Grand Committee
Space Industry (Licence Exemption for Military Activities of Allies) Regulations 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Space Industry (Licence Exemption for Military Activities of Allies) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, missile defence is a critical thread in our tapestry of national security. The threats we face, highlighted by Russia’s reckless targeting of Dnipro with a ballistic missile, underline the need to be prepared. We test and train regularly with our allies, and our next missile defence testing and training exercise, codenamed Exercise Formidable Shield, is in May 2025.
Formidable Shield is a US-led exercise, hosted by the UK Government, at the MoD’s Outer Hebrides air weapon range, on behalf of NATO and our other defence partners. It is one of the most advanced and comprehensive missile defence training exercises in the world. It involves the UK and allied forces conducting live-fire drills, missile defence tests and real-world scenario-based training.
These activities are critical to the defence and security of the UK and the strength of our military alliances. First, they enhance interoperability. Exercise Formidable Shield will bring 10 nations together, each with distinct systems, targets and technologies. It will allow us to align these different systems and work in concert effectively in real-world operations, so that the UK and our allies can respond quickly and cohesively to any threats.
Secondly, Formidable Shield improves our collective missile defence capabilities, and our ability to adapt to evolving ballistic missile and other threats. This is why the live-fire element of Exercise Formidable Shield is particularly valuable.
Thirdly, Exercise Formidable Shield reinforces strategic deterrence, which is vital in maintaining stability and preventing conflicts escalating. The exercise sends a strong message to our adversaries that the UK, NATO and its allies are prepared to defend ourselves and our territories against any form of aggression.
In order to replicate operational conditions for these exercises, the UK and allied nations need to operate ever more sophisticated defence missiles, capable of climbing above the stratosphere. This would bring them within the scope of the licensing regime within the Space Industry Act 2018 and its associated secondary legislation. The Space Industry Act 2018 was never intended to regulate military activity. It was passed into law to ensure the safety and appropriate governance of the commercial spaceflight industry and is regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority.
The Government seek licensing exemptions under the Space Industry Act and associated secondary legislation for allied armed forces activities. This exemption is very narrow. It allows only allied armed forces, their operatives and international military organisations, such as NATO, to fire sub-orbital—that is, non-orbiting—uncrewed rockets from MoD sites or platforms, with MoD permission and under the control of the MoD’s regulator. To clarify the SLSC report, this exemption will not cover activities from UK spaceports, only MoD sites.
The exemption would bring multinational exercises into line with sovereign ones. Similar stratospheric tests conducted solely by the MoD are not affected by the Space Industry Act 2018 and its accompanying licensing regime on the basis that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Act must not bind the Crown. Exercises above the stratosphere, which would be exempt under this instrument, would be under the expert supervision of the defence regulator, which has monitored military activities for decades, including MoD rocket launches above the stratosphere. Unlike the civilian authorities, the defence regulator has the infrastructure and expertise to oversee the safety of these exercises properly. The amendments the Government seek would avoid putting an increased and new burden on civil authorities.
This instrument will apply to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is subject to the affirmative procedure, as set out under Section 68(6) of the Space Industry Act 2018.
To conclude, the UK’s missile defence capability is a critical component of national and global security but, like all defence capabilities, to be effective it must be constantly maintained, updated, exercised and tested. Exercise Formidable Shield, planned for May 2025, is the next essential opportunity to conduct live-fire drills, missile defence tests and real-world scenario-based training. An enormous amount of military planning has gone into it from all the nations involved, and the Government seek appropriate regulatory certainty by the end of February in order to get maximum value from the exercise.
Approving this exemption in a timely manner will send a clear signal that the UK Parliament is united on the defence of our national security, united against our adversaries and united in its support for NATO. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these measures. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it would be easy simply to stand up and thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument clearly, and it goes without saying that it should have the support of the opposition parties, in particular for the reasons that she outlined at the end—to demonstrate that we stand united with our NATO allies on a cross-party basis—but I have a few comments to make.
On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we considered whether somebody on the defence side or the transport side should respond, but the sad circumstance is that today my noble friend Lady Pidgeon is in Cardiff for the funeral of our late lamented friend Baroness Randerson, so it was agreed that, almost regardless of the subject matter, I would take the business today. In doing so, I pay tribute to Baroness Randerson, who would in many ways have been the perfect person to lead on this because her interests were in transport but she also had a real interest in the international.
With those words of introduction, I came to this statutory instrument rather cold. When we take part in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, we are very much told that air, sea, land, cyber and space are so important for defence. It is very clear that we need to ensure that space is safe, so we absolutely support the principle of the statutory instrument. In particular, as the Minister said, it is vital that Exercise Formidable Shield can take place, but a few questions come up.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has on various occasions pointed out that, if the UK were subject to the sort of attacks that Israel faced from Iran, we would not have been able to defend ourselves in the way that Israel was able to do with its Iron Dome. One of my questions, therefore, is: will the exercise that takes place in May, which, as the Minister said, brings together our NATO allies, be replicated in various ways and places to assist in our securing space? I realise that that may be a defence question on which she may wish to write, but I thought I would raise it here and now.
I also have a couple of other questions. Clearly, the Minister is right that the regulation can be done better by the MoD than by the Civil Aviation Authority, but if actions are being undertaken by our service personnel under the auspices of the MoD and therefore military law, there are various issues at stake and, if something went wrong, we would know whom to hold accountable. With our partners and allies, how will that be dealt with? Are there international agreements that would enable us to ensure that any accidents, errors or misdemeanours could be dealt with in an appropriate way? This is not to suggest that the statutory instrument should not go ahead but rather to understand how matters will be dealt with if there is some flaw in the system that means we might need legal measures.
I also have a query—nothing of great import—that I was slightly wondering about. The statutory instrument refers to the “Crown interest” and “Crown land”, as well as to the “Duchy interest”, which is:
“an interest belonging to His Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall”.
Does that mean the rights of the Duchy of Cornwall currently, which belongs to the Prince of Wales, or are there Duchy lands that still adhere to His Majesty the King? That is purely a question that puzzled me slightly.
Apart from those few questions, there is nothing else for me to say other than that we wish the statutory instrument well.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, first I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, with reference to her friend and colleague Baroness Randerson.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, comes to this cold, I come to the issue out of the deep freeze, but let me do my best. The Minister has helpfully laid out the primary purpose of the draft statutory instrument, by describing the exemptions that the draft instrument creates; of course, these activities, unless exempted, would otherwise be caught by the civilian-focused regulations. Therefore, let me say first that I accept the priority that must be accorded to defence operational flexibility, and I not only support but applaud the Government’s desire to ensure such flexibility is not compromised.
Having said that, while I support the statutory instrument, developments in the space domain are fast-moving and, while protecting our defence capability activity is of course vital, broader questions arise as to how the Government will keep abreast of that fast-moving scene. I have a number of questions, on which I will be very happy if the Minister wishes to write to me. My first question is: welcome though this SI is, how do the Government align this exemption with consistent principles of oversight and accountability, which are central to the overall integrity of space operations?
To minimise risk, do the Government propose to review the operation of this exemption in practice, perhaps after a year, to ensure that there are no unintended and potentially dangerous consequences and that there is transparency about how the exemption is operating? We must be satisfied that the shift of power from civilian regulators, such as the Civil Aviation Authority, to the MoD is not inadvertently reducing accountability unacceptably and potentially sidelining important safety protocols that are in place for good reason. I seek the Minister’s reassurance about that.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for those very thoughtful questions, which covered quite a range of activities. I ask them to give me a moment to gather my thoughts.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her comments about Baroness Randerson. It is my great privilege that the last meeting that I had before Christmas was with Baroness Randerson, as well as my noble friend Lord Hendy, on a great passion of hers: the buses Bill. I hope that we can do her justice in the passage of that Bill through the House because I know just how much it meant to her.
I will take up the generous offers from the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, and will write to them on the more technical issues that they raised.
This is a very important subject. We can sum up its importance by saying, as was expressed in both sets of comments from the noble Baronesses, that the threat we face is advancing, proliferating and converging; it is probably the most acute it has been in over 30 years. The UK employs a broad approach to deterring and defeating air and missile threats, including through NATO. I assure noble Lords that, of course, the UK continually reviews our air and missile defence requirements to ensure that we are adequately defended against the evolving threats that we face. Further developments in these capabilities are being considered in conjunction with the strategic defence review. I hope that that brings some reassurance.
On experience, the MoD has been firing rockets safely from its sites since the 1950s. The MoD and allies would carry the liability, as they were already doing before the Act, for activity in respect of firing allied rockets.
With respect to the Duchy of Cornwall and the Crown Estate, I am grateful for the offer for me to write just to clarify the matters that the noble Baroness raised around those issues.
Regarding the MoD regulations, again allies have been undertaking activity, including firing rockets below the stratosphere, alongside UK military at MoD sites under defence regulation for decades. All activities conducted by foreign allies in the UK need MoD permission and must conform to MoD regulations, be overseen by the MoD regulator and be on MoD sites. I hope that this addresses the concerns.
In terms of the environmental questions that were raised, I will write and hopefully give the reassurance that it goes without saying that those considerations will be taken into account in everything that we do.
I hope that I have addressed the points that were raised. I reinforce my thanks to both parties opposite in their support for this, particularly regarding the time pressures that we are under and in ensuring that we have a very successful operation in May from our site in the Hebrides. We must ensure that the legislation that we bring through enables our defences to outpace the malign ambitions of our adversaries.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
That the Grand Committee do consider the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under powers provided by the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022. The PSTI regulatory regime is comprised of Part 1 of the 2022 Act together with the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023, which I will refer to as the 2023 regulations.
This world-leading regulatory regime came into force on 29 April 2024. It better protects consumers, businesses and the wider economy from the harms associated with cyberattacks on consumer connectable products. The law now requires these products that are made available to customers in the UK to meet baseline cybersecurity requirements. This is a world first, and a world-leading regulatory regime, with many other countries now mandating similar requirements based on the world-leading European Telecommunications Standards Institute standard which the UK helped create.
For instance, manufacturers cannot use universal default or easily guessable default passwords, such as “admin123”; this reduces one of the most commonly exploited vulnerabilities in connectable products. Manufacturers must also ensure that they are transparent about the minimum length of time for which they will provide much-needed security updates that patch these vulnerabilities. They must also publish information on how to report security vulnerabilities directly to them and provide status updates about the reported issues. Importers also have important duties they must comply with, as they play an important role in ensuring that more vulnerable products are not imported into the country. The same applies for distributors, as they are often the last line of defence against non-compliant products making their way to consumers.
Subject to the approval of this Committee, this draft instrument will add three new categories of products to the list of excepted products at Schedule 3 to the 2023 regulations, as well as making a correction to those regulations. In their 2020 call for views for this regime, the Government indicated that products would be excepted from the product security regime if it is deemed inappropriate to include them prior to further investigation, they are already covered by robust legislation or they will be covered by future legislation that is particularly relevant to that product category.
DSIT committed to except certain categories of automotive vehicles on 29 April 2023. The Department for Transport has been working at an international level to agree regulations setting cybersecurity requirements for vehicles. This would allow the cybersecurity of these products to be addressed by requirements that are specific to the sector and their functionality. The Department for Transport intends to mandate UN Regulation 155 on cybersecurity and cybersecurity management systems in Great Britain for all new cars, vans, buses, trucks and motorbikes. Its requirements are more appropriate, as it was created in response to the expanding capability and connectivity of vehicle systems.
A consultation is expected to be published with a proposal to lay, via a negative SI, Article 57 GB approval of assimilated EU Regulation 2018/858 in the first half of this year, with the requirements beginning to take effect from February 2026. Additionally, the automotive industry and its supply chain are already beginning to comply with UN Regulation 155, as it has been mandatory for new types of passenger and goods vehicles in the European Union from July 2022. To avoid dual regulation and unintentionally placing undue burden on the automotive industry and trade, the Government are seeking to except specific vehicle categories from the scope of this regime.
First, through the amendment made by Regulation 4, this draft instrument seeks to except consumer-connectable products that fall in scope of Regulation (EU) 2018/858, Regulation (EU) 168/2013 and Regulation (EU) 167/2013 from the scope of the PSTI product security regulatory regime in Great Britain. The consumer connectable products in scope of these regulations include cars, vans, buses, motorcycles, mopeds, quadbikes and tractors. These products are already excepted from the PSTI product security regulatory regime when they are made available for supply in Northern Ireland, as a result of the Windsor Framework.
Secondly, the amendment made by Regulation 3 will correct a minor error in the current language. Adding “period” ensures that the original intent of the paragraph is preserved.
The UK’s product security regulatory regime is world-leading. It cements our position as a world leader in consumer internet-of-things security. This measure will ensure that the regime works as intended and that the security of vehicles can be addressed through appropriate sector-specific regulations, and it will remove unnecessary burdens from the vehicles sector.
I hope the Committee will recognise the importance of excepting these additional products from the scope of the PSTI product security regulatory regime. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his introduction, but I am slightly baffled by this SI. I looked up whether the Commons had had its debate on it and found that it took place on 21 May 2024. Then I looked at the impact assessment, which seems to be dated 2023. I do not quite know why we are dealing with a historic SI almost a year later. What has happened in the intervening period? The Minister did not mention anything to do with that. Is this some oversight by the department? Has something happened? Was somebody ill and could not deal with this in the House of Lords? It is a rather peculiar situation.
The second rather strange aspect of this is that, when the Automated Vehicles Bill was going through, my noble friend the late Baroness Randerson, who was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Smith—it is rather coincidental that this was one of her big issues: automated vehicles and the data relating to them—raised questions about protection of personal privacy and the national security implications of the data being retained by manufacturers of automated vehicles. She also raised the possibility of a cyberattack that could paralyse traffic over a considerable area. Those concerns were also raised by my honourable friend Wera Hobhouse in the Commons at the same time. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, might be interested in this: we were assured at that time by Ministers in the previous Government that GDPR was good enough protection in respect of automated vehicles, despite the concerns expressed by my late noble friend Baroness Randerson. Now it turns out, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, that special provisions are needed.
Again, this is rather baffling. We seem to be hearing either that we have an administrative problem or that there was a misunderstanding about the intended policy. In some respects, I should be pleased that the Explanatory Memorandum sets out more safeguards, because if we are going to exempt these three areas—in particular, automated vehicles—we need to know that those safeguards will be in place through other mechanisms. I will go through what those might be and put questions to the Minister about them.
How will the collection, storage and use of personal data by automated vehicles be regulated to ensure compliance with data protection laws? What specific criteria must be met for a person or body to be authorised as a self-driving entity, particularly concerning data protection? Do they need to obtain a certificate of compliance with data protection legislation from the ICO, for instance? How can the public be reassured that their personal data will be protected? How will the regulations ensure that personal data is protected, not only during vehicle operation but after the ownership of a vehicle has ended? What are these robust personal data practices that need to be in place for companies to be authorised as self-driving entities?
What information about the data for the authorisation of automated vehicles must be provided and to whom? Will the Secretary of State consult the Information Commissioner’s Office before making regulations relating to the provision of personal data in automated vehicles, and will the ICO be including elements to do with personal data and automated vehicles in its annual report to Parliament? How will the Government protect against potential cyberattacks on automated vehicle systems?
Specifically, how do the regulations for consumer connectable products under the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act interact with those that apply to automated vehicles and their components? Does this exempt the whole of the automated vehicle or, rather, particular connectable items in automated vehicles that would in fact be covered by the PSTI Act? How will the regulations prevent anti-competitive practices by vehicle manufacturers who might use data to restrict competition between them and independent operators?
The Explanatory Memorandum talks about the CAVPASS programme, which provides some information that is relevant. Currently, however, it does not deal directly with these specific questions regarding data handling in automated vehicles. We are promised, I think, that something is coming down the track in 2025. There is mention of a staged approach to regulations, which suggests that future measures will be introduced. When can we expect more information of the kind that I have raised? Is it not long overdue, given the speed of development of these vehicles? They are already in pilot form and we need to know that our data is secure. We are still left with questions, despite all that. I doubt whether CAVPASS is necessarily going to cover how data is collected in relation to cybersecurity and how they will be protected in that respect.
There are quite a lot of questions here, and it is rather peculiar that we were not in a position to ask these questions at the same time as the House of Commons last May. I am therefore looking forward to what the Minister has to say in reply.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that something did happen, and that was the general election, which we, unfortunately, lost. That no doubt explains something of the delay.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has asked some pertinent questions. I will keep mine a little more general, because this SI amends the original regulations and broadens the exceptions under Schedule 3. The most notable change concerns the automotive sector, as has been noted, where vehicles were previously exempt from certain cybersecurity provisions.
The new regulations align the UK’s approach with international standards. They recognise the unique nature of vehicle systems and the need for specialised cybersecurity measures. UN Regulation No. 155 on cyber security and cybersecurity management systems, which governs the security of vehicles, is now set to be the primary framework for automotive security. As far as it goes, that would obviously seem eminently sensible, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has highlighted that there are a number of broader, perhaps more philosophical, questions about the direction of travel—that is not a pun—with regard to EVs, self-driving vehicles and vehicle autonomy, which we will have to grapple with at some point in the future. I imagine that this is a subject to which we will return.
My questions are a little more general. The regulations are undoubtedly important for protecting consumers and securing digital infrastructure, but we must consider the broader implications. The automotive sector is rapidly evolving, as has been noted, and the development of automated vehicles holds significant economic and societal potential. However, with innovation comes the risk of regulatory frameworks that struggle to keep pace; that is self-evident. How do we ensure that these cybersecurity measures do not inadvertently stifle technological advancement in areas and sectors such as the automotive sector? How do we end up striking the right balance between securing the technologies and enabling them to flourish?
There is also a question here around consumer awareness; again, this was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. How long would an individual’s data be attached to a particular vehicle, for example, even after it is sold? These regulations require manufacturers to disclose the duration of product security support, but how well are consumers equipped to understand and act on this information? Are we confident that the public are sufficiently informed about the critical nature of cybersecurity? Will the Government commit to taking the necessary steps to help customers and consumers protect their devices and data? It seems to us that this is an area where the education of the public must go beyond the bare minimum. We need to ensure that consumers are not left in the dark about the sorts of security risks that they may face.
We must also consider enforcement. With the proliferation of smart products entering the market at such an unprecedented rate, how will we ensure consistent and effective compliance across such a diverse range of industries, from household appliances to vehicles? As new technologies emerge and evolve, the enforcement mechanisms that are in place today may not be enough. Are we allocating the necessary resources to monitor and enforce these standards effectively? Are the Government allocating additional resources to help those things along? Does the current enforcement mechanism system adequately address the rising complexity and scale of the challenges ahead?
As I said, these are broader, more philosophical questions—I do not expect the Minister to be in a position to answer them and there is no need to write—but these are the sorts of things that we all need to consider as a society. Obviously, that will have political, economic and societal ramifications that we all need to consider, but the Opposition have no objection to these regulations; they make perfect sense for now. I suspect, however, that this is a subject to which we will return.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Sharpe, for their contributions.
I will first address the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones: why the delay? As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned, it was a result of the general election. At the same time, we were waiting for the Department for Transport to progress UN regulation No. 155, until such time as we knew that we must take this exception out of the current regulations. That is the reason for the delay, basically; it was also about finding parliamentary time to table these regulations. That is that on the delay.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but, frankly, this is the same instrument as the one that was debated last May. Nothing has changed apart from the lack of parliamentary time. We could have done this in September, October or whenever. I forget quite when we had the King’s Speech—in July? We could have done this at any time in the past few months.
Lord Leong (Lab)
This is beyond my pay grade, I am afraid. I will need to ask my leader, the Chief Whip, why we could not allocate any parliamentary time for this legislation.
As far as personal data is concerned, the GDPR is still the lead legislation. I respectfully say to the noble Lord that, for the purposes of today’s regulations, the whole issue of such data is outside the scope of this instrument for now. However, I am sure that we will be talking about personal data in the months and, probably, years to come in other forms of legislation, or even about it being regulated itself.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Out of scope? On the basis that we are being asked to exempt automated vehicles, is it not proper that we ask for reassurance about automated vehicles and the implications for safety, data or whatever else? We are exempting them from these connected product regulations, so we need to be reassured that there are other ways of regulating them other than through these regulations. So this is not out of scope; the debate is about whether we should be exempting them.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I take the point, but the instrument is about the two amendments to the regulations. I take the noble Lord’s point about data. Yes, it is important, and we must preserve the data, but this instrument is not within that scope.
Moving on to cybersecurity within autonomous vehicles, cybersecurity is at the heart of the Government’s priorities for the rollout of all self-driving vehicles. The Automated Vehicles Act 2024 enables an obligation to be placed on those responsible for self-driving vehicles to maintain a vehicle’s software and ensure that appropriate cybersecurity measures are in place throughout its service life.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about innovation, the Government are committed to supporting the development and deployment of self-driving vehicles in the UK. Our permissive trialling regime means that self-driving cars, buses and freight vehicles are already on UK roads with safety drivers. The Automated Vehicles Act will pave the way to scale deployments beyond trials. The Act delivers one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks of its kind anywhere in the world for self-driving vehicles, with safety at its core. It sets out clear legal responsibilities, establishes a safety framework and creates the necessary powers to regulate this new industry.
On the point about cybersecurity from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the Government take national security extremely seriously and are actively monitoring threats to the UK. The Department for Transport works closely with the transport sector, the National Cyber Security Centre and other government departments to understand and respond to cybersecurity issues associated with connected vehicles. UN regulation No. 155 more comprehensively addresses cybersecurity risks with automotive vehicles and has adequate provisions to deal with the prospect of self-driving vehicles. The PSTI regime is designed for consumer contactable devices or products and is not fully equipped to address the specific needs and complexities of vehicle cybersecurity. UN regulation No. 155, which was developed through international collaboration, provides a more suitable and rigorous framework for ensuring the security of vehicles.
More everyday products than ever are now connected to the internet. The Government have taken action to ensure that UK consumers and businesses purchasing consumer connectable products are better protected from the risks of cyberattack, fraud, or even, in the most serious cases, physical danger. The PSTI product security regulatory regime builds on the ETSI international standard and is the first of its kind in the world to come into force.
The cybersecurity regulatory landscape will continue to evolve. The Government need to be agile to ensure that there is synergy between existing and new laws. Through this draft instrument, the Government are delivering on the commitment in 2021 to except certain categories of automotive vehicles from the scope of the PSTI products security regulatory regime. This is because the Government, via the Department for Transport, are in the process of introducing sector-specific regulations that have been developed at an international level to address the cybersecurity of these products. These requirements, which are specifically tailored to these vehicles and their functionality, will create a more precise regime for the sector. This draft instrument therefore ensures that the automotive industry, which contributed £13.3 billion to the economy in 2022, will not be placed under undue burdens from dual regulations.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has not mentioned the point raised in the Explanatory Memorandum, which was designed, I think, to give us comfort about cybersecurity and data: the Government’s Connected and Automated Vehicles: Process for Assuring Safety and Security—CAVPASS—which I mentioned. I did not hear him give us an assurance that that will be developed during 2025 to ensure the safety and cybersecurity of self-driving vehicles. As well as reiterating that the GDPR is an absolutely splendid way of regulating these automated vehicles, I hope that he will reiterate that this will be produced, because I have had a look at what CAVPASS currently says in the area of data, and it is not very much. After all, these connected regulations from which we are exempting automated vehicles are about safety, data and everything else.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. Rather than waiting for my officials to give me a briefing note, I will ensure that I write to him on all the points that he has just mentioned.
Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate these amendments, which represent the most substantial reform of UK clinical trials regulation in over two decades.
Clinical trials are vital for developing safe and effective medicines, especially for those with limited treatment options, such as the estimated 3 million people living with cancer in the UK and the 17.5 million people managing long-term conditions. Last week, I saw for myself how innovative UK researchers are transforming cancer diagnosis and treatment. I joined the Science Minister, my noble friend Lord Vallance, at the Royal Marsden to learn about a research initiative that is using cutting-edge AI tools to improve breast cancer detection.
To support innovation, our regulations need to be flexible and proportionate. This legislation will do just that by delivering streamlined and efficient regulations, removing barriers to innovation and creating a patient-focused research environment—something that noble Lords called for during Questions on the Statement repeat that we just dealt with in the Chamber. These reforms will support the development of new life-changing treatments for those in need and strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in clinical trials.
I turn briefly to why this change is necessary and timely. The reason is that the current legislation is based on the now-repealed EU clinical trials directive, so it therefore no longer aligns with the rapid advancements in medicine and technology. We have the opportunity to create a world-class regulatory environment for clinical trials, if we can deliver a modernised framework that supports the safe development of innovative treatments.
I will outline, for the benefit of the Committee, the key aspects of the reforms. First, on risk-proportionate regulation, regulatory requirements will align with the risk level of a clinical trial. Low-risk trials will receive faster approval through automatic authorisation, without compromising patient safety. The second aspect is that of future-proofing. We have removed duplicative and granular legal requirements in favour of tailored guidance, ensuring flexibility for future innovations and moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach. On international alignment, the UK will remain aligned to global standards, ensuring that trial data is recognised internationally and strengthening its position as a preferred site for multinational clinical trials. Then there is the important point of cementing the UK as a destination for international clinical trials. Streamlined processes will simplify applications and deliver globally competitive approval timelines. The final change that these regulations deliver is increased transparency. We want to ensure that trusted information about clinical trials is publicly available for the benefit of all.
New legal requirements will thus be introduced to register a clinical trial, and publish a summary of results, including an easy-to-read summary for participants. These changes will build public trust in research by improving access to information about ongoing research and enabling informed decisions.
Of course, these reforms will also bring benefits to the National Health Service. Evidence shows that hospitals that undertake research have better patient care outcomes and improved staff retention. Improved efficiency in conducting clinical trials will therefore enhance research efforts and foster innovation in prevention, diagnosis and treatment across various conditions. Those conducting clinical trials will also benefit from a streamlined and risk-proportionate regulatory framework, reducing delays and admin burdens. These reforms, I am glad to say, will stimulate growth in the UK’s life sciences sector and position the UK as a global hub for clinical trials.
I beg the Committee’s indulgence as I correct an administrative error made in the Explanatory Memorandum. It incorrectly stated that an impact assessment was produced. However, since the projected costs and benefits to business were below £5 million annually, a de minimis assessment was conducted and published instead.
Before I conclude, I re-emphasise that participant safety remains absolutely paramount. While this legislation streamlines processes and removes barriers to innovation, what it does is to prioritise robust oversight of all clinical trials, ensuring that the safety of trial participants is never compromised. By modernising our approach, I believe we can strengthen the UK’s position as that global leader, as well as fostering innovation and having the highest safety standards. These reformed regulations accelerate the delivery of tomorrow’s emerging medicines into today’s reality for patients. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for her clear introduction to this statutory instrument, which I broadly welcome. There are some important factors here. I particularly welcome the requirement to register clinical trials and publish a summary of the results within 12 months. It has been widely and long acknowledged, in the research community broadly, that there is an issue where less successful or failed trials, or those that are not seen to have interesting results, are not published. They can be as important, or more important, than the successful ones. The failure to publish them is driven by academic, publishing and promotion imperatives—and, I am afraid, by the profit motive in healthcare, where companies have very much sought to find the successful stories and bury the less successful ones. That is really positive and, if I would say one thing, it would be to encourage the Government to speak more about that, because it is important that people understand it. Given the issues that we have with trust across the board at the moment, I encourage them to highlight that we are actually strengthening and improving regulation.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the Minister; I hear her sniffles. She has been a champion of her brief in having to deal with two statutory instruments, as well as a Statement in the House. I thank her for being here.
As the Minister said, the reforms proposed in this statutory instrument aim to create a more streamlined and flexible regulatory environment for clinical trials in the United Kingdom, while balancing safeguarding the interests of trial participants. The amendments seek to uphold the paramount importance of participant safety, ensuring that their rights and well-being remain central to the regulatory framework. By refining the evaluation and development process for new or improved medicines, these changes aim to expedite the delivery of therapeutic benefits to patients and society at large, and we on these Benches recognise that.
The instrument will formalise the combined review process, which has been piloted since 2018 and become the exclusive route for clinical trial applications. This process offers a single application pathway and co-ordinated regulatory and ethics committee review, ending in a unified UK decision for clinical trials. That would be helpful for practitioners and those seeking to innovate, but there are still points that require clarification, and while the objectives of these amendments are commendable, I seek clarification from the Minister on several aspects.
What measures are in place to ensure that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the ethics committees will be adequately resourced to manage the anticipated increase in workload resulting from the streamlined process? If no impact assessment has been made, what working assumptions are the department and NHS England working to regarding the workload that this new process will bring?
Can the Minister provide detailed guidance on how the risk-based approach will be operationalised to ensure consistency across different types of trials? I note that she talked about international alignment, but how do the Government plan to align these regulatory changes with international standards to facilitate seamless multinational trials? What frameworks will be established to monitor the impact of these regulatory changes on trial efficacy and patient safety, which is really important? How will these findings be reported locally within the NHS? Will they be reported to Parliament at any point?
Finally, can the Minister explain and elaborate on the consultation process undertaken with key stakeholders regarding these changes, including patient groups, industry representatives and academic researchers, in the development of these amendments? Were there any differences that emerged from the stakeholders and how have the Government dealt with them?
In conclusion, while we on these Benches support the intention behind these regulations, it is imperative to ensure that the implementation is robust and effective. I look forward to the Minister’s responses on the matters I have raised—less croaky responses, I hope.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the laying of this statutory instrument. Like the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I commend her on her valour and robustness, as well as the speed at which she managed to transport herself from the Chamber to here after the Statement repeat, having prepared for that and having been briefed by her officials.
Like many other noble Lords, we welcome these regulations, which are grounded in the review by my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy and the subsequent consultation with stakeholders, including the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and Health Research Authority, aimed at modernising the regulatory framework that governs clinical trials in the UK. We know that the landscape for clinical research in the UK faced significant disruption during the Covid-19 pandemic, but we also know that we learned quite a lot from trying to get vaccines out very quickly in terms of ways to speed up trials and to make sure that we get the right balance between efficiency and processes, as well as making sure that people are safe. We need to make sure that we can boost the volume of clinical trials and boost patient recruitment.
The O’Shaughnessy review identified the need for a more flexible and risk-proportionate approach to clinical trials. One very important point is that, while we cannot eliminate risk altogether, we can manage it. Where there is low risk, we should maybe not be placing so much emphasis on processes as compared with when there is high risk, but I also know that there may always be unintended consequences.
Stakeholders such as the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry were vocal in their support for these reforms and had in fact been calling for them. The ABPI 2024 report, The Road to Recovery for UK Industry Clinical Trials, highlighted that the number of pharmaceutical industry trials initiated in the UK increased—it was just over 400—between 2022 and 2023, although that still remained 36% below the 2017 level. We therefore understand the need to bring forward these regulations to make sure that we improve the regulatory environment to further increase clinical trial activity.
I turn to the detail of the regulations. One major change that noble Lords have already alluded to is the consolidation of the regulatory and ethics review process, enabling researchers to submit a single application for both regulatory approval and ethics review. While this change is aimed at improving efficiency—which we completely accept and welcome—there is a concern that any changes from consolidating these processes may put additional pressure on the regulators and ethics committees. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to that. If the single application process becomes overloaded, we risk delays in review times rather than the acceleration that was intended by these measures in the first place. It is essential that we have the resources and infrastructure in place to handle the increased workload effectively. Can the Minister therefore say how the Government will make sure to avoid that sort of overload? We completely understand why they want to consolidate the processes, but will it add extra pressure and will the resource be there to make sure that they are not overloaded and we do not just end up going back to square one, or even make things worse?
In addition, for low-risk trials, automatic regulatory authorisation will be granted, which will further streamline the approval process and free up resources for the more complex, higher-risk trials. Once again, while this makes sense, we have to be aware of possible unintended consequences or concerns that will be raised. The automatic approval of low-risk trials could, for example, raise concerns over oversight and monitoring. The intention to expedite the approval process for those with lower-risk profiles is laudable, but will there be clear criteria in place to ensure that the appropriate level of scrutiny is maintained, particularly in ensuring patient safety? As I said, while we support the intention, particularly for low-risk trials, we must always be aware of unintended consequences or unforeseen complications. Nevertheless, we completely understand why this is being done, and it is something to be welcomed.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their time and their constructive contributions. I feel that we are all moving in the same direction, and I appreciate the welcome for these regulations. I also appreciate the understanding that I am not firing on all cylinders, but be warned: I will be at some point.
Noble Lords have heard the details of the amendments, which, as I said in my opening speech, represent the most significant reform of UK clinical trials regulation in more than 20 years. As I said in my opening comments, I am conscious of the fact that I have just come from the Chamber, where we heard questions about this very area. So these regulations do seem very timely. If I miss anything in response, I will of course be very pleased to write to noble Lords.
In delivering a more efficient and adaptable regulatory framework, and in accelerating life-saving treatment through streamlined and future-proof processes, the reforms will put patients at the heart of clinical trial processes, as we well as strengthening the UK’s position.
I turn to some of the key points that noble Lords have raised. On the matter of safety clinical trials of course carry varying levels of risk. No clinical trial is entirely without risk, but the MHRA maintains a rigorous regulatory oversight to safeguard patient safety in all clinical trials, and this legislation does not change that. There will be no compromise on the protection of participants. However, we are removing requirements from the current legislation that simply offer duplication or no additional value when it comes to identifying safety risks. As I and other noble Lords have acknowledged, this is about removing obstacles but ensuring that safety is paramount to ensure that regulators, researchers and participants are all aware of potential risks and can take action to deal with them as appropriate.
I very much welcome the removal of unnecessary administrative burdens; I am sure that all noble Lords do. By increasing the opportunities in the UK to access innovative medicines at an earlier stage, we will expand patient access to new therapies and reinforce the reputation of the NHS as a world-leading platform for health and life sciences.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett rightly highlighted the matters of transparency and public trust. I am very glad to see the new transparency requirements because, for the first time, there will be a legal requirement for sponsors to register a clinical trial, publish a summary of results and offer to provide participants with an easy-to-understand summary of what the research has found. Clear guidance is being produced to ensure that the summary for participants is accurate, tailored and appropriate for the audience, which includes translation into different languages and an awareness of suitable formats, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
A recent study commissioned by the HRA highlighted the importance of transparency, with 69% of respondents stating that they would have greater confidence in research if participants were informed of the outcomes. These measures will therefore foster greater trust and engagement with clinical research, and I certainly welcome that.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about the protection of pharmaceutical companies’ legitimate interests in protecting commercially sensitive information, and asked what safeguards are in place. I can assure him that we absolutely respect and understand the need for commercial confidentiality. The new regulations will permit research sponsors to request deferrals for registration and the publication of results, including offering to share these with participants where this is necessary to protect commercially confidential information. Deferrals could be granted for up to 30 months, with the possibility of further deferrals, where justified, up to a maximum of 10 years. I hope that these provisions will safeguard the very legitimate interests of companies, while also maintaining the overall goal of transparency, to which we are all committed.
We recognise the scale and the vibrancy of the UK’s life sciences industry, particularly those conducting clinical trials. Throughout the development of the reforms, we have engaged with the clinical trial community and received widespread support across key stakeholders, including businesses, academics and charities. The public consultation generated over 2,000 responses and demonstrated a strong appetite from the research community for updating and improving clinical trial regulations. We will continue working closely with the research community to produce guidance that supports the smooth implementation of these new regulations.
Noble Lords were very helpful in raising a number of considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about the criteria for automatic authorisation and for information about low-risk trials. The criteria have been designed to ensure that sufficient scientific evidence already exists regarding the safety of the product and the methodology that has been used in the clinical trial—essentially, that we can be assured that the medicine is safe. The evidence must have been reviewed previously and approved by the MHRA or, where applicable, by regulatory authorities in the EU, the EEA or the USA. Additionally, the legislation defines the criteria for a clinical trial to be eligible for automatic authorisation. I hope that this is helpful to the noble Lord, as his point is very valid.
On the matter of implementation, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, particularly regarding guidance on risk proportionality, guidance will be published in advance of the regulations coming into force. This will ensure that researchers and those undertaking clinical trials understand the changes and have time to prepare. We are working with stakeholders across the sector and taking views into account to ensure that the guidance is as clear and helpful as possible. The guidance will be promoted by a wide range of channels to ensure that it reaches stakeholders across the research and clinical trial participant community. This is vital as we bring in this legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also raised a point relating to the performance of the MHRA. Since September 2023, all regulatory assessments for clinical trial initial applications and substantial amendments to protocols have been completed within the current statutory timescales of 30 days and 35 days, respectively. The latest performance information about the MHRA regarding clinical trials assessment shows strong consistency and, I am glad to say, no backlogs. The updated legislation will introduce key measures to make it easier and faster for applicants to gain approval. Noble Lords have acknowledged the need to ensure that the UK remains a prime destination for clinical trials.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised questions about automatic authorisation. I understand why noble Lords are raising these matters. This is new territory and noble Lords need to be reassured. There are clear criteria embedded in the legislation to ensure that only appropriate clinical trials can use this automatic authorisation route. The criteria are based upon the MHRA stakeholders who were consulted on their extensive experience of clinical trials and the participant safety risks associated with them. I can give the reassurance that, where there is a significant safety concern with the product, clinical trials will not be eligible for automatic authorisation and must undergo full regulatory assessment.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, mentioned stakeholder engagement. Following the public consultation, a number of policies were adapted to ensure that the regulations did not have any unintended consequences, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said. Let me give one example. The feedback indicated that patient and public involvement would be best addressed in guidance rather than in legal requirements, in order to give that flexibility and to enable it to be kept up to date.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the environmental impact at the stage of clinical trials. I will be pleased to write to her on that point.
As I believe this debate has shown, we are in agreement that, by improving the clinical trial regulatory framework, these changes will expand patient access to cutting-edge therapies, boost the UK’s life sciences sector and reinforce the reputation of the NHS as a leader in health research. On this basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support these vital regulatory changes.
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this SI amends the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, which are due to expire after 31 March this year. It removes that expiry date and amends the five-year period from which the regulations are required to be reviewed. Prior to laying this SI, the principal regulations required review every five years from 1 April 2015. The first post-implementation review was delayed until 2022 due to the pandemic. We therefore wish to conduct the next review in 2028.
This SI does not change any existing policy. The 2014 regulations set out the activities that are regulated by the CQC and the fundamental standards with which all health and social care providers registered with it need to comply. This is coming before your Lordships’ Committee because, if we do not amend the 2014 regulations, they will automatically expire and the CQC will have no powers to fulfil the requirements in the 2008 Act. Neither will there be an obligation on providers, which are currently required to register with the CQC, to comply with the fundamental standards set out in the 2014 regulations.
I am aware that there may have been an expectation to see further changes following the report by Dr Penny Dash into the CQC’s operational requirements, which uncovered significant failings in the CQC’s internal workings. However, dealing with those operational failings does not require changes to legislation; as we have debated in the Chamber on previous occasions, measures have been put in place by the CQC’s new chief executive, Sir Julian Hartley, to urgently address the failures, including the introduction of new governance at the board level.
Noble Lords may also have observed that this SI is silent on provisions relating to the use of restraint and the regulation of medical care at temporary cultural and sporting events, on which we also consulted last year. I can give an assurance that these sensitive areas have not been overlooked and that we are continuing to progress work on finalising these policies.
The consultation responses on the proposal to make restrictive practices notifiable to the CQC within 72 hours showed support for the measures but highlighted a number of practical concerns, primarily that the proposed timeline could place an additional burden on staff, with the potential risk of impacting patient care. As the Government said in their response to the consultation, further work is needed to ensure that we have the right definitions, systems and processes in place before proceeding with legislative changes.
I can tell the Committee that the Government will lay a statutory instrument to remove the exemption relating to regulation of medical care at temporary and cultural sporting events. With this change, providers of such care will be required to register with the CQC for the first time. I hope that will be helpful in setting out what this SI is, and is not, about. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, again I thank the Minister for clearly and aptly outlining what the statutory instrument is for. I am not going to go over the reasons for this but, broadly, these Benches support what is happening and understand why the streamlining is required. However, like all streamlining where common sense seems to take the central point, it is worth testing just how common and sensical the requirements are, and whether the Government have thought through some of the consequences—or unintended consequences—of what may happen. Although the intention to maintain regulatory oversight and uphold care standards is obviously commendable, several points warrant further investigation and probing. I hope that the Minister will answer in her normal way; she is usually quite thorough and detailed.
The Explanatory Memorandum notes that a post-implementation review conducted in July 2022 had limited responses, providing insufficient evidence to suggest that the 2014 regulations did not meet their original objectives. Could the Minister elaborate on the steps taken to engage stakeholders during this review? What measures will be implemented to ensure that, when statutory instruments are extended in future, more comprehensive stakeholder participation will be sought? The amendment mandates having a review every five years. Given the dynamic nature of health and social care, how will the Government ensure that the regulations are monitored and remain responsive to emerging challenges and innovations within the review period?
Removing the expiry date also extends the regulations indefinitely. Have the Government assessed the potential long-term impacts of this permanency on service providers and the CQC’s regulatory capacity? I think the noble Baroness knows why this question is being asked. Although I heard what she said about the operational issues that the CQC is undergoing at the moment, the regulatory changes that we are discussing may have some operational impact on the CQC.
In particular at the moment, when the CQC’s backlog is significant and its chief executive has said that it has no idea how it will deal with it—indeed, there are certain things stuck in the computer system that they do not know how to get out—how will the Government ensure in the interim that any application made to the CQC regarding this instrument is dealt with in a timely and safe manner?
Finally, on the policy areas that the Minister said were outwith these regulations due to further consultation and the sensitivity required, when will the statutory instrument be laid before Parliament? What is the timescale? Are any interim measures being put in place to ensure that any safety issues or regulatory issues with these sporting events are dealt with before the statutory instrument is laid before Parliament?
With those questions, we are, as I say, very supportive of this instrument in a broad sense, but the Minister’s normal detailed response would be welcome.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I once again thank the Minister for the statutory instrument before us. We understand the reason for it: making sure, in particular, that this continues to be in effect after March this year, and setting the next review for 2028. Maybe that is where some of the questions arise—the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, alluded to some of these concerns.
We have just finished debating an SI on adapting for innovation—particularly in relation to speeding up clinical trials, which is to be welcomed. It showed that we need to be flexible with the emergence of new technology, knowledge and capabilities in health and social care. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, we wonder about a five-year review cycle, which may not allow for sufficient flexibility, given some of the fast-paced developments in healthcare. We have seen massive strides in digital health and mental health services. In our debate earlier in the Chamber, we asked about the use of AI in analysing data that the NHS already has. Will five years be too long to wait? Could it slow down the adoption or reviews, if you like, of some of these new technologies? Could the delay in reviewing regulations lead to some important issues being unaddressed for far too long? There may be new awareness of some emerging patient safety risks, for example. I just wonder: how do we get the right balance? I understand why the Government have extended this for five years, but we want to make sure that, within those five years, the Government, the NHS, the regulations and the CQC are flexible enough to take account of innovations.
The absence of interim mechanisms for addressing pressing issues during this review period could also foster a sense of regulatory stagnation. There may well be a case where providers and stakeholders feel that concerns are not being acted on quickly enough, especially as challenges arise before that next review. Although we understand the need for a stable framework, we want to understand how to get the balance between stability and responsiveness right. Could that delay necessary regulatory adjustments?
The other point here is extending the scope of the regulations to all patients being assessed or treated for a mental health disorder in a mental health unit. Obviously, this coincides with the debate that noble Lords are having on the Mental Health Bill. In this case, it extends beyond only those with learning disabilities and autism. This expansion is generally welcomed, but, once again, it raises questions—which were raised on the last SI—about resources and capacity. I know that the Minister has heard this a number of times, particularly during the passage of the Mental Health Bill. Will there be sufficient support for providers so that they can meet these expanded requirements? How will the Government monitor and address any challenges that may arise from this broader scope?
Fortunately, the Minister pre-empted one of the questions that I was going to ask about the regulations’ provisions on temporary healthcare settings, particularly at large sporting and cultural events. We understand the need to remove those regulations, but what thought has been given to the unintended consequences of doing so? I am generally supportive of removing regulations, but I understand why we need them: to make sure that enough account is taken of safety but also that someone is held responsible and there is some accountability when things go wrong.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and questions. The summary of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, of what we are looking for is exactly right. It is all about balance: we need efficiency and speed, but it has to be right. I certainly share that view. As I set out in my opening remarks, the dual purpose of this SI is to remove the expiry date of the 2014 regs and to amend the five-year period from which they should be reviewed. As I mentioned, this is to ensure that health and care providers will continue to be required to register with the CQC and comply with the fundamental standards set out in the 2014 regulations after 31 March this year, and also, as we all agree, to ensure that services will continue to be required to provide a safe and high-quality standard of care.
I turn to the points raised by noble Lords. If I find, on review, that I have not adequately answered or have inadvertently missed any questions, I will of course write with the requisite information.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to the post-implementation review of the 2014 regs. That review ran from May to July 2022, and there were 86 responses. Interestingly, there was insufficient evidence in the responses to suggest whether the objectives of the 2014 regulations remain appropriate and whether there is an alternative system of regulation that would impose less regulation on the health and social care sector. I think we can safely say that it was not conclusive in pointing us in a particular direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also asked when the statutory instrument to remove the exemption relating to the regulation of medical care at temporary cultural and sporting events will be laid. I can say to him that it will be in the summer.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also raised the question of the performance of the CQC, which I completely understand. He asked what is happening, how we are dealing with the backlog of registrations and what is our assessment of its long-term impact on regulatory capacity. I understand that. I re-emphasise that the chief executive of the CQC has commissioned an independent review to look specifically at the CQC’s technology. That will help reduce the backlog, which can be tracked back to 2023, when there were a number of difficulties that now need to be resolved. I absolutely agree that the backlog in registrations is a problem particularly for small providers trying to set up a new care home or service. That problem can mean lost revenues and investment, and that has a knock-on impact on capacity, which we very much need to expand.
Lord Scriven (LD)
It is really helpful that the Minister says that, but a review in itself does not solve the problem. Have the Government given the CQC a timescale, not just regarding a review but for when they expect the operational difficulties to have been addressed? It is important for those who are registering to understand that. What is the timescale, not for the review but for dealing with the consequences of the backlog?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord has raised this with me in the Chamber and in a Parliamentary Question, if I am not mistaken. While I cannot be specific, as I have mentioned before, the fortnightly meetings with CQC—after which a report also goes to the Secretary of State—are an example of focus which, I hope, give some sense of the pace and intensity in putting this right. The CQC not being fit for purpose is an unsustainable situation which is causing great difficulty. When I can update your Lordships’ House about timelines, I will be very pleased to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about interim plans being in place. This is kept under review. We are working with the CQC on its recovery and will review whether further changes are needed. There is nothing to stop us from reviewing regulations in the interim. Five years is the statutory requirement, but it does not mean that we cannot act sooner. It is a point well made about time. Similarly, the noble Lord asked whether the reviews being every five years would slow down the adoption of technology. The intention is that it would absolutely not. The reason for keeping the regulations under review is that that would not be regarded as getting the right balance which we all seek.
Regarding capacity issues to meet the expanding requirement, we are very conscious of the consequences. The Government will work with the CQC, NHSE and its partners on a workable mechanism for notifying restraint within 72 hours, which was the point raised.
With that, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. Perhaps I can assure them that, in some ways, this is for me a work in progress, on many sides. We will continue to do that.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay
Introduction: Lord Katz
Death of a Member: Lord Elis-Thomas
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on Friday 7 February. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
National Lottery: Contribution to Good Causes
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Viscount Chandos
To ask His Majesty’s Government what they expect the National Lottery’s contribution to good causes to be in the first twelve months under the new operator, compared to the last twelve months under the previous operator.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
Good cause returns generated from ticket sales are expected to be £1.6 billion in the year 2024-25. This is consistent with returns last year and in line with performance over the last five years. Allwyn, the new operator, has publicly committed to safely doubling returns to good causes by the end of its licence. Its first year has focused on delivering stable good cause returns while completing its modernisation programme to build strong foundations for the future.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply, but note that this is unchanged year on year, when, as she said, Allwyn committed to doubling or more. It pledged at the time of the licence being awarded to give £38 billion in the next 10 years, which looks fanciful now, to put it mildly. Will my noble friend say what the Government will do to hold Allwyn to its pledge—or was the Gambling Commission taken for a ride?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend is correct that Allwyn is committed to increasing the amount of funding going to good causes over the course of the licence—from £30 million to £60 million a week. The Gambling Commission has direct oversight of Allwyn and its implementation of the technology transformation needed to realise its bid commitments, to ensure that these are delivered safely and effectively. In addition, I have met with Allwyn on a couple of occasions, including last Wednesday, to receive additional assurance around delivery.
Baroness Lampard (Non-Afl)
May I remind the Minister that the National Lottery is a gambling exercise? With that in mind, what contribution is the new lottery operator making, or does it intend to make, towards research, education and treatment of gambling harms? Do the Government consider that the contribution is fair and adequate, given the significant number of problem gamblers who participate in the lottery? During my time as chair of GambleAware, the lottery’s contribution towards research, education and treatment of gambling harms could only be described as derisory.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The fourth licence requires Allwyn to contribute to research, prevention and treatment for gambling-related harm, or we will make a payment of £1.6 million annually, which triples the amount given under the third licence.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, further to that point, the Government will be well aware that almost half of National Lottery income now comes from instant win games, including scratchcards, which, unlike weekly draws, have a notable risk of gambling harm. It is welcome that Allwyn has introduced a limit of 10 scratchcards per shop visit, but does the Minister agree that this is wholly inadequate, since it allows determined gamblers to make repeat visits, even on the same day? Does she agree that Allwyn should be required to do more, and to have independent published verification of compliance?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Allwyn is introducing further measures compared to the previous licence. The noble Lord will be aware that while some players do experience gambling harm, that experienced by National Lottery players is the lowest of all gambling products. Allwyn is also implementing further protections. As was noted, this includes introducing a maximum of 10 scratchcards per transaction, as of last October, and an extensive mystery shopper programme to test retailers’ enforcement of the age-verification measures. We are clear that protecting participants is an overriding statutory duty of the Government and the Gambling Commission. It is embedded within the fourth licence, with a significantly strengthened requirement on the operator to protect people exposed to the National Lottery as well as those directly participating in it, which goes further than under previous licences.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, when I was Minister for Gambling in the Conservative Government, we turned our backs very much against the idea of increasing gambling advertising, particularly on television and at sports facilities during games. I put it to the Minister that matters have got completely out of hand, and that there is far too much of this visual advertising of gambling, which is doing much damage to a lot of people, particularly the younger people in our country.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a good point about the need to protect children from gambling advertising. As he will be aware, operators are prohibited from targeting advertising at children. The Advertising Standards Authority strengthened the rules in 2022 to ban content of strong appeal to children from gambling ads. The wider issue of advertising involves the Gambling Commission introducing new requirements for operators to allow customers to have greater control over any direct marketing they receive. I have personally set the industry a clear task to raise standards further in this area.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as chair of the Fundraising Regulator. Can the Minister comment on media speculation that a legal challenge to the Gambling Commission’s decision is possibly being mounted by one of the unsuccessful bidders for the franchise? The Gambling Commission reportedly said that, if that proceeds, it could lead to a reduction in the moneys available for good causes. Can the Minister explain why the good causes will be affected, rather than this being a matter between the Gambling Commission and the unsuccessful bidder?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
While I understand the legitimate interest of my noble friend and others, it would not be appropriate to comment at this stage on the legal process. The Gambling Commission is confident that it ran a fair and robust competition to award the fourth licence. As my noble friend noted, legal challenges relating to the award of the fourth licence are ongoing. DCMS is not a party to those, so it would not be appropriate to comment at this time.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it was reported on Friday that the Gambling Commission had accidentally handed over more than 4,000 sensitive documents to the lawyers acting against it in the case that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, mentioned. I know that the Minister cannot mention the ongoing case, but what conclusions have she, as Gambling Minister, and her department drawn about what that says about the Gambling Commission’s competence to perform its oversight functions, and about the appropriate oversight of our regulators by her department?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I have confidence in the Gambling Commission. I will not go into details about media reports. It is clear that legal challenges are ongoing, and while I understand the legitimate interest from Members, it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this point.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, in a previous life, I sold National Lottery tickets for years and years, and I always got the impression that it was a tax on the poor. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I cannot agree with my noble friend’s suggestion that the National Lottery is a tax on the poor. It is an incredible national institution, founded by Sir John Major’s Government, and which had great ambitions to become part of the lifeblood of DCMS sectors. If we had not had the National Lottery, by default, it could not have contributed money to such incredible iconic national treasures as the Angel of the North—a particular favourite of mine—Shakespeare’s Globe, the Wales Millennium Centre, the Glasgow Science Centre, the Ulster Museum and many more local projects.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, on that point, does the Minister feel that more could be done to publicise the good causes to which people contribute when they buy a lottery ticket, particularly at the point of sale?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Earl makes a very good point, and I hope that this will start happening as Allwyn progresses its stewardship of the lottery during the course of the fourth licence. Having reached its 30th birthday year, the National Lottery has raised over £50 billion for good causes, with over £94 billion in prizes to players and over £21 billion in lottery duty to the Exchequer.
Government of Syria: Freedom of Expression, Religion and Belief
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carey of Clifton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the new government of Syria’s commitment to freedom of expression, religion and belief.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the interim Syrian President has stated that he will form a transitional Government who are representative of Syria’s diversity and has pledged to protect religious groups. We are monitoring how the interim authorities treat all civilians in areas they control. We will judge them by their actions. We will continue to advocate for the right of freedom of religion or belief in Syria and for a political transition leading to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government.
Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that careful and helpful reply. While accepting that the new rulers in Damascus have taken steps to reassure some minorities of the desire to create an open society, how do our Government intend to monitor the actual situation? How do they intend to verify whether assurances are followed up, bearing in mind the intense disquiet felt in some groups, such as the Christian churches, about increasing Islamisation, particularly as it bears on women, and the creation of an environment unwelcoming to minorities?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I said last week that we have a special envoy who has visited Syria. We are in close contact with the interim authorities. We are working closely with our allies in the region and we are carefully monitoring the situation. As I said, we are judging them by their actions, not simply on their words. We are concerned by reports of attacks on minorities, including Christians, and attempts to stoke sectarian tensions. We are monitoring the situation extremely closely.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that it is early days and that the point is currently in both directions? Would he agree that one potentially positive sign is that Turkey, our good ally, has close relations with the new regime? Should we not therefore be ready to encourage Turkey to play a positive role in influencing the new regime in these areas?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend makes a good point. We are concerned by increased tensions in northern Syria and the impact that this may have on civilians and stability in the region. Turkey has been playing a critical role there and we have been in regular contact with it, as well as with Syrian democratic forces. Our priority across the board is de-escalation.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, security and prosperity are vital in Syria. What action is being taken with others to try to halt the spread of revenge attacks? The EU has lifted some economic sanctions. We have always said—and the Minister has always said—that sanctions are more effective if we act together. Why have we not done likewise?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
On the latter point, we are reviewing both actions and the Prime Minister has made that clear in the other place. As the noble Baroness knows, we do not comment on future designations or de-designations. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear on that. I think she is right that there are forces within Syria that may stoke sectarian violence and instability. As my noble friend raised, we are trying to work with allies, across the board, to ensure that there is de-escalation, and to take the interim authority at its word and make sure that we monitor it on a regular basis. The noble Baroness is right to point this out.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, as a former ambassador to Syria, I speak in support of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton. I spent three years as ambassador in Damascus, in the dying days of President Assad, and I saw that regime first hand. His son’s regime was no better. In answer to an Oral Question last Thursday, the Minister described the present time as a
“critical but fragile moment for Syria”.—[Official Report, 6/2/25; col. 803.]
Indeed so; Syria could fold up and the regime would be widely affected. Does the Minister accept that there is a real risk of a backlash against western involvement in Syria, and, accordingly, that we need to be firm but careful about what we say in public and how we say it?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I have been diplomatic in response to the Questions we have had last week and this week. We should not take immediate decisions but rather focus on the interim authorities and their words, which we should ensure they keep to. We are monitoring that situation closely. As I said, we have an envoy for Syria, who is doing excellent work—I think she is engaged with parliamentarians here. The noble Lord is right to suggest caution, but we have some reason to be optimistic for the future for Syria. We must not forget what Syria went through under the Assad regime, during which horrendous crimes were committed.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend about the consequences of the withdrawal of 2,000 US troops from Syria, who were working with Syrian Kurdish forces, in particular to contain some 9,000 ISIS—Islamic State—fighters in prison camps. There is a danger of those fighters breaking out and not just damaging religious tolerance but imposing their reign of terror on the whole region.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
To reiterate what I said last week, the first duty of every Government is to protect its citizens, and we are certainly cognisant of that in relation to those camps. The United Kingdom notes the decision of the US to pause foreign aid funding for three months pending a review; that is a matter for the United States. As I say, we are working with our allies to ensure that there is stability in Syria and that Daesh’s territorial defeat endures and that it can never, ever resurge. We are working closely with US colleagues and humanitarian partners to understand and assess the impact of the pause, but we are fairly confident that there will be continued support for the IDP camps in the north.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, on Wednesday, will the Minister carefully follow the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights as it continues its inquiry into the failure to bring to justice members of ISIS who were responsible for genocidal crimes against Yazidis, Christians, gay people, and other minorities in Syria and Iraq? In Raqqa alone, the headquarters of ISIS, the number of Christians was reduced from 11,000 to 100, and throughout Syria 80% of that community has disappeared. Given what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has just said about the thousands of people who are still in the camps, can the Minister say what is being done to bring to justice British nationals in those camps who are members of ISIS and responsible for many of these crimes?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I follow the work of the committee and I congratulate the noble Lord on his chairmanship. One thing he knows we have been absolutely committed to is accountability, not just for ISIS but for the crimes committed by the former Assad regime. We have given practical support to NGOs and INGOs, to ensure that we can gather credible evidence and hold these people to account for the crimes that they committed. This year alone, we have committed £1.15 million to accountability and documentation-related programmes. We will continue to work with our international partners and civil society to advocate for the UN charter and support mechanisms to ensure full compliance with it.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the stability and future of Syria are in the interests of not just the Middle East but the entire region? Does he accept that we must avoid repeating mistakes made in earlier experiences in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and learn the lessons? The most important lesson is that any process on the road to stability and a plural democracy should be led by Syrians and supported by the international community, and not the other way round, and especially not by those who supported the murderous Assad regime over the years.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let me focus on the thrust of the noble Baroness’s question. She is absolutely right that this should be Syrian-led, Syrian democracy; that is what we are focused on. We are engaging with the interim authorities and international partners to do precisely that: to support the political process and civil society. I have often said that the most important ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society, and that is particularly true of Syria. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, raised last week the involvement of women in this process. We have been absolutely committed to that and we will continue to be so.
Artificial Intelligence: Regulation
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the publication of the AI Opportunities Action Plan on 13 January, what plans they have to introduce legislation in 2025 for regulating artificial intelligence in areas including intellectual property, automated decision-making, and data labelling.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my technology interest as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
As set out in the manifesto, the Government are developing legislative proposals which will allow us to safely realise the benefits of the most powerful AI systems. The Government are also consulting on AI and copyright. Next steps, including on potential legislation, will be decided once all evidence is considered. The Data (Use and Access) Bill will enable the responsible deployment of solely automated decision-making, with stringent safeguards in place for individuals.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, with the world talking AI in Paris this week and with parts of the EU AI Act already brought into force earlier this month, is it not over time for the Government to bring forward AI legislation in the UK: for the jobseeker who constantly finds herself not making the shortlist, not even knowing that AI is in the mix, or for the creative constantly finding her work stolen by AI with no consent, no remuneration and no respect? Does the Minister agree that sector-wide AI legislation, ushering in right-sized regulation, is good for investment, good for innovation, good for creatives, good for citizens and good for all our AI futures?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Lord points out, getting regulation right here is good for investment and good for business. We are taking the approach of regulation by the existing regulators for the use of AI. We intend to bring forward legislation which allows us to safely realise the enormous benefits of AI in the frontier space. Of course, in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, some of the issues the noble Lord raised are already addressed.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, last week, the Startup Coalition of AI companies told a House of Commons Joint Committee that the Government should support a full commercial text and data mining model for AI training which would get rid of all copyright licensing for commercial AI training in the UK. Does the Minister support this suggestion?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As I think I have made clear on several occasions at this Dispatch Box, we do not support that position. We believe that there needs to be control for creators; we need much better transparency in the system, and there needs to be access to use those images for AI. Those three things go hand in hand.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the creative industries are the second-most important industry in the UK. Will the Minister guarantee that under the legislation creators’ work will be protected and they will be properly rewarded for the work that they do?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We absolutely agree that creators need to be appropriately recognised and rewarded. That is why the system being developed will give greater transparency on what is being used for what purposes and will allow access while also protecting the rights of creators. It is important to have a technological solution to allow this and to prevent access where creators did not want it to occur.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, ideally, as your Lordships agreed recently, proposals for an opt-out from a mechanism for text and data mining exceptions should be dropped, but if the Government continue, the Minister has made it clear that it will be adopted only if a workable solution can be found and that the views of the creative industries will be taken into account. Can he go further and agree to rule out any mechanism unless it has the full support of rights holders, and if not, why not?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord may find that not all rights holders have the same views, so I do not think it is possible to give the assurance he asked for, but I am very clear that we need a workable solution, and that means for creators as well as for access.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, according to the Government’s own recent survey, 43% of the public trust that the impact of AI will be positive, but 33% believe it will be negative. Given this very narrow gap and the critical importance of building trust in embracing new technologies, what specific steps are the Government planning to take to improve that public trust as they embed AI in the nation’s most trusted institutions, not least in the NHS?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that important question. Trust is key to all this, and it is why we are committed to maintaining high standards of data protection in whichever context the AI system is deployed. The right reverend Prelate is quite right to raise the question of the NHS, where already AI is being used to read scans, to improve performance in terms of missed appointments and to advance pathology services, many of which are narrow AI uses which are extremely important.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, in opposition and in government, the party opposite has promised an AI Bill, but it continues to say very little about what it will do. This uncertainty is creating real challenges for AI labs and their customers, as well as for copyright holders and civil society groups. In short, everyone needs to feel more confident about the scope, the timing and the intentions of the Bill. What can the Minister say here and now to reassure us that there is actually a plan?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Viscount says, this is an urgent matter. A summit is going on in Paris at the moment discussing many of these issues. We remain committed to bringing forward legislation. We are continuing to refine the proposals and look forward to engaging extensively in due course to ensure that our approach is future-proofed and effective against what is a fast-evolving technology.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, if the UK were to consider AI regulation, which specific areas that are not covered currently by a whole bunch of other regulations does the Minister think would be worth regulating?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
That is precisely the point that I was trying to get to in the last few questions. There is regulation by the existing regulators, all of whom will need to deal with AI, and there is regulation which is covered in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, leaving frontier model control as the unregulated area. That is the area in which we seek to bring in some form of legislation in due course. We want to consult on it; it is a very complicated, fast-moving area, and an important one, and it is why the AI Safety Institute is such an important body in the UK.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that AI has the potential to be a liberating force for workers in terms of repetitive work and so on if workers have strong rights and the gains are shared fairly? Is he aware of the TUC manifesto on AI, and does he agree that workers should have the right to a human review when it comes to recruitment and indeed sackings?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend that the aim of AI should be to increase the opportunity for those things that humans can do, and that includes, of course, human-to-human interaction. It is a very important point to consider as this is rolled out, including across the NHS. On automated decision-making, we have been clear that there needs to be human involvement in terms of somebody who knows what they are doing having the opportunity to review a decision and to alter it if necessary.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the Government will have heard clearly enough by now—consultation or no consultation—that the creative industries want, and indeed require, an opt-in on the use of their own data. Will the Government simply listen and do this?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We are clearly in the middle of a consultation. It is due to read out on 25 February. We are accumulating evidence both on how this would work and on the technologies necessary to make it work. It would be inappropriate to jump to a conclusion before we hear all that.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my interests as declared in the register and as vice-chair of the APPG on AI. I have a simple question about the AI Opportunities Action Plan. I have been speaking to many AI SMEs in the UK—UK businesses that are booming and growing—and they feel that the conversation about regulation and safety drowns out their success stories. What activities are the Government pursuing to hear from those SMEs and how can the Government help them? Those businesses are so successful that they are being drawn into other markets, such as the US, via investment and taken away from the growth opportunities in the UK.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Ranger. We have a thriving start-up scene in AI. We need to encourage that; they need to grow. The AI action plan is about exactly that. The 50 recommendations in it are very much geared towards opportunities. We should grasp those opportunities and make sure that those small companies grow into big, sustainable companies in the UK.
Belarus: Elections
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the outcome of the elections held in Belarus on 26 January, and what advice, if any, they have given to the Belarusian democratic movement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the sham presidential election in Belarus on 26 January represented only a self-reappointment of Lukashenko and his regime, which continues to undermine fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms. While it is not for us to advise the Belarusian democratic forces, the UK supports their tireless efforts to realise the democratic rights of the people of Belarus. We will continue to support the aspirations of the Belarusian people for a free, democratic and independent Belarus.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me on two points: first, that the sham re-election of Lukashenko has strengthened the alignment of Belarus with Russia, giving President Putin greater use of Belarus as a tool against western security; and, secondly, that this really is the time to give greater support to the independent media and civil society in Belarus, because they provide the basis for democratic infrastructure, which at the moment Lukashenko is tearing apart every day?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is completely right in what she says and I thank her for securing this question and allowing us to discuss the matter this afternoon. I agree with everything she said. We are working hard to make sure, as far as we can, that the people of Belarus have the opportunity to elect a government who represent their wishes.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I welcome the speed with which the Government imposed sanctions on those who were involved in the sham election. Is the Minister aware of the excellent scheme organised by Libereco, whereby parliamentarians become “godparents” to political prisoners in Belarus and keep in touch with them on a regular basis, so they know they are not forgotten? Will the Minister take up the role of godmother to a political prisoner and encourage all members of this House to do so? It really does encourage those who fight against the dictatorship.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think it is an excellent scheme. I understand that the Foreign Secretary and other members of the Government have done this. I would be very happy to take part in this scheme and encourage any others here who wish to do so to take it up as well. I thank the noble Lord for raising this.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that what happens in Belarus depends, more than anything else, on the outcome of the war in Ukraine? In the support we give Ukraine, we must all bear in mind that the future of Belarus is also at stake. Do the Government assess that it is possible to maintain contact with groups and organisations within Belarus to encourage the further development of civil society; or have we, in the Government’s opinion, reached a point when we can work only with democratic groups and movements outside Belarus under the current circumstances?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is an interesting question. One of the reasons that we maintain an embassy in Minsk is to send a signal to the people of Belarus that they have not been abandoned by us, that we are there and that we will advocate on their behalf. It is difficult to work in the way that we want, of course, but we will continue to do what we can.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way she summarised government policy. I think she said that she wants a free, democratic and independent Belarus. We can all agree that it is not free and democratic, but does there come a point when it is not independent either? Since 2020, whatever autonomy there had been in foreign policy has been lost. Under the union state treaty, the Russians are now deploying not just troops but tactical nuclear weapons there; any pretence of a separate foreign policy has gone. Does there come a point when we face reality and talk about this as what it is, which is a Russian annexation?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is completely right about the state of democracy in Belarus, such as it is. This situation saddens us all. We look at what has happened in Moldova and in Ukraine, and we cannot help but see the future if we leave some of those activities unchecked. Russia is clearly intent on strengthening its grip on nations outside its borders, which is exactly what we have seen in Belarus, as the noble Lord said.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Belarus Free Theatre has played a crucial role in the last 10 years in spreading the truth about what is going on within Belarus. Will the Minister therefore ensure that the theatre company achieves the crucial financial support that it needs to carry on with this vital work?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not know about the specific theatre company that the noble Lord describes, but its work does sound incredibly important. At times as desperate and bleak as these for Belarus, this kind of activity has all the more value.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, given what the Minister said about the importance of reaching out to the people of Belarus and over the heads of the dictatorship, can she tell us what broadcasts are made by the BBC World Service into Belarus and assure us that there is no limitation on the funding required to maintain them?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The World Service is a tremendous asset and I am pleased that, this year, we have been able to secure additional funding for it. We work with it incredibly closely, although it is and will always be fully independent in its decisions about how it operates and its content. It is important that we remember that. It is good to highlight just how vital the work of the World Service is in countering some of the disinformation and misinformation that we see in Belarus and in other parts of the world.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I join the Minister in thanking my noble friend for bringing this important subject to the attention of the House. While I understand that His Majesty’s Government do not comment on the possible imposition of future sanctions, could the Minister say what criteria are used to determine election fraud and human rights abuses in Belarus?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have been proactive in this area and have introduced a raft of sanctions that tackle the problems that the noble Earl described. The exact criteria are legal and technical; I will not attempt to get into the details today, but they are all laid out, should the noble Earl wish to examine them more carefully. I would be very happy to brief him properly on this, because sanctions are an important tool when we are combating what has been going on in Belarus.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most effective contributions we can make to keeping the flame of democracy alive for the democratic movement in Belarus is to fight for and achieve a settlement that keeps Ukraine free and independent and gives the people of Belarus a sense that there is life beyond being a vassal state of Russia?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Whenever we have spoken about Ukraine in this Chamber, one of the key messages has been that, if we do not fight for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, that will not be the end of Russian aggression and destabilisation in this area. The noble Lord makes the case very well as to why it is important that we stand firm, and shoulder to shoulder, and continue to support the people of Ukraine.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, in relation to this issue and, in particular, to the release of further hostages, can the Minister tell the House what actions the Government are utilising for humanitarian access to those still being held hostage? In addition, does the Minister have any plans to further investigate UNRWA, after Emily Damari’s testimony as to where she was being held hostage? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will look again into funding for UNRWA after those disturbing allegations?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I join the noble Earl in welcoming the release so far of 21 hostages, including British national Emily Damari and, of course, the UK-linked Eli Sharabi. The Prime Minister spoke to Emily on 31 January and was deeply moved by her personal story. We continue to call for the release of all hostages. The real solution is their release; that is what we want to see as soon as possible.
In relation to UNRWA, that is quite a serious matter, and I know that UNRWA has responded and is calling for an independent inquiry into it. UNRWA was, of course, excluded from those facilities but nevertheless it is important that there is a thorough independent inquiry. We look forward to seeing that when it happens.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, in the light of President Trump’s totally destabilising statements, do the Government share the view of the German Foreign Minister that Gaza is for the Palestinians, not for Israel, nor for the United States? What communications have the Government had with the leaderships of Egypt and Jordan to reassure them that the UK does not support the removal of Palestinians in Gaza to their countries? Does the Minister agree that the time has come to recognise Palestine as a state before it is too late?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I reassure the noble Baroness that we see the ceasefire as the first step in ensuring long-term peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians and the wider region, bringing much-needed stability. We thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for their tireless efforts over the past 15 months in getting us to this moment.
I reiterate our very clear policy: we would oppose any effort to move Palestinians in Gaza to neighbouring Arab states against their will. As we have repeatedly said, Palestinian civilians, including those evacuated from northern Gaza, must be permitted to return to their communities and rebuild. As the Prime Minister has said, we should be with them as they rebuild on the way to a two-state solution. That is the way to ensure peace and security for both Israel and the Palestinians.
In terms of recognition, the Foreign Secretary has made this clear on numerous occasions. We see that as one of the tools for seeking and establishing that two-state solution. We want to be able to use it as strong leverage to maintain that course for a two-state solution, so that when the time is right, we are committed to recognise.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, in the light of Hamas’s abhorrent policy of torturing hostages, what action is being taken by His Majesty’s Government, together with our allies, to prevent Hamas from continuing to occupy any position of power and authority in Gaza? Does the Minister accept that the two-state solution, which he mentioned and which I and many others support, is not going to happen until Hamas is removed from power and authority?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I have made it absolutely clear on previous occasions, and I repeat, that there is no role for Hamas in the future governance of Gaza. We will continue to work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the US and regional partners to build a consensus for a post-conflict Gaza governance and security framework that supports the conditions for a permanent and sustainable peace. As part of that process, we have committed financial support of £5 million to support the PA in relation to this. We have also established two key roles in the Palestinian Authority to ensure that recovery and this new form of governance. We are absolutely committed that there is no role for Hamas in the future.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their decision to spend an extra £17 million to support the needs of Gazans for food, housing and shelter. Will he tell the House how that £17 million is going to be spent, particularly in the absence of UNRWA, which has disgracefully been denied its continued operation in East Jerusalem? If there are no other agencies with the right experience to deliver that aid, it is hard to think how Gazans are going to get it.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As my noble friend said, on 28 January, the Minister for Development announced that further £17 million in funding to ensure that healthcare, food and shelter reach tens of thousands of civilians and support vital infrastructure across the Occupied Territories and in neighbouring countries. We have also delivered life-saving UK-funded medical supplies via Jordanian helicopters, an operation supported by the UK military.
On UNRWA, the United Kingdom continues to lead international action to press for a resolution to this issue. On 31 January, the Foreign Secretary joined his French and German counterparts to call on Israel to abide by its international obligations. We are in close contact with the United Nations on next steps. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the UN Secretary-General on 30 January, and the Minister for Development spoke to the emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, on 24 January. It is my hope that I shall be meeting him tomorrow to reiterate the message in terms of access for humanitarian aid into the Occupied Territories.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
Reports coming out of the country show the desperate need to get not only aid but medical supplies there. I pay tribute to His Majesty’s Government for all that they have done so far, but the issue is how we get aid and medical supplies in. In particular, reports are coming out that the Anglican-run al-Ahli Hospital is in a desperate state. What else can His Majesty’s Government do to ensure that we get medicine and supplies in there and to other medical facilities?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is right. The United Nations and other partners are continuing to monitor and update figures for the volumes and types of aid currently entering Gaza but, given that that is a key element of the ceasefire agreement, the UN can publicly share only overall truck figures for now. So we do not currently have the usual level of detailed information, but we will continue to work closely with trusted partners on the ground to understand how UK aid is being distributed. All UK delivery partners are required, as per our agreements with them, to collate this information, so we expect that in due course.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one way of instilling greater confidence in this three-stage process is to allow the international press into Gaza? What discussions has he had with the Government of Israel on allowing the international press in? Further to that, what discussions has he had with his UN counterparts and colleagues about the whole issue of allowing people in to see whether crimes have been committed by either side?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a valid point. One of the reasons given for no access was the conflict and the troops, but now that we have a ceasefire, we can ensure that there is proper access, which is why I am focusing on the humanitarian aid and support going in. The noble Lord makes the valid point that upholding international law, and ensuring that all sides are subject to it, is right. We will continue to support the ICC and other efforts to ensure that that is held to.
National Cancer Plan
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who work tirelessly to treat and help others who are suffering from cancer—not only the wonderful clinicians and medical professionals but also the many cancer charities, some of which I have met, which support people living with cancer and fund the important research that has led to significant increases in survival rates for some cancers and will lead to the future breakthroughs that we all want to see. Their dedication is an example to us all. We owe them a great deal of gratitude; it is something that we can all be proud of.
Cancer will affect us all in some way or another. Almost everyone knows someone who has been diagnosed with it or may have had to live with the big C themselves, so it is vital that we do everything we can to beat this disease. It is highly reassuring that cancer care and treatment are constantly improving. Over the past 50 years, the survival rates for all cancers have doubled. The one-year survival rates for cancer increased by almost 6% between 2010 and 2020, while the five-year survival rate has increased by more than 4%. However, we know that more can and must be done. Despite these improvements, we are not in the place we all want to be in. We should be honest about that.
These Benches welcome the fact that the Government are taking steps to try to improve cancer care and research. It is welcome that there will be a greater focus on prevention and early diagnosis, which we know to be one of the best ways of improving quality of care. We are also grateful to this Government for continuing the rollout of community diagnostic centres started by the last Government.
When I was a Health Minister, I was advised by officials that 80% of those on the waiting list were waiting for diagnosis. That statistic may no longer be true but more community diagnostic centres are clearly needed, not just for early diagnosis but because their being placed in local communities might help reluctant patients who are scared or worried about going to hospital or who suffer from white coat syndrome to seek a diagnosis—at a more friendly place such as their local sports centre or shopping centre, so it does not become a daunting task. We welcome the fact that the Government will continue to roll these centres out.
Technology will be an accelerator for cancer treatment. Coupled with innovative methods of utilising data, machine learning and AI, there are real opportunities to drive better outcomes. If we can identify those who are more at risk or likely to be at risk from certain types of cancer and streamline them into treatment pathways using the best data available, then we could increase our survival rates further. Can the Minister reassure your Lordships that there will be a strong focus on harnessing new technologies in the cancer plan when it is published and will the Department of Health and Social Care engage with the many innovative companies—start-ups and others, and rollouts and spin-outs from many research places—that produce such technologies and can help the NHS synthesise and restratify the available data?
While we welcome the Government’s commitment to cancer care, we have questions about the timescale. I appreciate that the Minister has been honest that some announcements by the Government are aspirations while others are firm commitments. I note that this announcement launches the call for evidence for the national cancer plan, but we have already heard that the Government have launched a number of other reviews and plans. We have the NHS 10-year plan, the elective reform plan, the commission on building the national care service and the review of the new hospital programme. I believe noble Lords would like to know when we will see action from these plans, and today in particular from the cancer plan. If the Minister cannot give further details now, can she give an indication of when we can expect them? That would be greatly appreciated when it comes to understanding the Government’s commitment to this plan.
Finally, while we have made great progress in tackling certain types of cancer, what more could be done to speed up treatment of the hard-to-treat or less survivable cancers? I recently met Pancreatic Cancer UK, which told me that one of the reasons for lower survivability is that, by the time the cancer is spotted, it has often reached a late stage: stage 3 or 4. It also told me about a breath test being trialled that captures vapours and gases which can be analysed to detect the presence of biomarkers of certain cancers. To be clear, I appreciate that this is being trialled, but I wonder what changes to processes the Government and the NHS may be looking at to speed up the rollout of such innovations, especially relatively low-cost tests. I appreciate that there might be unintended consequences, false negatives or false positives, but could the Minister write to noble Lords with more details of such forthcoming breakthroughs and trials in England? I look forward to her response.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I thank those individuals who work day in, day out with people who have been diagnosed with cancer, and with their families, for the great work they do. This cancer plan represents an opportunity to make significant progress in the country’s fight against this terrible disease. The Statement and the plan, while containing some promising elements, require careful scrutiny. In the view of these Benches, further action is required if we are truly to make the necessary strides in the fight against this devastating disease.
Cancer, as we all know, touches every family in the country. It is a relentless adversary and our response must be equally determined. The plan before us rightly acknowledges the importance of early diagnosis and I commend the focus on initiatives such as the expansion of screening programmes and the innovative use of technology to detect cancers earlier. Early detection is, without question, the single most powerful tool we have to improve patient outcomes.
However, we have some concerns. While the rhetoric around early diagnosis is welcome, the plan lacks sufficient detail on how we will address the very real workforce shortages that plague the NHS. We cannot diagnose cancers early if we do not have the radiologists, pathologists and oncologists to interpret results and deliver timely treatment. The Government need a concrete plan for recruitment and retention of these vital professionals. I urge them to address these critical gaps and ask the Minister exactly how these gaps will be plugged.
Furthermore, the plan’s ambition for personalised medicine is laudable, but it seems somewhat detached from the realities on the ground. Access to cross-cutting treatments and clinical trials remains uneven across the country. We must ensure that one’s postcode does not determine a patient’s access to the most innovative therapies. This requires not only increased funding for research and development but a streamlined process for bringing new treatments to patients as quickly and safely as possible. What plans do the Government have to ensure that these treatments are brought forward quickly across the country?
Another area of concern is the plan’s approach to palliative care. While the focus on early diagnosis is crucial, we must not forget those for whom a cure is no longer possible. Palliative care is not simply about end-of-life care; it is also about maximising quality of life for patients and their families throughout their cancer journey. What are the Government doing to ensure a renewed focus on funding and resourcing for palliative care services, ensuring that every patient receives the compassion and holistic care they deserve?
We need to do more to tackle what is happening. I will ask two further questions and give the Minister a suggestion that may be taken forward. First, it is pleasing to see that radiotherapy is in the Statement, which is a step forward. However, evidence shows that currently the United Kingdom allocates only 5% of its cancer budget to radiotherapy, compared with the OECD average of 9%. This discrepancy is a contributing factor to the UK’s low cancer survival rates, particularly in cancers such as lung and colorectal. Countries such as Australia and Canada, which allocate a higher percentage of their cancer budgets to radiotherapy, have seen improvements in survival outcomes. Will the Minister commit to addressing this funding gap and set specific targets for cancer budget allocation for radiotherapy to ensure better survival rates for patients in the UK?
Secondly, with over 500,000 people waiting more than two weeks for vital cancer treatment, how do the Government intend to tackle these extensive delays in the immediate term? What concrete measures will be taken to ensure that the national cancer plan leads to real improvements, rather than remaining a set of unmet promises?
I wish to give the Minister a suggestion, which I hope she will take forward. Many of us in this House understand the significant difference in outcomes between early and late-stage diagnosis of cancers. On these Benches, we are strong advocates of utilising AI in early detection. The UK, with its unique history of the National Health Service, benefits from a collection of historical tissue samples. Given this, would the Government implement a programme in which AI performs a retrospective analysis of these samples in order to identify patterns that would improve the speed and accuracy of cancer diagnosis in the future?
I urge the Government to listen to the concerns raised by healthcare professionals and, most importantly, by patients and their families during the consultation period. These insights will strengthen this plan and ensure that it delivers real and lasting improvements to the lives of those affected by cancer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to both Front Benches for welcoming the plan and coming forward with very constructive points to strengthen our hand. I am sure we all agree that the prevalence of cancer and the way it touches everybody’s lives, either directly or indirectly, are considerable; cancer affects one in two people in this country. I also thank the staff, volunteers, researchers and everybody who is involved, including carers—paid and unpaid—for their work in this area.
The Statement was made on World Cancer Day. There were two aspects to it; both have been raised, but the one on which I want to focus is the national cancer plan. We have opened a call for evidence to gather views from the public, health partners and parliamentarians on what should go in the national cancer plan, because it seeks to improve every aspect of cancer care and to improve the experience and outcomes for people with cancer, including key goals and actions. The call for evidence is open until 29 April and, to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, it will report in the second half of this year, which, as I hope the noble Lord will agree, in government terms is quite prompt. It will follow the publication of the 10-year plan. In the Front-Bench questions, there was reference to various plans. They all chime in with and build on each other, but we feel that, as noble Lords have said, cancer is absolutely something on which we have to focus.
On radiotherapy access—an important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven—this is a priority, which is why this year we will spend £70 million in investment to replace older radiotherapy machines with newer and more efficient models. This will mean at least 27 machines to trusts across England, because we are keen that improvement is made.
It has come up in previous debates that NHS England and integrated care boards are responsible for ensuring that the healthcare needs of local communities are met. I take on board the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about concerns over differences of availability of care. In my view it is a good thing to move to give more decision-making and powers locally to meet the needs of local communities, rather than be instructed from the centre. Responsibilities for local provision include considering adequate healthcare provision, such as radiotherapy treatment, care and wider support, including in remote and rural areas. Of course, addressing healthcare inequity is a core focus of the 10-year health plan. We have established working groups focused on how care should be designed and delivered to improve equity and make sure that services are effective and responsive.
Cancer survival is indeed an area in which this country lags behind. That is a consequence of a number of issues, including diagnosis not being where it should be. Improving early diagnosis of cancer is integral for improving survival rates, and it is a priority both for the Government and for the cancer plan. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, talked about recent successes, including the CDCs, but there is also, for example, the targeted lung cancer screening programme, which has been a tremendous boost to survival rates and to diagnosing cancer earlier in the groups and individuals who are more at risk and yet were not coming forward. We will continue to work from that.
The noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Scriven, both raised rare cancers and research. There will be careful consideration of how the plan is going to deal with rare cancers so that they are not left behind. We absolutely recognise the importance of research and harnessing the powers of new technology to improve outcomes. That is why we invest more than £1.5 billion per year through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which will help that prevention and detection.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised the important matter of AI. Your Lordships’ House will be pleased to hear that the other part of the cancer plan was to launch a world-leading artificial intelligence trial, involving nearly 700,000 women and using the latest AI technologies to catch breast cancer earlier. The noble Lord asked a specific question about the use of AI retrospectively, which I would be pleased to look into and get back to him on.
With regard to shortages in the workforce, we have already announced plans for a revised NHS Long Term Workforce Plan for the summer of this year, to make sure that the NHS has the right people in place.
To go back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, on clinical trials, I should add that the TRANSFORM trial will look for better ways to detect prostate cancer and address the health inequalities that we know are there by ensuring that one in every 10 of the participants are black men.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised the important matter of palliative care. We will consider palliative care and other care for people living with and beyond cancer as a part of the cancer plan. We would very much welcome responses to our call for evidence on this.
On waiting lists, on 6 January 2025, a new elective reform plan was published to set out a whole-system approach to reaching and meeting the 18-week referral to treatment target by the end of this Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about harnessing data, which is very important. As I mentioned, we have launched a world-leading AI trial, which will provide us with the kind of data we need to improve women’s health screening.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their support and suggestions. I look forward to this cancer plan making significant changes for so many in this country.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House today. I remind noble Lords of my interests as chairman of the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research and King’s Health Partners.
The Minister will recognise well that one of the most important determinants of achieving improved outcomes for cancer patients is access to innovative therapies. It has recently been suggested by the major pharma industry that there are fiscal and regulatory matters that impede the adoption of such innovative therapies across the NHS in England. Can the Minister confirm that, when His Majesty’s Government start to develop the cancer plan, they will look at matters of regulation and fiscal intervention to ensure not only the opportunity for broader support for clinical research but that a continued enthusiasm will be provided for those who have developed innovations to bring them to the UK and make them available to our fellow citizens?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about what I would call unnecessary obstacles to innovation and technology—something which the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, also raised. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, that engagement with industry is extensive. We seek to identify blocks to improving healthcare provision in this country so that we can take the necessary steps. I agree that there are obstacles. We will continue to identify them—working with industry, which is crucial—and to seek to fix them.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentions the amount of money being spent on cancer research, but it is a small proportion compared with what the life sciences actually earn in Britain through patent and basic research. As UKRI recently pointed out, £3.7 billion has been raised as a result. Does the Minister agree that the Government should perhaps consider reinvesting some more of that money into much-needed basic research, which is currently regarded as being underfunded, with very many projects not being funded as they should be?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As my noble friend is aware, the NIHR very much welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including all cancers. As with other government funders of health research, it does not allocate funding for specific disease areas. My noble friend is well aware that applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition—in other words, to make awards on the basis of the importance of the research to patients and on value for money. I appreciate his observation about investment. It is an area to which we are committed and will continue to be.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, a year ago this very afternoon, this very moment, I was in a surgery having a radical prostatectomy. I pay tribute to Professor Vasdev and his amazing team at Lister Hospital for the exceptional treatment I received. He is one of many fabulous people working in our NHS. The discrepancies, though, of diagnosis and treatment are stark in different parts of the country. Having worked in some of the more disadvantaged areas in the past, I am acutely aware of those. What are His Majesty’s Government’s going to do, as the plan is developed, to ensure that we look at the religious, social and ethnic barriers which are stopping groups coming forward to receive diagnosis and treatment? Will they particularly focus on how we can address these to try to support those in the most disadvantaged parts of our country?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is an extremely important point which will very much feature in the cancer plan. I am sure all noble Lords will join me in being glad to see the right reverend Prelate in rude health. I share his comments about the quality of care that is offered. I was fortunate enough to visit the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research on the day of the launch of the national cancer plan and the AI-assisted trial for women to tackle breast cancer. I assure the right reverend Prelate that that is crucial. I say from the Dispatch Box that I would expect any plan and work to take account of inequalities. I mentioned earlier targeting lung cancer; that is exactly what it does, and we need to see more of that.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the fact is that our best cancer services deliver as good a result as any in the world; they are second to none. We do not need to focus on what might happen in the future, with the promise of AI, etcetera. It may promise utopia, but we need the same degree of care as our best delivery provided universally to every cancer patient in our health service. That is what I hope the cancer plan will focus on, and not get carried away by a future that may look promising and bright but which may not deliver. I am delighted that there will be a separate children’s cancer plan, because that is needed. I hope that, in the meantime, it will stop any discussion about shutting down about our best children’s cancer hospital, for whatever reasons—which I think might be political.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I want to clarify that while the cancer plan is not specifically aimed at children and young people, such evidence will be welcomed. Also, the taskforce will be relaunched this year, alongside the national cancer plan. As we do with adults, equally, we want to identify ways to improve outcomes and patient experience.
I hear the noble Lord’s point about AI. It is not a utopia, but it is a tool in the box that we would absolutely be right to look at. I am also struck by how AI is not something separate from human beings; it is human beings who guide it, and it has great potential. On the noble Lord’s point about tackling inequalities in access, which was also made by the right reverend Prelate, he is absolutely right. It is not acceptable that some people, because of where they live or who they are, are not accessing care. This is a constant issue for us, and we continue to tackle it.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I have to start by declaring an interest. I lost my wife of 55 years in April last year due to breast cancer. I have a simple question for the Minister: when, oh when, are we going to find a cure for this dreadful disease?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My condolences to the noble Lord; I am sorry to hear of the loss of his dear wife. I am afraid I cannot say when there will be a cure, but I can reassure him, as I have said previously, about the importance of research and research expenditure. We continue to make great strides, and we will continue on that trajectory.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as someone who is going through cancer treatment; I add my thanks to the doctors and our wonderful NHS workers. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who said that early detection is the main thing affecting whether someone survives cancer or not. I urge the Government to look at prostate cancer, particularly the PSA test, which we have to ask for now. Clearly, there is inequality throughout the country: in middle-class communities, where people ask for it, they get it; in poorer communities—certainly in Afro-Caribbean communities, which the right reverend Prelate referred to—detection is later and survival rates are poorer. If we cannot have a national screening plan straight away, can we not have a pilot to start with?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I wish my noble friend well with his treatment. Screening for prostate cancer is not currently recommended in the UK because of the inaccuracy of the current best test available, which is the PSA. The advice we are given is that the PSA-based screening programme could harm men, as some could be diagnosed with a cancer that would not have caused them problems during their life; equally, some cancers may be missed. That is why we are investing £16 million towards the Prostate Cancer UK-led TRANSFORM programme, which is the name of the screening trial. On health inequalities, as I mentioned earlier, the trial is seeking to find better ways to detect prostate cancer, which is necessary, and to address the health inequalities.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned screening for lung cancer, and I am sure the whole House will welcome the progress made in recent years. Can she confirm whether the Government now commit to taking forward the plans for earlier screening of lung cancer, as recommended by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation does excellent work and keeps our minds very focused. The point raised by the noble Baroness will be considered as part of the cancer plan.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, the Cancer Research UK website clearly says:
“Drinking less alcohol can prevent”
at least seven types of cancer. The Statement refers to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Will the Government seriously consider a minimum unit price for alcohol to further reduce cancers across the board, particularly throat and bowel cancers?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I cannot give that specific commitment to the noble Baroness. However, as I know your Lordships’ House is aware, one of the three major shifts we seek through the 10-year plan—this is very relevant to the noble Baroness’s point—is from sickness to prevention. Improved health absolutely is preventive for a number of conditions, including cancer. We need to get that message across, as well as supporting people to make improvements to their health.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to all the staff at the Whittington Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital for the excellent treatment and ongoing care I have received for my own skin cancer. I will return to the question of early detection. What additional steps are being taken to try to counter the reluctance people sometimes feel to participate in screening programmes? I am thinking of bowel cancer screening and the embarrassment some people still feel, and cervical cancer screening, which many women find a very painful procedure. There is evidence that some younger women are no longer having this screening because they find it too painful. What steps are being taken to try to alleviate that?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad to hear the noble Baroness making statements about the quality of care she continues to receive, and I wish her well. She makes a good point about screening; some 15 million people are invited to screenings and about 10 million take them up. For bowel cancer screening, we have reduced the age to 50 to incorporate more people. That is very welcome, but I take on board exactly what the noble Baroness said: the tests that are painful or embarrassing all have to be dealt with. As part of the review of screening programmes, there is a constant, repeated look at how communications can be improved to target those who need the screening, and to try to be more creative. I refer again to the community diagnostic centres, which are where people need them to be and are less worrying than, for example, going to a hospital. I take the point about painful screenings, but, for us, it is also important to talk about the alternative, because without that screening I am afraid that the outcomes will be far worse.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the health service for saving me. Come this Friday, it will be six months since I was in the Royal Marsden—last summer, on my holiday—having my bladder and prostate removed. Here I am now, surviving. I had to struggle today to get into Parliament; farmers are protesting about money that needs to be raised to fund the NHS.
I return to the point about honesty that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised at the beginning. You can have all the plans under the sun, but if you do not have the money or the will—and the plans to raise the money—you will not deliver them. I believe there is a question missing at the end of this invitation on the consultation: “Could you please suggest some ideas on how to raise the additional funds required to deliver these plans?” There are alternatives to those that we currently use. It is beholden on both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats to be giving some attention to suggestions—which they would support—whereby we would raise additional money to fund the NHS, as our Government are endeavouring to do at the moment.
I would like the Minister to consider exploring a variety of options: how we might be more flexible in raising funds for the NHS, get the private sector more involved in new experimentation that needs to take place, and get the wider public more involved—perhaps by share interest in PPPs to fund particular operations and exercises; say, for a hospital such as the Chelsea and Westminster. Ask all the hospitals around the country what they would like to have. Could they involve their people? Could they involve the private sector? Could we explore a new model? It will not be done overnight but it needs to be done.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad that my noble friend is in the health that he is. I am sure that those who have supported him will appreciate his thanks and ours.
The considerations my noble friend raises are very much part of the considerations of the national cancer plan and the 10-year plan. With respect to funding, the allocation to healthcare in the recent Budget has allowed us to take steps to arrest a continuing decline and to fix the foundations. The fact is we are spending more and we are getting less. We have to do things differently. That will mean not just looking at money but reforming care, using solutions such as technology and AI to go further still.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I warmly welcome the national cancer plan. The Minister will be aware that there still is an unacceptable wait time of 62 days. Will she use her good offices to ensure that there is early referral from GPs and that more funding is made available—for this purpose and longer appointments with GPs—if that is needed to make the case for earlier diagnosis and referral?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I say to the noble Baroness that the overall trend for cancer performance is improving but it still needs to improve further. We will take all the necessary steps. The planning guidance set stretching targets for cancer, which will see around 100,000 more people every year having cancer confirmed—or ruled out—within 28 days, and about 17,000 more people beginning treatment within two months of diagnosis. The key to all of this has to be early diagnosis and treatment and ensuring that people do not get missed out, as we have discussed earlier. The trajectory is in the right direction, but they are small steps and we need to ratchet it up.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 10th February 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (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-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.
Procurement Act 2023 (Consequential and Other Amendments) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Twycross
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 December 2024 be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving these regulations, I start by acknowledging the substantial contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in bringing the new procurement regime to fruition.
This statutory instrument represents the final legislative step in implementing the Procurement Act 2023, the new public procurement regime responsible for over £385 billion in public contracts annually. Commencing on 24 February 2025, the new regime brings our public procurement procedures in line with the Government’s mission-driven approach and will support economic growth by establishing a simpler and more transparent system. It will deliver better value for money across the public sector, lowering costs and burdensome red tape for businesses, and creating a prosperous environment for government and businesses alike.
The legislation being discussed today is a technical statutory instrument, with the purpose of updating existing procurement references in a wide range of UK legislation to align with this new regime. For example, references to the Procurement Contracts Regulations 2015 throughout UK law will now reference the Procurement Act 2023. These types of consequential amendments are, as noble Lords will be very familiar with, a routine and necessary aspect of implementing primary legislation. The SI updates the schedules to the Act to ensure compliance with our international obligations. The threshold values are being revised to bring them in line with the current thresholds applied to public contracts, set by the WTO’s government procurement agreement. This merely amends the Act to match the values that we currently apply to public procurement contracts.
Additionally, the regulations amend Schedule 9 to update the list of specified international agreements, which identify which countries’ suppliers have the right to access UK public procurement. This implements updates to the UK’s market access coverage in our trade agreements with Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Albania, removing access to contracts for healthcare services and enabling the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023, introduced in January last year, to work as intended. These updates to the threshold values and schedule allow contracting authorities to correctly grant access to suppliers from partner nations. Further technical amendments include updating the list of central government authorities to reflect the recent machinery of government changes, ensuring that the departmental structures are accurately represented in the new regime.
In addition to these technical adjustments, this instrument enhances transparency in public procurement. It supplements the transparency requirements established by the Procurement Act 2023 and Procurement Regulations 2024 on detailed procedural points, including matters such as the issuance of tender documents, direct award procedures, contract modification requirements, self-cleaning procedures and payment compliance notices. These measures provide clarity on specific processes, required by the new regime, which are intended to open up more public sector opportunities to a wider variety of businesses, which helps to drive down costs and promote innovation. This instrument updates how key performance indicators are handled in contract details and performance notices. These changes will help improve how suppliers are evaluated, giving the public sector better information to make more effective decisions to promote value for money.
Finally, the regulations outline how to calculate whether the sale of excess electricity, gas or water produced as a by-product of a non-utility activity falls under the Act when the operator wants to sell it to a network. It explains the calculations needed to determine eligibility for vertical and horizontal arrangements, exemptions and the utility contract exemption for affiliated persons.
Given the highly technical nature of the instrument, I was somewhat surprised that an amendment of regret was put before the House in respect of these regulations specifically. The powers under which the regulations are made are limited and do not allow for more substantive policy measures to be introduced. The instrument introduces no additional burdens for business and simply ensures that the Act can be implemented smoothly and efficiently. The regulations have been reviewed by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, neither of which has drawn any special attention to it.
Contrary to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, the Act introduces a number of reforms to make it easier for small businesses to access public sector supply chains and removes unnecessary burdens and costs. It introduces an obligation on contracting authorities to have regard to the particular barriers facing SMEs through the procurement life cycle and to consider what can be done to overcome them. In particular, the Act makes bidding easier for SMEs by requiring bidding companies to submit their core credentials only once on to a single digital platform, saving them time and money. It makes it clear that contracting authorities may not, in most instances, require audited accounts to test the financial standing of bidders, nor require insurance relating to the performance of a contract to be put in place prior to contract award. This will encourage start-ups that are not legally required to file audited accounts but can instead show financial capability by other means. The Act ensures that prompt payment flows down the supply chain, making it more and not less viable for SMEs to get involved.
Lord Robathan
At the end: “but this House regrets that the draft Regulations do not simplify the procurement process; that they hinder economic growth; and that they impose unnecessary burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises, thereby stifling innovation and competitiveness.”
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I was reading this weekend about the Prime Minister’s comments about various things that are coming forward, and it seemed to me that this was something that needed to be addressed.
The regulations address the Procurement Act 2023. It is a Commons question. What are we to think? Are the drafts okay? Are the pieces that are subject to the regulations to be cancelled? The amounts put forward are extremely good—but are they? Noble Lords will understand that people have concerns about the changes that have been made. How much can be seen? How much is numerable and how much is qualifiable and noticeable?
Then we look at the occupational pension schemes regulations. What about the lenient one? Leaping on to Regulations 42D, 42E and 42F—what is all that about? The amendment on branded health services—what is that? What about the amendment of the Competition Act 1998 order 2022? What about the healthcare services regulations to exclude a provider that is a threat to national security? Why is this necessary? Then there is debarment in Regulation 20D. It seems okay, but is it? What about Part 6 and Regulation 33(1)? Finally, we have repeals and revocation.
Can the Minister tell us what all this is about? It seems good—it seems not too bad. We would like to be certain that this is not a problem. Could the Minister please tell the House how this is to be proceeded with? To be fair, I think that there is a possibility of revocation. Will the Minister please tell us what this is before we let it through?
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I was the leader of a local council in south Norfolk for about 17 years. I ran the council as a business—after all, I did not like paying council tax any more than anybody else did. It took me nearly 20 years to instil the sense of enterprise into what could have been the dead hand of the state. I provided the framework, but not only did we hope that our officials would go that extra mile, we became richer in every sense of the word when they did.
Councils do 140 different things. First elected in 2003, I was conceited enough to think you could run the council as a private business in each of those 140 areas, with strong leadership and the other advantages that only accrue to a council. We do not pay corporation tax; we do not pay dividends; nobody can borrow as cheaply as us, at one notch just below sovereign; and it has been a long time since a well-run council went bust. Best of all, we provide the services that everybody wants, in some cases, every week. How difficult can this be?
In my 17 years as a council leader, I outsourced only one thing: legal services, because I objected to paying 1% of the entire council tax take just on the books before we had even hired the staff. However, I did not believe in compulsory competitive tendering. I tried to do everything in-house: it was run as well as the private sector, but without the dividends or corporation tax because the savings got reinvested in the services or passed on to keep council tax down for everybody.
We built 100 houses a year, delivering a gross income of 40% of all the council tax raised in our district. We rented homes to generate a higher return than we would get at the bank. The maintenance people could turn their hand to fixing a shelf for an old lady or get people out of hospital more quickly. We taught youngsters to swim, which was a nearly £1 million per year enterprise, and worked with GPs to prescribe fitness in our leisure centres.
I needed a 17-year run at this, but when I stepped down to come into your Lordships’ House last year, council tax was 30% lower than inflation over the same period. It can be done.
So why am I speaking in this debate? It is because, sad to say, we could have gone further and done more. I direct noble Lords’ attention to new Regulations 42A relating to vertical arrangements and 42B to horizontal ones. A vertical arrangement is where a council wants to run a service itself. A horizontal one is where several councils may club together over a wider area to achieve the same outcome. On too many occasions, having to follow these pointless procurement procedures held us back. They acted as an excuse for work. They were a drag anchor on not just my ambition but that of the talented young graduates we struggled to recruit.
If we are to change the state, if we are to be more agile and if government is to work for the people, not the other way round, we cannot afford the sort of verbiage that decorates pages 12-15 of the public procurement regulations that my noble friend Lord Robathan regrets. They achieve nothing for the taxpayer and even less for residents. They encourage huge amounts to be spent on lawyers. They force delay and everybody else pays more as a result.
Looking at the small print of the regulations, one sees that the well-meaning but counterproductive way they work is to mark down the entrepreneurial councils which can and should be setting an example, especially in rural areas. These are the sorts of councils that want to earn a shilling by collecting the trade waste from a remote bed and breakfast as the bin lorry passes by every Tuesday and whose proprietor is grateful because no other waste company will touch it.
The attributable turnover calculations, the time spent assessments and the relevant period durations are just an excuse to snuff out the sorts of good behaviours that we should be encouraging—not just in councils but across the whole of government. They act as recruiting sergeants for those with an axe to grind. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but in truth they prevent local firms co-operating with their local councils, lest a large corporation cries foul and challenges in the courts. They foster a risk-negative, rather than an ambition-positive, approach to public services. They stand in the way of councils getting together and co-operating to do the right thing in the public good for the public’s benefit.
Where do your Lordships think Birmingham would be if Joseph Chamberlain had had to follow this stuff? Where would the clean water and gas that built that metropolis be if he had had to follow these pettifogging rules?
The Explanatory Note explains how new Regulations 42A and 42B will affect councils by giving waste collection as an example. These regs should be consigned to the dustbin of history. I thought this Government had instructed officials to clear a path through the treacle that holds us back, but no—it was just too much to ask.
My noble friend is right to regret, and it is something we should all reflect on. We are never going to get growth if we carry on like this.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak but as there seem to be so few people here, I will just say a few words. I draw noble Lords’ attention to an organisation called the Procurement Files, which is actually very good at looking in detail at the 300,000-plus contracts on the UK government public database. When you have a glance at that, it raises a lot of questions.
Whenever the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office makes a procurement with a contractor for something happening abroad, does every single Minister sign off on it or is it done by officials? I am particularly interested because £25 million has just been agreed to one contractor to do green urban growth in Somalia. I looked at the detail of what that meant and thought, “My goodness, that is surely not a priority for what is happening in Somalia at the moment”. There is another one where it is spending half a million pounds to send 15 Porsches to the embassy in Tirana to be distributed to prisons in Albania. There are a whole range of these things.
I appreciate that most of what has been said so far is about what is happening in this country. However, if the Minister is unable to respond today, could she send me something about how these decisions are made? Quite honestly, it looks like we need some detail of the goings on, as is happening in the United States of America. I think the public would be horrified if they knew the detail of what some of their taxpayers’ money is going on.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I may be the only person here who actually took part in the Committee and Report stages of the Procurement Act, to which we are considering this SI. The Minister may remember that it was one of the worst-drafted Bills I have seen since coming into this House.
The Conservative Government introduced more than 300 amendments between Second Reading and Committee. The amendment to Clause 1 they produced in Committee was so badly drafted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, intervened to say that it would be wonderful for the legal profession. Therefore, between Committee and Report, the Government had to produce an amendment to its amendment to Clause 1.
That was not an easy experience for the Conservative Government nor, I have to say, for the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. She began looking at the Bill as a critical Back-Bencher and then, after the resignation of her predecessor, she found herself as the Minister who had to defend the Bill she knew had many flaws. She did her best to struggle through Committee, which included three previous Conservative Ministers, who were very critical of the Bill.
In terms of transparency and simplification, we are struggling with an Act that is imperfect and very complicated. This SI does not make matters much better. I think we are all agreed that transparency and simplification are what we need to pursue, and we do not have them currently. I think we also agree that having public procurement rules which end up unintentionally favouring consultancies which are very good at writing applications and multinational companies that have the staff to write detailed applications over small and medium enterprises and others is not what you want.
The Covid experience showed the very worst of that. I recall the early contracts for setting up testing sites which were given by the Government to two multinational companies, one of which had its headquarters in Miami. Surprise, surprise, it put a lot of the local testing sites in the wrong places because they did not know much about where the best places in local communities were.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, while the Government’s proposals may appear to serve the public interest, we have a lot of sympathy with the regret amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Robathan.
This Labour Government promised to “simplify the procurement process” and “reduce micromanagement” to foster innovation—a noble intention. Yet, as we assess Labour’s position on procurement, we must ask whether the Government are creating a more accessible and efficient system and truly simplifying procurement, as the Bill intended, or whether they care more about stifling competition for their friends in the unions or prioritising costly equality and green add-ons.
The Procurement Act 2023, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, aimed to streamline procurement, reduce micromanagement and encourage innovation. Labour claimed to support these principles in its election manifesto, promising a more flexible and accessible procurement landscape, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs. However, this Government have since delayed implementing the Act from October 2024 to February 2025 to publish a new national procurement policy statement. Does this not simply prolong uncertainty, making it harder for businesses, especially SMEs, to engage with government contracts?
I turn to the details of the regulations. The regulations propose consequential amendments to align the Procurement Act with previous rules and to comply with international obligations, including the latest updates to the World Trade Organization’s agreement on government procurement. But do these amendments contribute to a more efficient, transparent procurement environment, or are we merely preserving outdated structures that complicate rather than streamline the process?
One notable change being made is the revision of thresholds and direct award justifications. Regulation 8(6), for instance, allows contracting authorities to award contracts to previously excluded suppliers if that is deemed in the public interest. This raises the question: where is the accountability? This provision opens the door to increased discretion in awarding contracts, which could undermine transparency and encourage favouritism. Without clear guidelines, we risk creating a procurement environment that is less competitive and more susceptible to conflicts of interest.
We also see an expansion in reporting requirements, particularly in terms of key performance indicators. While transparency is crucial, can we expect these new requirements to overwhelm contracting authorities, especially smaller ones already struggling with administrative burdens? The regulations mandate reporting on a broader range of metrics, which could impose significant strain on public bodies, diverting scarce resources from public services.
Moreover, these changes place greater responsibility on smaller contracting authorities, local councils and SMEs, which may struggle to comply with a more complex system. Larger organisations may have the resources to absorb these demands, but smaller entities could be disproportionately affected. In our effort to create transparency and accountability, we must be cautious not to stifle innovation or dissuade SMEs from engaging in public procurement.
The revisions to procurement thresholds also risk undermining the Procurement Act’s original intent of promoting fairness and inclusivity, particularly for SMEs. By increasing reporting requirements and complicating the procurement process, we may create a system that is more navigable for larger businesses while leaving smaller ones behind.
One of the key concerns around Labour’s changes is their impact on small businesses. Labour’s manifesto promised
“greater access to government contracts”
for SMEs, but new procurement rules risk introducing more red tape, making it harder for SMEs to compete. Rather than fostering innovation and inclusivity, these regulations enforce the status quo, favouring larger, established players with the resources to navigate complex procurement procedures.
We must also consider the impact on local authorities and public sector bodies. The delay in implementing the Procurement Act has already caused significant disruption. While the Government claim that the delay allows for a smoother transition, we must question whether this justifies the extended uncertainty. How much longer will it take before the Act is fully implemented, and what are the consequences for time-sensitive procurements? Legal experts such as DLA Piper have warned of potential confusion as contracting authorities try to navigate both the old and new systems. Are we setting these authorities up to fail by forcing them to choose between abandoning projects or managing an overwhelming amount of new bureaucracy?
I would also be grateful for clarification on the status of ARIA, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, which is one of the great innovations in the British state of recent decades. One of the central features of ARIA is that it is not subject to public procurement rules, as of course it cannot be if it is to serve the mandate that Parliament has set for it. Can the Minister give assurances that ARIA will not be subject to the requirements of the Procurement Act, nor the 2015 regulations?
While we agree with the Government’s supposed intentions to improve public procurement, we remain sceptical and have yet to see evidence of them. I urge the Government to think carefully about their approach to the national procurement policy statement and align with the Procurement Act’s original vision. We need a procurement system that is efficient, transparent and accessible to all businesses, especially SMEs, the true drivers of innovation and growth. We cannot afford to squander this opportunity for meaningful reform; the economy and public sector deserve better.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As I outlined at the start, this legislation will support the commencement of the new Procurement Act 2023, which embodies our ambition to open up public procurement to a more diverse supply base, making it easier for new entrants such as small businesses and social enterprises to compete and win public contracts, including measures to improve prompt payment and transparency of opportunities on a single platform, and enable basic supplier details to be submitted once only.
I am less surprised by the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, than by those of the Opposition Front Bench. I have asked repeatedly in briefings about whether this instrument would differ from that of the previous Government, had they introduced it, and have been told that it would not. I am slightly surprised, but I appreciate that we now have a different Government and I very proud to be introducing this on their behalf.
I will go through a number of points to make sure that I respond to the questions raised. The key point that came up from both the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, was on the timing of the updated NPPS. We will be publishing this shortly and it will be in time for the commencement of the Procurement Act. It is perfectly reasonable and right to ensure that the NPPS reflects the Government’s approach and the mission, so I cannot accept that we should have just gone ahead with the previous one.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made a point about the time that businesses may have to adapt between the publication of the policy statement and the commencement of the Act. As I said, the Government are going to publish this statement in time for the commencement of the Procurement Act on 24 February this year. We have been consulting with stakeholders in developing the statement, and this has included a series of round-table discussions. It is aimed at contracting authorities and should not place burdens on suppliers, and we have trained 16,000 procurement practitioners in the new rules.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, raised a point around whether the regulations would be more burdensome. The amendment made by these regulations will ensure that contracting authorities are not incurring an additional burden for having to report against every performance indicator used to manage a contract throughout its life, but only those most material to the performance of the key obligations of the contract at the time the relevant notice is published. This is in line with the original policy intent, as communicated to stakeholders through the passage of the Bill, and the amendment corrects an error in the drafting.
I will now address some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. In doing so, I hope that I will persuade him that he does not need to regret in the way that his amendment suggests. In relation to what the transparency measures would do, changes have been made in response to feedback on the Procurement Regulations 2024 about the potential burden of, for example, raising the thresholds for certain transparency requirements, removing the proposed requirement for publication of tenders received, reducing requirements for publication of valuation details and creating exemptions for schools and private utilities. The Government believe that the revised requirements represent a proportionate approach.
On the noble Lord’s points around what the consequential amendments do in practice, the consequential amendments to existing UK legislation are a technical aspect of this instrument. These regulations amend language and references to the previous procurement regime to reference the 2023 Act and the terminology used in it. The consequential amendments will not impact the way procuring entities conduct procurement as intended under the Act or make new policy decisions. Necessary consultation with departments holding ownership of the legislation to be amended has taken place to ensure that existing legislation can function as intended. For legislation that is relied on by devolved authorities, the Government have consulted officials to ensure that it functions as intended.
The noble Lord asked what amendments the regulations make to the Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023. These amendments help to ensure that the provider selection regime’s exclusion requirements align with those set out in the Procurement Act. This will help to ensure consistency across the two regimes and better protect healthcare services procurement from suppliers that pose a risk.
The noble Lords, Lord Robathan and Lord Fuller, asked questions about the vertical and horizontal and affiliated undertakings exemptions relating to Regulations 42A to 42F. The detailed and technical explanation of various calculations ensures that thresholds for these exemptions are effective as a form of anti-abuse mechanism. This will prevent any abuse of the activities threshold that would give the controlled person an unfair advantage over other suppliers by being subsidised by the controlling contracting authority. Contracting authorities will also benefit from clear and consistent rules on how to apply the rules.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked why ARIA, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, is an excluded contracted authority. These regulations only repeal an old amendment to the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and do not affect the status of ARIA. However, ARIA is now an excluded contracting authority under the Procurement Act. This is due to the nature of ARIA’s work. Most of its procurement would not be considered covered procurement. Therefore, the Act made ARIA exempt from the UK’s domestic procurement legislation.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. We will not push this to a Division. I thank the Minister for what she has given us, and I thank all noble Lords for their time.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 10th February 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (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-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.