholds. These are not small numbers, but they are still relatively small activities. That is the point. We must try to set the threshold at a point where we are not capturing those who do not need to be caught by it.
Is the Minister confident that the threshold really must be so low? Can he give a clear explanation for why it has to be set at that level? Can he go beyond explaining that it is simply arbitrary, that it has to be set somewhere and that 200 is the right number—end of discussion? We need a little bit more debate than that and I hope that we might get it now.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 6 and 7, in my name, follow a similar line to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost. His request is that the threshold moves to 300; mine is that it moves to 400 or 500. The truth is that I do not think there is a magic number. I think the number was first 100, and I am grateful to the Minister for moving it to 200, but as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, there is no particular reason for this number. It can be almost any number; it is just that you capture more and more businesses, village halls and voluntary organisations by going for the lower number. I want to push for this to be debated fully this evening, because this is one of the core issues within the Bill and something that needs a lot of time.
The amendments seek to increase the threshold and exempt smaller venues. That would be so important for so many of them. It is about viability and costs, as many businesses are struggling with all the costs that face them. The Government should be trying to protect them and these premises from further resource pressures. Therefore, it is the damage that is going to be done that I ask the Government to think about. By raising the threshold, these amendments would alleviate the administrative and financial responsibilities involved and associated with implementation, while concentrating resources and efforts on larger premises, which will always be higher-value targets for terrorist activities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made a very important point in an earlier group. Every time we do anything like this, we say to the terrorists that they have had another victory and done something more, by making us start to change our lives—that is what is happening here. I feel very strongly that we need to minimise the effect on the people of this country, as much as we possibly can, and go for the largest number that can possibly be considered. I cannot believe that there is not an argument we could have which would enable the Government to accept a number of 400 to 500; they may wish to consider the 800 number, but that is another issue. I am less concerned about that; I am concerned about smaller organisations—the voluntary organisations and smaller business—and the chilling effect that this will have.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when I heard about this Bill originally, one could see and understand that it made sense for Wembley Stadium or somewhere of that nature. But when under the last Government, not this one, I saw that the figure of 100 was being used, I realised how many small businesses and small organisations such as church halls would be affected. It made me ask a question, which the Government have rightly answered. All the consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny, and all the trade organisations that were asked, have said there is very little evidence that, for the safety of small venues, this legislative regulatory framework will keep people safe. What it is guaranteed to do is stymie entrepreneurship and volunteering in local areas, and make people think that it is just not worth organising events or staying open.
I congratulate the Government on having listened to that and for raising the standard tier from 100 to 200 people. Having done that, the question is why they stopped at 200—why not 300 or 400? These numbers are not rocket science, and this is not a glib or silly point or playing games. That is why I raised—rather badly, a moment ago—that, on the numbers game, education settings and places of worship are classified as standard duty premises, regardless of their capacity, because they are different kinds of premises.
We know that it does not have to be this number or that number otherwise people will be killed in terrorist offences. The Government are prepared to be subtle and flexible, and this Bill can be the same. It is worth us probing why the Government stopped at 200. I would go higher, because I am very worried that it will stymie community organisations and small businesses, which will just fall apart.
The Government have a mission of growth and keep saying that they believe in it. They do not want to be saying to new companies or to the hospitality industry that they are going to have to fulfil overregulatory bureaucracy to survive. It is not that such organisations do not care about their clientele or staff; it is that this Bill does not just demand that they think about that but that they must fulfil, under threat of law, a particular set of regulatory mandates. It is difficult; that is what they have all said.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 8 similarly seeks to raise the threshold for mandatory compliance with the requirements of the Bill to
“300 people, or, if smaller”,
where
“the Secretary of State determines that the premises are at a heightened risk of terrorist attack”.
This is a more flexible measure than the amendments proposed by my noble friends, although I entirely agree with the sentiment of the speeches that we have heard from my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Udny-Lister, and in an earlier group by my noble friend Lord De Mauley.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, observed a moment ago, the Government were entirely right to increase the threshold from 100 to 200, but I suggest that 200 is still too low and will cause disproportionate expense and disruption to small businesses. In particular, I will focus on the potential impact on community volunteering.
In engaging in the balancing act of the protections which this Bill will afford, one must look at the history of the type of terror attacks that we seek to address. As my noble friend Lord De Mauley observed in his remarks, they are largely urban and at large venues. While the Minister is right to say that attacks can happen at any premises at any time, it is also right to say that there is a greater risk at certain types of venues and in certain locations, and that is borne out by the history of terrorist attacks. It is therefore incumbent, I suggest to the Committee, that this legislation adopts a flexible approach to risk. I have sought to reflect that in my Amendment 8.
I suggest that we must have a proportionate approach, or this legislation will have the effect of closing largely community venues, much valued by people up and down this country. One needs look only at the Home Office’s own impact assessment, produced with the Bill. At page 9, the authors note that among respondents to the survey of premises with a capacity of 100 to 299—the owners of smaller premises, places of worship, village halls and community centres—only four in 10
“agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack”,
and
“Around half … reported that the revised requirements would be difficult to take forwards … Six in ten … were at least somewhat concerned that the cost of meeting the standard tier requirements will affect their organisation’s financial ability to continue operating”.
This Bill is a sledgehammer that is going to crack the nut of our village halls. I ask the Minister: if, two years down the line, after the implementation of these procedures, we find it is very difficult for village halls to find trustees and volunteers who are prepared to take on the legal obligations of the enforcement regime that this Bill imposes and those village halls start to close, what will the Government do to undo the damage wrought to our communities by the closure of these much-valued venues?
I strongly commend my amendment and a measure of flexibility to the Government and the Committee this evening.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, not for the first time in a debate on terrorism in your Lordships’ House, I have to say that I do not want to be the person who in a few years’ time says, “I told you so”. This Bill is about terrorism. If a terrorism act resulted in the deaths of 20, 30 or even two or three people in a hall that was holding a qualifying event that had 232 people, for example, in the audience, in both Houses we would be saying, “Something’s got to be done. We got this wrong”.
I remind your Lordships that one of the most notorious and most damaging terrorist attacks this country has ever seen took place in a public house in Birmingham. So the idea that we hold a sort of numbers auction on the capacity that qualifies under the Bill is, I am afraid, foolish and wrong. Indeed, I am very concerned about this debate on numbers, because it runs the risk of being part of a playbook for terrorists to read—and many terrorists do read very carefully, both on the internet and elsewhere, when they are making their decisions.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
On that basis, there would be no numbers, no tiers and no distinctions at all in this piece of legislation. One of the most shocking and barbaric actions happened recently with the group of—what was it?—40 young children at a dance class. Those of us trying to seriously probe what regulation would mean based on numbers—because there are numbers in this Bill—does not mean that we want to encourage terrorists to go in and kill people in any circumstance. It is wrong, because a lot of the terrorist things that have happened recently have happened because we did not do something before, not because of the numbers of a venue and regulation—for goodness’ sake.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
If the noble Baroness had waited until the end of my next sentence, I would have answered her question. I recognise that we have to set some number. It was suggested that there was no reason for a figure of 200. Can I just remind your Lordships—because it has not been mentioned yet in this debate—of part 8, volume 1, of the Saunders report? Sir John said, at paragraph 8.43, which I am sure all noble Lords will have read with care:
“An important question for the government will be whether setting the level for the Protect Duty in the first category at venues with a capacity of 100 or more is workable. Very different issues will arise for venues capable of accommodating an audience of only 100 people and one capable of accommodating many thousands such as the Arena”.
That is the Manchester Arena.
The stated aim of the consultation on which those comments were based, said Sir John,
“is for ‘light touch’ regulation. While that may be justified when dealing with smaller venues, it seems to me that different considerations should apply to larger commercial premises. Not only are the potential consequences so much more serious but, for that reason, these premises are more likely to attract the attention of terrorists. They are also likely to have greater resources to put protective measures in place”.
In the final part of what I regard as a very important quotation from Saunders, he says, at paragraph 8.45:
“I recommend that when considering the shape of the legislation, the government considers whether it will be necessary to have further categories above the 100 capacity. While categorising by capacity may be the most straightforward way of deciding on the nature of the Protect Duty to be imposed, there may be other factors that need to be considered. For example, it may be appropriate to use different capacities depending on whether the venue is indoors or outdoors. This will need to be considered”.
I also know, as many other Members of this Committee will know, that Figen Murray and those such as Brendan Cox, who have been the backbone of her campaign, have researched these matters with care, and they were asking, on the basis of the evidence they obtained, for a lower figure of 100. I accept that we have to have some figure, but it must not be one which is part of the encouragement or playbook of terrorists.
The Government have accepted that that figure of 100, which Sir John Saunders had in mind and which was adopted by Mrs Murray, should be raised to 200 and have nuanced the legislation in various parts of this Bill, exactly as Sir John Saunders anticipated and recommended should be done. I therefore believe that this is a reasonable balance and that we should now recognise that this is a proportionate and nuanced provision and stop playing about with these numbers.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I too recognise that inevitably we have got to fix a figure, and that is for this House and/or another place to do. I would just like to say one thing about Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, where he says,
“if smaller, the Secretary of State determines”.
One has to see the reality of that, which is that this would probably happen anyway—although I support his amendment—to the extent that how or why would the Secretary of State intervene? He would intervene only because of intelligence.
We have to remember that it is not just what we all think in here. Our intelligence services have kept us safe—touch wood—we are told from many planned incidents over the last few years. Therefore, regardless of the number being six or 800, we rely on them to come through and tell us where the threat is. We have been talking about whether it is a small premises that is attractive to terrorists or a large one, or whether it is a significant name of an event or whether it is the people attending. They will go first to find a target that will gain them the maximum amount of attention. They then say, according to what happened with us and I am sorry to go back to it, “Which one is easy for us to go for?”.
We cannot decide that in here. But we must put the numbers down. I agree with Amendment 8 from the point of view that it recognises that the Secretary of State must have the power to intervene on any event, and not just necessarily the Secretary of State but the police and the intelligence that leads to some form of action on it. So I do support the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that we are having this debate. I am not going to decry the three previous groups, but this actually comes to the nub of what I suspect what this Committee stage will be about.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Viscount just said. I have to say that it is quite possible that, under any set of circumstances, the police or the security service will have identified a high risk. Under those circumstances, I hope they would intervene and I hope the organisers would take it extremely seriously and respond—and actually, I suspect that in every single case they would. But the fundamental issue, which is raised by this set of amendments, is not what is the burden of this but what is the risk appetite that the people who are organising this event, and that we as a nation have, about the event concerned?
Every organisation, when it considers its risk register, will consider its risk appetite: what are we prepared or not prepared to tolerate? This figure is, of course, arbitrary. It could be 100; my personal belief is that it should have remained as 100, but the Government consulted very widely, listened to the views that were expressed and came up with this number. So we are presented with 200. A terrorist attacking a premises of 199 is potentially going to kill a very significant number—as many as were killed at the Manchester Arena. They may not be able to injure quite as many as at the Manchester Arena, but they could cause immense damage.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
What is the noble Lord’s risk appetite for closures of community venues and village halls as a consequence of these provisions if the threshold is set too low?
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
That is what it means to consider your risk appetite: you consider the risk of something dreadful happening and the risk and the consequences associated with trying to address it. That is the choice we must make. I suspect that ultimately we are going to disagree on this. My risk appetite, because I do not really like being killed in the name of some terrorist or other ideology, is that I would prefer the number to be smaller; I would prefer it to be 100. I accept that some noble Lords opposite would rather see the figure set higher. We have a different view of the risk appetite.
My answer to all these amendments is that the Government have consulted widely and responded to that consultation. They have increased the number from 100 to 200. Personally, I am prepared to accept the risk judgment made by Government Ministers on that basis. That is the way in which we should approach it. We will all have different numbers in mind and different views of risk appetite, but ultimately we expect our Government to take a sensible, balanced risk appetite, and I believe that this is it.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, at the risk of incurring the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, while we are on the subject of nickel-and-diming over numbers, how did the Minister settle on a figure of 800 attendees, above which an event becomes a qualifying event and compliance becomes significantly more expensive? It is quite a specific number. One might have expected a round number, such as 1,000. What specifically led the drafters to go for 800?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, as other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Carlile, have said, there are many who feel that 100 would have been a better threshold, including many of the families of the victims. There is no amendment to reduce the threshold to 100, which is a shame, not least because I know it is what many in the Martyn’s law campaign group would have liked to see.
We should recall that the House of Commons backed 200, which is probably an acceptable compromise because, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, we ultimately will not agree on this, but it has to be about a compromise and the House of Commons overwhelmingly supported 200. Pushing the threshold up to 400 or 500 would destroy the whole purpose of the Bill.
It is, of course, important, as some noble Lords on the Conservative Benches said, that we do not overly add to the burden, or add unnecessary obstacles to creativity or to developing a sustainable business model. But encouraging people in charge of venues or events to think through what they would do in the event of a terrorist attack surely makes good business sense. There is in what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, proposes the risk of unintended consequences. There is a risk that raising the threshold would put people off going to small venues and small organisations of, say, under 200 or even under 100, because they will know they have not been covered by the Bill.
We on these Benches will support the Government in their threshold of 200 unless, in the course of further debate, there can be really compelling reasons to change our minds.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, when the Minister comes to answer this short group of amendments, could he comment on what assessment there has been of the SIA’s capacity to advise and regulate these potentially hundreds of thousands of applications, and on the capacity of the security industries and consultancies that will provide expertise to assist applicants in putting forward their detailed plans?
We have had a very emotive discussion on these amendments, which I regret to a degree, because this is an incredibly important discussion about where the line falls. There does have to be a line, but one consequence of moving it from 100 to 200, or 200 back to 100, or to 500, or whatever it may be, is around the actual pragmatic capacity of the regulatory body, the Government and the industry that will provide consultancy services to enable what everyone in this Chamber wants to happen. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that point when he comes to respond.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments to Clause 2 tabled by my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Murray of Blidworth. I am sorry that the Government have declined to give this group a proper title and referred to it as the “degroup”. For the benefit of the Committee, it would have been better for this group to have been given a proper title, such as “capacity of premises”. I hope the Minister will take this back to officials, so that we can have proper titles for groups of amendments going forward.
These amendments collectively seek to adjust the minimum threshold for qualifying premises under the Bill and to ensure that the legislation strikes a careful balance between security and proportional regulation. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 propose raising the threshold from the current 200 person capacity to 300, 400 and 500 respectively. These are important proposals that merit some serious consideration. The current threshold of 200 people is relatively low and risks imposing unnecessary and disproportionate burdens on small venues, community spaces and independent businesses.
I particularly have in mind when communities come together to protest at public meetings called at short notice in community halls, often with more than 200 and perhaps more than 300 people—I see the Minister smiling; we have all been there.
Small and medium-sized enterprises, including restaurants, cafes, independent theatres and community halls, are vital to the social fabric and economic vitality of our communities. Many of these premises operate on razor-thin margins and simply do not have the financial capacity or staffing resources to implement the comprehensive security measures that may be required under this legislation. Compliance with the regulations could entail significant investment in security equipment, personnel, training and operational changes—costs that could be ruinous for smaller businesses.
It is also worth considering the administrative burden that a low threshold may impose on both the businesses themselves and the enforcement authorities tasked with overseeing compliance. By setting the bar at 200 people, the current provision potentially captures a vast number of venues that pose a relatively low security risk. This dilutes resources that could be better focused on higher-risk premises where security efforts would be more impactful. Moreover, we must take a proportionate and risk-based approach to security policy. If we overburden smaller venues with costly and complex requirements, the unintended consequences may be that many of them are forced to reduce their operations or even close altogether. That would deprive communities of essential spaces for social, cultural and economic activities, particularly in rural and underserved areas where small venues play an outsized role.
Raising the thresholds to 300, 400 or 500 people, as proposed by these amendments, would ensure that security requirements are applied where they are most necessary—namely, at larger venues with higher footfall and greater potential risk. It would also signal that this legislation is responsive to the concerns of business owners and recognises the practical realities of running a small venue in today’s challenging economic climate.
It is crucial that we approach this matter with pragmatism and proportionality. A higher threshold would help protect businesses, community spaces and cultural venues from unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining a clear focus on enhancing public safety where it truly matters. We must recognise that many smaller establishments operate on tight margins and have limited resources. Mandating extensive security measures may be feasible for larger venues but could place an unsustainable financial and administrative strain on smaller premises. Raising the threshold would help to ensure that security requirements are applied where they are most necessary: namely, at larger venues with higher footfall where the risks are more significant.
That said, I appreciate the wisdom in Amendment 8, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, which he spoke to with some passion and which takes a nuanced approach. This amendment proposes a dual system where the default threshold is raised to 300 people but the Secretary of State retains the discretion to designate smaller premises as qualifying if they are at
“heightened risk of a terrorist threat”.
That flexibility is crucial. Although larger premises are generally more attractive targets, we must acknowledge that smaller venues can also be vulnerable under specific circumstances, whether due to their location, the nature of the events they host, or intelligence indicating a credible threat. Granting the Secretary of State this discretionary power ensures that the legislation remains responsive to evolving security challenges without imposing blanket requirements on small businesses.
Furthermore, Amendment 8 reflects a thoughtful understanding of the need for a risk-based approach to security. Security should be proportionate to the threat, and, by incorporating an element of ministerial discretion, we can achieve a more targeted and effective framework.
In conclusion, these amendments collectively represent a pragmatic and balanced approach to enhancing public safety while safeguarding the viability of small businesses and community spaces. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to adopting a higher default threshold alongside a discretionary mechanism to ensure that security measures are applied where they are most needed.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I am grateful to noble Lords. A range of amendments have been brought before the House and the nub of the arguments is about the threshold for qualifying premises. That issue was quite rightly debated in this House at Second Reading and was also debated in the House of Commons.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Sorry, I left north Wales at 7 am, so it has been a long day already. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned the figure of 800. Why have we come to our figure? I can make all sorts of justifications. Two hundred takes into account the greatest number of large premises, so it is a figure that we have determined accordingly. We have to set the figure at a certain level and we have done so following the wide range of consultation that has taken place.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
To what extent has the department made an evaluation of the impact on volunteering of the measures as they are currently proposed, with a threshold of 200? Does the Home Office have a threshold for the number of trustees that they think will go unfilled, or the lack of volunteering in community ventures and village halls, as a consequence of the threats and burden imposed by these measures?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The measures that we have accepted are part of the consultation that we have undertaken. The noble Lord was a Minister standing at this Dispatch Box in this department during the genesis of this Bill, so he will know that there has been wide consultation on these matters. Again, I point him to Clause 5 on public protection measures. Clause 5(3) refers to
“evacuating individuals from the premises … moving individuals to a place on the premises … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.
Are those onerous issues? Or are they things that, even in our own assessment, are relatively low cost in terms of training? That relatively low cost is, essentially, in person hours when determining what those requirements are.
Again, we could fix a number. If I fixed the number at 300, 400 or 500, we would take even more premises out, but that would dilute the purpose of this legislation, which is to set good practice for the prevention of an attack when an attack is occurring and the steps that can be taken to save lives. People’s experiences—not mine, but those in the consultations of the public inquiry—mean that the 200 figure we have now settled on is the right one. I commend that figure to the House and hope that noble Lords will support it in due course when it comes to the final decision by this House before Third Reading.
Lord Frost (Con)
I thank everyone who contributed to this section of Committee. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful comments. I appreciate that there is a degree of arbitrariness in this number, but, equally, it is our task to try to make it as non-arbitrary as possible and make sure that the number we eventually choose is as well grounded in reality as it possibly can be.
Perhaps I might be permitted just one remark before sitting down. I say that because there is pressure for risk aversion, and we have heard some of that in your Lordships’ House today. It is important to be careful what we are doing here. We need to keep in mind what the threshold number means. If we set it at 200, for example, we are not saying that we are prepared to tolerate the risk of 199 people being killed in a terrorist attack. That is not what the threshold is about. The risk that we want to tolerate of that is the number zero.
What we are saying is that there is a trade-off. The costs to businesses and society of complying with these measures are justifiable above a certain number when we take the broader risk of terrorism into account. As the Minister said, the risk of a terrorist attack is unlikely in any individual case. We have to be able to debate this number prudentially while understanding exactly what the threshold means. We have debated it and I suspect we will so again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 3rd February 2025
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (3 Feb 2025)
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
“(3A) In determining the number of individuals who may reasonably be expected to be on the premises of a railway station from time to time, no account is to be taken of the capacity of any railway vehicle used or intended to be used for the conveyance of passengers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make clear that the capacity of railway vehicles is not included when calculating the number of people who may be present at a railway station.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 12, 16, 17 and 18. I tabled these amendments with the support of my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, whom I am delighted to see in his place; I hope he will have something to say about them in a moment. I declare my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association, which is the trade association for 173 heritage lines throughout the United Kingdom and Ireland.
The purpose of these amendments is simply to achieve clarity in the Bill and to avoid, as far as possible, undesirable and unforeseen consequences. There is no question of the heritage sector seeking to be exempted from the Bill’s provisions, particularly those designed to make its operations safe. It takes the duty of care to its passengers very seriously indeed.
The heritage sector is run on a small scale and is dependent on an army of some 22,000 volunteers. It brings pleasure to 13 million visitors a year and contributes hugely to the tourism economy, especially in less affluent rural areas. There could not be a greater contrast between its operations and the premises used for major events which attract large numbers of people to an enclosed space such as a concert hall, which, rightly, are the subject of the Bill.
I shall not repeat any of the arguments that I made on Second Reading, except to say that the purpose of the amendments is to make clear what is actually required so that the railways can direct their limited and mainly volunteer resources to fulfilling the purposes of the Bill in the most effective way possible. Most heritage railways struggle to survive financially and need to manage their limited budgets to allow them to continue to operate in a way they can sustain financially.
The Bill, as the short title makes clear, is related primarily to premises and obviously not to railways. Indeed, the national rail network of Great Britain is excluded from the operation of the Bill, as it has its own National Railways Security Programme, run by the Department for Transport under the expert eye of my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill. Your Lordships may wonder why the same programme does not apply to heritage railways, but the legislation as drafted does not allow for that. In view of this, it seems reasonable to make clear what the Bill covers and what it excludes.
My noble friend Lord Hanson has helpfully made clear on more than one occasion to me and others that the Bill is intended to cover stations, not trains and tracks. That seems sensible, and the purpose of our amendments is to put that distinction in the Bill. Further clarity is needed in the case of the 40 or so heritage lines which have a link or interchange with the national network; 10 of those share stations. Amendment 16 is simply to clarify that those stations are not covered by the Act as they are covered under the National Railways Security Programme that I mentioned earlier.
Amendment 18 is necessary because the Bill is drafted to deal with large, enclosed venues, such as the Manchester Arena. Most heritage railways are based at what were originally relatively small country stations, with modest facilities such as a ticket office or waiting room under cover but mostly with open platforms or, in some cases, canopies covering a part of the platform but open on all sides. Here, the risk is significantly less than with enclosed premises such as a concert hall. The amendment makes clear that the Bill applies to the enclosed premises and not to the open platforms.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I was very glad to add my name to the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has tabled and has set out very clearly in his contribution. I was glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, has added her name to them too.
This issue was touched on at Second Reading. The noble Lord was vigilant in seeking assurances from his noble friend the Minister, and I am grateful for his tenacity in ensuring that we have this tested properly in the way that these amendments seek. He is right to be tenacious on behalf of a sector which is still in many ways bouncing back from the pandemic and which brings a great deal of pleasure to people across the country and is in many areas a linchpin of the local visitor economy, which is so important for restaurants, hotels and so much more.
This year, the sector is marking an important anniversary, Railway 200, which is the 200th anniversary of the first passenger rail journey between Stockton and Darlington. I have said before in your Lordships’ House that the railways were a gift from the north-east of England which have transformed the whole world. This important bicentenary is an opportunity to inspire new generations to learn about our railway heritage and to see how they can contribute to the future of the sector and the innovation that it needs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has said, the heritage railway sector, like so many heritage and cultural organisations, is reliant on what he described as an army of volunteers. That is an important reminder, as we look at this Bill and the duties that it imposes, for us to consider how those duties, including the training of staff, will be applied in organisations which are reliant on a higher number of volunteers. We do not want the new duties, important though they are, inadvertently to deter people from volunteering in the heritage sector. There are already too many barriers, including, as I know from discussions with the Heritage Railway Association and others, the cost of petrol for volunteers who drive many miles to give generously of their time to ensure that these organisations are run—and run well.
It is important that we look at the implications for volunteers—not just in the Heritage Railways Association but across the whole heritage and cultural sphere—of the powers in Clauses 5 and 6 which are granted to the Secretary of State to specify further procedures or measures required for a premises or event to be compliant with this new law. There is also the provision in Clause 32 for the Secretary of State to amend the qualifying attendance number at a premises or event. These are things that businesses and organisations will have to grapple with and could be a particular burden to those that are heavily reliant on the army of volunteers that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has rightly mentioned.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 12 relates to Schedule 1 to the Bill, specifically paragraph 11, which deals with the railway. We should be equally mindful of paragraph 5 in Schedule 1, which relates to libraries, museums and galleries et cetera. In that paragraph, it says a museum or gallery includes
“a site where a collection of objects or works … considered to be of scientific, historic, artistic or cultural interest is exhibited outdoors or partly outdoors”.
That certainly applies to much of the heritage railway sector.
Earlier, I noticed in his place the Minister’s new friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos—it was a pleasure to see him introduced to your Lordships’ House today. He is the chairman of English Heritage; I had the pleasure of working with him when I was a Minister at DCMS, and I know he will be a valuable addition to discussions on heritage in your Lordships’ House. I am sure that that definition of “outdoor or partly outdoors” cultural and heritage sites will be of interest to him and many other heritage organisations.
Others have raised the question of whether a ruined building, which of course relates to an awful lot of heritage in the care of English Heritage and others, would count. I do not know whether the Minister would, tonight or subsequently, be able to give a bit more clarification about what the implications would be for something that was a building and is now a ruin but attracts a great deal of visitors. Of course, that sheds light on the fact that heritage buildings, by their very nature, have unique physical characteristics and in many cases have special protections under existing legislation, so it is worth considering the definitions that we are seeing in this Bill and the schedules to it to see what implications that would have for buildings which enjoy protections under, for instance, the planning Act 1990 and the listing regime for scheduled monuments. These are important questions to bear in mind.
The amendments in this group relate to mobile heritage, and while I was very glad to add my voice to the cross-party interest in that and hope the Minister can say a bit more to set our minds at rest in relation to railway heritage, I would be grateful if he could also, tonight or subsequently, provide some reassurances about our static and built heritage. Many of the issues which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has drawn attention to through these amendments apply to much more. I know the Minister has a great interest in history as well, and I hope that he can provide some of those reassurances. I was very glad to support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to Clause 2. These amendments seek to clarify that, in determining the number of individuals reasonably expected to be in the premises of a railway station, the capacity of railway vehicles used for the conveyance of passengers should not be included in that calculation. These are sensible and necessary amendments that will help ensure the effective and proportionate application of this legislation. Railway stations are fundamentally distinct from other types of qualifying premises covered by the Bill and, like entertainment venues, shopping centres or other high-traffic locations, railway stations are dynamic environments where the number of people present fluctuates significantly throughout the day based on train schedules, peak travel times and unfore- seen delays.
As I have mentioned in some of my remarks already today, there is a need for flexibility in this Bill if we are to get the right balance with appropriate protection of premises without prohibitive and overburdensome measures that actually make it difficult for businesses, charities, sports clubs and events to operate effectively. Flexibility is something we will be exploring in Committee, and I hope the Minister will engage with us constructively to deliver a Bill that gets this balance right.
I support Amendment 10. Including the capacity of railway vehicles in the threshold calculation would be both impractical and potentially misleading. Railway vehicles operate as transient spaces that are distinct from the physical station premises. The fact that a station services trains with a large capacity does not necessarily correlate with a high concentration of individuals on the station premises at any given time. This distinction is critical for ensuring that security measures are proportionate and targeted to actual on-the-ground risks.
Moreover, including railway vehicle capacity would create undue complexity for station operators. They would be required to factor in varying train schedules and seating configurations, which could lead to fluctuating security obligations that are difficult to predict and manage. Such an approach risks creating administrative burdens without delivering meaningful improvements in public safety. Of course, our new publicly owned passenger railway operators will be able to bear the burdens of additional protective requirements but, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has rightly pointed out, the Bill may hit smaller organisations that will be much less able to implement these measures.
It is also worth noting that security requirements for railway vehicles are already subject to separate regulatory frameworks. The focus of this Bill should remain on the physical station premises, where crowd management, access control and other security measures can be more effectively implemented. By clarifying that railway vehicle capacity is excluded from the threshold calculation, this amendment would ensure that resources were directed where they were most needed—on the station premises where passengers congregate and interact.
Finally, the amendment would provide much-needed clarity to station operators and regulators alike. It would remove the ambiguity around how thresholds are calculated and help ensure a consistent and practical approach to security across the rail network.
I will also speak to Amendments 16, 17 and 18. These clarify important aspects of the Bill concerning railway premises, particularly heritage railways, the rail network in Northern Ireland, and open-air or partially roofed railway stations.
Amendment 16 addresses the position of joint stations shared by heritage railways and the national rail network. Heritage railways are an invaluable part of our nation’s industrial and cultural heritage. They not only provide a vital link to our past but serve as tourism hubs that contribute significantly to local economies. These heritage stations often operate under light railway orders or orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and are distinct in their function and operations from the national rail network.
The amendment would ensure that these joint stations were not inadvertently caught up in burdensome security requirements that may be inappropriate for their specific operational contexts. Many heritage railway stations are small, community-focused operations run by volunteers who simply do not have the resources or capacity to implement the same security measures as major national rail hubs. The amendment provides much-needed clarity, helping heritage rail operators focus on maintaining their services without undue regulatory burdens.
Amendment 17 seeks to avoid the inclusion of Translink, Northern Ireland Railways, within the scope of the Bill. As noble Lords will appreciate, the railway system in Northern Ireland operates under a different legislative framework; namely, the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. Including it within the provisions of this Bill risks creating confusion and inconsistency between jurisdictions. By making it clear that Translink is excluded, the amendment helps to respect the distinct legislative and operational framework in Northern Ireland while allowing for a more coherent and targeted application of the Bill.
Finally, Amendment 18 addresses the scope of the Bill concerning railway stations and premises. It rightly clarifies that the Bill applies to buildings and not to open platforms or those covered by canopies with open sides. This is a crucial distinction. Open platforms and partially roofed stations present different security challenges compared to enclosed buildings. They are inherently more accessible and often lack the physical infrastructure required to implement comprehensive access control and security measures. Attempting to impose building-specific requirements on such premises would not only be impractical but be unlikely to yield meaningful security benefits.
In conclusion, these amendments demonstrate a thoughtful and nuanced approach to the complex and varied nature of railway premises in the United Kingdom. They strike an important balance between enhancing security and recognising the operational realities of heritage railways, the Northern Ireland rail network and open-air railway stations. I urge the Government to accept the amendments and commend the noble Lords who have tabled them for their diligence and foresight. The amendments offer a pragmatic and proportionate solution that enhances the clarity and effectiveness of the Bill without compromising security. I urge the Government to accept them and recognise their importance in supporting the safe and efficient operation of our railway stations.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front-Bench spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for their contributions to this debate. My noble friend first drew my attention to his concerns during the pre-discussion of the Bill, as well as at Second Reading. I wrote to him on his concerns prior to Christmas. I hope that I can again assuage his concerns expressed in the discussions we have had this evening.
Amendment 10 seeks to ensure that railway vehicles, such as trains, that are temporarily stopped at a station are excluded from the assessment of the number of individuals that it is reasonable to expect from time to time at railway stations. I hope I can give my noble friend some assurance that a train that stops at a station as part of its journey does not form part of the station premises. Clause 2(2), which sets out what a qualifying premises is, states that the site must consist of
“a building or a building and other land”.
If I can put it this way, the train has a temporary interaction with the station as it passes through—rather like it does when I travel through Crewe on a regular basis—but the passengers on the train are not “present on the premises” for the purposes of the definition of qualifying premises. The train and the building are completely separate. A train in use as a train is a vehicle, which is not a building, so the train will not form qualifying premises in its own right either. I therefore hope that Clause 2 is sufficiently clear on what constitutes a premises.
Amendment 12 looks at the definition of a railway station in Schedule 1, which has been drawn from Section 83 of the Railways Act 1993—on which I served at the time; that takes me back 32 years, which is a long time ago—which in turn stems from Section 67 of the Transport and Works Act 1992. A station may include some or all parts of the premises that this amendment appears designed to remove. Furthermore, the words that the amendment would remove are a non-exhaustive list. These areas are already capable of falling within the definition if they are used in connection with the station.
I hope my noble friend will understand why I do not think it appropriate to change the definition for the purposes of this legislation, as it may remove some parts of a station which may form part of its premises. Where there is not already a legislative requirement comparable to the Bill, it is the Government’s intention to include such of those parts within scope where they properly form part of the premises for the purpose of the Bill’s objectives. Again, the building and the rail are separate entities.
For station premises which fall under Clause 2, the parts that the amendment seeks to exclude may form part of the premises and therefore may be relevant to taking forward public protection procedures or public protection measures, as far as is reasonably practicable. I know from previous exchanges I have had with my noble friend that this amendment seeks to exclude the specified parts of a station premises in order to provide greater clarity that these would not feature in an assessment of the numbers of persons it is reasonable to expect at a station premises. Locations such as a forecourt or a car park are usually transient locations. It would be difficult to envisage a scenario whereby a car park would have great significance to an assessment of the number of individuals present on the premises.
Therefore, I recognise the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment, but I do not consider it an appropriate approach. I therefore hope that I have assuaged his concerns.
It may be helpful if I put Amendments 16, 17 and 18 in context by setting out the Government’s approach to the application of the Bill to transport premises. Where a transport premise satisfies the Clause 2 premises criteria, it is considered that it is comparable to other publicly accessible premises that the Bill captures, and it is appropriate and necessary, therefore, to include it within the Bill’s scope. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of Schedule 1, therefore, include definitions of relevant transport premises for this purpose.
It is expected that, for example, some airports, railway stations and bus stations will, under the definition in the Bill, be qualifying premises required to take forward the Bill’s requirements. This is considered appropriate, given that the security of the public at those premises is of equal importance to that of the public at, for example, an entertainment centre or a large retail premise. However, paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 excludes those transport premises that are already subject to existing requirements to consider and mitigate terrorist threats. To do otherwise would confuse and duplicate burdens on operators and give no additional public protection benefits. Excluded premises therefore include airports, national rail and underground premises, international rail premises and port facilities, as described in the schedule.
I turn to Amendment 16 specifically, which I know is of concern to my noble friend. Where there are premises that are shared—for example, where a national rail and a heritage railway station are concurrent or form part of the premises—there may be parts of those premises that are subject to legislative requirements related to mitigating terrorist threats, and parts that are not. If there are premises, or parts of premises, that meet the Clause 2 criteria and are not subject to existing legislative requirements, it is considered that they should meet the requirements of the Bill.
I want to pay tribute to the volunteers and those who run heritage railways. The Llangollen heritage railway is not too far from where I live. The Government consider heritage railways, as described by my noble friend, as primarily visitor attractions that help support tourism and the local economy rather than necessarily means of transportation in themselves. They are, by their definition, very different from the rest of the rail network, which is already required to have appropriate security procedures and measures in place.
As such, it is not considered appropriate that parts of the heritage railway premises at shared or joint stations should automatically be excluded from the scope of the Bill where equivalent safety provisions are not already in place. To do so would mean there would be no requirement for parts of these premises to consider appropriate security procedures and measures, and the security of the public at heritage railway centres is just as important as at any other premise within scope of the Bill.
In previous discussions and exchanges with noble Lords, I have emphasised very strongly that the measures required for the above-200 premise in Clause 5 are important but not onerous measures, and ones that volunteers at railway stations or elsewhere would wish to adopt as good practice, as well as being a legal requirement under the Bill. Evacuating individuals, moving them to a place of safety, preventing them from entering or leaving premises and giving them information, is all good practice, but with the legislative back-up of the Bill.
So I hope that the distinction between trains as trains on the move, and buildings as buildings, is one where my noble friend can understand where the Government are coming from and accept. I hope that is sufficient to persuade him and the triumvirate of noble Lords who raised these concerns not to press the amendment. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, wishes to contribute, so I will certainly let him.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. Is he able to say anything on the points I raised about the secondary powers that the Bill brings about and grants to the Secretary of State to vary some of the conditions, and particularly how that would relate to organisations such as those in the heritage rail sector that are reliant on a large number of volunteers? Would he accept that there is a difference between a business that has an employee who has an ongoing responsibility for following changes in the law that the Secretary of State makes through secondary powers and the burden that is imposed on organisations where volunteers have to keep abreast of changing laws? They may be following closely the deliberations on the primary Act, but the Act provides for a number of secondary powers that would be more difficult for them to follow than an organisation with full-time employees.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I accept that there will be requirements for guidance. Again, the purpose of the Government is to ensure that we have that guidance in place, and that will be circulated via the Security Industry Association in due course. I hope that will help. The Secretary of State’s powers will be subject to further amendments and discussion later on. Hopefully, I will be able to give some assurances on that.
I thought my time was over, which is why I was sitting down, but instead I shall turn to Amendment 17. By virtue of Section 119 of the Railways Act 1993, such requirements as requested in Amendment 17 apply to railway stations in Great Britain. However, as my noble friend said, Section 119 of the Railways Act does not extend to Northern Ireland. Therefore, where there are stations within the Northern Ireland Railways network that meet the Clause 2 criteria, I consider it appropriate that the Bill is applied to those stations accordingly.
On Amendment 18, I understand from my noble friend’s explanatory statement that the intention behind it is to exclude stations or parts of stations that are not buildings. There are some important factors to consider regarding that intention. First, to be a qualifying premise within the scope of the Bill, the premises must consist of a building or buildings or the land, and if there are stations or indeed premises that do not meet this condition, they would not be qualifying premises. The formulation of the Bill at Clauses 2 and 3 is to capture premises where there is control and ownership of that venue, not to capture freely accessible open spaces. However, there are obviously many premises that are constituted of a building or of the land that fall under premises defined in Clauses 2 and 3. Where that is the case, it is our intention that those parts of premises that constitute land with a building should be in scope. To exclude those premises at stations or other premises would have a detrimental effect on the aims of the Bill.
Again, I draw all noble Lords back to the basic premise of the Bill, which is to provide a basic floor for conditions for premises over 200 and over 800 where we have the appropriate requirement to ensure that we put in protections in the event of an attack on those premises. I hope my noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lady Ritchie, if she is here, will see the consequences of what I have said. As such, I cannot support the amendment, but I hope I have explained the reasons why.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I start by expressing my deep appreciation to the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Davies of Gower, on the Benches opposite. I think their speeches will be read with great enthusiasm by the members of the Heritage Railway Association, and I am sure that both of them will be welcome at any heritage railway for the next year at least, for understanding so clearly the contribution the heritage railways make to the tourist economy and in terms of increasing general well-being and satisfaction. I thank them very much.
I also thank my noble friend the Minister. I think we are edging towards an understanding where it may be possible to achieve what the Government want to do, while at the same time not jeopardising the financial circumstances of a sector that is finding life very tough, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, pointed out.
Some of the answers that my noble friend gave right at the end of his speech are quite technical—I hope he does not mind my saying that—and I am going to read those with great care and take some advice on them. Again, I welcome his support for the principle behind my amendments. Whether or not we come back on Report is a matter for further discussion, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moynihan
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, the amendments standing in my name refer to sport. The Bill excludes sports grounds that are not designated under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act order and which have no permanent checks that people accessing the ground have paid or have tickets. Designated grounds have a capacity of more than 10,000 for Great Britain and 5,000 for Northern Ireland. I therefore suspect that sports grounds with a proper boundary and paying fans are subject to the Bill, even if they have a capacity of less than 10,000 in GB and 5,000 in Northern Ireland. The Bill uses the Safety of Sports Grounds Act and its order for definitions of both sports grounds and designated sports grounds.
I have worked on an amendment to exclude sports grounds if they are not designated and disapply the provision about paying visitors and permanent checks. This means that sports grounds with a capacity of less than 10,000 in Great Britain and 5,000 in Northern Ireland would be excluded from the Bill. The advantage of this approach is that it relies on fan capacity numbers, which are, first, defined in existing legislation, and, secondly, appear to have been chosen in the past based on whether existing safety precautions should apply.
I fully appreciate that there is a major difference between what this Bill says and what the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 defines—although it is interesting that, on the face of this legislation, the Safety of Sports Grounds Act definition is used to define a sportsground as an outdoor space where people can participate in sport or other competitive activities and where spectators are accommodated. The Act also defines designated sports grounds as those that have a spectator capacity of more than 10,000 people.
These are probing amendments. I will say that I am going back a bit, before even the Minister’s reference to 1992-93, because I am passionately concerned about safety in sports grounds. I had the worst day of my life when asked by the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to get to Biggin Hill and go up to Hillsborough, and to witness at first-hand the appalling tragedy that was unfolding on that afternoon. It did not take that to change my mind that there was nothing more important than the safety of the public, but it reinforced my belief that safety was a primary concern to all of us involved in sport, and in society in general. The lesson from Hillsborough and the work that subsequently unfolded was repeated in my next ministerial job when, tragically, again, I had to implement the Cullen report following the tragedy of Piper Alpha and the disaster that unfolded.
I am at one with the Minister and everybody who is behind this Bill to make sure that, when it comes to safety, in this case from terrorism, we go the extra yard if necessary to ensure that the public can be safe. I would draw one lesson from Cullen and from that time, which I think is relevant here. It was touched upon at Second Reading. I owe an apology to the Committee that I was not there for the Second Reading debate; I could not be—I wish I had been—but I read it in Hansard and found that some outstanding speeches were made from both sides of the House on that occasion. One point that came through from those speeches was that, as much as we legislate, it is vital to make sure that the public are aware of the risks. It is about people, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said in his opening remarks this evening, as much as premises. Part of what we must try to do through this legislation is create greater awareness of the risks of terrorism. I hope that that can apply equally to sporting events and venues as it does to society as a whole.
I am simply going to ask a series of questions and give some examples. I would be grateful if the Minister could seek to answer them. The first example I want to give emanated from contributions made earlier this evening about the costs of compliance and the resources necessary to comply. One of my greatest friends in politics was Denis Howell. He and I battled for many years, principally in another place, and when we got into this place we were both Tellers on one occasion on the same sporting Bill and saw success. One thing that Denis Howell and I were keen on was an initiative taken by the Labour Party in government to initiate and establish community amateur sports clubs—CASCs. This was back in 2002; these were small groups of volunteers across the country, reaching hard-to-reach communities, supporting grass-roots sport and allowing them, through law, to register as sports clubs and not businesses. That gave them significant benefits: tax reliefs, gift aid and rates relief. There are still some 6,200 of those clubs. They often have numbers that would exceed the threshold to warrant registering, as a result of the legislation before us, but they are at very low risk.
The key point that was made earlier this evening is that this debate is about risk and how proportionate that risk is. In this case, the cost puts at risk those clubs and the people who volunteer. Even on the Government’s own figures, we have a substantial annual cost for those in the first category, and in the enhanced category the costs go up to something of the order of £52,000 over 10 years. That would simply not be tenable for many community amateur sports clubs.
I ask the Minister to take away this challenge to encouraging volunteers in different groups—many groups that find it exceptionally difficult to access the sport and recreation that keeps them fit, which is a saving to society. It is very important, in my view, that in this context we look at those clubs and at the impact on volunteering.
If I can go up one notch to schools, having read the Bill I think I am right to take as an example Monmouth School. Monmouth School would be exempt from this provision if it had a rugby match and 600 or 800 people came—which often happens because rugby is almost religion in Wales and no less so at Monmouth School. If Monmouth are playing Brecon or Llandovery, it is quite possible there would be that many people there. If the school had an exemption and the public could come, they could walk into the ground and watch the game. They could then walk across the River Wye and go to see Monmouth Rugby Club play, and yet that club would be designated. So even with fewer people there, to me there is a concern about the risk of terrorism. There is just as great a risk that an event could take place at a school rugby match of that type, with the same number of people as are over the river at a town game, and yet the town club is not exempt. It is caught by this legislation while the school game would be exempt, despite the fact that the public from the town could, and do, go and watch to support their school as much as they do their town club.
Moving further up, I would like clarification on a question that the Minister can easily answer. From a terrorist point of view, focusing on big and highly publicised events such as a marathon or a triathlon makes them more likely, in my view, to be a target than, say, Monmouth Rugby Club. Yet, if I am correct, a triathlon run in London would not be covered by this Bill—or if it is, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how, so that we can relay back to the triathlon clubs across the country whether they are caught by this legislation. There are, of course, no premises associated with triathlons and those events are organised across the country. Therefore, we need clarity around how the Bill applies to triathlon clubs and to the national triathlon federation. How does it apply to the organisers of the London Marathon, which is a high-profile event?
Other similar challenging questions arise with the boat race—I had the good fortune of coxing in the boat race many years ago. The boat race committee has control over Oxford and Cambridge eights, and it negotiates the television rights, but it has no premises. It is out there in the middle of the river. The riverbank is full: sometimes up to 250,000 people go down to watch the boat race. I know that the Minister will say that it is a major event and the police will be highly proactive at that event, and indeed they are. I am grateful to the police for the enormous amount of work they do at major sporting events across the country every day they occur.
However, the tow-path is not covered, and yet I assume that each of the clubs along the embankment would be covered if more than 200 people came into those clubs that day. The Minister referred earlier this evening to “every so often”; well, that would be once a year—and maybe for another regatta as well—but those premises are there not because of the boat race but to cater for their members. On any other given day, there may be fewer than 200 of the rowing fraternity in their club. But I assume each one of them—the physical premises—would need to be registered and come under this legislation all the way down the tow-path.
There are two things that emerge from that. One is that there is an equally great risk with the public at large on the tow-path as there is inside one of the premises. Secondly, there is a co-ordination point that is important to think through for major sporting events, and that is the co-ordination between the police and a whole host of different people who will be responsible for compliance at each and every one of those buildings. I may have misunderstood it, and perhaps there is not a requirement for each of the clubs—the Thames Rowing Club and the London Rowing Club—to be compliant under this legislation for that event. After all, they are not there because of the boat race. No doubt the Minister will be able to help me by clarifying that position.
Another possibly rather good example is Henley. Quite clearly, the stewards’ enclosure for Henley would need to be compliant with this legislation, but the terrorist risk is greater down the tow-path all the way to the start, because access into the stewards’ enclosure is already vigorously controlled for safety reasons by the stewards. If a terrorist were going to choose the Henley Royal Regatta to create an incident, it is much more likely that it would be further down the tow-path, where a lot more people would be assembled watching the rowing than in the stewards’ enclosure itself. Again, it is about proportionate risk and ensuring close co-operation between the police and those that are compliant, as I am sure all sports clubs will be, with this legislation.
I end by saying to the Minister that I anticipate that there is not absolute clarity on each and every example that I have given. If there is not, will he and his officials work with DCMS in providing guidance to everybody involved in sport—the small volunteer clubs all the way through to the major events and those that do not have premises but organise an event—as to exactly how this legislation is going to work? The world of sport will do what it is told and will be very supportive and will always recognise, as everybody does on this Committee, that safety and awareness and anti-terrorism measures are all laudable and important, but it would be very helpful indeed to the world of sport to understand exactly how the Government see this legislation working and, where possible, whether they will provide financial support to those most in need. I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, in respect of Amendment 14, which is in my name, I have to say that Schedule 2 is rather tortuous. Having considered it carefully, I am not sure that my amendment, combined with Amendment 19, achieves what I want it to in light of paragraph 3(5)(b) of Schedule 2.
I am involved in helping to run several outdoor sporting and cultural events in rural England which, needless to say, are all run on a shoestring. Suffice it to say that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I am seriously concerned that they will be rendered unviable by the provisions of the Bill because of the significant costs of the requirements that will arise as a result of them—for example, putting in place training, barriers and searching equipment. However, because I now doubt that my amendment would achieve what I want it to, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not pursue it today but return to it later.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. Notwithstanding what my noble friend Lord De Mauley just said about pursing his amendment later, I support the sentiment behind it.
In another Bill before your Lordships’ House, the Football Governance Bill, we are looking at the implications for football clubs, particularly those at the lower end of the pyramid. I was therefore attracted to what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said and what his amendment seeks to do by looking at venues with a capacity of under 10,000—the sports grounds and stadia which attract a smaller number of people but still have sizeable crowds. As we discussed in the previous group, they are run by volunteers as much as, and indeed often more so, than full-time staff, with all the implications of that.
My noble friend, in talking about the London Marathon and the Oxford and Cambridge boat race, brought a number of important examples of sporting events which take place in both private establishments and in public. The growing interest in the parkrun movement springs to mind as another example. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a bit more about whether those more informal but regular sporting events which attract large numbers of people would be covered by the Bill, and if so, how.
I certainly agree with what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said in his concluding remarks. It will be very important to have some guidance here. I said at Second Reading that some more sector-specific guidance is needed. My noble friend’s suggestion of working with DCMS, on behalf of the many and varied sectors which that department has the pleasure of working with, would be very valuable because that can get us into some of the minutiae that my noble friend’s speech just set out. Those minutiae are very important, as the organisations and volunteers that run events are grappling with the duties the Bill will impose upon them.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I also support my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I wish to ask the Minister two questions that arise on this topic that I have found in the impact assessment.
At paragraph 68, there is a description of the enforcement regime in relation to the provisions in the Bill:
“Enforcement will be delivered via a mainly civil sanctions regime”.
In respect of a standard duty premises, we can see that there is a fixed penalty and an ability for the regulator to impose a fixed penalty of £500 per day from the date on which the
“penalty is due until the date the contravention is rectified or the notice is withdrawn by the Regulator”.
There is furthermore a power, in the most “egregious cases” according to the impact assessment, of a criminal prosecution of the relevant person. My first question picks up on a theme in an earlier group. To what extent does the Minister think this will have an impact on volunteering and the willingness of people to take on roles where they would be responsible for facing such enforcement?
My second question is in relation to the funding estimates in the impact assessment. One can see, in paragraph 98 on page 23 of the impact assessment, there is a description of how it is that the civil servants have reached their valuation of what the Bill is going to cost. In the previous paragraph, they discuss the impact of outdoor festivals, but in paragraph 98 they say that outdoor events other than festivals
“have not been included in the analysis. These events are not included due to the absence of specific and accurate data about the number of events and their respective capacities. This lack of a comprehensive list of these events means that a reliable estimate of the number of events could not be made. Therefore, outdoor events other than festivals have been excluded from the appraisal analysis”.
I suggest to the Committee that this is simply not good enough. This is an impact assessment which tells us on its first page that the possible financial impact of these measures is somewhere between £1.8 billion, which is the best case, and £4.9 billion. To simply exclude the valuation from outdoor events because no attempt can be made to assess how many people may attend is simply not good enough. We can see this is a policy that has been developed without the needs of the kinds of small sports grounds that my noble friend has identified. Would the Minister agree that the common-sense position would be to consider excluding completely these kinds of small sporting venues from the operation of the Bill?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will try to be as short as possible at this time of night. Schedule 2 excludes from the scope of the Bill sports grounds that are not designated sports grounds. So far, so good—but it is not straightforward. The exclusion for recreation and leisure in part 1 of Schedule 2 applies only where those attending are not members or customers who paid. If it is a members’ club, you are not excluded.
Furthermore, a sports ground is defined as being a sports ground within Section 17 of the sports grounds Act, or whatever it is called. The definition in that Act says that it means
“any place where sports or other competitive activities take place in the open air and where accommodation has been provided for spectators consisting of artificial structures or of natural structures artificially modified for the purpose”.
The reference to accommodation for spectators could well include a pavilion or some other fairly relaxed accommodation, with perhaps a bar attached and changing facilities, and so on. It does not have to be a pavilion as I understand it, which would include accommodation for 800 people. It is just a sports ground which has accommodation, because you are looking at the sports grounds Act.
So a question arises where there are quite large playing fields, a pavilion and a members’ club, and 200 people come from time to time to watch the match on Saturday against other clubs. It is not a lot of people, and children come, and everyone else. From time to time—because that is the wording in the Bill—there is a match against their local rivals, and they bring 400 friends along, and the home team have got 600, so you have 1,000. Are they going to have to search everyone who comes, and every car, and so on?
I am not saying that this is entirely wrong, but I do suggest that thought has to be given to how it will bite. What is the definition of an outdoor event or a sporting event of the sort I have in mind, such as football matches between local villages and towns? Cricket matches sometimes attract quite a lot of people. I am not talking about county grounds but just matches between two clubs that are old rivals on a bank holiday or something like that. This is all in the open air, in a completely unconfined space and, one hesitates to say, not on the highest level of the risk register. I am not going to tempt fate by saying anything else. I ask the Minister to consider this, certainly before Report.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, given the hour, I shall be extremely brief. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made some very convincing points, but I am afraid we still basically disagree with most of these amendments, because we disagree with the premise that rural sports grounds are less likely to be attacked. I do not think that there is evidence for that—at least, I remain unconvinced that there is evidence.
My second point echoes that of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about requesting sector-specific guidance. I think that that would be a very useful thing for the Minister to pursue. Having sector-specific guidance for sports grounds would perhaps help with some of the concerns that noble Lords on the Conservative Benches have raised this evening.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I too will be as brief as I possibly can. I support the amendments to Schedule 2 tabled by my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord De Mauley. The amendments seek to clarify and refine the scope of the Bill by excluding certain venues used for open-air sporting and cultural activities in rural areas, as well as sports grounds that are not designated under current regulations. Amendments such as these are vital for ensuring that the Bill remains proportionate and practical, while safeguarding essential aspects of our national life, including grass-roots sports, rural cultural activities and events that are deeply woven into the fabric of local communities.
I will briefly address the amendment from my noble friend Lord De Mauley, who I understand will return to it later. Rural venues face a unique set of challenges. They are typically more remote, less densely populated and often lack the infrastructure and resources available to larger urban or suburban venues. Their security needs and operational realities differ significantly from those of stadiums, arenas and other major event locations. So it is essential that we do not impose disproportionate burdens on these rural venues, which are often run by volunteers or small organisations with limited budgets. They bring significant social and economic value to rural communities, fostering local identity and social cohesion. Requiring them to adopt extensive and costly security measures risks driving many of them out of operation, depriving rural areas of vital cultural and recreational opportunities.
Similarly, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan to exclude sports grounds that are not designated under current regulations is both reasonable and pragmatic. Designated sports grounds, by definition, already meet specific criteria regarding their capacity and usage, and they are often subject to existing safety and security frameworks. Non-designated sports grounds, on the other hand, are typically much smaller venues, hosting grass-roots and community-level events, so it would be disproportionate to require these smaller, non-designated grounds to implement the same level of security measures as large, professional sports facilities. Such a requirement would likely discourage participation in grass-roots sports and place unnecess- ary financial and administrative burdens on local clubs and organisations, many of which are already stretched thin.
These amendments are not about weakening security provisions, but rather about applying them sensibly and proportionately. By excluding rural cultural and sporting venues and non-designated sports grounds, we can ensure that the Bill targets resources and security measures where they are genuinely needed: at venues that present a higher risk of terrorism and where the scale and complexity of operations justify the investment.
Finally, I commend my noble friends for tabling these amendments and for highlighting the importance of maintaining a balance between security and practicality. I urge the Government to seriously consider these proposals and recognise the value of preserving the unique contributions that rural venues and grass-roots sports make to our society.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the efforts of noble Lords in tabling the amendments we are considering and the points they have raised. The intention of the Bill is to provide a framework for security in the event of a terrorist attack: that is its prime focus. I recognise that there will be pressures on volunteers to come to the table on these provisions, but it is part of the scope of the Bill to ensure that happens and there is good practice.
I can assure the Committee that as part of the development of the Bill, both the current Government and the previous Government have carefully considered where it is appropriate to exclude premises and events from its scope. In particular, we have taken into account the potential impact on smaller community and grass-roots premises. For the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned, we have to draw that line in relation to the Bill as a whole.
On Amendments 13 and 15 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the Government are conscious that there are many types of premises used for sports activities with different operating models. That is why we have made revisions to the previous draft version of the Bill to distinguish between sports premises which are open to the public to access freely and those where there is some form of control of entry, whether a ticket check, swipe card access or other.
Schedule 2 to the Bill excludes open-air premises which might otherwise be captured. This includes parks, sports grounds and open-air premises used for recreation or leisure where there are no measures to control access. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, gave me a number of examples, including the boat race, as it involves buildings and tow paths. I will reflect on his examples. My gut feeling is that buildings are covered, but tow paths and other associated provisions are not, except if—as mentioned in the Bill—payment is made, invitations or passes to access are issued, or individuals must be members or guests of a club or association to gain access. I will reflect on his points, however, and prior to Report—which will not be too far hence—I will make sure the noble Lord has a letter in his hand. He can then decide whether to take action on Report or be satisfied; I hope, of course, it will be the latter.
I have the concern that under the noble Lord’s proposals to remove paragraph 3(2)(d) of the schedule, a non-league football match, such as at Flint Town United in the town I live in, with 8,000 people attending, would be out of scope and its security not considered. That is unacceptable, because the amendments could leave only a few hundred premises across the United Kingdom within scope. Again, the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that we put in a basic minimum, which is to provide protection in the event of an attack and steps that can be taken by the associated individual. That is the bottom line, and sometimes it causes reflections that the noble Lord has made.
The costs were touched on by a number of noble Lords. We have estimated that for a standard duty premises the costs will be around £330 per year. That is not cash up front being paid externally; it might just be an assessment of the time involved by volunteers to undertake the training and be the responsible person. Again, there is a judgment to be made, and we have made the judgment that that is a right level of approach. Noble Lords have expressed concerns about that, but I do not think it will reduce the level of volunteers. Nor, having looked at the impact assessment from the Home Office, do I share the concerns that the penalties set out in paragraph 68, for example—which I agree are heavy—will put people off, because we are trying to instil into the system a level of good practice. Downstream, undoubtedly, that will not be administered as a day one fine—there will be discussion between the authority and the regulated premise in due course. I hope that will not put individuals off, but the noble Lord has made his point.
The noble Lord mentioned that officials have drawn up the impact assessment. I pay tribute to the officials for doing that, as they have worked hard, but he will note that the signature on the bottom is of the Security Minister, Dan Jarvis. Political leadership takes responsibility for this document and will continue to do so with the support of officials downstream.
On Amendments 14 and 19 from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the noble Lord himself mentioned that he thinks they need to be reflected on. I will take his word for that and give him the encouragement to reflect on them still further. The Bill sets out that open-air premises which might otherwise be caught are excluded, but he can reflect on his amendments and, if he feels that he wishes to bring them back on Report, a recrafted amendment could be tabled, should he wish to do so. That is his decision and his call in due course.
If I may, I will reflect on all the comments made by noble Lords. There were some detailed questions about the pavilion and reflections on that. I hope that noble Lords will understand that we are trying to achieve a baseline, and we want clarity on that, because clarity means that it serves a purpose so volunteers and others will take the right approach, the SIA will know what it is monitoring, and Ministers and this House will be accountable for the performance. I will reflect on all the points that have been made and, if clarity is required, then we will try and ensure that it happens. I will write to Members and, if noble Lords feel that that clarity is not present in my correspondence, then there will be opportunities later in the day to take action accordingly. With that, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. We both share the overall objectives; of that there is no doubt, and I think that applies to everybody in the Committee. I hope that, in addition to the letter, the Minister will give consideration with his colleagues to sector-specific guidance. That would be very helpful in the context of the sport and recreation world.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I should mention that, if this Bill receives Royal Assent, as I hope it will, then there is that potential two-year implementation period, and we will be looking clearly at guidance to make sure that the wishes of the legislation are reflected in how it can be implemented by a range of organisations.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I appreciate that. By “sector-specific”, I was talking about the sport and recreation world, so I hope that that is also taken into consideration by the Minister. My biggest concern by far is the community amateur sports clubs—the CASCs—the volunteers, and the grass-roots sportsmen and sports-women in this country who give so much of their time voluntarily.
We will go away and consider the response that the Minister has kindly given the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Wednesday 5th February 2025
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-II(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (4 Feb 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to understand the Government’s expectations of organisations under the new duty to implement procedures “for preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event”.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 21A, 22, 23A and 24A. Amendment 20A seeks to probe the Government’s expectations of organisations that will have the duty to put public protection procedures in place. The public protection procedures listed in Clause 5(3) include measures
“for preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event”.
We have no concerns about the prevention of entry to a premises or event, and we can conceive of circumstances where leaving a premises or event would not be the right thing for an individual to do in certain circumstances.
That said, there is a real question for organisations running premises and events. If they are required by the Act to put measures in place to prevent people leaving the premises, what will that look like in reality? Are we empowering people in, for example, a church hall to lock its doors with people inside in the case of a terror incident, or do we expect volunteers to stand in the way of people trying to leave to prevent them leaving? Can we really expect small community organisations to make these decisions for people? Would they not be at risk of prosecution if they got these decisions wrong? This is a specific query but one where clarity from Ministers is necessary.
As background to this amendment, I remind the House that there have been emergencies in the past where the official advice has been wrong, at great cost. After the tragic Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, we learned that the official advice had been wrong and that many of those who survived did so only by ignoring the official advice to stay in their rooms and close their front doors until the fire was over. So we look to the Minister to set out his expectations for how this duty will work in practice. Amendment 21A would add a second test to the Secretary of State’s powers to amend Clause 5. As drafted, the Bill permits the Secretary of State to amend Clause 5(3) if he is satisfied that further procedures will reduce the risk of terrorism.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has already spoken about regulatory mission creep, and my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth has pointed out the risk that procedures may be overburdensome for small organisations such as community centres and church halls. Our amendment seeks to add a proportionality test that the Secretary of State will have to meet before he can amend subsection (3). I am quite sure that the Government can add procedure after procedure to reduce risks under this section of the Bill as introduced, but we need them to consider whether these further procedures are reasonably proportionate before they introduce them. I hope that the Government will take this on board and look at how the Bill can be improved here.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 20A, 21A and 23A.
As we have heard, Amendment 20A is a probing amendment to do with advice. Always leaving persons where there is reason to suspect an act of terrorism is occurring or about to occur is not necessarily the right course. You need to have procedures in place which not only prevent leaving but give advice about what to do—it might be to leave or not to leave. If we are going to have specific terms in the Act, it should be clear that the broader picture is encompassed. It could be construed as being simply advice about leaving. At present, on one reading at least, it is too inflexible.
I move on to Amendment 21A. To reduce the risk of reasonable harm is, I suggest, too bold and too bald. Is any risk, however small, to be encompassed by this, to make it even smaller? You will never make any risk negligible. Is any harm, however modest, to be encompassed? What is being guarded against? There is nothing to detract from the purpose here. It is simply to make it workable in real life. We must be sensible about imposing what is, in effect, strict liability for unforeseen circumstances. That is why we suggest that there should be an assessment of the risk, cost and outcome, and proportionality.
Amendment 23A is simply to give a clear time. Currently, I suggest, the words “reasonably practicable” are too vague. They could lead to arguments. It would be better to set an end date. Is it once the document is prepared that it should be provided or is it the time in which to prepare it? To me, reading this, it was not clear. There has to be reasonable time to prepare it and there has to be a time limit after that for providing it. Really, there should be an end date in any event for providing it, which should be clear; in other words, you have a reasonable time to do things but it must be done within three months, six months or whatever is the right time. That is the purpose of this.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 22 is in my name. I am sure we all recognise the threat that the Bill seeks to address and do not underestimate its importance. The attack on the Manchester Arena was, frankly, awful and we must do everything we can to prevent such things happening in future. However, in doing so, we surely must not inadvertently stamp out important local and cultural community-enhancing opportunities for people to enjoy themselves in times when, frankly, there is not much joy to be had.
At Second Reading, the Minister said, I think at column 646, two things which particularly concerned me. First, he referred to “public protection” even in the case of an event attended by as few as 200 people. He referred to “evacuation”, “invacuation”—apparently a word in the Bill drafters’ lexicon, if no one else’s—“lockdown” and “communication”. I will examine “lockdown” in a moment.
Secondly, the Minister expanded on the wording in Clause 6(3)(b), which refers to
“measures relating to … the movement of individuals into, out of and within the premises or event”,
and he added the words,
“such as search and screening processes”.
Let me illustrate my concerns by reference to two different types of event.
First, I help run one of hundreds, probably thousands, of annual parish and village charity fundraising events around the country. Ours, like countless others, is knocking on the door of becoming a qualifying event. We have assessed the risk of attack carefully, and already we have in place sensible precautions. The area is surrounded by walls, so a vehicle could not get near the crowd. A bomb or gun attack, although of course awful, would be highly unlikely, as the target is low value and, furthermore, the event is conducted in the open air, so a bomb would be vastly less effective than in a building with a roof and walls. When I spoke on Amendment 11, I referred to the fact that all 15 attacks listed in the impact assessment took place in urban areas.
I turn now to lockdown. Incidentally, it appeared from PMQs today that the Prime Minister himself does not fully understand the concept of lockdown. But the noble Lord the Minister said in the context of this Bill that it is
“the process of securing premises to restrict or prevent entry by an attacker by, for example, locking doors or closing shutters”.—[Official Report, 7/1/25; col. 646.]
How does he recommend that we in our village event would exercise lockdown? The event is outdoors, not in a building. There are no doors to lock or shutters to put down. Yes, the area is surrounded by walls, but they would not keep out a determined attacker if there was such a hypothetical person. So we will be required to have in place the ability to lock ourselves down but we are, in practical terms, unable to. There is genuinely very little likelihood of an attack but, when the Bill comes into effect, we will be obliged to do something that I cannot yet understand how to achieve.
Similarly, I have grave concerns about the implications of the Minister’s reference to “search and screening processes”. It is important that he explains what he means by “search and screening”. Does it mean full-body scanning, for which each unit costs several hundred thousand pounds and daily rental costs are several thousand pounds? Does he mean having a hand-held metal detector passed over attendees’ bodies? Even those, to be effective and not the knock-off ones of the kind one can buy on the internet, cost thousands of pounds. Does he mean that bags are to be searched? Exactly what does he mean?
At the event I am contemplating, the imposition of the requirement to search or scan guests, as referred to by the Minister at col. 646, could be so costly that it would be an additional reason that we could no longer hold our event, which last year—admittedly an exceptional year—will have given more than £5,000 to local charities and village schools. Is closing us down really what the Government want to do?
The impact assessment estimates the 10-year cost to enhanced duty premises at £52,093. It is not clear whether that would be the same for a qualifying event, but it does not look far off to me. That is just over £5,000 a year, which would kill off very many such events. In the debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, referred to his concerns that costs should not unduly constrain events such as those I am concerned about, and I hope that His Majesty’s Government think the same.
Secondly, I am involved with a major annual rural open-air sporting event. There are many similar events around the United Kingdom through the year, including agricultural shows, Eisteddfods, game fairs, horse trials and shows, music and literary festivals, Guy Fawkes Night events, Green Man—the list is long. These are not small affairs, yet many are run on a shoestring and, in recent years, several have already been lost.
In the case of the event I am involved with, the main issues are the same as those I referred to earlier: lockdown, and scanning and searching. The viewing public arrive in cars along narrow country roads with already very long queues. In practical terms, it would be impossible to search all the cars as they arrive. Depending on the direction from which they approach, traffic control decrees that they are directed to a number of car parks that surround the event on all sides. There being no suitable natural barriers, it would also be impracticable to funnel the crowds, once on their feet, so that they can be searched individually as they move into the event area.
Many of these events run at little more than break even, so the cost of barriers to funnel the crowds, combined with that of searching and scanning equipment and manpower, is likely to mean that they would not survive.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
I am sorry have to say to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that the time limit is 10 minutes for him. If he could bring his remarks to an end, the House would be very grateful.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I will. Thirdly, as regards the requirement in Clause 6(3)(d) relating to security of information about the event that may assist in planning acts of terrorism, given that most large events are pre-advertised and many are pre-sold, how practical will this requirement be and how does the Minister consider it can be complied with? I will write to the Minister with my other questions.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I suspect that the answer to quite a lot of the points that have been made lies in the term “reasonably practicable”, which is seen throughout the Bill. I asked some questions about that on the previous day of Committee, in particular whether reasonably practicable was limited to physical considerations or included financial ones and was a mix. Fair enough, my amendment was about the meaning of “immediate vicinity” and that is what the Minister answered, but I do not think he answered that question. If he is able to do so today, I think it might help us quite a lot. The financial implications are specifically referred to in Amendment 22.
I first heard the term “invacuation” about 20 years ago and I heard it from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I am very doubtful about Amendment 20A. I do not think it can be dealt with by advice. Taking the example of Grenfell, it seems very harsh to say this, but bad cases make bad law. I really doubt that the example we have heard could be answered by the change in the Bill proposed by this amendment.
With Amendment 21A, I suppose the question is whether reasonably practicable encompasses proportionate. I think, in the context, it does. Conversely, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and I think he is right to question in Amendment 23A whether it is appropriate that a copy of the document dealing with procedures is provided to the SIA as soon as reasonably practicable after it is prepared. It would be helpful to have a specific time limit here to ensure that the documents are prepared quickly, in a timely manner. That may be something for the SIA to be able to indicate was required, but it would be right not to have an entirely open-ended arrangement that could mean that some people who should be preparing documents do not get on with them as quickly as they should.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower’s amendments in this group, specifically Amendments 21A and 23A, and I hope to do so very briefly. It strikes me that Amendment 21A is a crucial brake, as it were, on the power of the Executive. It introduces a test of reasonable proportionality to the creation by the Secretary of State of further procedures by regulation.
I know that there are some later amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and others on the totality of the Henry VIII clauses in this clause and ensuing clauses. But, in the event that these specific provisions, namely subsections (4) and (5), remain in the Bill, Amendment 21A represents a crucial limit on the powers of the Government. In the age-old phrasing relating to proportionality, it is important not to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Insisting that “further procedures” meet an additional test of being reasonably proportionate imposes on the Secretary of State a duty to consider the question of proportionality in a measured and proper way.
Finally, Amendment 23A, as others have said, would provide an express and definitive timeframe for ensuring documentary compliance. The legislation would thus avoid uncertainty and vagueness by creating a specific time period. That strikes me as being in the interests of the person responsible for the enhanced duty premises or qualifying event and in the interests of the SIA. In short, everyone would know where they stand, and I suggest that that kind of awareness is to be commended. I look forward to hearing the Government’s clarification of all the points made.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the speeches which have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, talked about sledgehammers cracking nuts; I slightly wonder whether that is what the amendments in this group would have the effect of doing. It is clear that for the qualifying premises—let us separate out the enhanced duty ones for a moment—what is being talked about is taking reasonably practical measures, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, and that there should be appropriate public protection.
When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, I thought that it sounded as if, as an event organiser, he is already exemplary because he has thought about these things. I am sure that he has briefed the volunteers and the people around him about this. I slightly wonder why people have got so worked up about what the consequences and implications of all of this are.
If people want to know why there is this question of whether you invacuate or evacuate—whether you lock the doors or whatever—I am very taken by the accounts I heard of the Borough Market incidents. There were decisions which had to be made instantly as to whether to shut and barricade the doors or bring people in from outside. That assessment is going to be made on the spot, in an instant, but it is much better if the event organisers or the premises organisers have spent a bit of time thinking about it in advance, as clearly the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, has done, briefing each other and considering the various “What ifs?”. There is no right or wrong answer in those cases; you have to make the best assessment, but you will always make a better one if you have thought about it in advance, worked out what the choices are and what drives them.
My other point is about Amendment 22 and the waiving of public protection procedures. This sounds like the sledgehammer to crack a nut, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. A bureaucratic process will be set up whereby an events organiser or a premises organiser will make an application for a waiver to a public body, no doubt filling in lots of forms. Frankly, would it not be quicker just to do what the Bill asks: to make appropriate, reasonable arrangements? That is surely what is there and, if they are appropriate and reasonable, then the organisers will not have problems as a result of this Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments because, self-evidently, they have generated a discussion on some important points. That is extremely valuable, not just as clarification today but for those who ultimately, should this Bill become an Act, have to implement it downstream, so I am grateful to noble Lords for them. If I may, I will try to deal with the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst, first and then return to that of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, as a separate series in due course.
Amendment 20A from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sandhurst, concerns the procedure under Clause 5 for preventing individuals entering or leaving premises or events. Clause 5 sets out some types of procedure, four in total, of which lockdown procedures may be used to reduce the risk of harm by moving people away from danger. I think the proposals in the legislation are dependent on the premises or event. They would potentially include locking doors, closing shutters or, in some cases, moving people to a safer part of the premise.
The noble Lord highlighted some examples in his contribution. If an armed attacker were outside a theatre, leaving doors open or unlocked would risk the attacker entering the premises. There could be a plan whereby, at certain events, a lockdown procedure would have to be activated to secure the auditorium against entry, such as locking the doors until the police arrive or securing the scene, which may reduce harm to staff and the audience. It might be a procedure relating to particular circumstance. It will vary according to the type of situation or attack.
In some cases—as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey mentioned, this happened in the event at Borough Market—a lockdown might help to save lives. In other cases, it might be more appropriate for people to flee. Statutory guidance will be published by the Home Office/SIA in due course to illustrate the Bill’s provisions, including on public protection measures. During the London Bridge attack—the noble Lord said that he wanted the Minister to give examples—some premises successfully executed a lockdown procedure and, in doing so, saved lives. That is really important to remember.
We are not being prescriptive. Going back to what my noble friend Lord Harris said, the public protection procedures in Clause 5(3)(a), (b), (c) and (d) set down the type of things that organisations and the responsible person need to think about and prepare for as part of a plan. With all due respect to the noble Lord, the changes he is proposing are not necessary because the Government consider that the requirements of the clause are appropriate as drafted. Again—we will come on to this issue in a moment, with other amendments in the name of the noble Lord—we are trying to be proportionate and reasonable.
On Amendment 21A, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that proportionality is at the heart of the Bill as a whole. It is important to remind the Committee that this Bill has been through several iterations. It has been through consultation, drafting, a Home Affairs Select Committee, previous Government engagement and the engagement of this Government. Out of that, we want to get proportionate measures that ensure that in-scope premises and events take proportionate and appropriate steps.
It is about being reasonably prepared and prepared for risk—straying into what the Lord, Lord De Mauley, said—whatever the size or location of a premises. He is right that the majority of these attacks have taken place in urban areas at large venues, or in urban tarmacked areas. That is not to say that it will not happen elsewhere, that a terrorist group will not pick a farm event, a small village hall or another similar event.
That is why not just this Government, but the Government he supported, put in place the measures before us today. It is why the Bill went through a public inquiry, emerging from the recommendations of Sir John Saunders. It is why it went through the draft legislation process, and why the Commons Home Affairs Committee supported it on a cross-party basis, even though the majority of its members were from His Majesty’s Opposition. We are trying to be proportionate and reasonable, and the public protection procedures in Clause 5 are an important element of the Bill’s effectiveness and power.
I hope that assuages the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. Again, we are trying to do something that is proportionate, achievable and relatively cost-effective. I have mentioned elsewhere the cost of the potential measures. We have estimated it at around £330 per year for the lower tier. That is not in terms of cash being paid out to anybody; that is our assessment of the potential costs that can be incurred. It is about good practice, good training, good support, making sure that we have evacuation and invacuation procedures, looking at the exits and entrances and what would happen, and making those assessments, while making sure that the responsible person knows what they are.
The Secretary of State could add further procedures if they consider that necessary, but I am straying into later amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I have some sympathy with those, and I hope that when we reach them—probably now on Monday—I will be able to give some comfort to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Anderson, about the use of Henry VIII powers. However, we will deliver that at a slightly later date in the consideration of the Bill. Whatever happens, if there were any changes under the current proposals, they would be subject to the affirmative procedure, so this House and the House of Commons would have an opportunity to support or reject any changes brought forward by the Government as a whole.
On Amendment 23A, from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sandhurst, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, again gave a reasonable level of support to the idea of a timeframe for any duty and consideration being put in place. Clause 7 places the legislative requirement on those responsible for enhanced duty premises and events to prepare and maintain a document that records important elements of their compliance. That is a valuable document that will help the regulator consider compliance. It should be provided to the Secretary of State via the Security Industry Authority as soon as is reasonably practical. This will enable the SIA to make an initial evaluation of the premises’ or event’s security approach and engage in meaningful discussion or engagement about any potential inspection.
There is no single standard type of premises or event. Some will have long-established premises with little change needed and some will have to make changes accordingly. To ensure that regulatory provisions work as effectively as possible for all, the document should be sent to the SIA at an early stage. However, at the moment, by providing a maximum timeframe of six months, the amendment may result in either inaccurate documents or material that is out of date being sent. It could hinder regulatory activity and it could hinder the provision of advice and help to strengthen the venues’ practices. But I have noted what the noble Lord said and what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in support. Although I do not wish to accept the amendment today, those points have been put on the record and we will obviously examine them in due course.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I genuinely understand his motivation to ensure that the Bill does not render it difficult to put on many events that are valuable for cultural, social, tourist and business purposes. I accept and understand that objective. The Bill as drafted has caused concerns that he has put on the record—which, again, I will examine because of his timeframe, and if he writes to me I will examine those concerns as well—that are founded on his belief that this will be damaging. But, in my view, the Bill sets down the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey mentioned: procedures for public protection in place so far as is reasonably practical. In determining what is reasonably practicable, the responsible person—which may in this case indeed be him—will take into account their operating context and the particular circumstances of the premises or event. They will consider the appropriate procedures in the light of the cost and resources. That is the assurance I give him.
What we are asking for in the Bill, under the various clauses before us, is that he thinks, as I think he has tonight, about the consequences and about whether there is a threat; that he makes that assessment; that he makes the provisions; that he—or she—looks at whether those areas need to have that plan; that he makes sure that the volunteers in an organisation know about that plan; and that he makes sure, potentially, that the paid professionals he or she is dealing with look at and understand that plan. Accordingly, no procedure is required to be put in place at unreasonable cost to the responsible person, and in the measures in the clauses that he mentioned and expressed concern about, such as public protection measures, he will note that there is no mandating of those public protection measures or mention of scanners or other material. There is simply an assessment for the responsible person to organise accordingly.
The first condition in the noble Lord’s amendment for the grant of a waiver is therefore unnecessary. Furthermore, it is anticipated that developing and implementing these procedures should be simple, for cost and staff time. Some of the actions required as part of the procedure could be as simple as locking doors, closing shutters and identifying a safe route to cover. Some of the areas that he has mentioned, such as open-air events, will qualify under the Bill only if they have the requirements in earlier clauses—a building, or a paid entry or exit or ticketing system. Again, I accept that some of the events that he referred to in his contribution may have that, but the whole purpose of the Government’s proposals—which I remind him was shared by the previous Government in broad terms—is to provide good practice, a framework and a consideration for somebody responsible to think of a plan in the event of a terrorist attack.
I assure the noble Lord that this is not about preventing a terrorist attack. That is the job of the police, to whom I pay tribute, the Security Service, to which I pay tribute, and the myriad organisations trying to make sure that we stop bad people doing bad things before they ever get to the stage of doing them. But, sadly, he will know that the risk is always there. The security services try to do this every day of the week, but there may be occasions when something difficult and challenging happens, and this Bill is about what happens when that begins. It is about mitigating the risk, having that plan and proposals in place, and having those public protection measures to stop an attack and reduce the vulnerability in that place.
I genuinely understand the noble Lord’s intention and I look forward to receiving his letter and giving him a full response to it. I hope that I can assure him that the Government’s objective is to put good practice in place at minimal cost and ensure that those people who have a responsibility for an event transmit the evacuation protection plans to those who can impact those plans in the event of that split-second moment, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey said, when a daily event of enjoyment, pleasure and fun suddenly sees, in its immediate effect, a terrorist attack under way. We are trying to ensure that the split-second decisions that saved lives in Borough Market are thought about beforehand to save lives in the event of an attack.
I would love to assure the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that no attack would ever take place at the Caerwys Agricultural Show in my former constituency, for example, or at a scout gathering somewhere else, but I cannot. We will stop it upstream when we can but, in the event of an attack happening, we are asking whether the people on the ground know what to do. That is what the Bill is about, and that is why I urge him to write to me and not to press his amendments this evening, as, indeed, I urge the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst. Their points are well made and they will continue to be considered, not just during the passage of the Bill but, crucially, when Royal Assent is achieved. The two-year period that we have to implement the Bill is the time when the guidance and discussion that the noble Lord seeks will be part of the consideration of this, I hope, successful and productive legislation.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the hour is late, and I shall be as brief as I possibly can. This has been a useful debate, with most of these amendments seeking clarity from the Minister on the Government’s expectations for the practical implications of the Bill, as well as proposing a genuinely workable new mechanism to exempt premises or events where the Bill is not reasonably applicable, as under the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord De Mauley.
I thank my noble friends, particularly my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for speaking in support of the amendments and about assessment of risk and proportionality. My noble friend Lord De Mauley made a very good case in support of his amendment, which sought clarity as to the extent of searches. He is absolutely right that these small events are run on shoestrings in some cases, and they will be lost to rural communities if we are not careful about how we present the Bill. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support for Amendment 23A.
I will just say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that we are not worked up on the Benches on this side of the House. We merely seek clarity, which of course he will of course understand and respect. It is our place to probe, which is exactly what we have been doing this evening.
In finishing, I just thank the Minister for his response on this group. He has had a very constructive attitude to the amendments that we have proposed to the Committee and I thank him for his continued engagement. We need to get this Bill right but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 10th February 2025
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-III(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (10 Feb 2025)
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove a Henry VIII Clause which will otherwise give the Minister power by regulation to alter (including by making more onerous) the range of public protection procedures in subsection (3) which were decided upon after full consultation and will after passage of the Bill have been endorsed by Parliament.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the four amendments in this group, with thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who have variously signed them. I thank also the Minister, not only for being generous with his time but for his indication in Committee on Wednesday that he had some sympathy with these amendments. What form that sympathy will take we look forward to finding out.
Standing back, the Bill has two principal elements: it stipulates the capacity of events and premises that are subject to its provisions, and it stipulates the types of procedures and measures which must be followed by those responsible for such premises and events. Those things are not matters of detail—they define the policy that underlies Martyn’s law. We are asked, quite properly, to sign off on those provisions by giving our approval to Clauses 2 and 3 on capacity, and to Clauses 5 and 6 on procedures and measures.
The amendments in this group all relate to Henry VIII clauses: provisions in the Bill that allow the Minister, by the affirmative procedure, to amend provisions of statute. It is not just any statute: this statute, the one we are being asked to pass into law; and not just any provisions—the provisions in Clauses 2, 3, 5 and 6 that lie right at its heart.
Delegated powers are a fact of life and, although some of us may regret it, we are even seeing the normalisation of Henry VIII powers, which allow statutes to be amended in points of detail by regulation. But I suggest that these Henry VIII clauses simply go too far in giving Ministers the power to retake policy decisions that have been taken after much debate by Parliament.
The first pair of amendments in my name, Amendments 21 and 23, would remove the Henry VIII clauses in Clauses 5 and 6. These were singled out for concern by the Constitution Committee in the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, to the Minister of 14 January. As a member of that committee, fortunate to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, I will briefly explain why.
The lists at Clauses 5(3) and 6(3) dictate what may lawfully be required of those responsible for premises falling within scope. Clause 5(3) specifies the “Public protection procedures” to be followed if there is reason to suspect that an act of terrorism is occurring or about to occur. They are of limited scope: little more than procedures for evacuation and invacuation, barring entrances and providing information.
Clause 6(3) lists the public protection measures that must additionally be in place in enhanced duty premises or in qualifying events. These are potentially much more extensive: measures relating to monitoring, movement, the physical safety and security of the premises, and security of information. Unlike the public protection procedures that are the subject of Clause 5, they must be in place at all times and may have as their objective to reduce the vulnerability of the premises as well as risk to individuals.
Clauses 5(4) to (6), and 6(4) to (6), which these amendments would remove, allow both lists—the list of procedures and the list of measures—to be amended, not only by regulation but without meaningful precondition and without even the safeguard of consultation. What could that mean in practice? Take Clause 6, where the range of public protection measures is already almost limitlessly broad: anything relating to monitoring of a premises or event; anything relating to the physical safety or security of the premises; anything relating to the movement of individuals or the security of information. Clause 6(4) would allow yet further measures, not relating to the safety and security of the premises, monitoring, movement, and so on, to be introduced by regulations. What regulations could the Government have in mind? They sound as though they are well outside the normal range of protections that we might think useful and acceptable. If any such categories can be thought of, why can they not be brought forward and debated in the Bill? If they cannot be thought of, how can this power be justified?
The range of procedures in Clause 5 is much more limited, and understandably so, because these procedures are to be activated only once a terrorist attack is immediately anticipated or already under way, and because some of the venues to which they apply are relatively small. But, because the range is so limited, the potential for its expansion is commensurately large. What new and more onerous categories of procedure might be in prospect, what will be their additional cost and why are they not already in the Bill so that we can debate and decide on them now?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments. In particular, I shall speak to Amendments 21, 23 and 39, but I support the other one too. We have to remember that we have to uphold parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, explained, these are Henry VIII clauses. They will effectively bypass the scrutiny of Parliament. They will allow Ministers to change key aspects of public protection measures and to do so by means that should be employed only in exceptional circumstances.
This is particularly ironic in the light of two recent statements by this Government’s Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. In his maiden speech in July last year, he said that the Government would
“seek to promote the highest standards in how we legislate”
and seek
“to increase … accessibility and certainty”.—[Official Report, 23/7/24; col. 372.]
in how we make law, including not abusing the use of secondary legislation—I remind the House of that. On 22 November, in the Attorney-General’s 2024 Bingham Lecture, he addressed the erosion of the separation of powers and the usurpation—his word—of parliamentary sovereignty and judicial authority. He stressed the importance of the separation of powers and public confidence in democratic institutions.
In the present instance, we have procedures in the Bill that have been carefully considered and subject to full scrutiny. They will have been endorsed by both Houses of Parliament upon the Bill’s passage; that will be put to one side if they are then changed by regulation. Such sweeping powers undermine legal certainty; they are simply not appropriate in this instance. If we are to have effective measures—we have looked at the detail and found that these measures must have everyone working together to be effective: members of the public, the police, the emergency services and the SIA—it is important that everyone feels bound in and supportive.
If, having been through a long and tough series of debates in these Houses, the primary legislation is then just put to one side by successive Secretaries of State, we have all wasted our time. The public will perceive that and there will be a serious loss of democratic accountability and confidence.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was glad to add my name to Amendment 21, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and Amendments 23 and 38.
I am very concerned about what I consider to be the introduction of an anti-democratic part to this Bill, which is worrying and unnecessary in terms of delegated powers and secondary legislation. It opens up the potential for an overreach of powers in relation to the use of Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, explained brilliantly how the regulations can be amended in terms of the list of public protection procedures and measures that qualifying events and premises will be obliged to put in place. It feels as though that makes a mockery of the hours that we are spending here. I do not know why we are examining every line to ensure proportionality and those of us who raise concerns about overreach and so on are reassured that this will proceed carefully and not get out of hand, when all that could be wiped away with a pen stroke. Allowing this particular policy to be, potentially, reshaped to create further obligations on premises, venues and businesses and so on, fuels my fear of an excessive expansion of this policy and the aims of the Bill through regulation, without any of us having any oversight.
Those of us who worry about mission creep—or, what is more, who know the way in which the fear of terrorism and the call for safety have been used over many years as a potential restriction on freedom and civil liberties—will therefore at least want to pause and receive an adequate explanation of why on earth these Henry VIII powers are necessary if, as the Government assure us, this will not be a disproportionate Bill.
The regulator created by the Bill will already have immense powers to issue fines for non-compliance, restriction notices and so on. Many venues fear that this will kill them off financially; we have heard much testimony on that. There is already a sort of fear of God among many organisations associated with civil society and the public square, let alone the already decimated hospitality industry, about how they are to cope with the requirements of the Bill and to plan to deal with its requirements. It might well be argued that this is the price we pay for protecting the public, but that would be if they knew exactly what they had to do to plan for the Bill. These Henry VIII powers give the Secretary of State the power to make those threats to venues far more onerous. They cannot possibly plan for them.
This is all in a context in which a whole range of committees and consultations that have looked at this legislation have noted that there is no evidence that the measures listed in the Bill will have any effect on reducing the threat of terrorism, particularly in relation to smaller venues. One does not want to feel that we are in a situation of introducing legislation that could destroy businesses and aspects of civil society without evidence and that would allow the state to have ever-greater power in relation to surveillance—what those venues do and so on—just so that you can say to the public that you are protecting them, when in fact you might not be protecting them at all.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments on delegated powers and the Henry VIII clauses is a key area of contention in the Bill. On behalf of these Benches, I have added my name to Amendments 21 and 38 in this group. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, they were beautifully and comprehensively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, so I shall keep my remarks fairly brief.
It is true to say that the amendments in this group are now truly cross-party. I suspect that there are several noble Lords on the Government Benches who would rather agree with them too. I note in passing, as an observation of more than 11 years in your Lordships’ House, that parties tend to oppose Henry VIII clauses when they are sitting on the Opposition Benches, whereas they tend to introduce them once they are in government. If the previous draft Bill under the previous Government was perhaps too prescriptive, many of the concerns about this Bill now stem from the fact that it lacks clarity and leaves too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State, without parliamentary oversight. Like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I very much agree with the Constitution Committee’s letter in that regard, in particular the sentence that says that
“delegated powers are not an appropriate route for policy change”.
I think that is a truism, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
As the Bill currently stands, we are concerned that there is too much power left in the hands of the Home Secretary. In particular, there is a risk that if at some point in the future, God forbid, there is a horrendous terrorist attack, the Government may feel under huge pressure to react and, indeed, sometimes potentially to overreact. In such circumstances, there is always a tremendous amount of pressure to respond to events. In those circumstances, it is all the more important that Parliament can debate such measures and that there is proper and full consultation with the sector.
As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, Amendment 38 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that any change to the threshold would have to be justified by a change to the terrorist threat. We touched on this in earlier debates in Committee and it strikes me as a reasonable and common-sense approach. I hope that the Minister responds positively to these comments and concerns and that, if the Government feel unable to accept the amendments as currently drafted, they bring forward their own amendments before Report.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has put forward an important group of amendments. When I think about this, I am guided by two principles. The first is that anything the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, says about terrorism is probably worth listening to extremely carefully.
Secondly, I strive to be consistent in your Lordships’ House. I appreciate that that is not something that all noble Lords, particularly some who were recently in government, have necessarily embraced, but I cannot forget the number of occasions in the last 14 years when I have trooped through the Lobbies against Henry VIII clauses—for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, highlighted. I look forward to my noble friend’s response on precisely that point of why Henry VIII clauses might be needed in this case. If he is not so minded, perhaps he might give us an indication of the alternative.
The other point—again, I hope it is consistent with what I have already said—is that I am aware that the Bill has been through a large amount of consultation in reaching this House. That consultation has led to a series of compromises. I said earlier that my preference would have been for the limits to be set at lower levels and for the provisions to kick in at venues of 100. It is the Government’s judgment, from listening to that consultation, that 200 is a better figure to go for. I would be uneasy if we were saying that these major provisions, having been through such extensive consultations, could be changed without a consultation process and certainly without a proper process of parliamentary endorsement.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 21 and 23 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. These amendments propose the removal of Clauses 5(4) to 5(6) and 6(4) to 6(6), which currently contain Henry VIII provisions granting Ministers the power to amend by regulation primary legislation relating to public protection procedures, including the ability to make them more onerous.
These are important amendments and I support them for several key reasons. First, they uphold parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. The inclusion of Henry VIII clauses in the Bill would, in effect, bypass the scrutiny of Parliament by allowing Ministers to unilaterally change key aspects of public protection procedures. Such powers should be granted in only the most exceptional circumstances, where there is a clear and pressing need for flexibility.
In this case, however, the procedures in Clauses 5(3) and 6(3) have already been carefully considered and subject to full scrutiny, and will be endorsed by Parliament upon the Bill’s passage. It is therefore difficult to justify granting Ministers the ability to unpick these provisions without returning to Parliament for proper debate and approval.
Secondly, granting such sweeping powers undermines legal certainty. The security landscape is undoubtedly complex and may evolve over time, but that is precisely why legislation must provide a stable and predictable framework. If Ministers can alter public protection procedures by regulation, it will create uncertainty for the businesses, public authorities and other stakeholders that will implement these security measures. This uncertainty could hinder the very objective that the Bill seeks to achieve in enhancing public protection.
Furthermore, the inclusion of Henry VIII clauses risks undermining public trust. Effective public protection measures require the co-operation and confidence of the public and stakeholders alike. If these measures can be altered without consultation or parliamentary oversight through the proper primary legislation process, it may lead to perceptions of arbitrary governance and erode confidence in the fairness and transparency of security regulations.
I am not blind to the Government’s need for flexibility in responding to emerging security threats. However, existing mechanisms allow for swift and proportionate responses without the need for unchecked ministerial power. Maintaining proper parliamentary scrutiny is essential to preserving the legitimacy of any regulatory framework. The amendment strikes a necessary balance between security and democratic accountability. It ensures that any future changes to public protection procedures remain, as they should, subject to the robust oversight of Parliament. I urge the Government to accept this amendment and demonstrate their commitment to parliamentary sovereignty, legal certainty and public trust.
I will now speak to the important amendments to Clause 32 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. They address the regulatory powers granted to the Secretary of State regarding the thresholds for qualifying premises and events under the Bill. Amendment 38 seeks to require that any reduction in the thresholds for qualifying premises and events be justified by a change in the threat level from terrorism. While I appreciate and respect the intention behind this amendment, I must approach it with some caution. The need to ensure that security regulations are proportionate to the prevailing threat level is, of course, essential. However, linking regulatory changes exclusively to a shift in the formal threat assessment may create unnecessary rigidity.
Security risks are often multifaceted and not always captured by changes in official threat levels. Local intelligence, emerging patterns of behaviour or other factors may necessitate adjustments to security requirements even when the formal threat level remains static. For this reason, although I appreciate the noble Lord’s desire for transparency and justification, I am somewhat hesitant to fully support his amendment. None the less, I commend the focus it places on ensuring that regulatory changes are evidence based and justified.
I am more supportive of his approach in Amendment 39, which would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders before making regulations under this section. This is a measured and sensible proposal that aligns with the principles of good governance. The wording, adapted from the Fire Safety Act 2021, provides a strong precedent for such consultation requirements.
Consultation is essential not only for ensuring that regulatory changes are practical and effective but for fostering buy-in from those directly affected by these measures. Venues, event organisers, local authorities and security experts are on the front lines of implementing public protection measures. Their insights and experiences are invaluable in shaping regulations that are both proportionate and workable. Moreover, consultation promotes transparency and accountability, helping to build public trust in the regulatory framework. In a democracy, it is only right that those affected by significant changes to security requirements have the opportunity to contribute their views and understand the rationale behind decisions.
In conclusion, while I take a cautious approach to Amendment 38, Amendment 39 takes a better approach. I urge the Government to look at this proposal as a possible safeguard for ensuring that regulations are both effective and democratically accountable.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the Dispatch Box can sometimes be a lonely place, but such is life. I hope I can give some comfort to noble Lords who have contributed on the points that they have raised, while also explaining where the Government are coming from.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for his amendments and his constructive approach to the Bill’s proposals. It was good to talk to him outside the Chamber as well as having this debate. He has had support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey also made strong comments on the use of Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from His Majesty’s Opposition Front Benches broadly speaking supported the bulk of the noble Lord’s amendments, with some concerns over Amendment 38. Ironically, it is on Amendment 38 that I can potentially offer the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, most warmth today. I shall try to give the House some comfort on these points and, hopefully, some explanation.
I welcomed the scrutiny of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and of the Constitution Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is a member. The Government carefully assessed each of the delegated powers in the Bill so as to draw them as narrowly as possible and to find alternative mechanisms which remove the need for secondary legislation where possible. Our view, and this is consistent with what we said in opposition, is that Henry VIII powers should be included only where they are necessary to ensure that the legislation continues to operate as intended and where there is a justification for those changes. I believe that is reflected in the scrutiny of the two committees, as the only concern raised was about the linked powers in Clauses 5(4) and 6(4). For the reasons I will set out, the Government still consider the powers covered by these amendments to be necessary.
On Amendments 21 and 23 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I take everything he says to the Committee—and to the Government outside the House—as important and serious. His amendments seek to remove powers that would enable the Secretary of State to add, remove or otherwise amend the public protection measures listed in Clauses 5(3) and 6(3). Members of the Committee will remember that Clause 5 covers a number of measures, such as evacuation, invacuation, preventing individuals leaving premises or providing information to individuals on premises or at an event. They are reasonable measures that can be taken, but the changing nature of terrorism means that over time methodologies may change.
As the ways in which acts of terrorism are carried out change, so too may the many ways in which we need to respond to them. The Government want to keep the legislation under review to ensure that it effectively deals with the terrorist threat while being—this goes to the heart of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said—appropriate, proportionate and done in a reasonable way. These powers better enable the Government to respond to changes appropriately and maintain this balance.
The measures in Clause 5(3) are already constrained. They can be used only to achieve the public protection outcomes of the future Act. The Secretary of State may add further procedures only if it is considered that they would reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals. Similarly, the power to remove or amend the existing public protection measures may be exercised only where it is considered that such changes would not increase the risk of physical harm to individuals. The powers in Clause 6(3) are similarly restricted. The Secretary of State may add further measures only if it is considered that they would reduce the vulnerability of premises or events or reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals. Similarly, the power to remove or amend the existing public protection measures may be exercised only where it is considered that such changes would not increase the vulnerability of premises or events.
There are limited, straightforward proposals in Clauses 5 and 6, which set down a number of potential measures that are in place. Any change under those Henry VIII powers would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Before any regulations under these provisions are made, both Houses of Parliament would have the opportunity to debate and scrutinise changes to the public protection procedures and measures through these powers. Those limitations will help safeguard against unnecessary use of those powers by any future Secretary of State, in line with making sure that the public protection measures in Clauses 5 and 6 are met.
I believe, although I may be in a minority of one among today’s speakers, that the proposals in the Bill are sufficient for any Henry VIII power used in this circumstance to be brought back to the House for affirmative resolution and for the House of Commons to have a similar potential vote in due course. I do not have sympathy with those amendments, although I understand where they are coming from.
However, I will be honest; when I first saw Amendment 38, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I said to colleagues that I thought he has a point—and, if the Committee will bear with me, I think he does. Amendment 38 proposes to look at how we can reduce the qualifying threshold figures, saying that regulations can be made
“only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the reduction is justified by a change in the threat from terrorism”.
There is potentially room there for discussion with the noble Lord outside this Chamber before Report, which is not too far hence, to look at whether we can reach an accommodation to agree that broad principle.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I shall not try to summarise the excellent speeches that were made—they will come much more clearly in the form that they were made than they would from any summary of mine—but I will pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, who emphasised consultation. As I said at Second Reading, this Bill has in many ways been a model of careful consideration. Look at the work that the Home Affairs Select Committee did on it, the work that was done in another place, the way that this Government have listened, and the way that people right around the country were consulted before these measures, procedures and thresholds were reached. In previous groups, the Minister, quite rightly, has sought credit for the depth of that consultation and the care with which those crucial figures, procedures and measures were arrived at. So although I might not have used exactly the same words as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—she said that to introduce Henry VIII clauses and apply them to these central elements of the Bill when it has already been consulted on makes a mockery of it—I entirely understand where she is coming from.
I am very grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I think he described it as a half concession—and one must take what one can get—on Amendment 38 and the idea that changes to the thresholds should be motivated by a change to the terrorist threat. However, I urge him, while he is in that generous mood, to heed the very strong terms in which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, expressed himself on Amendment 39. If you were seeking a Henry VIII clause in these circumstances, and claiming as your model the Fire Safety Act 2021 which has a duty to consult—I might say a very weak duty to consult only such people as seem to the Secretary of State appropriate—why can that not be followed through into the text of this Bill?
The Minister gave an assurance from the Dispatch Box that there would be appropriate consultation—I think he said that; I do not want to put words into his mouth—although he did say that, on some minor issues, it might be internal consultation only. If the Minister is prepared to say that from the Dispatch Box, let us hope that all his successors are as well inclined to the idea of consultation. But is it really a great stretch to put those words into the Bill as well? I hope that, just as we reflect before Report, the Minister will reflect as well.
If the consultation power is too wide—and I think the Minister took the point that perhaps Amendment 39 applies to a whole range of changes—it could of course be narrowed. Amendment 38 is restricted to specific aspects of the Bill and it would be quite possible to redraft a consultation power that was equally narrow.
While I am on my feet and we are all beginning the process of reflection before Report, might the Minister consider applying the logic that he has brought to Amendment 38 to the lists in Clauses 5 and 6? After all, if reductions in the threshold, as the Minister seems minded to accept, require a change in the terrorist threat—or that there could at least be debate as to whether that is an appropriate precondition—why should not an expansion of the lists similarly require a change in the threat?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The reason I would put is that a change in the threshold would involve bringing a large number of other potential businesses and outlets into the scope of the provisions of the Bill. The changes in Clauses 5 and 6 may tweak or look at the protections available or what other support and training should be given, but they do not bring into scope further premises.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am grateful for that clarification and answer, but Amendments 38 and 39 are not just about a changing of the threat; they are also about consultation. While the Minister is thinking about consultation in relation to the thresholds, I wonder whether he might think about something similar in relation to changing the lists.
The Minister has offered me half a concession. What I was offering him just now was perhaps half an olive branch. It was a way of possibly coming back on Report with something slightly different from my amendments to Clauses 5 and 6. I think we all have reflecting to do. I am extremely grateful for what I think has been a most useful debate. For the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the impact of Clause 8 in relation to commercial agreements, as highlighted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s Note on the Bill, published on 9th December 2024.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will not feel beleaguered or besieged by this amendment, which is a probing amendment prompted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s note on the Bill published on his website.
Clause 8 is about co-ordination and co-operation. I have always found it a bit difficult to get my head around the notion of a statutory requirement to co-operate, although co-ordination might be a bit different. The amendment addresses subsections (5) and (6), which place a duty on someone who is not responsible for the premises but who has
“control to any other extent of the premises”.
The duty is subject to enforcement by the regulator. The amendment is to ask what “control to any other extent” means. The Explanatory Notes say that it is intended to apply to the freehold owner of the premises or the superior landlord who leases to the person who is primarily responsible under the Bill.
The independent reviewer gives a particular example. The owner of a premises rents them out to the responsible person, who uses them, in this example, as a bingo hall with a capacity of more than 800. The lease has 12 months to run and provides that no alteration may be made to the structure of the premises without the owner’s consent. There are no plans to renew the lease—indeed, the owner of the premises wants to sell them to a developer. The responsible person decides that, to comply with his duty under the legislation, he must make a structural change, putting in a new exit where there are currently windows. The owner would be entitled to refuse the alterations, particularly because they would adversely affect the value of the premises. There are conflicting considerations. Does Clause 8(6) mean that the owner has a duty to give consent? It is practicable for him to do so, but is it reasonable? What is the policy intention? Does it matter that the lease gives the ultimate say to the owner over building alterations, or is the lease now overwritten?
All this amounts to a question whether Clause 8 is intended to overwrite commercial considerations. The clause has the capacity to impose new terrorism-related duties on many building owners and landowners, not only in the property investment sector. Its effect, the independent reviewer writes, is “uncertain”. He suggests that
“since the Bill imposes unprecedented terrorism-related duties on members of the public, and has the capacity to interfere with commercial relationships, the intended impact … should be clearer”.
In this group, Amendments 24A and 24B are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I will leave it to him to introduce those. However, on Amendment 24B, in which he proposes that the tribunal must issue its determinations within a reasonable time—that being defined in regulations by the Secretary of State—I wonder whether he can tell the Committee whether this is entirely novel. He will know far better than I do, given his background and experience, whether the tribunal is required to meet a timeframe in other equivalent contexts. That is my question on his amendment. I beg to move my Amendment 24.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, in this group, I have Amendments 24A and 24B. Amendment 24A to Clause 10 is very simple. It gives the option in the case of non-enhanced duty—that is, standard duty—premises for the responsible body to delegate responsibility to more than one person. That will not dilute responsibility but, if we suppose that two people were given responsibility where it was a small and informal group, it would allow for a degree of flexibility. That is important in small, informal organisations which normally have fewer than 200 people but, in any case, fewer than 800 at an event. This is for smaller events—I do not mean that they are unimportant—and those in charge are likely to be smaller and much less formal organisations than for big places. If such organisations are to engage with all this, very often, if there are volunteers, person A may not be available because they may be on holiday, so we say let us have person B. It is not a big, structured organisation that we are talking about, necessarily.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 24B to Clause 11, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. Clause 11 requires determinations by a tribunal to be made on a perfectly reasonable list of subjects; I hope and expect that the tribunals would respond proportionately to the urgency of the questions asked. However, Clause 11 raises the responsibilities of the Security Industry Authority—SIA.
As those of us who are interested in the Bill know, it gives the SIA very new functions to which it is not yet accustomed—unlike anything it has done before. With that in mind, I have met and corresponded with Heather Baily QPM, who is the chair of the SIA. Although she has been very helpful, I remain unsatisfied at this stage with what we know about what the SIA is going to be doing. We know it is being given two years to learn the skills and measures it has to comply with and deal with, but we need something more than that before the Bill reaches Report.
I wrote to the SIA and suggested a list of issues it should inform your Lordships’ House about before we debated these amendments. At the very least, I urge the Minister to ensure, by Report, that the SIA—which I know has done a lot of work on the Bill already—sets out a proposed, not definitive, timetable for what it is going to do over the next two years to ensure that it carries out its responsibilities under the Bill. That would include giving information about the sorts of issues and how they would be raised by the SIA under Clause 11.
We are not going to have a complete picture of what will happen under the Bill, unless the SIA informs us in some detail. We need to know, as soon as possible, about what affected organisations and we, as the public and Parliament, are expected to accept from it as its responsibility under the Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I will say a word about Amendment 24B. It is quite unusual for a tribunal or a court to be required by statute to deliver its judgment within a “reasonable time”. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, realises that a proposition of that kind—which is so general—requires definition.
That brings me to the second point, which is the power given to the Secretary of State to define the length of a “reasonable time”. The problem the Secretary of State faces is that if he gives a definition, it will have to last, presumably, until some further exercise of the power is resorted to. Looking ahead, it is very difficult to know what exactly the reasonable time would be. At the very least, I would expect that if the Minister were attracted by that amendment, it would be qualified by “after consultation with the tribunal”. To do this without consultation with a tribunal would be really dangerous because it might set out a time which, realistically, given its resources, the tribunal cannot meet.
I see what the noble Lord is trying to achieve, but it has difficulties. To try to define “reasonable time”, even with the assistance of a tribunal, is a task that would not be easily achieved.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and to Amendments 24A and 24B in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. Amendment 24 seeks to remove subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 8, probing the implications of this clause for commercial agreements, as highlighted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s note on the Bill.
The amendment rightly seeks to probe how these provisions will affect contractual relationships between private sector actors. There is a genuine concern that the current wording could place undue financial and legal burdens on businesses by interfering with existing agreements. This could lead to significant commercial disputes and unnecessary litigation, ultimately hindering the smooth operation of commercial partnerships.
While public safety is undoubtedly a priority, we must ensure that our approach to security does not inadvertently create a minefield of legal uncertainty for businesses. Subsections (5) and (6) appear to grant broad and potentially disruptive powers that may override established contractual terms. In doing so, they risk undermining commercial stability and discouraging investment in venues and events that play an important role in our social and economic life.
Furthermore, these provisions may disproportionately impact small and medium-sized enterprises that lack the legal and financial resources to navigate complex contractual adjustments. Removing subsections (5) and (6) would encourage a more co-operative and practical approach, allowing businesses to work with public authorities to achieve security objectives without unnecessary interference in their commercial arrangements.
The independent reviewer’s concerns highlight the need for clarity and a balanced approach. Instead of imposing rigid requirements that disrupt commercial agreements, we should be looking to develop guidance that promotes collaboration between duty holders and security authorities. With this amendment, this House can signal our intention to maintain security measures that are both effective and commercially workable.
Amendment 24A in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst is a simple amendment which seeks to establish the Government’s reasons for requiring one senior individual to be responsible for the duties under the Bill for those premises and events with an enhanced duty. This should be something that the Minister can resolve with a clear answer today, and I hope he will be able to give that answer today.
Amendment 24B, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, seeks to establish the timeframe in which decisions by the tribunal have to be made. Clearly, events will need swift decisions from the tribunal if the decisions are to be made before the events themselves are held, and it is surely right that all organisations deserve timely determinations from the tribunal. Can the Minister tell us what his expectations are in this regard? Can he confirm that the Government have assessed the impact of this new duty on the tribunal on waiting times for determinations?
I urge the Government to reconsider the necessity of these subsections and to work toward a more proportionate and practical solution.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for their amendments. I will try to deal with both in due course.
First, Clause 8(5) and (6) introduce a co-operation requirement between persons responsible for those premises under the Bill and those with any other form of control of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. I make it clear to the Committee that this clause relates to the enhanced tier of premises, not the standard tier, so this would be responsible for the very top end of the arena-type premises. The responsibility for implementing the Bill’s requirements will always remain with a responsible person. Nevertheless, for reasons that have been outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, there may be areas where they require permission, support or co-operative steps from other parties to have some level of control of the premises or the event, in order to comply with the requirements of the Bill.
The noble Baroness gave an example which I can repeat back to her, in essence, where the person is a leaseholder who might identify that in order to put in place public protection measures, some changes are required to the building, such as replacing glass or providing alternative exit routes. In order to do that, the lease agreement may specify that permission must be obtained from the freeholder before any alterations are made. The purpose of this would be that if the freeholder were to refuse, or fail to respond to, such a request, this would compromise the responsible person’s ability to take forward reasonably practicable measures and frustrate the potential protection afforded to the premises. Clause 8(5) and (6) have been designed to require in such circumstances the freeholder
“so far as is reasonably practicable”—
the key phrase in the legislation—to co-operate with the leaseholder for the purposes of allowing the Bill’s requirements to be met.
I re-emphasise
“so far as is reasonably practicable”.
The clause does not require those subject to Clause 8(5) and (6) to habitually co-operate; they must co-operate so far as is reasonably practicable. What is reasonably practicable are the very issues that the Committee has already referred to, such as costs, benefits and the difficulties in making the respective relevant change, including considering the longer-term use of the premises.
I should also emphasise that Clause 8 does not automatically override commercial contracts or agreements. There is the co-operative principle that where there are parties with control of premises or events, there will be parties who will work readily with those responsible to take forward appropriate requirements. However, where that is not the case and where there is a dispute, Clause 11—which we will come to in a moment—gives the persons the right to apply for determination at a tribunal. The tribunal may be asked to determine
“whether a person is required to co-operate with the person responsible”
for the duty. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will recognise that there is a reasonable test in the clause as determined, and that the safeguard of the tribunal is there for where there are disagreements in due course.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister, and for his assurance. Of course, I was aware of the substantial sum of money that is being given to the SIA to enable it to carry out these activities. However, if it is well in hand, surely we have reached the point at which at least an outline plan could be given by the SIA as to what it is proposing to do with that money? This relates to a number of amendments that we are going to be considering later, and I thought I would get my blow in on this early. I suspect that there are going to be real concerns about a regulatory authority that has never regulated anything like this. Surely it would be right for us to be given at least a two- or three-page outline of what its proposals are, because it must have at least reached that point.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am in danger of straying into a future set of amendments, or indeed a general Second Reading debate on the Security Industry Authority. I say to the noble Lord that the SIA currently has a very good record of processing licensing applications—93% within 25 days—and has an 86% satisfaction rating by individuals in terms of their interaction with the authority. Ministers are going to be accountable for the performance in the event of this Bill becoming an Act. We have said, particularly my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Security Minister in the House of Commons, that there will be key ministerial engagement with the SIA in helping to develop and shape that plan over the two-year period between the Bill potentially receiving Royal Assent, and its implementation by the SIA and this scheme becoming live.
We may have that Second Reading debate in later groups of amendments. I hope I will be able to reassure the noble Lord then that Ministers have taken decisions to put the SIA in the prime spot of the regulator. Ministers want that to succeed, and they will be making sure that the plans are put in place to make sure that it succeeds, because this legislation is meaningless without the regulation, delivery, oversight, guidance and training that we believe the SIA can put into place. We will revisit that downstream.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his contribution; I think he stole some of the lines that I was going to use. He made the very clear point that the tribunal has a responsibility for setting its timescales and its deadlines, and that it is not for ministerial direction to do that. The tribunal system is well established, with statutory rules and experienced judges and officials who understand the need to make timely decisions in a variety of contexts. It is these rules and processes that should determine how that tribunal operates: with appropriate parliamentary and ministerial oversight—certainly—through amendments to legislation relating to courts and tribunals.
I note the potentially positive objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. He wants to see a definitive timescale set, but if we included that provision in the Bill, it would set an unhelpful precedent and cut across the roles of the Tribunal Procedure Committee and the tribunal procedure rules. I do not anticipate a large number of cases coming before a tribunal anyway, because I hope that—again, as with most of the issues in the proposed legislation—we can resolve these matters well downstream. In the event of an issue coming to a tribunal, it is right and proper—and I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned this—that the tribunal itself is able to operate effectively, with its own well-established framework to deliver its own fair decision, and not be hampered by timescales set by legislation which may not anticipate what will happen two, three, four or five years down the line. Therefore, I will take support where I can get it and thank the noble Lord for his contribution.
The tribunal has an overarching duty to deal with cases fairly and justly. If an arbitrary time limit is imposed, the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, may undermine that existing duty.
I hope that, in my response, I have given some comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and that I have explained to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, why I wish them both not to press their amendments.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I can see force in what the Minister has said, so I will not press my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, will not pursue his amendment. As noble, and noble and learned, Lords will have understood, my question to him was a coded form of opposition. He said “It doesn’t matter that there’s no precedent”, but I think that it matters very much.
On my Amendment 24, I hope it is appropriate to summarise the Minister’s response as saying that there are two conditions for subsection (6) to apply: practicality and reasonableness. He is nodding—I say that so that we will get it into Hansard, because it answers the question raised by the independent reviewer. If we need to come back for any clarity, or if I am misconstruing him, perhaps there will be an opportunity.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. I gave the words “reasonable” and “practical”; they are the tenors on which the legislation would be interpreted.
“TrainingThe Secretary of State may provide resources to support the provision of initial training and advice to support persons with control of relevant premises to establish the skills required to implement the provisions of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would permit the Secretary of State to make provision for training and advice to support relevant person meet their obligations under the Act.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for adding their names to Amendment 25; I am delighted to see the noble Lord in his place. I remind the Committee of my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association, with which I spent the weekend at its award ceremony in Newcastle.
Our Amendment 25 deals with training and public awareness. It has been grouped with Amendments 26, 27 and 29 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, from the Liberal Democrat Benches. All these amendments are designed to ensure that those responsible for premises where public access is provided are aware of their responsibilities and are properly trained to fulfil their obligations under the Act. They are necessary because the somewhat neutral statement of requirements in the Bill masks the huge effort that will be required across the country by those who have to implement its provisions. This is particularly true of the great number of venues that will be run or staffed by volunteers.
I have two important points to make here. First, volunteers give their services freely, and this legislation imposes further obligations on them, which they may not be prepared to undertake in a voluntary capacity. The concern is that some of these volunteers may simply walk away from the need to undertake further obligations if they are perceived to be too onerous, leaving organisers with a choice of either employing more paid staff or, if that proves not to be possible, simply closing the venue or limiting the scope of events.
Secondly, in cases where volunteers are prepared to undertake additional responsibilities, they will need to be trained to fulfil the obligations imposed by the Bill. At least initially, such training will require the services of professional trainers, and there will be a cost to this. There is no indication in the Bill of how these additional costs are to be met. Your Lordships will readily appreciate that the costs of training will be hugely increased where volunteers are used, compared with paid staff. Where paid staff are used, and one security officer will be required, four or five volunteers may be needed as, in the voluntary sector, these tasks are shared between several people, commensurate with their age and stamina relative to the duties required of them.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 26, 27 and 29 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
This is an absolutely key group of amendments. The many organisations which contacted us about the Bill always raised, without exception, training and information campaigns. Last week, I spoke to a friend who manages a theatre in east London. She told me that she has already put in place most of the measures contained in the Bill and already done the training. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, in reality that applies to the larger venues; these amendments are particularly targeted to the smaller venues, which have not yet put in place, or even thought about, many of the provisions in the Bill.
Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that the proper provisions are in place, so that staff at venues—especially smaller venues—are adequately equipped and trained to respond to threats. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, many smaller venues are run by volunteers or communities with little or no formal training in event management or public protection procedures. Amendment 26 would address this by ensuring that all venue staff and volunteers—whether in a pub, a church hall or another venue—would be equipped with the right training to prepare them to keep the public safe or to minimise casualties if there were to be an attack. Many organisations have expressed their concern to us about the lack of clarity in the Bill and said that, while the Bill would be helpful, training would be absolutely essential to make it work properly.
Amendment 26 would cover evacuation procedures, the monitoring of premises, physical safety and security, and the overall provision of protecting lives. It would also establish a full training implementation plan, with the Secretary of State regularly updating Parliament to ensure that the right progress was being made. Crucially, it would also ensure that our businesses are fully supported and given the clarity that they need to plan. The public deserve to know that, wherever they are, staff are properly trained to respond to any such emergencies or attacks. They should have confidence that venues are held to a consistent standard of preparation and readiness. For the venues themselves, it would be helpful to provide clarity and consistency on the standards that they have to meet under this law.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, there are concerns from many of the smaller venues and businesses about the financial impact and additional bureaucracy that these requirements may bring, which is why the new clause that we have tabled proposes a practical training plan to minimise the financial burden with scalable and specific training.
Amendment 29 is connected to this. As there is currently no specific requirement for training in this Bill—unlike the draft Bill presented by the previous Government—there is nothing to ensure that any training that could be provided is of a sufficiently high standard, quality or value for money. There were many speeches at Second Reading about the flourishing number of consultants offering their training services.
More tailored training will increase protection and raise awareness of the threat of terrorism for not only staff but volunteers. It is important to ensure that venues, staff and volunteers not only know what to do in the event of a terrorist attack but are confident that such training is delivered by competent and well-qualified professionals. In Amendment 29, we therefore suggest that an approval scheme is established for training—something that my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to as a sort of kitemark for training.
Amendment 27 requires the Secretary of State or the SIA to provide information and material to assist in the understanding of, and compliance with, the requirements under the Bill, including by way of an information awareness campaign. It also requires the Secretary of State to provide resources to implement this. Although advice is available online at ProtectUK, many businesses are unaware of this or find the information difficult to understand. This could lead to difficulties in implementing or complying with this legislation. A similar concern applies to parish and town councils, which typically own a range of premises—both indoor and outdoor spaces. They are also responsible for a large number of public events. It is therefore vital for the local council sector to have ongoing support and funding to assist with compliance with the new legislation.
Will the Government undertake a significant communications campaign to raise awareness of the new duties in this Bill? Will they provide a dedicated programme of tailored support and guidance? Will they undertake to provide clear, relevant and accessible information as well as online resources and tools on implementing and complying with this legislation?
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, my experience of smaller venues is that they are significantly more adept, knowledgeable and willing to explain security and safety procedures in advance of any event. I cannot recall this ever happening in a larger venue. This morning, I was at a once-Jewish theatre where, a very long time ago, a false alarm was called. There was some panic and 19 people were trampled to death while leaving the venue. In some of the large venues across the world—including in this country, specifically sports venues such as football venues—many major tragedies have taken place when there has been a chaotic leaving of a venue.
This Bill is highly appropriate and worthy. One can see the rationale and the urgency with which the Government—with cross-party support—brought it forward. However, it strikes me that there is a danger that we miss one key aspect. The risk of terrorist attacks is the risk of the attack, but it is also the risk of panic and chaos at any perception of one, however falsely or maliciously the panic or evacuation is created.
Judging from how things have been developing since this Bill was announced, I have noted that, for example, elderly, somewhat disabled football fans—those with walking sticks—have been told that they cannot sit in certain seats because their ability to evacuate in an emergency may not meet the time criteria. So, people who have willingly sat very safely and require—sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently—assistance have in recent months been told: “You may not sit in this seat because you will be a risk”. I would put that as one of the unforeseen consequences.
Let me turn that round into the positive, in the context of Amendment 24 on training. If we take a football stadium of any team in the top two divisions in England, we find a set of stewards whose turnover—not always, but usually—is very high. I have met stewards who were not aware of the layout of the stadium at all and could not solve basic problems, because they were new and did not have that knowledge. Usually this is in attempting to get into stadiums, where one interacts with the stewards.
At the football stadium I go to most regularly, like most other major stadiums, two-thirds of the people who attend go every single week. They sit in the same seat in the same part of the stadium. I know where my seat is. I know the people alongside me. I know people in the row behind and the row in front. In any emergency, we know what the flow is at any one time when leaving the stadium. We know where to go because we are there on every single occasion. The average will be 20 to 25 times a year in the same seats and the same venue.
Therefore, if one wants to maximise safety in the context of terrorism—an actual attack or anything thought to be one which could create an emergency evacuation—should one train up 300 to 500 regular attenders in the basics of what to be looking out for and to do in any eventuality, I put it to the Minister that the chances of success would be significantly higher. That does not fit all venues: not all venues will have a majority of people who know the venue better than anybody because they go to the same seat regularly, but that is a strength that should be capitalised on. I would like to see customers who regularly sit in the same location in the same venue trained up; I have proposed it to one major football club, in this case suggesting 500 supporters. This would be a free resource, not instead of but additional. On the objective of this Bill, that would not just bring some buy-in but make major venues significantly safer for all of us. Training by the venue of those who attend on a regular basis ought to be part of the mix in taking this forward.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 25, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and to which, as he set out in opening the debate on this group of amendments, I added my name. I did so because this amendment sits very well alongside the other amendments that he has brought forward on behalf of the heritage rail sector and which we debated earlier in Committee. As with those amendments, it applies to a huge range of organisations, well beyond heritage rail or indeed heritage alone. It follows the thoughts that we expressed previously in Committee, and as many noble Lords did at Second Reading, about the importance of volunteers to so much of the cultural, sporting and heritage voluntary sector that we are championing and have very much in mind as we look at the Bill.
I am very glad that noble Lords have had smaller venues in mind as they have looked at this amendment. They are particularly reliant on volunteers—some of them all the more so since the changes in the Budget to national insurance contributions, which have made organisations that are run on a very tight margin more reliant on people who give their time freely.
There are so many barriers to people being volunteers. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned briefly the cost of transport: if you are travelling to a heritage railway, you often travel many miles at your own expense, filling the car with petrol in order to get there. There are many barriers that put people off volunteering and enriching our lives, and we must make sure that this does not become another of them.
The people who volunteer and look after the public in these venues are no less diligent, professional and concerned about the safety of those who come to enjoy those venues, but they certainly need the help, assistance and training that the noble Lord envisages through his amendment. It must be provided in a different way from the way in which is mandated and applied to full-time employees. As the noble Lord says, many volunteers are seasonal and sporadic, so it is important that they are able to refresh their training—for example, students who have volunteered, gone away to university and come back, will need a way of being trained up again and refreshed in these responsibilities.
It is important to note that, because of the serious nature of these new duties on people who look after our cultural venues, they might appear scary. It is important that the training disabuses volunteers of such notions. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, rightly says, we want to avoid the sort of panic and chaos that come if people are not prepared mentally and practically for how they will deal with the sorts of scenarios that we envisage as we look at the Bill but hope do not come to pass.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, says, the alternative, if there is not the provision that the noble Lord sets out in his Amendment 25, is the snake-oil salesmen that we heard about at Second Reading. They are already offering their views on how to implement the provisions in the Bill before it is an Act of Parliament, and charging small venues huge amounts of money to do it. They are leaving them worse prepared and more frightened about the scenarios that they have to think about.
The noble Lord, Lord Falconer, has been very modest in his amendment: it is a “may” and not a “must” duty. There is much to commend the amendments in this group from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, but those are “must” amendments while that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is a “may”. It would make the voluntary job of people who look after these venues a lot easier, and I hope that the Government will look favourably on it.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I will speak in favour of the amendments in this group, particularly that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I have an interest to declare, in that I have 250 or 300 church buildings in my diocese that will come under the terms of the Bill when it is enacted.
I turn first to the provision of training. When, about 20 years ago, I first became a trustee of a large defined benefit pension scheme, it was quite scary, but I found that the Pensions Regulator provided me with training, which, as far I could work out, was free for me at the point of access. The principle that training should be provided and not just left to the private sector—to the snake-oil sales men or women, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, just referred to—is important, so that the state can provide good training or enable it to be provided. Similarly, back in 2000, I was involved with a group of friends when the asylum seeker dispersal scheme first began. I set up and won the contract for Yorkshire and the Humber to prove that this could be done morally and effectively, and not simply as a rent-seeking exercise at the expense of the asylum seeker.
State provision, ideally of a good standard that would drive up the quality of standards provided by alternative providers—the amendment does not say it all has to be done through the state—is much to be welcomed.
I recall the difference between volunteers and paid staff. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, said, for something that might be covered by one full-time staff member, it takes quite a number of volunteers, each giving small amounts of their time, to make happen. In my churches I have many volunteers—probably several thousand in the diocese of Manchester—who require DBS clearance for their work with children or vulnerable adults. The law is that those who are volunteers get the DBS clearance process for free; I have to pay for clergy and other paid staff of the diocese, but for volunteers it is provided free of charge. It is a good idea to find ways to help the many volunteers who enable small organisations, whether they are churches, heritage railways or small football clubs. My football club, Salford City, is in a rather lower league than the top two, but, again, there are many volunteers on duty to make sure that things are carried out properly.
I support the amendments in this group and hope that we can find some way of ensuring that good-quality training is provided that will avoid voluntary organisations in particular falling into the hands of those who will either charge them so much that they give up or exploit them for their own ends.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am genuinely torn and confused by this group of amendments. As this is Committee, I want to try to probe it a little because I do not know which way to go.
I was pleased that the Government listened to the consultations about training and, it seemed to me at least, dropped the notion of a one-size-fits-all approach. I thought that was commendable and still do. I know from my experience of organising events that at the same venue you can, for example, have different kinds of events that will have different requirements and need different types of training. I absolutely do not want to go against the idea of listening and thinking to ensure that training is not a source of problems for venues.
I also have a certain dread of training. Noble Lords have already noted that there are a lot of rackets about. When I looked into the original Martyn’s law provisions when they were proposed under the other Government, I saw how many adverts there were from consultants offering to prepare organisations for the legislative change. I got very anxious about that, because they were expensive and no one knew whether they were of the right calibre and so on. There was a worry that security firms in particular would make a packet. Having said that, it is the case that, inevitably, smaller organisations will not necessarily know how to do the training themselves and will turn to third parties.
I am not sure what I think about the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, but I think there is something in this. On the one hand, the thing which has worried most voluntary organisations is what they will do about training. I know from my work in the voluntary sector that a lot of volunteers are put off by the notion that they will all be sent off on safety training courses. It is the dread of your life: you are giving up your time for a good cause to help people, and you think, “Oh God, am I going to be jumping through those hoops?” On the other hand, it is understandable that smaller organisations are not going to have expert trainers on hand and so will need to bring in third parties. That is where one becomes unsure about what they are going to get, and there have been some suggestions in the amendments.
The other thing is that there has been quite a move to reassure venues that there will be signposting of suitable free training offers online. Those kinds of box-ticking exercises are really not worth even being free. There is a danger that training, if it is treated as a box-ticking exercise, will lack quality control and give a false sense of security that the measures are being followed.
Obviously, what I have just said is contradictory, because I do not actually know quite how one should tackle this, but the Government cannot just brush aside the concerns; these are genuine dilemmas that I do not think the Bill addresses at present. There will be real on-the-ground issues that venues face if this legislation is passed.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 25. We all know that if training is provided badly, it is actually better if there was no training given in the first instance, because it will do far more damage. When we are considering mandating training for public safety, it is imperative that only suitably qualified persons from legitimate organisations are permitted to offer that training. Only two or three weeks ago, those of us who are interested were reading about problems with fire legislation, where incorrect training was being provided and had caused major problems for a number of home owners, so this is essential. It is also worth bearing in mind that this training will require recognised people who will be able to train on threats, counterterrorism awareness, emergency trauma care and co-ordinating with the security services. All this will require people who know what they are doing. That is my first point.
While I am on my feet, I will also talk about Amendment 27 and support it. To achieve the end goal of enhancing public safety through the mitigation of risk, it is self-evident that public awareness is going to be key. I therefore encourage noble Lords to support the amendment. To achieve public awareness, government must be mandated to provide information and material to the SIA and relevant bodies such as local authorities—something we have not really talked about. Proposed new subsection (2) in that amendment is imperative, as the financial burden that could fall on local authorities is going to be significant—as it is on the SIA, but of course that is getting funding.
In its submission of evidence on this, back in July 2023, the council of local authorities said that this could run into millions of pounds. It would have to include familiarisation costs. Councils would have to fund risk assessments and do comprehensive training for staff and councillors. There would need to be tailored advice. All this is costly and time consuming, and it is important to reiterate that local authorities are already under pressure because of spiralling costs. Therefore, it is important that the Government clarify what funding will be available to local authorities. Will they be covered by the new burdens doctrine, which states that any additional costs incurred by local authorities by new legislation will be covered by government?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. These amendments address vital areas where the Bill can be further strengthened to enhance public safety and ensure that all relevant stakeholders are equipped to fulfil their duties under the legislation.
The horrific events have that blighted public spaces over recent decades remind us of the importance of constant vigilance and robust security measures. As policymakers, it is our duty to ensure that we not only legislate to protect the public but provide practical support to those responsible for implementing these protections. These amendments, focused on training, public protection procedures and public awareness, are an interesting approach to ensuring that this legislation is properly implemented.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner for tabling the first of this group of amendments and to the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Udny-Lister, the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Suttie, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Mann for their contributions.
I would like to just stand back for a moment. All the amendments and comments are about making sure that somebody in a responsible position understands what the provisions of the Bill are so they can make sure that the people who are with them, on a voluntary or professional basis, are seen to understand and are able to implement the legislation in the event, which we hope will never happen, of a further terrorist attack.
The specific question of training is an important one, but I remind noble Lords that there is no requirement in the Bill currently. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned, that was a step back that the Government took to ensure that we carry out specific training on any particular issue. It is essential that we have those public protection measures in place and that people understand them, but is it essential for all the issues that have been raised today to be fully put down and for those “burdens” to be put on to voluntary organisations and organisations in the higher tier?
In Clause 5(3) we are asking for public protection measures, which include invacuation, assessing windows and a whole range of issues about a particular site; and in Clause 6 there are some more detailed observations for the larger premises. What my honourable friend Dan Jarvis in the House of Commons and I are trying to do with the Bill is establish good practice. Accordingly, as has been mentioned in the Chamber tonight, training and instruction will vary according to the types of premises and workers—whether it is a professional building or a small village hall with amateur individuals being trustees and responsible for those areas. The Government consider that the focus should be on how to ensure that people can carry out their roles effectively, rather than requiring the completion of generic or, indeed, one-size-fits-all modules or courses. If no one working at a qualified premises has been informed how to carry out an evacuation procedure, the procedure is, self-evidently, not properly in place and the requirements under this legislation have not been met.
The Government recognise the vital importance of proper instruction, and, as such, the Bill will require some form of guidance and strategy, but I would suggest it does not require prescriptive training along the lines that have been discussed in the range of amendments brought before the Committee today.
Under this legislation, the Secretary of State, the right honourable Yvette Cooper, and any future Secretary of State, must provide guidance under Clause 27 and lay it before this House and the House of Commons so that there is public scrutiny of what that guidance will be in the event of this Bill becoming an Act and Clause 27 passing into law. That guidance will be produced with the specific purpose of helping those in scope in the standard or enhanced tiers to understand the requirements that are required of them and to understand how to comply with them.
Moreover, in Clause 12, one of the functions of the Security Industry Association will be to provide the appropriate advice to those in scope of the requirements. Where provided, such advice cannot replace, but may be complementary to, the statutory guidance produced by the Secretary of State. It is intended that the Security Industry Association will support and guide those who are responsible for the premises and events and will seek to educate rather than enforce in the first instance. Through the process of implementation, the Home Office is intending—I hope I have given reassurance previously on this—to support the SIA, to ensure that the advice it provides and the guidance it produces assists those who fall within scope, drawing appropriately on relevant stakeholders. The Home Office is committed to ensuring that the SIA brings in the right people with suitable qualifications and expertise to ensure effective performance.
I hope that that reassures the Committee. It does not set down a template for training because training is not required, but it will set down guidance for organisations in the standard or enhanced tiers to ensure that they know what is required of them, and the legislation is clear in Clauses 5 and 6 as to what that is.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Has he given more thought to the sector-specific guidance, as we have touched on previously in Committee? He relies on the guidance that the Secretary of State for the Home Department will have to bring forward but, as this debate has shown, the application for a heritage railway association or a small football club varies hugely. If he and his department were willing to look at sector-specific guidance that would take in all the specific situations that volunteers and staff in those organisations face, that would go some way to helping.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a valuable point. But consider, for example, that the provisions were for a standard-tier building. The standard-tier building under Clause 5(3) requires “public protection procedures”: evacuating individuals; moving individuals; preventing individuals from entering or leaving; and providing information to individuals on the premises. Those requirements in Clause 5(3)(a) to (d) apply to a heritage railway, a village hall, a small football club, or a small church—they apply to any particular premises. What that clause and therefore what the training/understanding is about is making sure that, be it a railway, church, village hall or football club, those provisions are understood by the people who, in the event of an attack, would be in the building and would be directed by the responsible person, or their delegated named person, to understand—if this building were a village hall—which entrances they need to lock or open, which windows to shut or not, and what the evacuation procedure for the building is.
There is a training element in that, but it is really in the understanding. The guidance that the SIA and the Home Office will produce downstream—it is downstream because this is not yet an Act and there is a two-year implementation period—will be designed to make sure that whatever the circumstances, individuals who are responsible people under the legislation understand what their responsibilities are. I am acutely aware that there are, as there are now, a number of individuals offering types of training before this Bill is even legislation and has Royal Assent.
Do we, as the noble Baroness says, produce a Home Office list of “supported individuals”? Our aim is to try to simplify and de-bureaucratise this, as far as possible, so that it is easily understood by those who are “responsible individuals”, and the costs are not excessive. The requirements in the legislative amendments being discussed today would add potential layers of bureaucracy and would not achieve the fundamental objective, which is, “What do I have to do in the event of a terrorist attack in the premises that I am responsible for, whatever size those premises are?”
Lord Mann (Lab)
The Minister is giving a good explanation on bureaucracy and cost, which I think is rational, but I fear I am hearing too much of the Home Office mentality of an “authorised person”. When it comes to dealing with major risk, including dealing with terrorism, the message on the railways, on the London Underground and in airports is that everyone should be vigilant. A huge amount of resource has gone into that messaging.
With the example of parish councils, I do not think anyone is suggesting that parish councils should be required by law to have carried out a training session. Not that long ago, however, I represented about 60 parish councils, and I would expect somebody to be organising a training session for all 60 of those councils to make sure they are all clear about what they should and should not be doing in relation to this. That is a small but crucial event. Is there not a danger that the Home Office thought process of the “responsible person” leaves out the responsibilities of the rest of us and the key role for us to be playing in this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The purpose of this legislation is to provide guidance for the responsible person where buildings and premises are impacted at the time of a terrorist attack to ensure that the responsible person knows what to do. It is not designed to be worrying about the downstream elements of potential terrorism—although we all worry about these things. We all need to be vigilant on trains and in the street; we all need to understand what is happening; we all need to support the police and the security services. As professional forces, they are doing what they can to prevent an attack occurring in the first place—but, in the event of terrorists choosing to attack a village hall in my noble friend’s former parliamentary constituency, or another railway heritage site, what happens when that attack takes place? That is the nub of what this Bill is about.
The provisions under Clause 5, for smaller premises, and Clause 6, for larger premises, and the provisions on having a nominated person are linked to an understanding of what we do in that circumstance. The amendments today are about whether we need to ramp up training to do that. What I am saying to the House is that the Security Industry Authority and the Home Office will provide guidance on how to understand and implement that legislation, but the specific training and vetting and supporting specific training providers is not one of those obligations. Certainly, however, there will be guidance from the Secretary of State and the Security Industry Authority.
Indeed, as I was saying before my noble friend asked to intervene, there are government fact sheets currently. There is social media promotion of the leaflets and there is stakeholder engagement. We have had a massive consultation, in several incarnations, through different Governments and through various rounds of scrutiny by the public and parliamentarians. What we are trying to get to is an understanding of certain responsibilities that individuals have to have to make sure that there are protective measures in place in the event of an attack, which remains unlikely but could happen anywhere, at any time. When it happens, how do people understand their responsibilities and responses?
The two-year implementation period that we are likely to have before the Bill becomes implemented law, as opposed to Royal Assent law, will allow for wider discussion of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned around whether we need to tailor specific advice or not and will include widespread dissemination of the type of information that the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, have brought forward today. This is a valuable discussion to have, but the aim of the Government is to try to make this as simple as possible; to give guidance to ensure that it is as simple as possible; and not to overcomplicate things by making everyone think, “I have to have training to do this”. It is not about training, it is about responsibilities. Those responsibilities are set down in the Act and guidance will be given in due course.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply at the end of the debate. If I may, I will come back to that in a second. I first want to thank all noble Lords who have spoken, many of them on the other side of the Chamber from me, and one on my side, on the Back Bench here, because there is clearly great public support for the Bill. We are determined that it should pass and that it should work, but we believe that, for it to work effectively, there must be a commitment by the Home Office, the Security Industry Authority and other interested bodies to make certain that there are people in place in the organisations affected who are properly informed and trained in what their duties and responsibilities are going to be.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, spotted the fact that I had the word “may” in my amendment, and not “must”, which does, I hope, leave the Government with some discretion as to how it wants to implement the two-year consultation and implementation period. I hope that there was enough in my noble friend’s speech to indicate that, if it is going to be necessary for some form of structure to be established, it will be necessary not only for guidance to be available; the implementation of that guidance will need to be properly organised, either with public funds or through some other means of providing trainers who are able to do that. I hope that that opportunity is not ruled out and that there is going to be determination to ensure that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be implemented effectively and that the organisations that are required to implement it feel comfortable and are not affected financially by having to take on these responsibilities.
For the moment, I will of course ask the Committee to allow me to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that my noble friend is clear: there is a lot of support for the propositions that all of us have been making in this debate and I hope that we can come back to this at a later stage to see how we can implement them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“Private sector engagement in counter-terrorism measures(1) The responsible person for any qualifying premises may fulfil their duties under sections 5 or 6 by contracting with an accredited private security provider to conduct risk assessments and provide ongoing security services.(2) The Secretary of State must maintain a list of certified private security firms authorised to provide such services.(3) Security providers must comply with the national guidelines for counter-terrorism risk assessments and be subject to regular audits by the Security Industry Authority.”Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment which seeks to explore reducing the burden on public sector resources by encouraging the engagement of qualified private security companies. It leverages private expertise to enhance the resilience of high-risk premises against terrorism threats while maintaining government oversight to ensure quality and compliance.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I turn to the amendment in my name, the sole amendment in this group, which concerns private sector engagement in counterterrorism measures. The Committee will be aware that this amendment, as part of my approach in other amendments proposed to the Bill, seeks to soften the effect of the measures in the Bill on small businesses and community ventures.
As the Committee is aware, on page 2 of the Government’s impact assessment prepared by the Home Office, in the “Summary: Analysis & Evidence” section of the policy options signed off by the Minister, is a box giving the range of costs to business of implementing Martyn’s law. The high estimate is £4.87 billion; the low estimate is £563 million, and the Home Office’s best estimate is £1.785 billion. These figures, which are to be carefully borne in mind by the Committee and House in considering the Bill, are the subject of considerable concern on these Benches, particularly given how they must chime with the other problems presently faced by businesses and in light of the Government’s growth agenda.
That disquiet is amplified, particularly in light of the debate we have just had, by the detailed analysis provided by officials on how they reached those figures. On page 27 of the impact assessment, at paragraph 119, we are told that, in drawing up these figures:
“The cost of training is assumed to not be financial, there is no prescribed format requiring the use of particular resource and some training material will be provided for free”.
Then we are told:
“It is assumed that all sites will take up the offer of free training material. This means the only applicable cost”,
taken into account in reaching those startling appraisals of the cost,
“is the loss of employee time when doing the training”.
We are further told:
“Some large businesses may use a commercial provider, which would increase the costs to business. This has not been estimated within the impact assessment due to the absence of specific data on the number of sites who will use a commercial provider for training and a lack of understanding of the costs charged by commercial providers for this training”.
This amendment attempts to address, in some part, the problems that arise from having an imposition on small businesses. It seems most unlikely that small businesses will take up solely free training offerings. Given the level of penalties imposed by the Bill and the criminal liability, they will look to private contractors to advise them on the implementation of measures to meet their new duties under the scheme. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, some of these may be snake-oil salesmen or racketeers.
The amendment is designed to allow a business faced with an obligation to take steps under the Bill to contract out, to a degree, their duties under Clauses 5 or 6 by using an accredited private security provider to conduct risk assessments and to provide ongoing security services to the firm. This would have two effects. The first would be to allow businesses to use the private security sector to help them meet their security objectives. This would result in a better set of security plans. Through the operation of the free market in the provision of such advice, it would also allow a company or community venture seeking such assistance to choose a package that they could afford.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord will have realised from the last debate, my noble friend and I are rather keen on accreditation of training—I will come back to that in a moment—but I should make it clear that we should not be using the term “kitemark”; I know I always do. Apparently, that is the term used by the British Standards Institution for products—as I discovered a while ago when I got this wrong in another context.
Accreditation of training is not quite the same as accreditation of the trainer or the provider. I am a little confused about some of this amendment: the terms “accredited” and “certified” are both used, and I do not know whether it is intended that there is a difference between them. When the noble Lord winds up this debate, perhaps he could tell us—that may be something or nothing.
I had written down, “Is this delegation of responsibility or liability?” The noble Lord just talked about sharing liability, but I do think that that is the direction that the Bill is going or should go in. I find quite a lot of difficulties with this amendment, although there are points where our thinking coincides. As it stands, I do not think we could wholly support it.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has been very careful in the drafting of this amendment and I respect the work he has done, although, like the noble Baroness, I do not agree with the amendment. It seems to undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to place responsibility on those people who control premises. To create a box-ticking exercise of this kind, which is what it would amount to, would simply facilitate the payment of an annual subscription and leave it to some other company to take that responsibility.
The noble Lord will be aware, I am sure, that, when somebody employs an independent contractor to carry out part of the work they are contracted to do—for example, a floor layer to do part of a construction contract—the person who engages that independent contractor has at least a common-law responsibility to ensure that they take reasonable steps to ensure that the independent contractor is competent and does the work properly. This amendment would appear to remove that potential responsibility. All of us who have been involved in cases involving questioning the work of independent contractors will know that sometimes such claims can be successful because the employer has not carried out proper scrutiny of the independent contractor.
I also draw to the House’s attention paragraph 8.106 of Manchester Arena Inquiry Volume 1: Security for the Arena. Sir John Saunders recommended that
“consideration is given to amending the SIA legislation to require that companies which carry out security work which may include a counter terrorism element are required to be licensed”.
He recommended, therefore,
“that only fit and proper companies carry out this work”,
under an amended SIA licensing procedure similar to the procedure that the SIA already operates for security companies carrying out door security work and similar activities. If the aim of the Bill is, as I believe, to place clear responsibility on those who operate property to take reasonable steps to secure the public against terrorist acts, that responsibility should not be shuffled aside by an amendment of this kind.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I am slightly concerned about this amendment. We have had, in previous stages of the Bill and in previous debates in Committee, concerns about the number of private contractors—the snake oil salesmen whom the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, talked about—who will crawl out of the woodwork and offer advice to people that they do not need, because either it will be common sense or there will be perfectly clear guidance issued by the Home Office and the Security Industry Authority that will make clear the sorts of things they need to do.
I am worried that, after all the discussion we have heard from His Majesty’s Opposition in Committee about the costs and burdens that will be placed on village halls, small enterprises and so on, they will now be encouraged by this amendment to go down the route of employing contractors who will seek to make a profit out of the arrangements, which will in fact add to the costs, when the reality is that they could do this themselves using the advice and guidance that we expect will be provided by the Security Industry Authority.
I am reminded of those companies that used to advertise themselves as being able to secure you a European health insurance card. I am not trying to raise any issue about the EU, Brexit or remain. This was, as noble Lords know, a system whereby all you had to do was put into the Department of Health’s website your name, address and national insurance number and you then got your European health insurance card, which would help defray the costs of falling ill within the EU. There were companies that would charge £15, £20 or more, simply for filling in the details you would provide them. I wonder whether the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, might inadvertently create a market in which companies would recycle the guidance and advice issued by the Security Industry Authority and charge people for it.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I have listened to this amendment with some interest, and I understand the noble Lord’s reasoning for tabling it—sometimes such things require expertise. But I do not accept taking it away from public finances into the private sector, because the private sector will probably be financially burdened enough by this legislation.
My concern is that it might provide the opposite of the noble Lord’s intended idea. It might be very costly, as has been outlined, and you might not get the expert advice you need. But I do not disagree with the principle of allowing outside advice. That could be done through a training system for each individual company rather than being provided by an independent company. If there was a terrorist incident, one of the first things that might be asked is “What advice and what training did you take in respect of securing your premises and ensuring public safety?” So I understand the basis of the amendment, but I am not so sure that it is entirely there.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this group, but I will make a couple of points. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is not necessarily one I support, but the idea that snake oil salesmen are confined to the private sector means the fact that people are not aware of what is happening among NGOs, the voluntary sector and charities, particularly in terms of training. Goodness knows, there is a huge amount of guff being peddled and sold from that direction, so I want to at least acknowledge that it is not just private providers.
Even if I am not particularly moved by the amendment, it is also not entirely fair to suggest that it is trying to sell training certificates that will falsely imply that people will feel safe because they have had some accredited training. If I am honest, my concern about the whole Bill is that the public are being told that if we pass the Bill, they will be kept safe from terrorism. That is mis-selling.
I have raised these points throughout our discussions on the Bill. We face huge challenges when it comes to terrorism, extremism and keeping the public safe, and, of all the pieces of legislation we could bring in, this is the least effective and the most anodyne, and will have no impact at all on public safety. Yet it is heralded as being so important. So it is a bit rich to have a go at one amendment for doing that, when in fact it could be levelled at the legislation as a whole.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. This amendment introduces a new clause on private sector engagement in counter-terrorism measures. It is designed to allow those responsible for managing high-risk or qualifying premises to contract with accredited private security providers for risk assessments and ongoing security services. It mandates that the Secretary of State maintains a list of certified private security firms and that these firms comply with national guidelines and be subject to regular audits by the Security Industry Authority.
I commend this amendment for its forward-thinking approach in leveraging private sector expertise to enhance our national security posture. In an era when terrorism remains an ever-present threat, we must not limit ourselves to traditional, often overstretched, public sector resources. Instead, we should embrace innovative partnerships that can deliver rapid, expert responses to evolving threats, while ensuring accountability and the highest standards of practice.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I start by re-emphasising the purpose of this legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that she is unconvinced of the need for it. This legislation will save lives. There are people who died because people did not know what to do when a terrorist attack occurred, and there are people whose lives were saved and who are walking the streets today because people took action when a terrorist attack occurred. The purpose of this legislation is to put in place a framework so that individuals know, if a terrorist attack occurs, what their responsibilities are in that moment; it is not to stop terrorism per se, or to worry about what happens afterwards to the perpetrators, but to stop terrorist activity damaging individuals’ lives in that moment. That is the purpose of this legislation.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has brought this amendment forward constructively, but I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Elliott, that it will dilute responsibility, because there is a named person and that named person is a named person whether or not they subcontract to a security consultant. It will increase the very cost that the noble Lord has been seeking to reduce during the passage of the Bill to date. It will add potential burdens, on small organisations in particular. It will create a market for the very snake-oil salesmen that this Committee is trying to avoid engaging with. It will set standards which are unrealistic when compared to the standards being set by the Home Office and/or the Security Industry Association. It will sow confusion, and it will put burdens on the very people who the noble Lord, deep down, wants to make sure do not have such burdens.
The Home Office’s whole approach is to try to make sure that the provisions in Clause 5 for the smaller tier, and the provisions in Clause 6 for the enhanced tier, are in place and can be simply understood and embedded in good practice. That is certainly true for the enhanced tier, because, by and large, it is made up of professional organisations that will embed the requirements in their day-to-day activity. For smaller organisations, it is about a simple level of guidance and support, which has a legislative component in that someone is responsible. Someone needs to make sure that measures are in place, such as simple evacuation, invacuation, shutting windows or hiding under a desk—whatever is appropriate for that local provision—without the need to have expensive tailored security provision on top. The cost estimate we have put in the Bill is around £330 for the standard tier, and that is in time, not necessarily in cash.
The noble Lord’s proposal would create confusion. Someone would undoubtedly say, “I have to have a consultant”, and someone would undoubtedly pay a consultant, and then the next village would say, “They’ve paid a consultant. We have to do the same”. The next village would say the same, and the costs and the burden would rise on those businesses, when the requirements of the Bill are actually simple and straightforward.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Does the Minister not think that, for example, a village hall that has developed a terrorism action plan along the lines of that required by Clause 5 will want to test that to ascertain whether it meets the requirement before the Security Industry Authority comes to inspect it? In the event that it is inspected and its plan is found wanting, it becomes liable for the heavy penalties that we see later in the Bill. It is surely a natural human reaction to want to test that, and they will do it by going to the private market. Is it not sensible to build into the Bill a measure that allows them to do that? It is simply going to happen. People are going to want to test their plans. Surely he must understand that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I would argue that the way to test those plans is to test them against the Home Office guidance and the security industry guidance. It is not potentially to go out and say to Mr or Mrs security consultant, “Please come in at an exorbitant cost to check that the five exits that we’ve got in this village hall and the plan I’ve put down to work on them meet the requirements of the Act”. The Bill has been determined in such a way that the Home Office does not believe that the requirements are onerous for the standard tier organisations, and even for the enhanced tier the anticipated cost is around £5,000. That will be standard practice for a large arena or large organisation, without the requirement to have those further security consultants test it accordingly. In my view, though the House will determine this in due course, the amendment would dilute the responsibility on the responsible person for bringing forward those plans in the first place.
I say to the noble Lord that I know why he has done this. All the way through the Bill, he has argued to reduce the burdens on small organisations, but this amendment would simply increase those burdens. It would create uncertainty, jealousy and cost, and it would not achieve the objectives that he said. I hope that he will not at any stage, either now or on Report, bring this amendment back for this House to determine.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate on the amendment, particularly the Minister. I might just address one or two of the points raised. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, yes, the accreditation referred to in my amendment is the same as the certification.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Of course, I do not seek to replace the contingent liability on a contractor in contract law for faulty advice or workmanship in the floor example that he provided. I am suggesting more that the contractor would share the liability under the statute—the daily penalties and the financial penalties that can be imposed by the SIA and the criminal liability under the Act, which I think is separate from ordinary contractual liability, which would be recoverable under a civil action in the courts.
However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out and reminding me of the passage in the Saunders report saying that the advice provided needs to be clear and to assist the parties that receive that advice. That is exactly what my amendment seeks to achieve. The reality, as I sought to argue to the Minister a moment ago, is that bodies subject to duties under the Bill will look for advice because of the penalty regime, particularly the contingent criminal offence, which would fall upon the responsible person. One therefore expects that there will be a market for advice, and it is important that it is regulated to prevent the snake-oil salesmen that noble Lords across the Committee have expressed an intention to avoid.
I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies for his support for my amendment, and to all other noble Lords for contributing to the debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Suttie
“(2A) In preparing guidance and providing advice under subsections (2)(a) and (b), the Security Industry Authority must, in particular, take account of existing duties, controls or other legal requirements on qualifying premises, including existing licensing requirements.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe how the requirements of this Act will complement and enhance existing legal requirements on qualifying premises.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 30 and 31, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, are probing amendments that aim to clarify how the provisions in the Bill will complement or enhance existing legal requirements on qualifying premises.
In speaking ahead of the Bill to a number of organisations with an interest in it, we heard from the live events industry that it is already heavily regulated and subject to a number of legal requirements under existing licensing laws. Music venues, festivals and events are regulated under the Licensing Act 2003 with, where appropriate, highly developed counterterrorism measures secured by licence conditions and overseen by the safety advisory groups, in accordance with long established and authoritative guidance such as the Purple Guide. This is an important local dimension for a number of events. There will already be local regulatory and partnership structures for counterterrorism resilience. LIVE, the live music industry body in the UK, which has spoken to us about the Bill, has told us that for larger festivals measures have already been taken to protect visitors and workers from terrorist attacks. That is because every venue and festival that comes under LIVE has a premises licence, which means they are already considering counterterrorism, safety and security in the running of the premises or events. As part of that, venues and festivals already work closely with safety advisory groups, which take advice from local police forces and counterterrorism security co-ordinators. Amendment 30 therefore asks for reassurance from the Minister that account will be taken of that in preparing guidance and advice under the Bill. I am sure he will agree that it is important to try, wherever possible, to avoid duplication between this Bill and existing requirements under the Licensing Act, and to promote coherence between the two regimes as far as is practicable to do so.
We heard similar concerns from the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre, which has resulted in our tabling of Amendment 31. To be effective, it is crucial that the SIA understands the industries that it is overseeing, including theatre. In particular, it must be familiar with their operations and existing security arrangements. I ask the Minister whether it is the Government’s intention that the SIA will undertake engagement work with sectors, such as theatre, that will be affected by this new legislation to understand their individual complexities and how they currently work.
Paragraph (ii) of our amendment would require the SIA to take account of particular considerations relating to adjacent premises, premises within other premises and areas in the vicinity of buildings. The Bill defines “premise operator” as the freeholder or leaseholder and “event organiser” as the entity overseeing event delivery. However, some theatres operate within multipurpose venues, such as university complexes. Similarly, many venues hold multiple events concurrently and the security stance changes from time to time. Is the intent that the venue will be required to submit its plans for each change of activity or change of resource? It is important for the guidance to reflect how various duty holders in a multipurpose setting can co-ordinate procedural measures. We urge the Minister in his response to give as much clarity for that industry as possible.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
Having heard the opening speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the one thing that seems clear to me is that there will be different bodies out there with different responsibilities and we will have the SIA coming in. It is important that, before Report, it is clear who will sit at the top and have the last word, because there may be competing interests from different authorities. I do not know what all the details are, but the noble Baroness has set this out. If it is to be the SIA, so be it, but there may be other bodies which know much more about important matters. There needs to be thought within government about how that is to be addressed with specialist knowledge and so on.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, there is enormous advantage in the various regulatory frameworks being consistent. That is a very basic principle. If you are looking for a holistic approach to protective security—which is what this Bill is about—there is the element of personal responsibility involved in making sure that sensible precautions are taken at a local level, but there will also be responsibilities on licensing authorities. It is my view that the various licensing authorities should proactively put in proportionate requirements for the various organisations concerned. In many cases they do that already, but I am not sure that it is a consistent process because each licensing authority is technically separate. While I am not sure that it is in the scope of this Bill to try to regularise the position of different licensing authorities, a holistic approach to protective security would ensure that licensing authorities behave in a consistent fashion.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, has hit on a good point, particularly when you consider that at least four bodies would have a view about evacuation—the Health and Safety Executive, licensing authorities, the SIA and the fire regulators. Each has its own inspection regime, which means that there could be four inspections in one year about the same event. They would all want to make sure that this does not cause more cost but does cause more effectiveness. Whether it is in the Bill or something to reassure the people operating these premises, I think it worth considering at this stage. Nobody is saying that it should not happen, but it is about how it works together. This would be one more body in a similar area if we considered evacuation only, but I suspect that there are other overlapping areas.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 32 in my name would require the Security Industry Authority to notify all local authorities when guidance under the Act has been published. This amendment is a sensible and practical addition that enhances the effectiveness of the guidance regime established by the Bill. Local authorities, as the key regulators of many of the premises affected by this legislation, must be fully informed and equipped to act on the guidance issued by the SIA. Without clear and timely notification, there is a real risk that local authorities may be unaware of updates or new requirements, leading to inconsistencies in enforcement and, ultimately, undermining the policy aims of the Bill.
The Security Industry Authority will no doubt invest considerable resources in developing detailed guidance, taking into account the needs of various sectors and types of premises. However, guidance can be effective only if those responsible for its implementation are fully aware of it. Local authorities play a pivotal role in licensing, regulation and compliance, particularly in environments where security is a key concern. Whether dealing with entertainment venues, public spaces or other licensed premises, their ability to respond quickly and efficiently to new guidance is essential for maintaining public safety.
Ensuring that local authorities are promptly notified will support the smooth implementation of the Act and strengthen co-operation between central guidance bodies and local enforcement agencies. It will reduce the risk of delays in adopting best practices and foster a stronger sense of collaboration between stakeholders at the national and local levels. Ultimately, this measure will help create a more coherent and streamlined regulatory environment, benefiting businesses and the public alike.
Furthermore, this amendment underscores the importance of clarity and communication in regulatory frameworks. Given the increasing complexity of the legislative landscape for public safety and licensing, clear channels of communication between central bodies and local authorities are more critical than ever. We must not assume that guidance, once published, will automatically reach all relevant parties without a formal notification requirement. By adopting this amendment, we would take a simple yet effective step to close that potential gap.
I respectfully suggest that the adoption of Amendment 32 would represent a constructive and pragmatic step toward strengthening communication between national and local regulatory bodies. It is a practical measure that will enhance the effectiveness of this legislation and support its successful implement- ation. I urge the Government to give it serious and favourable consideration.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, if there is not communication with local authorities on all the activities under this Bill, I would be horrified. They must have a major part to play. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, may be right in thinking that it needs to be put in black and white but, frankly, they are such central players that it had not occurred to me that that was required.
The two amendments to which my noble friend has spoken are about differences in the physical structure of premises and in how and when they are used. The briefing we had from the Society of London Theatre was about the get-out at the end of a run, when there is activity right through the night which affects adjacent premises. This is different from how other businesses are run. A good part of what we are trying to say is that none of us can know how every business operates. It requires wide consultation.
Now I look at Amendment 36A, as happens at this stage, it is not a very good amendment, but it enables me to ask how Clause 27(4) will operate. The subsection provides that, where there is an allegation that there has been a contravention of a requirement,
“proof that the person acted in accordance with … guidance … may be relied on as tending to establish that there was no such contravention”.
It uses the words “proof”, “relied” and “tending to establish”. The explanatory statement puts it better, but this probing amendment is to clarify the meaning of this and how it will operate in practice.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and that in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.
In the Manchester Arena Inquiry report by Sir John Saunders, the Security Industry Authority came in for considerable criticism. I refer particularly to paragraphs 3.25 to 3.38 of volume 1 of his report. In particular, the inquiry found that there was a lack of effective enforcement measures by the SIA, and this gives rise to considerable concerns about the readiness of the SIA to undertake this task. In previous groups, the Minister has said that one of the purposes of the two-year implementation period is to get the SIA ready for this much greater task. One of the points raised by the amendments in this group is that the SIA is compelled to consider other aspects of information which may be provided by local authorities. I suggest to the Committee that that is a useful and beneficial thing for the Bill to consider.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments and contributions to the Committee. I think I have said already that guidance will be produced by the Home Office and by the Security Industry Authority. I do not need to go into the detail of that, as I have already covered it.
In relation to that, importantly, on Amendment 30, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, besides investigations and enforcement, a primary function of the Security Industry Authority will be to advise, educate and support those who fall within scope of the legislation. That is part of its role. As well as the general overarching role, the SIA’s guidance will look at how it can exercise those new functions. It already plays a significant role in safeguarding the public, through the regulation of the private security industry. We believe that it has a wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation which better protects the public.
I accept that the regulator implementation programme, which is the nub of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, is in the early stages of development. However, the Government are clear that we expect the SIA to engage in work with existing public safety bodies—this goes to the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, endorsed—before this new regime comes into effect.
It is important that the provisions under Clauses 5 and 6 are set down, but they have a crossover of responsibility in certain areas, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness indicated. Ultimately, the SIA has a responsibility to regulate the functions of this Bill. The guidance will ensure that that aligns with existing requirements, so far as is relevant to the SIA carrying out its regulatory functions. Therefore, while the amendment highlights this area, I hope it is one that is not developed further, because existing proposals in the Bill, and in the intention I have given, mean that the SIA has responsibilities which I hope are clear.
Amendment 31 would place a statutory duty on the SIA to consult with stakeholders in different sectors. The amendment would require the SIA to consult in relation to requirements at contiguous premises, premises within other premises, and areas within the vicinity of buildings. I hope I have already set out that we recognise the importance of communication and that understanding the impact on affected sectors is pivotal to ensuring effective implementation. This includes the operational guidance to be issued under Clause 12 by the SIA and the statutory guidance I have referred to several times issued by the Home Office under Clause 27. The Government do not expect that the SIA’s operational guidance will address matters specifically set out in the amendment, such as premises within premises, as it will relate to its functions.
Furthermore, it is already the Government’s clear expectation that the SIA should engage with relevant stakeholders on its guidance, where appropriate. “Relevant stakeholders” means a whole range of bodies, potentially including local authorities. Again, I hope that we do not need to place a statutory duty on the SIA, because that will be part of its core business, as directed by the Government under this legislation, in the event of it becoming law downstream.
Amendment 32 has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I hope I have given sufficient reassurance that the Home Office and the SIA recognise the value of engagement on the implementation of the important legislation before us. The department has already worked with local authorities as key stakeholders, and we expect that to continue. I know what the noble Lord’s intention is with this, but the question is whether we place a statutory duty on the SIA to notify local authorities of the guidance, as opposed to the SIA doing it as part of the general consultation.
The guidance will be published and will be publicly available. I am hoping that the SIA will give appropriate communications to accompany publication. This publication should be no surprise to local authorities, because, two years downstream, when it is potentially implemented, there will be plenty of opportunity to have that discussion.
Amendment 36A is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I understand that the intention is to clarify the purpose of Clause 27(4). As I have already set out, the Government are acutely aware of the need to provide help and support in complying with the requirements of the legislation through guidance under Clause 27.
Clause 27(4) applies where it is alleged in proceedings that a person has contravened a requirement imposed by Part 1 of the Bill. In such a case, the clause provides that the person may rely on proof they acted in accordance with this guidance as tending to establish that there was no such contravention. The intention of the clause is to provide comfort and reassurance to those responsible for qualifying premises and events, as it allows the person to rely on proof that they acted in accordance with the guidelines as showing them to have likely met the relevant requirements. It will not provide absolute proof but will be given the appropriate weight in proceedings, as the circumstances and other evidence must be. All of those things will be taken into consideration.
The noble Baroness’s Amendment 36A would put beyond doubt only that a person may adduce evidence to that end. The effect of this would be to provide a lesser level of protection to someone faced by allegations than is provided for by the current drafting. I do not believe that is the intention she had in tabling this amendment. Furthermore, the clause has precedent in other regulatory regimes, namely, the Building Safety Act 2022. Its inclusion recognises concern about the implementation of what would be a novel regime.
I hope that, with those explanations, noble Lords will not press their amendments at this stage and accept the comments I have made from this Front Bench.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. As I said at the outset, these are primarily probing amendments from the live events sector, which wanted clarity on the coherence and the crossover between various regulatory bodies.
I will read Hansard and check what the Minister has said. What is clear is that there needs to be effective communication between the various bodies. There needs to be very clear guidelines and guidance for the organisations, so that they understand what is required of them. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 10th February 2025
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-III(b) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (10 Feb 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower
“(3A) The Secretary of State must establish an advisory board for the Security Industry Authority, comprising experts from industry, local authorities, and civil society, to guide the implementation and enforcement of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to create an advisory board for the SIA with the intention of ensuring a more collaborative approach to regulation, promoting balanced and informed decision-making.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 33, tabled by me and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, seeks to create an advisory board for the Security Industry Authority comprising experts from industry, local authorities and civil society. The purpose of this board would be to guide the implementation and enforcement of the provisions in the Bill and ensure a more collaborative, transparent and effective approach to regulation.
The primary duty of this House is to scrutinise legislation to ensure that it is both effective and proportionate. In the case of this Bill, we are tasked with strengthening the security framework for public spaces and premises, without imposing unnecessary burdens on businesses or compromising civil liberties. An advisory board for the SIA would play a critical role in achieving that balance.
First, I wish to emphasise the importance of industry expertise. Those who operate within the security sector possess invaluable insights into the practical challenges of implementing counterterrorism measures. They understand better than anyone how regulatory changes will impact day-to-day operations and how innovations in technology can be leveraged to enhance security. Without their input, there is a risk that regulatory requirements may become detached from the realities of the sector, leading to inefficiencies and potential compliance issues.
Secondly, local authorities have a unique understanding of the communities they serve. They are on the front line when it comes to managing the relationship between security requirements and the public’s right to access and enjoy public spaces. Their inclusion on the advisory board would ensure that local concerns are heard and addressed, fostering a sense of public trust and co-operation.
Thirdly, civil society must have a voice in shaping the implementation of this Bill. The balance between security and civil liberties is delicate, and we must tread carefully to ensure that the measures we introduce do not erode the freedoms we seek to protect. Civil society organisations can provide a vital perspective on these matters, helping to ensure that security measures are proportionate and respectful of individual rights.
Moreover, the establishment of an advisory board would promote a culture of dialogue and shared responsibility. It would encourage collaborative problem-solving and help build trust between the regulator and those it oversees. In turn, this would foster better compliance and more innovative solutions to security challenges.
Some may argue that the SIA already consults stakeholders. While this is true, the creation of a formal advisory board would institutionalise that consultation and provide a clear structure for ongoing engagement. It would ensure that diverse perspectives are consistently and meaningfully included in the decision-making process.
In conclusion, this amendment is not adding unnecessary bureaucracy. It is about strengthening the regulatory framework by ensuring that it is guided by those who understand the challenges and opportunities on the ground. It is about promoting balance and informed decision-making that enhances public safety while respecting individual freedoms. I urge the Government to consider this amendment carefully and recognise the value that an advisory board could bring to the implementation and enforcement of this important piece of legislation.
Amendment 34 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. It seeks to insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the role of the Security Industry Authority as a regulator, including a comparative cost-benefit analysis of whether its regulatory functions might be more effectively carried out by local authority teams. This is a timely and sensible proposal. When we are dealing with matters of national security and public protection, it is essential that we continually assess whether our regulatory frameworks are fit for purpose, cost effective and well co-ordinated with other enforcement regimes. This amendment would provide the necessary mechanism to ensure that we are delivering the best outcomes for the public and the security sector alike.
The SIA has played a crucial role in regulating the private security industry since its establishment. However, with the evolving threat landscape and an increasing complexity of security requirements, it is essential to ask whether a centralised regulatory model remains the most effective approach.
A review, as proposed by this amendment, would allow us to assess whether local authority teams might be better positioned to handle certain regulatory functions. Local authorities have a deeper understanding of the specific challenges and risks within their communities. They are also well placed to co-ordinate with other locally based enforcement regimes such as environmental health and licensing teams. By comparing the effectiveness of the SIA’s functions with the potential of a localised regulatory approach, we can ensure that our regulatory framework remains agile, responsive and efficient.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very keen on Amendment 33 although I have not put my name to it—it is in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst. It suggests an advisory board for the SIA with the intention of ensuring a collaborative approach to regulation.
I am keen on the amendment because one of my fears about the Bill is that it could be one of those laws that, in effect, means the state abdicating responsibility for public protection and outsourcing it to businesses and community organisations with very much a “You’re responsible for that” attitude, and it is then policed by the regulator. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, I am worried about the damage that might do to civil society.
I really like the idea of addressing some of the issues raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about how we ensure that there is a more collaborative approach. I would like civil society not to feel that it is being done to, dumped on or put in charge of public protection on its own. This strikes me as a good way of approaching that.
I put my name down specifically on Amendment 34 because one of the important things about it is a review that considers all the implications of the Bill some way down the line. We need to be able to consider trade-offs all the time. It is wrong to suggest, as I think was suggested in a debate on an earlier group by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that those of us who were trying to consider cost-benefit analysis and trade-offs were being somehow glib about the possibility of people being killed in a terrorist bomb and that we somehow have a “higher-risk appetite”—the phrase used—or a higher threshold for risk-taking, whereas the important and responsible thing to do would be to ensure that we always considered safety first.
I think we have to acknowledge—
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness is misinterpreting what I said. I said that in making these judgments, you had to have a risk appetite and that you needed to do that explicitly. I was not saying that any particular risk appetite was right or wrong; I was saying it should be made explicit. I certainly was not suggesting that the noble Baroness was therefore glib about people being killed. I was merely saying that that is the trade-off, and anyone making those decisions has to be clear about the trade-off they are making.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification and I am relieved to hear it. I think it was the bit where somebody asked, “How would you answer the situation where 199 people were killed if the limit was 200?” All I am saying is there is often a conversation like this when we talk about safety, risk and responsibility.
I like this amendment because it introduces into the debate about the Bill the opportunity—some months down the line—to have a cost-benefit analysis of whether it has worked. I first came into this House at the height of the lockdown period. On a number of occasions—rather tentatively at the time, because I was new—I, along with others, called for a cost-benefit analysis. I kept asking, with lockdown and all those measures in the name of safety, whether we could just assess whether they were the only way that we should proceed. I was told that we had to be very careful because old people were going to die, and so on and so forth—you are familiar with the arguments.
The reason I mention that is that we can now look back and say that many of those old people were locked up in care homes and greatly suffered. We can say about young people—when some of us argued that we should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of closing schools—that we now have a crisis of worrying about pupils and the impact that lockdown had on them. There is a discussion that the Government are initiating about the cost and impact of lockdown on employment people’s habits as we speak.
It is sensible with a Bill such as this to introduce a review that will give us the opportunity to do a cost-benefit analysis. This is particularly important because a regulator is introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, explained that we need to be able to see whether the regulator is the appropriate way of getting what we would like, which is more public protection, or whether, in fact, it undermines some of the important aspects of local regulatory interventions.
We debated a very interesting group just before the break, when the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, raised the point about the number of regulatory regimes that each venue already apparently has to adhere to in terms of licensing, and so on. This amendment gives us an opportunity to see whether the central regulator is the appropriate way of ensuring that we keep people safe with respect to premises and terrorism.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 44 in my name, and I can probably be quite brief, as it covers similar ground to Amendments 33, 34 and 36, which have been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Davies. However, my amendment is complementary to the amendments already on the table. It does not replace them; it is consistent with them, but it looks at the problem slightly differently.
I think it is fair to say that those who have engaged with the SIA over the years have mixed views about its effectiveness even now, and that is when it has focused entirely on one fairly discrete industry. Now we are proposing a huge expansion of its role to cover all kinds of premises and organisations of all kinds of sizes, including voluntary and commercial organisations and so on; it is a huge expansion of the authority’s role. All these amendments really speak to the fact that there is some uncertainty about how that is going to be carried out in this very complicated and publicly sensitive area.
My Amendment 44 looks at this in a slightly different way and proposes an independent review panel. Of course, that could sit alongside the various advisory bodies that have already been spoken about, but, for two reasons, there is some value in having an independent panel when looking at these problems. First, it establishes a degree of distance. Its reports to Parliament will have a degree of independence of commentary, of not needing to ingratiate itself necessarily with the regulator and the industry. That is what is needed in this situation of a new area of work for the authority.
More important is the point that is in proposed new subsection (3) in my amendment, which is the specific risk of overreach—I have spoken about this on one or two occasions before as we have considered this Bill—and that, once you establish a bureaucracy, everybody has to pay attention to that bureaucracy; once something is in law, that has to be the priority for those who are operating it. There is a temptation for the legal authority to overreach and to lay down rules for its own convenience, rather than for the genuine good functioning of those that it is regulating; and to maybe not look sensitively at the different sizes and natures of organisations but simply to lay down one set of rules. History suggests that with these regulators the effect is that the regulatory burden goes up and is insensitive to the people being regulated. That is why there is particular value in looking at the issues of overreach and how bureaucracies work in practice and why there is particular value therefore in it being an independent body. So, to conclude, I hope the Government will be able to give serious consideration to this idea, along with others in this group.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
On 16 September 2016—I think I have the date correct—the noble Lord made a very strong statement in which he condemned the layers of bureaucracy and regulation in the European Union. Does he not think it is weird and even bizarre for a serious Conservative to be recommending a regulator of a regulator when just a regulator might do very well?
Lord Frost (Con)
There is a big difference between organisations set up in the framework of the European Union and us deciding how we work our own bureaucracy. There is a lot of value in an independent panel to examine the work of a regulator that is taking over a new and very large area of work. So, no, I would not agree with the parallel; regulation and independent review are appropriate when we are creating a new regulator with a new set of work—that is the issue that is here today.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I had written against the first and last of these, “Does this not have the danger of adding to the bureaucracy?” Perhaps more importantly, these amendments raise the issue of just how the governance of the SIA will operate—I certainly have not yet got a handle on that.
If the SIA itself wants to establish an advisory board, I think that is up to the SIA, but I do not think we are yet clear—and we should be clear very soon. The two years will go by fast and the SIA needs to be operating during the period. As to how it will operate, the amendments also raise the question of just what the responsibility of the Secretary of State is, as against the SIA—although not against it, I hope—in this eco-landscape, as some might say. With regard to a report to Parliament, I am sure that the Minister will say that the Government will keep the operation of the Act under review, although I am not sure the timescales are entirely sensible: things seem to come a bit too soon.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who, on the first day of Committee, suggested that we ought to have subheadings for groups of amendments to tell us what they were generally about. This may or may not be an issue worth pursuing. If we had a subheading for this particular group of amendments, it would be “The quango-fication of Martyn’s law”, because we are talking about two not-quite-superfluous extra bodies that would be created as a result of these amendments.
Normally, the position of His Majesty’s Opposition would be to say that we had too many quangos and public bodies being set up, rather than to suggest some entirely gratuitous ones. For example, Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talks about an advisory board which shall “guide” the implementation and enforcement of the Act. Now it is a strange advisory board that “guides”. This again raises questions about the organisational structure of the Security Industry Authority, its governance structure and its relationship with the Home Office. It seems an unnecessary requirement. If it wants to take advice or consult widely with different sections of communities or organisations affected, that is something it can do. The same applies to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, which talks about setting up a review panel to monitor the Security Industry Authority. What, then, is the purpose of the Home Office?
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I agree. I am surprised that the Opposition suggested more bureaucracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was right about the advisory board: if it is a good idea, and it could be, it is for the SIA to decide. Otherwise, if it were a separate body, there would be even more cost.
I have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on many things about Europe, but I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was entirely right: you cannot say that it is bureaucracy in that context but not in this, because it is. It would confuse rather than clarify. Surely the purpose of the SIA board is to do the very thing that he described under the supervision of the Home Office. If it gets it wrong, I presume there would be a change in the legislation. He made a stronger argument for more clarity in the law and that it was the wrong solution for a problem that may materialise.
Finally, this reminded me that, post 9/11, the Americans concluded they had too many intelligence agencies. I think they had 19 at the time, and the result was that they were not communicating. Their solution was to put things called fusion centres outside the major cities—big warehouse buildings in which all these bodies would work together. Instead of reducing the number of intelligence agencies or finding a better solution, they built a place where they could meet better. I did not see the sense in that, so I cannot agree with either of these amendments.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate. As I say, my Amendment 33 seeks merely to create an advisory board for the SIA, so that we can have some form of independence—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, just to confirm, the noble Lord will be speaking after the Minister.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
As the song used to say, “It Should Have Been Me”, but there we go.
The key starting point in this debate is the relationship between the SIA, its responsibilities, the Home Office and the people it serves. Quite self-evidently, Ministers decide and have responsibilities under Clause 12 to ensure that the SIA produces an annual report on its performance. It enables the Secretary of State to issue directions to the SIA on what it should be doing if it is not doing what it should be doing, ensures that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint board members, including the chair, and requires the Secretary of State’s approval for the SIA’s operational guidance that will be issued in due course. Ministers will be accountable to this House and the House of Commons for the performance of the SIA. If there is to be an advisory board in place, I suggest that the House of Commons and this noble House suit that purpose down to the ground; they will hold Ministers to account for the performance of the SIA.
In the first instance, I am surprised. Obviously the concept of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has not yet floated across the channel to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, or the Opposition Front Bench, because this set of amendments creates another set of bureaucracy to oversee the SIA and an interface between it and Home Office Ministers. It adds bureaucracy and cost, but not a great deal of value. In doing so, it also confuses the relationship between the Home Office’s direct responsibility to this House and Parliament and the responsibilities of the Security Industry Authority.
Lord Frost (Con)
Does the Minister accept that the major expansion of bureaucracy in the Bill comes from the regulatory requirement of so many small premises in the first place? That is the expansion of government activity under the Bill and I feel—I cannot speak for others—very sceptical about it. Does he agree that it is a bit rich, having been willing to preside over this huge expansion of activity, to criticise those of us who want to see it properly monitored to do its job efficiently?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord calls it bureaucracy; I call it life-saving measures. The Bill is about putting in place life-saving measures to ensure that, in the event of a terrorist attack, individuals know what to do. That might save lives downstream. That is a type of bureaucracy that I am quite happy to accept. There are many burdens and bureaucracies in life, such as health and safety legislation, mine legislation and road safety legislation. There is a whole range of burdens that are there to save lives and this is the same process.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
As I said earlier, there is no doubt that everyone in this Committee would like to save lives. It is a question of balancing whether the Bill and all that it does is life saving. If that is the answer, then there is no debate. If the narrative is, “We’re on the side of life saving, and anyone who doesn’t go along with this Bill, or is critical of it, doesn’t care about life saving”, then what are we having this debate for?
I want to reflect on the “collaborative nature” put forward in Amendment 33. The very people who really care about life saving are all the different local groups, and the amendment simply suggests that there could be a collaborative approach. I know that it has been described as a quango. I have always thought of the party opposite as people who are interested in stakeholders and local groups. There are so many groups in scope of the Bill that you cannot just go to some big organisation that represents them. The amendment refers to having more of them involved.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I accept that, which is why this Government—and the previous Government—undertook several consultations, opened themselves up to scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee, had widespread consultation on changes to the Bill after this year’s general election, which we reflected on, and have listened to concerns about continuing further bureaucracy. The judgment of the Government is that this legislation is an effective way of helping ensure that we put in place protection measures in the event of a terrorist attack. To do that, we have to issue guidance via the Home Office and the Security Industry Authority. The further level of bureaucracy mentioned in the amendments would not help with that. We have had pre-legislative scrutiny and two public consultations and have engaged with law enforcement groups, victims’ groups, the Martyn’s law campaign team, Survivors Against Terror and parliamentarians generally. The statutory board would be an additional administrative layer that would be unnecessary and unhelpful.
Amendment 34 seeks to ensure that we judge the performance of the SIA at a time when it is not yet up to speed on the actions it will take in relation to this legislation. It is neither possible nor fair to judge the performance of the regulator so early in its lifespan. Ministers will examine that under the issues in Clause 12 that we have responsibility for.
Amendment 36 seeks to ensure that changes are made to the enforcement regime. As we see it, the enforcement regime has been developed drawing on lessons from existing regulators. The SIA will use different measures as appropriate to the breach in question. The SIA’s approach will be aligned with the Regulators’ Code. While Clause 20 sets out particular matters that the SIA must take into account, including the recipient’s ability to pay, the list is not exhaustive. If we impose that statutory duty, for example, to consider the views of local authorities, we will create additional burdens for the SIA and for local authorities that would provide that information.
Amendment 44 from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, again provides an additional level of bureaucracy that is not required to be able to hold the SIA to account. Overall on these amendments, there should be clarity about the SIA’s role. The Bill sets out clarity on that. There are currently powers for Ministers to intervene on a range of matters relating to the SIA, including the appointment of the chair and members. Ministers will be held to account on their performance.
The Government want the Bill to succeed. Therefore, between Royal Assent and any implementation date, Ministers will be on the case week in, week out to make sure that the SIA is fit for the purpose designed by the Bill, delivers, has appropriate guidance, involves all the organisations impacted by the Bill downstream and puts in place a range of measures to help support the training and development of people to make sure the Bill functions as we intend it to. Advice is good, but we have been through a big consultation, and this House and the other House have the ability to hold us to account. The amendments are therefore unnecessary in order to make effective use of the SIA.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I think it is my turn now. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this group. As I said, this amendment seeks to create an advisory board for the SIA, mainly from industry experts, local authorities and civil society. It is a collaborative approach that we look for. As mentioned by my noble friend Lord Frost, it is about having a degree of independence as well. There is certainly food for thought in what the Minister said in his response. For the time being, I will withdraw my amendment while we go away and have a think about it.
Lord Davies of Gower
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the grace period, where a person who has received a penalty notice is given a short amount of time to pay, to avoid excessive penalisation.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 35 seeks to extend the grace period for the payment of a penalty notice from 28 days to 42 days. The intention behind this change is to ensure that individuals and businesses who receive a penalty notice are not unduly penalised by an unreasonably short payment window, allowing them more time to address the fine in a manner that is fair and manageable.
In many circumstances, particularly for small businesses and those already facing financial pressure, a 28-day period may not provide sufficient time to arrange payment, especially if the penalty notice is unexpected or substantial. Extending the grace period to 42 days would offer a more reasonable timeframe for individuals and businesses to manage their obligations without rushing into payment or incurring additional costs. A longer grace period would also account for the reality that certain individuals or businesses may face logistical challenges in arranging payment within a short window. This might include delays in receiving the penalty notice, awaiting advice or support on how to address the fine, or having to co-ordinate the payment within the wider operational needs of their business. Extending the period to 42 days would provide the flexibility needed to handle these situations responsibly.
The principle behind penalty notices is not to punish excessively but to deter non-compliance while giving those who have committed an infringement a chance to rectify their actions in a reasonable manner. By extending the payment period, we can help avoid situations where individuals or businesses are unable to pay within the initial 28-day period and, as a result, face additional penalties or other consequences that exacerbate their situation unnecessarily. This amendment would therefore ensure that the penalty system remains proportionate and that the focus remains on encouraging compliance rather than imposing punitive measures that may create further hardship.
Extending the grace period would also encourage greater compliance with the penalty system as a whole. When individuals and businesses are given adequate time to pay, they are more likely to do so in full, reducing the administrative burden on chasing unpaid fines. Furthermore, it would prevent the risk of penalties escalating due to an inability to pay on time, which could of course undermine the effectiveness of the penalty system.
It is also worth noting that longer grace periods are common practice in other areas of regulation and penalty enforcement. For example, when it comes to tax payments, local government fines and other civil penalties, 42 days is frequently viewed as an appropriate balance between giving adequate time to pay and maintaining the deterrent effect of the fine. The amendment would align the penalty notice grace period with that established precedent, ensuring consistency across regulatory frameworks.
Extending the grace period for the payment of a penalty notice from 28 to 42 days would strike a fair and reasonable balance between ensuring compliance with public protection requirements and avoiding undue financial hardship. The amendment would provide individuals and businesses with the time they need to manage their responsibilities without excessive penal- isation, fostering a system that is both effective and compassionate. I urge the Government to accept the amendment and support a more balanced and equitable approach to penalty notices.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 35A, 35B, 36ZA and 37ZA. When the Bill was considered in draft by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which reported in July 2023 under the then chairmanship of Dame Diana Johnson, she said of the Bill—which at that point had a threshold of 100 for the basic tier—with the endorsement of the committee, having heard evidence about the impact of these measures on volunteering:
“However, we are concerned that the capacity figure of 100 for standard tier premises, which will capture some small and micro-sized businesses, and community-run and voluntary groups, could be disproportionate and burdensome. This category is particularly troubling because it would include many smaller venues that may not have sufficient resources to cover costs of what is proposed. It would also cover village halls, places of worship and similar amenities that provide vital community support, often on low budgets. If such places are forced to close down, this represents a win for terrorism, rather than an effective means of combatting it”.
That is at paragraph 39 of the report, and I could not have put it better myself.
The committee made that cogent point and it was responded to; in my Second Reading speech, I praised the decision taken by the Home Office under the present Government to increase the threshold for the standard tier from 100 to 200. But I remain concerned that the effect of the measures in the Bill will be to greatly harm village halls and community centres up and down our country. In particular, the effect of the measures in the Bill will reduce the appetite for members of the public to step forward and volunteer in senior roles in village halls and community centres. In an era when public involvement in these sorts of institutions is waning, it is important that the Government do not make it harder and harder to be a volunteer or a trustee of these institutions. One of the unintended effects of the Bill might be that village halls are no longer the beacons of stability and assistance within the communities that they encourage. The amendments that I propose are directed to removing the worst of the disincentives for people to volunteer and to become trustees.
The way it works in my amendments—if the Committee were to look at the supplementary Marshalled List—is that Amendment 35A seeks to remove the risk that a volunteer or an unpaid trustee would be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed under Clause 17, provided that they were acting at all times in good faith and within the scope of their duties. I do not ask for a general exemption, whereby they can act in bad faith and still expect to be exempted.
Amendment 35B would exclude a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee from the daily penalties, which are described in the Bill as being up to £500 a day. I suggest that that is a powerful disincentive to volunteers due to the risk to their personal liability.
Amendment 36ZA would exempt from criminal liability those volunteers, unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees, provided again that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence. I hope the Committee will agree that it is a significant disincentive to volunteering to think that you face, on a cursory reading of the Bill, the risk of up to two years in prison for failing to adhere to the strictures in the Bill.
I appreciate that, as the Minister will tell me, this will be used only in very rare cases and is a maxima. I am sure all of that is right. However, the fact that it is in statute will be a disincentive. People will say that they are happy to volunteer but will not be the responsible person because they do not want to take the risk of having to go to prison. This amendment addresses that concern.
Finally, Amendment 37ZA simply clarifies what I think is probably already clear in the Bill: that there is no right of action generated by the Bill against a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee in the event that a dreadful incident occurs at their venue and that they might be personally liable. Again, that would be a significant disincentive to volunteering.
I hope it is clear why I seek these amendments to the Bill. I very much hope the Government will look carefully at creating the kind of exemptions sought by these amendments.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I understand the concern that those in charge of organising events must act responsibly, and I hope the Committee will accept that all decent people—the sort of people who organise a voluntary event—will want to do so. If things go wrong and there is a disaster in the form of a terrorist event, in particular one that could and should have been prevented, the person responsible—the chairman of the committee or whatever—will not want to be found responsible in the court of public opinion for an outrage occurring at something that they have organised. Quite simply, no decent person who has thought about it for a moment would want that on their conscience. That is the starting point. I cannot deal with rogues and vagabonds, because they are to one side; I am talking about the vast majority of people who get involved in smaller events, not commercial organisations.
Small organisations, if properly advised, will insure against financial penalties. That may be the cost of putting on an event. At a local jubilee event a few years ago in south-west London, in Putney, on a little green we have in our street, we were going to have a bouncy castle. I said that we must get substantial personal injury liability insurance in case a child falls off and breaks their neck and suffers brain damage. It was vast damages then—not as much as it is now but certainly into millions of pounds. We were able to get it fairly cheaply.
However, that was for personal injury damages. What you cannot do is ensure against going to prison. You could certainly get insurance against criminal penalties up to a certain level. If it is known that the fine is not going to be more than £2,000 or something, it will not be terrible, but the insurers will not insure you next year if you are fined this year.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, on tabling these amendments. I think that they talk to some of the concerns raised informally at Second Reading and throughout Committee by some of us, which may not have been explicitly looked at. I very much support the spirit of this group.
I have had constant concerns about the unintended consequence of this legislation damaging the informal realm of civil society and the public square. The invaluable arena of community life allows social cohesion through, sometimes quite loose, local gatherings that are often organised by groups of volunteers and voluntary gatherings. Even though they are quite loose informal organisations, they are the cement that holds society together in many ways. In that sense they are loose; they are not paid and not necessarily professional, but they are the very heart of our communities.
I think we got a sense of that the other day in Committee. When the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, spoke about public protection procedures, he painted a vivid picture of the widest range of public activities that could be affected for any of us who work with small literature festivals—things that I know something about—art exhibitions in local areas that are put on regularly, or debating groups getting together. I was down at the farmers’ protest today. This might not endear me to the Government—although maybe it will—but they have been having lots of local gatherings in barns up and down the country, planning their action. That is what we want politics to be like; these are the very people who are our most active and engaged citizens.
In the arts, debate or politics sphere, it is always really difficult to encourage people to take on the role of trustee, chair of a committee and so on, because these are unpaid roles with responsibilities. It is difficult as it goes, but there are people who are prepared to do it. These amendments are important because they probe whether we can ensure that we do not make it more difficult to keep those people involved through the potential of this Bill to threaten them for a liability way beyond that which they might have signed on for—not because they will all wander around being irresponsible about the threat of terrorist attacks in barn meetings with farmers. It is not that they are recklessly inviting awful things to happen, but they will say, “I’m not going to formally put my name to that, because why would I?” Often people are retired, or they are doing it as public citizens, and it is just too much hassle.
How do I know that, apart from by talking to lots of people? It is because, as the Minister has rightly noted, through this Government and the Government before them, this Bill has had a lot of consultation and discussion. The one thing that consistently gets raised in all the evidence that I have read is that small and community organisations are frightened of it. One key thing they mention is that it will put people off volunteering for their organisations. The Minister is right to say, “We listened to a lot of those consultations”, and I am glad about that—but they did not listen to all of them or agree with all of them. That is fair enough, but it is perfectly reasonable to raise things that came up consistently in all the consultations and ask the Government to think again at this point, with some very creative, positive and constructive probing amendments about what we can do to reassure our most active and engaged citizens that this Bill will not threaten them. I ask the Government to take these amendments away and see whether they can come up with a constructive response to them.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
I shall make three quick points. First, I hope the noble Lord can in summing up this debate reassure the Committee about proportionality and that it is not the intention of this Bill to attack or penalise volunteers—it is to encourage volunteers to play their role fully in the understanding of what this Bill is about and the need to prepare for the eventuality of a terrorist attack.
Secondly, I have listened very carefully and I have a lot of sympathy on the issue of volunteers. I am a volunteer trustee on several boards and I know about the liability that you have as a trustee on a board. You do have personal liability—but that does not put me off, and I hope that it will not put lots of other people off. I cannot support these amendments, because I think they water down the core element of individual responsibility in the Bill.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
For what criminal liability is the noble Baroness as a trustee going to be liable, other than the criminal offence of fraud?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
That is a fair point—but you are financially liable as a trustee.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
You can insure against that, and I am sure the noble Baroness is insured as a trustee.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
For me, the amendments water down a core element of the Bill, which is about individual responsibility—people taking responsibility for ensuring that an organisation or an event at a venue has thought about what it will do in the eventuality of an attack. That is the key purpose of this Bill.
Thirdly, it would be useful if the Minister could write a letter or bring forward proposals to illustrate how volunteers will be treated with due respect and that it will be understood that this legislation must not put them off, which is why an information campaign is so important. A public information campaign should reassure people.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments.
Amendment 35, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, looks at the timing of the payment period across regimes where a time is specified under Clause 17(5). I hope I can reassure him by saying that the period of 28 days in the Bill is a common period across other such regimes. The key point to make to the noble Lord, in relation to his amendment, is that the period currently specified at Clause 17(5) establishes a period that is not less than 28 days, beginning with the day on which the notice is given.
The key point is that the SIA may determine a period for a penalty payment. That might well be 42 days, 62 days or 38 days, but it will not be less than 28 days. It may be greater than 28 days, depending on the person’s circumstances and any representations they make before the SIA issues a notice. Once notice is given, the period may be subsequently varied, and a person has the right to appeal a penalty notice to the tribunal. The Bill is not being prescriptive, except in the sense that there is a minimum period of 28 days. After that, the period is for determination accordingly. I suggest that the noble Lord reflects on his amendment in due course, because I think the Bill meets the objective of his amendment, which is to give individuals a longer period should they require one.
Amendments 35A, 35B, 36ZA and 37ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, address some really important issues, which are how we encourage, nurture and involve volunteers and make sure that any regulatory regime does not frighten them off or stop them from taking part. It is a noble aspiration from the noble Lord, and one that I would share generally. However, I do not share it in the sense of the amendments he has brought forward. The thought behind them is extremely important, however.
Volunteers, as the Committee will know, play a critical role in communities across the country. The Bill is designed to ensure that we support volunteers at a time of crisis, in the event of a terrorist attack, by providing for a nominated person to act properly and take steps to deal with that attack. I remind the Committee of the main purpose of the Bill, which is to ensure there are plans in place, mostly under Clause 5, with a responsible person making the split-second decisions needed in the moment of a terrorist attack.
The noble Lord has acknowledged the step we have already taken of increasing the threshold from 100 people to 200. There are some 10,000 community centres across the country, and we estimate that only 13% will now be in scope. The vast majority of community halls will not be in scope. But again, I come back to the basic principle of the Bill: someone has to hold the responsibility for devising the plan under Clause 5 for the various measures that need to be taken. In doing that, other volunteers and members of staff are not liable for any action in the event of a breach of those plans; it is only the responsible person.
The basic tenor of the noble Lord’s amendments is whether the responsible person will no longer step up to the plate because they are worried about the consequences of not meeting the obligations under the legislation. Again, I say to him that the purpose of the Security Industry Authority is not to jump from step A, which is a plan, to step X, which is to take someone to court and put them in prison. The purpose of the Security Industry Authority is to ensure that guidance, support, nurturing and help are available. It is to ensure that the people who take on that onerous responsibility have that support to meet the obligations of the Bill. Yes, there is a penalty in the event of a failure; ultimately, however, the purpose of the SIA is to offer the guidance to make sure that the penalty does not happen.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I wanted to speak in support of the amendments from my noble friend Lord Murray, but, as the Minister has summed up, it is putting the cart before the horse, in a way.
However, my noble friend Lord Murray’s amendments, which merely seek to protect voluntary, unpaid officeholders and trustees from undue financial, civil and criminal liabilities under the Bill, are noble ones. The amendments address a critical issue: the need to safeguard those who selflessly give their time and expertise to charitable, community and civic organisations. This is vital to the social fabric of our nation.
The amendments are not about weakening the Bill: it is an important security provision. Rather, they are about ensuring fairness and proportionality and we must not create an effect that discourages voluntary services or deters talented individuals from stepping forward to serve on charitable and community boards. It is often said that volunteers are the backbone of our society and they deserve our gratitude, not the threat of financial penalties or personal liability.
I hear what the Minister says about my Amendment 35, in regard to the not less than 28 days. I will go away and consider what he said but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe how information provided to the regulator will be safeguarded.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Suttie. It is a probing amendment in connection with the disclosure of information, which is the subject of Clause 28.
Clause 28(5) provides that:
“In determining whether a disclosure would contravene the data protection legislation, the requirements imposed, and powers conferred, by this Part are to be taken into account”.
The purpose of this amendment is to determine what weight there is in the phrase “to be taken into account”. I have proposed changing that to “do prevail”. In fact, it is the data protection legislation that should prevail, but this seemed to be the shortest way of getting to the probe.
The Events Industry Alliance has told us that there may be extremely sensitive information, including commercially sensitive information, connected with the fulfilment of the requirements under the Bill, and one can understand its concern. I hope that the Minister can tell us how the different interests are weighed, and whether data protection—as I would have thought would be the case—would override everything. I beg to move.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for Amendment 37. I hope I can reassure her that the Security Industry Authority already has robust safeguards and processes in place for discharging its duties under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which ensure that it is therefore compliant with data protection legislation. The Government’s clear expectation is that the SIA will apply the existing safeguards that it has under the 2001 Act when implementing its new regulatory functions under this Bill.
Furthermore, as an arm’s-length body, the SIA must ensure that any disclosures of information under the Bill do not contravene data protection legislation, including the Data Protection Act 2018, or the prohibitions in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The regulator will be able to share information only in accordance with the parameters in the Bill—shortly to be an Act —and other applicable legal requirements, such as those under data protection legislation as a whole. I hope that those three bits of legislation—the Private Security Industry Act, the Data Protection Act and the Investigatory Powers Act—give the noble Baroness the assurances that she seeks.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am not sure that I am reassured, because I do not understand how opposing points can be taken into account. If it is data protection legislation that governs—if that is what prevails—why do we need this subsection at all? I have not looked at the Private Security Industry Act to which the Minister referred, so I will certainly look at that and at what he has just said. I do not want to be difficult; I just want to get an understanding so that everybody understands it, not just me.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Would it help the noble Baroness if I ensure that I write her a letter between now and Report, which will be announced shortly, so that she has clarity on her concerns? To save her having to look it up, I will also send her the relevant section of the Private Security Industry Act 2001.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Sending me the reference will do; computers are wonderful—mostly. I am grateful for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Wednesday 12th February 2025
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-IV(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (11 Feb 2025)
Baroness Hamwee
“Civil liabilityNothing in this Act or regulations made under it affects any right of action in civil proceedings.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to clarify the right to civil proceedings under the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 37A is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. Clause 31 of the Bill provides that,
“Except so far as this Part or regulations under this Part provide, nothing … confers a right of action in any civil proceedings in respect of a contravention of a requirement imposed by … this Part”.
It then goes on to say that that subsection
“does not affect any right of action which exists apart from the provisions of this Part”.
I was quite confused by that clause, and relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, also sought clarity. Our amendment would provide that:
“Nothing in this Act or regulations made under it affects any right of action in civil proceedings”.
If we have interpreted the provision correctly, that is a rather more straightforward way of saying it.
When the point was raised at Second Reading, the Minister said that the lack of time meant that we did not have the opportunity then to discuss the clause in detail. He said there would be opportunities in due course, so I am taking this opportunity. My question is, quite straightforwardly: does the amendment express what the Government are seeking to say, particularly with regard to breach of statutory duty? If it is not as the amendment sets out, why not? I beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to act as junior counsel to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I listened carefully to some comments that the Minister made on Monday, which alluded to this clause, and I thought about them carefully, but they were brief and I, too, wish to test what is really intended by the Government. My feeling is that the Government have made an inadvertent mistake in Clause 31 which they can easily rectify.
This Bill is designed to protect citizens by imposing clear statutory duties. When clear statutory duties are imposed and there is a breach of those duties, it is very common for a citizen who is a victim of that breach to be able to bring a civil action. The purpose of the civil action is often to recover damages, though it may involve other declaratory judgments too.
I want to give a few examples, because I think we are going to have one substantive debate on this clause and then a decision will be reached. I am going to mention a number of instances in which breach of statutory duty gives rise to a civil action to obtain judgments of the kind I mentioned. First, driving a vehicle in an unsafe condition gives rise to a statutory duty which can result in a judgment for damages. In this Bill we are talking about something much bigger in scale than driving a vehicle in an unsafe condition, but it may have exactly the same consequences.
There are other examples. If there are unsafe systems or means of work in any workspace, there can be an action for breach of statutory duty without it being necessary to prove negligence, nuisance or any other tort —civil wrong—that requires specific proof of certain aspects. Allowing a vehicle to be driven by an uninsured person allows a claim for breach of statutory duty. The failure to arrange compulsory insurance for employees allows such a claim. If a landlord fails to provide habitable standards, equally, there can be such a claim. If a company fails to disclose required financial information to investors, there can be such a claim for breach of statutory duty.
If a shop sells faulty electrical equipment whereby a fire is caused in the home for which it has been bought, for example, one does not have to prove negligence. One may have an action under the Sale of Goods Acts or their equivalent, but there is an opportunity to obtain damages for breach of statutory duty. At a construction site, the failure to provide safety barriers gives rise to such an action. If we go to a restaurant and suffer food poisoning because it has failed to reach the statutory hygiene standards, we can make a claim for damages for breach of statutory duty. If one fails as an employer to provide proper training to employees on handling hazardous chemicals, that too gives rise to a potential claim for breach of statutory duty. I have chosen just a few examples—and there are others—where one does not have to prove negligence and the components of negligence.
Such provisions are all designed to secure protection for individuals without the need to prove those other elements of common-law civil wrongs. I do not understand why those rights are removed by Clause 31(1). I invite the Government to reflect on what is, as I have suggested, probably an inadvertent failure.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I beg to differ with the noble Lord, but not because I do not want deserving people to recover compensation. My reading of the Bill as it stands is to the effect that, as drafted, Clause 31 achieves two things. First, it puts beyond doubt any question whether the breaches of requirements under the Bill can of themselves be a ground for a civil claim. It says plainly that such breaches will not in themselves be a ground. However, it is important to be aware that the fact that a breach of duty under the Bill or regulations has occurred will still be evidence that will be admissible in a civil claim which alleges negligence or other breach of common-law duty. The important point is that there may have been a breach that was without negligence.
If there has been a breach then it will be strong evidence that something has gone wrong that should be compensated for, but it may be capable of explanation and justification in the civil courts, which does not excuse criminal liability. Put simply, the Bill as drafted makes plain that a breach of statutory duty will not of itself alone give rise to an actionable breach of duty sounding in damages.
Secondly, as it stands, the Bill makes it clear that what is said in Clause 31(1) does not affect—that is, detract from—any right of action that exists in common law. In other words, a claim of negligence, in particular, or any other common-law right will remain; so this provision takes nothing away. Where, in a civil action, the claim establishes that as a matter of fact there has been a breach of such statutory duty, that will be evidence in the case and it is likely to be strong evidence. It will be a matter for the court to determine whether it is evidence of negligence or other evidence that might give rise to a justifiable claim for damages, and what weight to give it. I hope that is clear.
The amendment proffered to us would delete the whole of the existing clause, and would simply say:
“Nothing … affects any right of action”.
With respect, I suggest that that would be less clear and less helpful to the courts, because it will leave open a possible argument that breaches of statutory duty are themselves grounds for action, even where no want of care has been established. That would be getting closer, in effect, to strict liability for civil damages, however blameless the body or person concerned. That is why it is a step too far. It is unnecessary and potentially damaging, when we look at the vast range of bodies and people who will be affected.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who I respect very much as a lawyer. To say that this applies strict liability is, with respect, completely wrong, is it not? All strict liability requires is proof that damage has taken place. Breach of statutory duty involves at least a failure to act on the part of the person sued. To elide this into strict liability is just not correct.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
There have always been instances in which some Acts have given rise to immediate civil liability. In others, you had to plead that the breaches of regulations and so on were evidence of negligence. That was so under the old Factories Act and, I think, under the health and safety Act—I cannot remember, but it was a common pleading which I used to do 30 years ago.
It is for the Government to make it absolutely plain whether they want this to be a strict liability—in the sense that the moment that a breach occurs, however blameless, but nonetheless in breach, the party is, damages should follow. My understanding is that the Bill as drafted had that in mind, although it may be difficult. Think of a terrorist act: there may have been a relatively minor breach of regulations. Is that to give rise to millions of pounds-worth of damages, where it has no or very little causal connection, but just enough?
I understand where those moving the amendment are coming from, but this is a matter of policy for those behind it as to the parties likely to be affected and whether the change is necessary. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what the philosophy is behind the drafting.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I will speak to Amendment 37A to Clause 31, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. This amendment proposes to remove Clause 31 and replace it with a new provision, stating that:
“Nothing in this Act or regulations made under it affects any right of action in civil proceedings”.
The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill represents a critical step in strengthening the security framework for public venues and premises across the country. The increasing sophistication and unpredictability of terrorist threats demand that we establish robust and effective measures to protect the public. By setting out clear responsibilities for operators of certain premises, the Bill aims to ensure that the tragic events that we have seen in the past are less likely to be repeated in the future.
As we consider Amendment 37A, it is essential to examine whether the proposed changes will support or potentially undermine the Bill’s objectives. At its core, this amendment seeks to clarify that the Bill will not interfere with the right to pursue civil claims. Such a provision could be seen as a safeguard, ensuring that individuals and organisations maintain access to legal redress if they believe that negligence or a breach of duty has contributed to harm caused by a terrorist incident.
This is a significant consideration. Civil liability serves as an important mechanism for accountability and justice in our legal system. It encourages responsible behaviour, provides a pathway for compensation and often plays a complementary role in reinforcing public safety. Ensuring that individuals retain this right can provide reassurance that public security measures do not come at the expense of fundamental legal principles. However, there are important questions that we must address.
First, is this amendment necessary? It is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that civil liability is not displaced unless explicitly stated in the legislation. Therefore, some may argue that this amendment is redundant and risks introducing ambiguity into the Bill’s interpretation. If the existing legal framework already protects the right to bring civil claims, we must carefully consider whether including an explicit provision could inadvertently complicate matters rather than clarify them.
Another practical consideration is the potential impact on compliance with the Bill’s requirements. Premises operators, many of whom are already facing financial and operational pressures, may view the introduction of this provision as increasing their exposure to litigation. This could have the unintended consequence of discouraging proactive security measures if operators become overly concerned about the risk of legal action. It is essential that the Bill strikes a balance between imposing reasonable obligations and supporting those who are making good-faith efforts to comply.
Furthermore, we must assess whether this amendment could lead to increased litigation that detracts from the primary purpose of the Bill. Legal disputes can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, diverting attention from the urgent task of implementing effective security measures. We should be mindful of the potential for unintended consequences that may hinder the Bill’s objectives. It is also worth considering the impact on the insurance market. If the inclusion of this provision is perceived as creating greater uncertainty or exposure to liability, it could lead to increased insurance premiums for premises operators. This may place an additional financial burden on businesses and organisations that are already navigating a challenging economic environment.
That said, the Government must also be mindful of the importance of maintaining public trust and confidence in counterterrorism measures. Ensuring that individuals have access to justice when they have been wronged is fundamental to our legal system and to public confidence in the rule of law. If stakeholders, legal experts or civil society organisations believe that this amendment is necessary to provide clarity and reassurance, their concerns should be carefully considered. Ultimately, the key question is whether the amendment strengthens the Bill by providing clarity or whether it introduces unnecessary complexity that could hinder its implementation. I look forward to hearing the Government’s view on this matter and the perspectives of other noble Lords.
As we deliberate on this amendment, let us remember the importance of striking the right balance: ensuring robust security measures that protect the public, while safeguarding access to justice and upholding the legal rights that are fundamental to our democracy. We must strive to create a framework that achieves both security and fairness in the face of evolving security threats.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling this amendment, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. We have had discussions outside this Committee to examine these issues. I am genuinely sorry that I was not able to allay the concerns expressed in our discussions, but I hope to be able to do so today, formally and on the record. I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which I think were supportive, and those from the Opposition Front Bench made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.
The purpose of the Bill, as we have discussed, is to mitigate the effects of physical harm arising from acts of terrorism. My starting point, which I know will be shared by everybody in this Committee today, is that the people responsible for such heinous acts that might be inflicted as a result of terrorist activity are the terrorists themselves. The purpose of this potential Act, if it is approved downstream, is to ensure that there are requirements on the duty holders under it which make a real difference to the physical harm caused by potential acts of terrorism. For this reason, there is both a set of conditions to put in place, under Clauses 5 and 6, and robust regulatory and enforcement provision in the Bill.
However, the duties should not impose an actionable right for someone who has suffered loss or injury to bring a claim for a breach of statutory duty. I will try to explain why I think that is the case in due course. I may or may not convince the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, but I will attempt to do so.
Clause 31(1) puts this principle beyond doubt and provides valuable reassurance for responsible persons who, fearing they may face civil proceedings, could otherwise feel pressured to overcomply with the Bill’s requirements. These points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. They might, as the Liberal Democrats have previously spoken about, drive people who have those statutory responsibilities to start to engage expensive consultants to overworry about the provisions or to make alterations to their premises that are disproportionate to the risks they face.
Throughout the Bill, the Government have tried to make the provisions as simple and clear as possible and to not put concerns that would lead to potential costly litigation on the face of the Bill. Clause 31(2) makes it clear that it does not affect any right of action which exists, apart from the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill. I know the noble Lord is aware of this because we have discussed it but, for example, a claim for negligence could still be made under the provisions of Clause 31(2). That provision is precisely in line with existing legislation, such as the health and safety legislation in 2013, which ensured that no civil right of action was available for breach of statutory duty unless provided for specifically under the Bill.
It is right that the Bill makes it clear that existing rights of action, such as negligence claims, are not affected, while providing what I hope—again, this is for noble Lords to assess—is clear reassurance to all that a civil claim for breach of statutory duty may not be brought. Therefore, I hope it helps the true purpose of the Bill: to require reasonable, simple and effective steps to mitigate the harm that could be caused by an act of terrorism, for which the terrorist is solely responsible. It should be achieved appropriately, proportionately and without overcompliance flowing from a fear of costly litigation.
I may not have succeeded, but I hope I am finding the balance point between the concerns expressed by Members of the Opposition, and the genuine concerns put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I hope that balance point is achieved by what the Government say. I will listen again if the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, wishes to make any further points based on what I have said. That is —not with my legal training but the legal mind of the Home Office lawyers behind me—the position I put before the Committee in response to the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate. I do not know whether noble Lords listening are any clearer as to where we are going on this. I make it clear to the Committee that my first objective is to achieve something that is readily understandable to anybody reading this legislation. The Member’s explanatory statement refers to clarity. I was seeking to address this to, first, get clarity and then debate the substance.
I was also concerned that it is important to get discussions on the record. This is not an accusation, but I was not involved in any discussions outside this House. It occurs to me listening to the discussion that it will also be important that guidance or explanations about how this new regime is to work are written in kindergarten language and available to the public.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Perhaps I might again reassure the noble Baroness. What I have said, from this Dispatch Box, is that guidance from both the Home Office and downstream will be put out once the Security Industry Authority is established, and that it will be subject to discussion in this House. I hope that will achieve the noble Baroness’s objective.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I hope that anything that is put out does not need that much discussion in terms of clarity and whether the plain English campaign is satisfied and so on. I am not going to seek to take this further today, but I come back to it as one of the central political points about legislation being clear to those who have to operate it and who are affected by it. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“Right to protest(1) Nothing in this Act is to be construed as infringing upon the right to protest, as protected under Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.(2) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to protests or demonstrations, provided that such protests or demonstrations do not directly incite violence, threaten public safety, or disrupt essential services, and are conducted peacefully and lawfully in accordance with existing legal frameworks governing public gatherings.(3) This Act shall not be used to impede, restrict, or unlawfully interfere with the right of individuals to express dissent through peaceful means, whether in public or private spaces, so long as such activities are in compliance with the principles of non-violence, respect for others’ rights, and public order. (4) Any action taken under this Act that affects an individual or group’s ability to protest or assemble shall be subject to review to ensure that it does not unduly restrict fundamental freedoms.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the compatibility of the Bill with provisions on protest under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, in an earlier day of Committee, the Committee heard an exchange between my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower and the Minister. It was pointed out that political gatherings of more than 200 people quite frequently happen in Members of Parliament’s constituencies. Quite often there is a local issue, or indeed a national issue, that encourages public engagement. One of the features of this Bill is that it is striking that there has been no discussion about the impact of the measures in the Bill on the right to protest. That is an ancient right under common law but it is now found also, in part, in Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act.
One of the Bill documents produced by the Home Office—quite rightly—when this Bill was produced was the human rights memorandum prepared for the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member. That document does not appear to engage with the question of whether this Bill will infringe or curtail any person’s Article 10 or 11 rights to protest. It is noticeable, given that omission from the human rights memorandum, that the Minister and his equivalent in the Commons certified on the front of the Bill that, in their view, it was compliant with the convention. I am afraid that I beg to differ with that analysis—at least to the extent of the amendment proposed on the Marshalled List today.
We will look at what the amendment does in a second. By way of background, it is important to point out that on 6 February this year, the Court of Appeal, presided over by the Lady Chief Justice, produced a judgment in the case of Sarti, Hall and Plummer against the Crown: 2025 EWCA Crim 61. The Court of Appeal considered, as part of the Just Stop Oil protests, appeals brought by individuals who had been protesting by closing Earl’s Court Road. The Court of Appeal, reversing or revising earlier decisions of the courts, determined that it was not necessary for a criminal court hearing a charge of this type to go through the elaborate proportionality tests required in the earlier Shvidler case, and therefore it was for the court to implement Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023.
Noble Lords will be asking, “Why is all this relevant?” It is relevant for this reason: Section 11 in Part 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 imposes an obligation to notify the police in advance of the date, time and proposed route of any public procession or protest which is intended
“to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person or body of persons”,
or to
“publicise a cause or campaign”.
That obligation to notify the police is not addressed in any way in the provisions of Clause 3 of our Bill, which defines “qualifying events”, and it is not inconceivable to see that there may well be a situation where a public protest falls within the definition of Clause 3.
The Bill is silent about who may be considered the responsible person and who may be liable to regulation by the SIA. In fact, the whole thing is simply inapposite. But it is not inconceivable that, unless an amendment of the type that I propose in the Marshalled List is inserted, there is a risk—albeit, as I am sure the Minister will tell me, it is a small risk—that these measures might be used to curtail protest, or have the unintentional consequence of curtailing the democratic right to protest.
For those reasons, I draw the attention of the Committee to the provisions of my amendment. Clearly, the first proposed new subsection simply ensures, as a matter of construction, that nothing in the Bill should be viewed as curtailing those Article 10 and 11 rights. Similarly, it makes clear, in proposed new subsections (2) and (3):
“The provisions of this Act shall not apply to protests or demonstrations, provided that such protests or demonstrations do not directly incite violence, threaten public safety”,
et cetera. The third provision is:
“This Act shall not be used to impede, restrict, or unlawfully interfere with the right of individuals to express dissent”
or to protest. So, in that way, this measure will simply ensure that the Bill could not be misread by any future Government, or indeed by anyone. I can see no reason why His Majesty’s Government would not accept this amendment or something similar. I look forward to hearing some good news from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 37B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. The amendment seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 31 to safeguard the right to protest, as protected under Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998. The amendment makes it clear that nothing in the Bill should be construed as infringing on the right to protest, provided that such protests are conducted peacefully and lawfully, do not incite violence and do not threaten public safety or disrupt essential services. Furthermore, it proposes that any action taken under the Bill that impacts the ability to protest or assemble should be subject to review to ensure that fundamental freedoms are not unduly restricted.
The right to protest is a cornerstone of any democratic society and one of the primary means through which individuals and groups can express their views, voice grievances and influence public discourse. Throughout history, peaceful protests have played a transformative role in shaping our society, strengthening democratic governance and securing fundamental rights and freedoms. From the suffragette movement, which fought for women’s right to vote, to more recent demonstrations calling for climate action and social justice, the ability to gather, express dissent and campaign for change has been essential to our democratic values. Indeed, the richness and resilience of British democracy have often been reinforced by the willingness of citizens to stand up and speak out when they see injustice or seek reform.
However, the context in which we now consider this amendment is one of heightened security concerns. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly seeks to enhance public safety by imposing new security obligations on certain premises to protect against the ever-evolving threat of terrorism. As noble Lords will agree, this is a pressing and legitimate concern, and our duty to protect citizens from harm is paramount.
Yet, as we pursue this noble objective, we must be vigilant in ensuring that necessary security measures do not inadvertently erode the civil liberties that define us as a free and democratic society. The fight against terrorism must never become an excuse to undermine the very freedoms we seek to protect. Ensuring compatibility with human rights principles is not merely a legal obligation—it is a moral imperative.
This amendment provides much-needed clarity. It recognises that, although security is of the utmost importance, it must be balanced with the protection of democratic rights. The conditions it outlines are both reasonable and proportionate. They would ensure that protests remain peaceful, lawful and respectful of public order while preventing unnecessary or heavy-handed restrictions that could stifle legitimate dissent. The provision for review is particularly important. It would ensure accountability and create a safeguard against potential overreach by authorities. This is essential in preserving public trust, especially in the sensitive area of counterterrorism measures. If people perceive that security measures are being used to suppress dissent rather than to protect them, we risk undermining the very co-operation and solidarity needed to combat threats effectively.
Critics may argue that the amendment is unnecessary because existing legal frameworks already protect the right to protest. However, clarity within the legislation is crucial to avoid legal ambiguities or unintended consequences. By explicitly affirming the compatibility of this Bill with the right to protest, we would send a strong message that we value security and civil liberties equally and make it clear that security and freedom are not mutually exclusive but must coexist in a healthy democracy.
In practical terms, this amendment would also support public co-operation with counterterrorism efforts. When people see that their rights are respected and protected, they are more likely to trust and engage with security measures. Public trust is a critical component of effective counterterrorism strategies. A society that respects the right to peaceful assembly is one where people are more inclined to work with, rather than against, the authorities.
To be clear, this amendment would not weaken the Bill’s security provisions, or shield unlawful, violent or disruptive activities. Rather, it reinforces the principle that peaceful and lawful protest should not be treated as a threat to public safety or security. It provides assurance that this important legislation will not inadvertently target the exercise of democratic freedoms.
Moreover, we must consider the international dimension. The United Kingdom has long been regarded as a bastion of democracy and human rights. By enshrining protections for the right to protest in this Bill, we would reaffirm our commitment to those values on the global stage and demonstrate that it is possible to confront terrorism without compromising the fundamental freedoms that are the hallmark of a democratic society.
This amendment would strengthen the Bill by ensuring that it aligns with the fundamental principles of democracy and human rights. It would send a clear and important message that we can protect our citizens from terrorism without sacrificing the freedoms that define our society. Security measures that respect civil liberties are not only more just but more effective in fostering a cohesive and resilient society. I therefore urge the Government and noble Lords to support it. Let us demonstrate that we are committed to both safeguarding our citizens and upholding the principles that make this nation great. By doing so, we can ensure that our response to terrorism remains not only strong but principled, just and democratic.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, sometimes the world goes a bit topsy-turvy and mad. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has given an inspiring rendition of the importance of the right to protest. I kept thinking that I was sure that I made many a speech like that—not as well or with such wonderful rhetoric—saying that the right to protest should never be compromised when that side was in government. There are times when you wonder what is going on. However, I concede that I have thought that there could be problems in this Bill around the right to protest, so I am glad that it has been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, made a very lawyerly speech. I did not understand all of it, but it is worth probing this. The other day, I talked about farmer protestors meeting in a barn and wondered whether this would apply, who would be the responsible person and so on. There is something in this. It is also what I had in mind when I supported the amendments about the Henry VIII powers, because there is no doubt that those powers give the Secretary of State the right to interpret public safety and security in such a way that our civil liberties could well be compromised in the name of public safety. In that sense, at least some reassurance from Minister would be very welcome.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and other contributors to this debate that I have been on a few demos myself. I have quite enjoyed them; they are part of the democratic right to oppose certain things. Although my demo days have gone for the moment, because, as a Government Minister, I support government policy, there may be occasions in the future when I want to go on further demonstrations. I do not anticipate this Bill or any other legislation—apart, perhaps, from the legislation put in place by the previous Government—curtailing that democratic right to protest.
I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that none of the Bill’s provisions are intended to interfere with people’s rights, which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act, including the right to protest. To be clear, the Bill aims to protect the public, not to infringe their rights. The noble Lord will note that something that I never expected to happen to me again happened with this Bill. On the front of it are the words:
“Lord Hanson of Flint has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998”,
and, for the benefit of the House, I will repeat what it says:
“In my view the provisions of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”,
of which the right to protest is at the heart.
The noble Lord referred to a number of points around the undergrowth of the legislation and some of the clauses and schedules that he has concerns about. However, the front of the Bill says—and I put my name to it—that it is compatible with the convention of human rights. In my view, the measures are carefully developed to ensure it appropriately and proportionately captures the places and requirements of qualifying premises and events. In the development of the Bill, we have been mindful of its application to protests and demonstrations.
The expectation is that most demonstrations and protests will not fall within the Bill’s scope at all. They will not constitute “qualifying premises” under Clause 2, as they are not qualifying activities under Schedule 1. Even if they were, it would be unlikely that the premises would be wholly or mainly used for those purposes.
Some large demonstrations and protests may be qualifying events. However, many will not have to put in place the specific measure to check entry and, as a result, will not satisfy the criteria to be a qualifying event under Clause 3. An open access event, which is how I would term some of the demonstrations that I have been on, might have more than 800 attendees at a time—that number would be a good demonstration—and will not be within the scope of the Bill. Where demonstrations or events are within the scope of the Bill, it is right that the relevant provisions will apply. In some cases, large numbers of people will be gathered in a location where the organiser must have adequate control to consider and take forward appropriate security measures and procedures, so far as is reasonably practical.
I hope to reassure the noble Lord, His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that, within the Bill’s scope, we are required to act compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. I can say from this Dispatch Box that nothing in the legislation interferes with that.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for teasing out the discussion. I look forward to perhaps joining him on a demonstration, if we ever find shared common ground. But, for the moment, his pressing is valuable as it gives me the opportunity to say that he can undertake protests without worry about the Bill’s provisions—unless, of course, his protest falls within the scope of the Bill, in which case it is treated no differently from any other aspect of life that falls within the scope. I hope he will reflect on that and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the Minister. Obviously, the Section 19 declaration on the front of the Bill is a statement that, in the Minister’s view, it is compatible with the Act. As one of the very small number of Ministers who has signed a Section 19(1)(b) statement, which is to be signed in different circumstances, where you are not so confident, I can assure the Minister that such a statement of opinion is not conclusive. The courts regularly find that measures in Acts of Parliament—for example, in the recent litigation about the Northern Ireland legacy Act—are in fact incompatible, notwithstanding statements or declarations of compatibility on the front of the Bill.
Be that as it may, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I obviously agree with much of it, but I still wonder whether he might go back to the department and consider whether it is appropriate to put in just a short clause along the lines I suggested, to make crystal clear that the right to protest is not to be interfered with indirectly and unintentionally by the measures in the Bill. For now, of course, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“Tax relief incentives for security investments(1) The Secretary of State, in consultation with HM Treasury, must establish a tax relief scheme for qualifying investments made by businesses to reduce the vulnerability of premises to acts of terrorism at premises covered by this Act.(2) Qualifying investments include but are not limited to—(a) surveillance and monitoring equipment,(b) physical barriers and access control systems,(c) staff training on counter-terrorism measures, and(d) cyber-security infrastructure for venue security.(3) The scheme may provide tax deductions of up to twenty-five per cent for eligible security expenditures.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment incentivises businesses to voluntarily strengthen their security infrastructure to reduce the vulnerability of premises to acts of terrorism by offsetting the financial burden through tax deductions. It encourages innovation and investment in counter-terrorism technologies while reducing reliance on public funding.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, with some trepidation, I find myself leading the next group as well; I hope not to try the patience of the Committee. The Committee discussed similar suites of amendments in earlier groups. Amendment 40 is designed to seek to defray some of the costs of implementing measures made necessary by the effect of the Bill. As the Committee will have noted, it requires the Secretary of State to set up a tax relief scheme for qualifying investments. Those investments are set out at subsection (2), including
“surveillance … equipment … physical barriers and access control systems … staff training on counter-terrorism measures”,
and
“cyber-security infrastructure for venue security”.
We know that the costs of the measures in the Bill are estimated in the impact assessment at somewhere between £4.8 billion and £500 million, with the best estimate being £1.7 billion. If a measure similar to this were brought in, it would make cost-neutral to businesses the implementation of the measures in the Bill. Of course, there would be a cost to the Government, but this is, after all, a government policy.
My Amendment 45 seeks to do the same sort of thing but without the creation of a tax incentive. It would require the Secretary of State to provide grants or funding schemes for voluntary and community organisations. This amendment goes to my earlier group of amendments, seeking to mitigate the impact on voluntary and community organisations. This is quite similar to the debate about general funding that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, spoke to on the last day of Committee. I will not expound at length on that now, but I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what consideration was given to providing financial support to voluntary and community organisations, whether the Home Office considered the Bill’s impact on volunteering and people wanting voluntarily to run village halls and community centres, the Home Office’s estimate of any impact on recruitment—or whether the issue was not considered at all. If the Minister does not have the answer to hand in his bundle, I would be very grateful if he wrote to me. I would also like the Minister to outline what discussions have been had, if any, with the Treasury on creating a tax scheme of the type I advocate in Amendment 40. I beg to move.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I apologise in advance. The Minister will tick me off for this being a Second Reading intervention, and I should have been here on Monday to say it, but I would like briefly to give a small plug for an organisation that has not been mentioned at all at this stage: the National Protective Security Authority. This is an arm of MI5 which gives free advice on personnel security, physical security and other forms of security. It is informed by a knowledge of terrorist and state threats. It is based not only on the understanding of those threats but on commissioned research from universities. It will give advice for free—paid for by the taxpayer—to all sizes and shapes of organisation. When we are talking about the costs of this, and in the earlier stages about the so-called cowboys giving advice, I recommend that whoever is affected by this legislation looks at this website and seeks this free advice as their first step. I am sorry for the commercial plug and apologise for intervening at this stage.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, in this group. As the Bishop of Manchester, I have got something like 400 churches and church halls in my diocese, but these amendments go rather wider than that. For places of worship, there are already some grant schemes for protecting against terrorism, given the particular threat that places of worship, especially Muslim and Jewish places of worship, have traditionally faced.
Back in my days as a vicar—25 years or more ago now—I seem to recall that, when I was trying to do good things to improve disabled access in my church, it was possible to do the work and then reclaim the VAT, which would not have been possible on other works. The principle that the Government fund by way of tax relief works that are important to the well-being of the community, to enable people to participate safely in events and activities, is well established in law. If small venues, particularly village halls, have to do physical work to premises, I urge that we find ways to defray not all but part of the cost, recognising that that shows this is something that is strongly supported by the state.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 41, as I believe it is very important that we get some clarity. This amendment seeks to make sure that there can be no ambiguity in what is to be expected of local authorities, the SIA and other relevant bodies if the Bill becomes law.
We know that licensing and enforcement teams in most local authorities are already overstretched and underresourced. Through this amendment, I seek some reassurance that councils will be supported and financially compensated for the work they will have to do to provide oversight and enforcement, and around their ability to co-ordinate with the SIA effectively. The provision of advice and guidance that businesses will seek from councils will be significant, and it will be a cost. We cannot place additional burdens on our councils at this time unless they are funded fully. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government have a duty and a mechanism by which they can fund and resource councils in overseeing compliance with the Bill’s security requirements.
I should also add that, as this is new legislation, the Government have already committed that they will finance local authorities for any additional costs that they incur, although that is not clear from this Bill.
While I am on my feet, I will also speak to Amendment 42. I have already spoken, as other noble Lords have, about the worry this Bill is causing venues, particularly smaller premises. If left unamended, I have no doubt at all that the financial burden of implementing these requirements would force a number of our smaller venues, and perhaps even a few larger ones, to close. While we must do everything we can to protect the public from terrorism, we cannot allow the threat of terrorism and associated countermeasures to be a causation for permanent business closure as, if this is to be the case, then we are allowing terror to alter our way of life and, of course, providing a victory for the terrorists.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 40, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. This amendment proposes the insertion of a new clause after Clause 34 to establish tax relief incentives for security investments by businesses covered under this Act. The purpose of this amendment is to encourage businesses to strengthen their security infrastructure voluntarily by offering tax deductions of up to 25% for qualifying security expenditures. These investments would include, but are not limited to,
“surveillance and monitoring equipment, … physical barriers and access control systems, … staff training on counter-terrorism measures, and … cyber-security infrastructure for venue security”.
The security landscape we face today is increasingly complex. The threat of terrorism has evolved, targeting not only traditional public spaces but also a wide variety of venues where people gather for work, entertainment, and everyday life. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly places obligations on certain premises to implement security measures to protect the public. However, it is essential that we consider the financial burden this may place on businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, which form the backbone of our economy.
This amendment offers a constructive and forward-thinking solution by incentivising security investments through tax relief. Such an approach would have several key benefits. First, by offering financial incentives, we encourage businesses to take proactive steps to enhance their security infrastructure. Many businesses want to do the right thing but are constrained by budgetary limitations. Tax relief would help alleviate these financial pressures and empower them to invest in modern, effective security measures that reduce the vulnerability of their premises to acts of terrorism.
Secondly, the amendment recognises the importance of innovation in counterterrorism technologies. By incentivising investments in advanced surveillance systems, access control solutions and cybersecurity infrastructure, we create a market environment that encourages the development and adoption of cutting-edge security technologies. This not only benefits individual businesses but strengthens the broader security landscape of our nation.
Thirdly, security is a shared responsibility. While the Government have a duty to protect its citizens, the private sector also plays a critical role in safeguarding public spaces. By incentivising private investment, this amendment helps reduce reliance on public funding for security infrastructure, ensuring that taxpayer resources can be allocated more efficiently. Fourthly, providing a financial incentive makes it more likely that businesses will not only comply with the requirements of this Bill but go above and beyond to implement comprehensive security measures. This contributes to a safer environment for the public and demonstrates a collaborative approach to counterterrorism efforts.
Critics may argue that offering tax relief for security investments could reduce government revenue. However, this must be weighed against the potential costs of a terrorist attack, including the loss of lives, economic disruption and the subsequent expenditure on emergency response and recovery. Investments in security are not merely costs; they are investments in resilience and stability. Additionally, by incentivising security investments, we send a strong signal that the Government recognise the challenges businesses face and are willing to support them in meeting their obligations under this Bill. This builds good will and fosters a sense of partnership between the public and private sectors in the collective effort to protect our society from terrorism. Furthermore, the scope of this amendment is deliberately broad, allowing the scheme to cover various types of security investments. This flexibility ensures that businesses can tailor their security measures to their specific needs and circumstances, rather than being forced into a one-size-fits-all approach.
The amendment strikes the right balance between enhancing security and supporting economic growth. It encourages businesses to invest in vital security measures while reducing the financial burden they face. By incentivising innovation and collaboration, we create a more secure and resilient society, so I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment. It is a pragmatic, forward-thinking proposal that strengthens the Bill, promotes public safety and supports businesses in playing their part in counterterrorism efforts. Security and prosperity are not mutually exclusive; they can and must go hand in hand. This amendment embodies that principle and deserves the full support of this Committee.
I now speak in support of Amendment 41, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. This amendment proposes the insertion of a new clause after Clause 34 to ensure that local authorities are adequately supported and properly co-ordinated in their role under the Bill. The amendment has two key components. First, it calls on the Secretary of State to provide funding and resources to local authorities to support their expanded role in overseeing compliance with the security requirements outlined in this legislation. Secondly, it requires the Government to issue clear guidelines for local authority co-ordination with the Security Industry Authority. The importance of this amendment cannot be overstated. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly seeks to enhance security measures at public venues and premises across the country. However, it is clear that local authorities will play a critical role in ensuring the effective implementation and enforcement of these measures. If we are to succeed in making public spaces safer, local authorities must be properly equipped to carry out their responsibilities.
Local councils are already under significant financial and operational strain. Many are grappling with stretched budgets, increased service demands and a shortage of skilled personnel. Adding the responsibility of overseeing complex security compliance requirements without additional support would place an unsustainable burden on them. This amendment recognises that reality and ensures that councils are provided with the funding and resources necessary to carry out their new duties effectively. By investing in local authorities, we not only empower them to fulfil their role under the Bill but enhance the overall security infrastructure of our communities.
The Security Industry Authority has a vital role in regulating private security services and ensuring high standards across the sector. However, effective security co-ordination requires seamless co-operation between local authorities and the SIA. This amendment addresses the need for clear and consistent guidelines on how such co-ordination should be conducted.
Providing clarity on roles and responsibilities will prevent a duplication of effort and reduce the risk of confusion or gaps in enforcement. It will foster stronger partnerships between local authorities, the SIA and other stakeholders, creating a more cohesive and effective security framework.
Terrorist threats are complex and multifaceted, requiring a co-ordinated and collaborative response at all levels of government. Local authorities are often best placed to understand the specific security challenges within their communities and to engage with businesses, venue operators and the public in implementing tailored security measures. However, this localised approach can be effective only if councils have the necessary resources and clear guidance from central government; without this, we risk creating a fragmented and inconsistent security landscape that leaves communities vulnerable.
Some may argue that councils already have extensive responsibilities, and that security should remain the domain of specialised agencies. However, the evolving nature of security threats requires a whole-of-society approach. Local authorities are on the front lines of public service delivery and community engagement; they are uniquely positioned to play a key role in implementing the security measures under this Bill, provided they are given the tools and support to do so. It is worth noting that investment in local authority capacity will have broader benefits beyond security: strengthening council capabilities can enhance their ability to deliver other services more effectively, creating more resilient and well-managed communities.
This amendment represents a practical and necessary step to ensure the successful implementation of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. It acknowledges the vital role of local authorities and provides the support they need to fulfil that role effectively. By ensuring proper funding, resources and clear co-ordination with the SIA, we can create a security framework that is both robust and locally responsive. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment; it strengthens the Bill, supports our councils and, ultimately, contributes to a safer and more secure United Kingdom.
Amendment 42 calls on the Secretary of State to establish a financial support scheme to assist businesses with the cost of implementing the security measures required under this legislation. The proposed scheme would include low-interest loans, grants or tax relief for businesses facing costs ranging between £3,000 and £52,000. While we all recognise the necessity of strengthening security measures to protect the public from the ever-present threat of terrorism, we must acknowledge the financial burden these requirements may place on businesses—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—many of which are already grappling with rising costs, from energy bills to supply chain disruptions.
For a small business, an unexpected £3,000 security expenditure can be a significant financial strain, let alone costs in the tens of thousands. Without support, some may face difficult decisions, including delaying essential security upgrades or, in extreme cases, closing their operations altogether. This would not only harm local economies but could inadvertently weaken the overall security framework that the Bill seeks to strengthen. A financial support scheme, as outlined in this amendment, offers a practical solution. By providing low-interest loans, grants and tax relief, we can alleviate the financial pressures on businesses, while encouraging compliance with those security requirements. This is a prudent investment in the safety and resilience of our commercial sector and the communities it serves.
Finally, Amendment 45 addresses the equally important issue of financial support for voluntary and community organisations, including village halls, which are often at the heart of rural and suburban communities. It calls on the Secretary of State to provide grants or funding schemes to cover the costs associated with compliance under the future Act. Voluntary and community organisations face unique challenges; they often operate on shoestring budgets, relying heavily on donations, grants and volunteer support. These organisations provide essential services and spaces for social engagement, education and cultural activities. Village halls, in particular, are vital hubs for community life, hosting everything from children’s playgroups to senior citizen gatherings.
The imposition of costly security measures, while understandable from a public safety perspective, could deter community engagement and even lead to the closure of some of these cherished institutions. That is a price that we cannot afford to pay. By providing targeted financial support, we ensure that voluntary and community organisations can continue to thrive while meeting their security obligations. This amendment is not just about compliance; it is about preserving the social fabric of our communities and recognising the invaluable role that these organisations play in society.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments, and I hope that I will be able to respond to them fully.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for her plug for the service she mentioned; I take it in good heart. She will know that the purpose of the Bill is to give the Security Industry Authority the power to give advice and for the Home Office to enable that. I will take away her suggestion and feed it to officials. If it can be done, we will look at how it can be examined by the Security Industry Authority to be a helpful contribution to resilience for local groups and organisations. I thank her for that.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who spoke, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for reminding us of the existence of that part of the security service. It could provide very useful assistance to the SIA, which, as we know from other groups in this Committee, is not really ready for the role that this legislation is going to thrust upon it. I have no doubt that that body at MI5 will be very helpful.
I am also grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for supporting these amendments, and I share his sentiment that a large number of faith-based institutions that operate on a shoestring budget are going to struggle to implement the measures in the Bill. On the same theme, I wholly endorse the amendments from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, particularly in respect of small arts venues and theatres and, more generally, in terms of meeting the additional expenditure to be imposed on local authorities. As ever, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, who always speaks great sense.
The Minister makes many fair points. The Bill did pass through the Home Office when I was there, but I was the Minister for Migration and Borders. I know the Bill was the subject of considerable comment and constructive criticism by the Home Affairs Select Committee. The Home Office responded to the consultation and the Bill was reconsidered. There was a consultation paper and the decision taken to increase the threshold was done in light of the consultation that was launched by the last Government. I suspect that, had we been there, we would have made that sensible decision too. As I said in my earlier speech, I commend the Government for raising that threshold to 200.
That having been said, I do think the Government should ensure some sort of short-order post-legislative scrutiny to ensure that the burdens imposed by this legislation are not very damaging to our micro-businesses and small communities. I know there is always a measure of post-legislative scrutiny, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could write to me just to confirm what arrangements are in place in relation to this Bill—and, ideally, before Report, so we can consider how best to see whether there is an impact, as I fear there may be and, if there is, what measures we can take to ameliorate it. With that, I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Udny-Lister
“Counter-terrorism measures in planning law(1) The Secretary of State must consult with local authorities on integrating counter-terrorism measures into the planning and design of new buildings which are likely to be designated “qualifying premises” for the purposes of this Act.(2) Following that consultation, the Secretary of State must introduce measures to ensure the incorporation of anti-terrorism design principles in new building projects, particularly those in high-risk areas, where the buildings in question are likely to be designated “qualifying premises” for the purposes of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment encourages the integration of counter-terrorism measures into architectural design, promoting safer urban environments from the outset.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief in moving this amendment. As I said at Second Reading, there is a clear opportunity within this legislation to design out terrorism by ensuring that anti-terrorism design principles are incorporated into new building projects that fall within the definition and scope of the qualifying premises. It is important that we take every opportunity to do this as we proceed with various bits of legislation that do have an effect on security.
Legislation, where possible, should always be forward-looking and include provisions that seek to prevent, rather than just address. I am therefore hopeful that noble Lords will see the benefits of mandating the need for the Secretary of State to work with local authorities on integrating the counterterrorism measures into planning and design policies, so that we can promote safer premises from the outset of their design. It is a sad reality that the threat of terrorism will not go away in the short term. We therefore have a duty to ensure that the venues of tomorrow are designed in ways that protect the public and prevent terrorism. I am confident that this amendment will achieve that, while further alleviating the financial burden of altering premises at a later date to ensure compliance with the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, and although it is towards the end of the Bill and it is a small addition, I think that, without this change, the Bill becomes less effective, because the thing we know works best in preventing crime—or terrorism, in this case—is design. The problem we have at the moment with car theft is that the thieves know how to steal them and are pretty effective at it. Car stealing has gone through the roof over the last few years. For 20 years, it went down. So we can design things better to make the terrorists less likely to be effective, or so that, if they do get through, they do less damage.
Prevention is critical to the Bill. At Second Reading, the Minister said that they could not consider it in this Bill, and that it had to be considered elsewhere. As much as I love and respect him, I am not sure that I agree. The danger is that the Home Office forgets, and it gets buried somewhere else. This is the best place to do it. There is an equivalent: the Section 104 agreements on new buildings, which are about crime—keeping new buildings safe by being designed to prevent crime. Car parks are designed in order to make it less likely that cars are stolen.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I associate myself the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about counterterrorism security advisers. They are part of this defence mechanism; they certainly need to be better resourced and could do a great deal as a consequence.
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, are extremely important and have great value; they reflect the comments that I made in my two reports on prevention of terrorism in London. A great deal can be done to design out different sorts of crime, or, as in this case, to make it more difficult for terrorists to act, or to make it easier to respond to a terrorist incident. I do not wish to prolong the discussion, because there is an issue as to whether this is the right legislation. Clearly, it needs to be considered in the context of the planning system, but I also take the point about that perhaps taking an inordinate amount of time, rather than trying to move this forward at this stage.
If I may inject a slightly partisan point at this stage, I do recall, at a lower level, the issues around designing out crime. At one stage, a whole series of recommendations were in the building regulations to make crime more difficult—for example, making it more difficult for burglars to kick in doors. The previous Government dismantled all that, which was extremely unfortunate.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I wonder whether the Minister and the advisers have been to Northern Ireland, where, for a long time, buildings have been designed for the exact threats he is talking about. I am not sure of the system, but I do not think that those designs originated from planning control or building control; they were brought on by the organisations themselves in order to provide protection. There must be lessons to be learned there on how best to stop these sorts of attacks; after all, although I hesitate to say it, we were under them for 40 years.
On the subject of the various organisations, including the SIA, we can point people in the right direction and get advice to them, but resources will have to be put into the communications between people and those organisations. The advice may be there but currently, there is not the manpower to communicate to the extent that will ward off terrorist attacks.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I do not want to pour cold water on the proposal as it seems to be getting a lot of support, and I support the principle of it. I am very taken with some of the simple measures that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, outlined. However, they are not all simple measures. I have been on local authorities and seen how planners can get carried away with some of their proposals. All of a sudden, we are into not simple proposals such as those we have heard about today, but much more elaborate ones that would be impossible for the business or the community centre to implement.
We need to be careful about the proposal. I am happy with the principle, but the outworking could be much more difficult. I say in response to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, let us not forget that a lot of the buildings in Northern Ireland that were protected against terrorist attacks were public buildings. That money was coming from central funds, not community organisations, churches, local football clubs or sports clubs.
I support the principle of this proposal, but I urge some caution as well.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, I think that this amendment has a lot of merit. It certainly raises some very important issues. Ahead of this Bill, I met with people from the insurance industry. They very much made the point that time and money could be saved by incorporating some of these security provisions at the design phase of public buildings.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made a very powerful case for why this amendment would make sense. Clearly, retrospectively trying to put in measures for effective and safe evacuations and invacuations is frequently going to be harder and less cost-effective than building them in at the planning and architectural design stage for new public buildings. As others have hinted, this amendment is perhaps not for this Bill but for a future planning Bill, but it raises a common-sense and important set of issues. I look forward to Minister’s reply.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, my two colleagues mentioned the situation in Northern Ireland. The Minister will be very familiar, from his service there, with a lot of this. A lot of the protections that were put in place were against blast. Terrorist tactics have changed and will continue to change. You cannot simply look at what the threat might have been 30 or 40 years ago: look at the threat that we face today, but in 10 years or 20 years, it may be very different.
The trick will be to have flexible thinking going into the actual design, so although the nature of the threat will change over time there will at least be a bit of future-proofing—that is the language we would need to use. All those lessons should be learned. I served on the Northern Ireland Police Authority, which had to deal with the threats to buildings in those circumstances and to other Civil Service facilities. The Minister will be very familiar with all that. The key is for those who design or adapt buildings—because more buildings are going to be adapted than built from scratch—to show a bit of flexibility in those processes and put a little thought into what might be coming down the road. Our buildings were largely protected against blast, which would not necessarily be the only thing that is at risk.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 43, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. This has been a very interesting debate. The amendment seeks to introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to
“consult with local authorities on integrating counter-terrorism measures into the planning and design of new buildings which are likely to be designated ‘qualifying premises’ for the purposes of this Act”.
It further calls for the introduction of measures to ensure that anti-terrorism design principles are incorporated into building projects, particularly those in high-risk areas.
The importance of designing safer urban environments from the outset cannot be overstated. In an era where the threat of terrorism continues to evolve, our approach to public safety must also adapt. The integration of counterterrorism measures into the planning and design of buildings offers a forward-thinking solution that enhances security while reducing the need for costly and disruptive retrofits. By embedding security principles into architectural design, we can create spaces that are both functional and secure. Measures such as blast-resistant materials, secure perimeters, control access points and natural surveillance through open and well-lit layouts can significantly reduce the vulnerability of public spaces.
Many countries have already embraced the concept of designing out terrorism. For example, in the United States and parts of Europe, urban planners and architects routinely incorporate security features into the design of transport hubs, commercial centres and public venues. The United Kingdom should not lag behind in adopting similar best practices. This amendment encourages a collaborative approach between the Government, local authorities and the construction industry to ensure that new developments are designed with security in mind. Local authorities are uniquely positioned to provide insights into the specific risks and needs of their areas, making their involvement in this process essential.
Incorporating counterterrorism measures at the planning stage is not only more effective but more cost-efficient. Retrofitting existing buildings to meet new security requirements can be expensive and disruptive, often requiring extensive modifications that compromise the original design and functionality. By contrast, proactive design reduces long-term costs and creates environments that seamlessly balance aesthetics, functionality and security.
I must stress that this amendment does not seek to turn our urban landscapes into fortresses. Good design can enhance both security and public experience without compromising the openness and accessibility that define vibrant communities. By working closely with architects, planners and local authorities, we can ensure that security features are thoughtfully integrated and do not detract from the usability and beauty of public spaces. I fully associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on this issue.
The amendment rightly prioritises high-risk areas where the likelihood of terrorism incidents is higher due to factors such as foot traffic, symbolic importance or previous threats. By taking a proactive approach in these areas, we would not only protect lives but bolster public confidence in the safety of shared spaces. In conclusion, the amendment would strengthen the Bill by embedding security into the very fabric of our built environment. It demonstrates a pragmatic and forward-looking approach to counterterrorism that balances safety, efficiency and community needs. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment as it represents a vital step forward, creating a safer, more resilient United Kingdom.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for raising the important issue of how new buildings—his amendment mentions “new buildings”—and development should consider security in their design where it is appropriate to do so.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lords, Lord Elliott and Lord Empey, for bringing to the Committee their experience of Northern Ireland—with which I have a small element of familiarity but not as much experience as they do.
I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and particularly his invitation for CT advisers to be incorporated into an advice mechanism, whatever that might be. I will give him the same answer I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. I reassure him that we want to have this simple advice, focused via the Security Industry Association, and I hope that I can at least refer his helpful suggestion and see how it can be incorporated into the advice given. I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for his contribution, and the Liberal Democrat and Opposition Front Benches for their comments.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
I thank everybody who supported this amendment and took part in this short but important debate. I think it would be a missed opportunity if this Bill is not used as a mechanism to remind local authorities and the Home Office to get the message out again and for the SIA to use it to get new buildings designed with security and terrorism in mind. I think that that would be beneficial, but having heard the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Review of the impact on the night-time economy(1) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report reviewing the impact of the provisions in this Act on the night-time economy, jobs and growth.(2) The report must include an assessment of the impact of this Act on—(a) public houses,(b) nightclubs,(c) bars,(d) restaurants,(e) cinemas, and(f) any other late-opening venues that the Secretary of State considers to be part of the night-time economy.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce a report reviewing the impact this Act on the night-time economy, jobs and growth.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 46 and in support of Amendment 47 tabled by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. These amendments address two crucial concerns regarding the implementation and potential impact of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: the effect on the night-time economy and the importance of proper consultation and guidance for businesses.
The first amendment, Amendment 46, would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within 18 months of the Act’s passage reviewing its impact on the night-time economy, jobs and growth. Specifically, it would assess the effects on public houses, nightclubs, bars, restaurants, cinemas and other late-opening venues. The night-time economy is a vital part of our nation’s cultural and economic life. It provides employment for thousands of people, contributes billions of pounds to the economy and plays a central role in fostering vibrant communities. However, it is also an industry that has faced significant challenges in recent years, first with the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and now with rising operational costs and economic uncertainty.
While the security measures outlined in this Bill are essential to protect the public from the threat of terrorism, it is vital that we do not inadvertently place an unsustainable burden on businesses in the night-time economy. Venues that already operate on tight profit margins may struggle to absorb the costs associated with implementing new security requirements, such as enhanced surveillance, access control systems and staff training. By requiring a formal review of the Act’s impact on this sector, Amendment 46 would provide an essential mechanism for accountability and evidence-based policy-making. It would ensure that Parliament remains informed about any unintended consequences and allows for adjustments to be made if necessary. Crucially, this review would help strike the right balance between public safety and economic vitality.
The second amendment, Amendment 47, seeks to delay the commencement of Parts 1 and 2 until draft guidance has been issued to businesses and a proper consultation has taken place. This is a sensible and pragmatic approach that prioritises clarity and fairness for businesses. It is one thing to pass legislation, but it is another to implement it effectively and responsibly. For businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, sudden and unclear regulatory changes can be disruptive and costly. Without proper guidance, there is a real risk that businesses may struggle to understand their obligations under the Act, leading to confusion, non-compliance and potentially adverse outcomes for security and commerce.
By ensuring that draft guidance is published and consultations are conducted before the Act’s provisions come into force, Amendment 47 would promote a smoother and more co-operative transition. It would allow businesses to prepare adequately, understand the requirements and implement the necessary measures in a way that is both effective and economically viable. Moreover, consultation with businesses is essential to ensuring that the measures introduced are practical and proportionate. Those who operate public venues have valuable insights into the challenges and realities of implementing security measures, and their input can help shape more effective and workable solutions.
Amendments 48 and 49 are probing amendments on the timescale for implementation of the Act. We discussed implementation timescales briefly on the first day in Committee, and the Minister confirmed that the Government think that the Bill will take a two-year period to implement. I have tabled these amendments to understand better how that period will work. Can the Minister confirm which parts of the Bill are likely to be implemented before that two-year period has elapsed? Can he give us an indication of whether the Government are firmly committed to implementing the Bill in full by the end of the two years? We feel very strongly that it would be helpful for organisations and events that would be affected by the Bill’s measures to have as much information as possible as soon as possible. Can the Government confirm how they will keep those organisations and events updated on progress so that they can plan appropriately?
In conclusion, these amendments do not seek to weaken the Bill or undermine its vital security objectives. On the contrary, they would strengthen it by ensuring that its implementation is thoughtful, measured and responsive to the needs of businesses and communities. Amendment 46 would provide a mechanism for accountability and assessment, ensuring that the impact on the night-time economy is carefully monitored. Amendment 47 would prioritise proper consultation and guidance, fostering co-operation and compliance among businesses. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support these amendments as a means of enhancing the effectiveness and fairness of this important legislation. Together, they represent a balanced and pragmatic approach that upholds public safety and economic resilience. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst, and I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I wanted to put my name on this group, but I missed the deadline. I think it is a crucial group and I hope that the Government will be very positive about it, because the night-time economy is very worried that its venues are going to be badly affected by this, and I think it would be very constructive for the Government to adopt this amendment as some kind of reassurance.
I was inspired, indirectly at least, to get involved in supporting Amendment 46 by the Prime Minister. Yesterday, on the front page of the Daily Mirror, Keir Starmer was saying that he backed the fight to save the great British pub:
“there's nothing any of us like better than going to the local for a pint, myself included”.
He said:
“They are the places where friends, family, community come together around something which is very British – the pub. It’s a place of warmth, of opportunity, to have a nice time with friends, family and for people to have the friendship and engagement that is so important to their wellbeing”.
The Prime Minister was supporting a campaign to save pubs precisely because pubs are struggling. Data from the Valuation Office Agency in December showed that the number of pubs in England and Wales fell by 402 last year. That was a net figure that took into account new pubs opening but did not include premises standing empty that are still classified as pubs. As pub numbers have plunged by more than 2,000 since the start of 2020, and with industry experts such as AlixPartners warning that 3,000 more pubs, bars, restaurants and clubs are at risk of closing in 2025, I want the Government to note that this Bill represents another burden and that we should at least keep our eye on, monitor and be accountable about whether unintended consequences will damage the sector.
Publicans and experts blame a cocktail of supply and staffing costs, rising energy bills, and those controversial, crippling national insurance contributions, but stakeholders raise all the time regulatory demands and the costs in terms of licensing. There is a certain dread of what this legislation will mean, especially because pubs are trying to make more of themselves as venues—for example, for quiz nights and community choirs. In Neil Davenport’s “Letter on Liberty”, Pubs: Defending the Free House, there is a discussion about a mini boom post-lockdown of pubs as new live-music venues. That thrill of face-to-face live events and the public square as a place of freedom is lucrative as well, so we need to be careful that this Bill does not unintentionally end up killing that off.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I speak to Amendments 46 to 49. I adopt everything that my noble friend Lord Davies has already said, so I can be short.
Amendment 46, which is a probing amendment, is very simple. We all know we cannot let the terrorist indulge in preventable acts of terror. I emphasise “preventable”. Equally, we cannot allow the threat of terror to close down society and normal life as we now understand it to be. Also, it must be plain that once the Act has been enforced for 18 months, people will have a better idea of what may and may not work, so a review at that stage will be helpful to everyone. It is a shakedown period and it will cut both ways.
As to Amendment 47 and the six-month delay of commencement, that is simply to impose a minimum period—it can be longer if appropriate—before regulations and other actions can be taken by requiring draft guidance to have been issued and consulted on first. This will simply ensure that businesses and other bodies are properly consulted before guidance is finalised. It will ensure that the consultation on the guidance has preceded the laying of regulations. We are moving into new territory. A wide range of powers is being exercised over disparate bodies and a wide range of organisations in respect of matters which have not previously been subject to such detailed supervision. It is obviously right that those affected should be consulted. That will apply to the potential enforcers—the SIA and local authorities—as well as to those on the receiving end who are running the establishments and organisations where these regulations will apply.
Finally, Amendments 48 and 49 are simply probing amendments on the timescale. We have heard that it may take two years to come into force. We tabled these amendments, as my noble friend has said, to test how that period will work.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling the amendments today. I hope I can respond to them in a positive and reassuring manner.
First, I will look at Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst. All through this debate, at Second Reading, in Committee, and in discussions that we have had outside of this Chamber, we have been keen to reassure noble Lords that we are trying to strike the right balance between public protection and burdens on premises and events. In fact, I prefer the word “standards” to “burdens”; a burden is something that is difficult. What we are trying to put in place is a number of basic standards which it is important for businesses and organisations to meet.
I have said throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee and at Second Reading that, following Royal Assent, we expect that there will be a period of at least 24 months to give us the time to ensure that those responsible for premises and the events in scope understand the new obligations, that they have time to plan and prepare, and—to go back to previous discussions —any training required of volunteers or staff is undertaken.
The proposed timetable in Amendment 46 of 18 months would, with respect, be before any detailed action has been taken under the provisions of the Act. It would assess the preparations generally, as opposed to the actual impact and implementation downstream. Ministers, including myself and my right honourable friend Dan Jarvis will keep legislation under review, including its effectiveness, impact and implementation. Should unintended consequences be identified, the Bill provides powers, which have been subject to debate, to adjust the regime as appropriate. I hope the noble Lord will reflect on Amendment 46 and, when the time comes, withdraw the amendment.
On Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, there will be a 24-month implementation period before the Act is commenced. The Government intend to issue guidance under Clause 27, published before commencement. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord seeks to put some timeframes on that. I think it is best to leave that to judgment, both in the guidance and in the consultation on that guidance with key partners.
Again, the 24-month period covers Amendments 48 and 49, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sandhurst. The implementation period will allow those in scope to prepare for and comply with the new obligations. It is important that the SIA, particularly, is operating as soon as is practical. The Government must be certain that it is ready for its new role. We anticipate that this will take at least 24 months—it might take slightly longer—in the light of previous timeframes for other regulators introduced under previous legislation.
I do not anticipate any delays in commencement, but I want to keep the flexibility and appropriate ability for the Government to pick an appropriate commencement date when the Government assess that the SIA has fulfilled its duties, as we anticipate them under the Act, and that the organisations impacted by the Act at that stage are fully prepared and cognisant and are able to implement. Again, I gently suggest to the noble Lord that it would not be sensible for the Secretary of State to be driven by a tied provision in the Act, as opposed to the judgment that, as I have said to the Committee, will look in due course at whether or not we put those provisions in place.
Generally, in relation to Amendments 48 and 49, the 24-month period is what I would hope to be a realistic time to establish the set-up of the regulator and for those in scope of the Bill to prepare. If the Bill achieves Royal Assent, which I hope it will, the noble Lord, this House, the House of Commons and the court of public opinion—that is, the people in businesses and pubs and others who will be impacted by this legislation—have the opportunity to feed into both the Government for their guidance and the SIA for its guidance, as well as into the debate generally about implementation, about how they think the Act is going and what measures are being put in place. A formal consultation or review, as outlined and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, would inhibit that process and set formal timescales that would not be helpful. This House remains the first port of call for any concern or points that noble Lords may want to raise about the implementation downstream. I hope that reassurance means that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken, including the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—who talked about the unintended consequences of the Bill, which are a worry—and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I thank the Minister for his response, particularly about striking the right balance. I am pleased to hear that he will keep its effectiveness under review and revisit it. On the issue of 24 months, the Minister assures me that he does not anticipate delays, and I will keep his words in mind. For the time being, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.