Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 3rd February 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates 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.