Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 10th February 2025
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Lords ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-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.