Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Debate on whether Clause 31 should stand part of the Bill

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am proposing that we remove Clause 31 from the Bill. That would remove the power of the Secretary of State to require largely private sector employers with more than 250 staff to develop and publish equality action plans showing what steps they are taking in relation to the gender pay gap and supporting employees going through the menopause. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who is, sadly, not in her place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, who is in her place, for their support.

This is a probing amendment because I am not at all clear exactly why this clause is deemed necessary or indeed exactly what it entails. On the latter point, I note with some dismay that much of the detail is to be left to regulations in terms of the content of an action plan, the form of an action plan, what manner it will take and even its frequency. There is no detail at all on what sanctions employers face if they do not comply with the yet not detailed regulations. It is very difficult to scrutinise such vagaries, and I fear it reduces the issue to nothing more than a virtue-signalling clause to claim that something positive is being done—action is being taken. What action? We do not know.

What we do know is that here is another clause that requires workplaces to create more paperwork. I fear that the noble cause of women’s equality is being reduced to bureaucracy. I am a tad cynical because, since 2017, employers have been required to publish gender pay gap data annually. Now the demand is for actionable steps, yet what is the problem that we are trying to solve here?

The implication is that more needs to be done to crack down on gender discrimination in the workplace, but I am not convinced that that is such a major problem today as is inferred. Which actions would be deemed acceptable might help us understand what this clause is trying to do, but it is never considered. For example, we are frequently given a reference statistic that men earn roughly 20% more than women. But such figures are misleading, as this is an on-average figure reached through combining part-time and full-time earnings and takes no account of age or employment sector.

Are women continually disadvantaged in the workplace in 2025? When we compare how much women and men are paid for doing the same number of hours each week, there is virtually no pay gap. Of course, it would be illegal to pay men more than women. To illustrate the complexities of age, occupation and hours worked, it is worth noting that women in their 20s earn more than men of the same age—not just like-for-like but also on average. Even for all women under 40 working full-time, the pay gap is negligible. Indeed, it was acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, when she was a Government Minister bringing in the pay gap notices. She said then:

“We’ve virtually eliminated the gap for full-time workers under 40 and the gap for the over-40s is shrinking too”.

If we only look at these issues in a technocratic way, do we not we miss nuances?

You could say that a decline in jobs traditionally associated with men earning more is actually a decline in old industries, because there has been a decline since 1979, when 40% of GDP was those old industries in which men earned more. But I am not sure that is something to celebrate. In other words, if you only view equality through the gender pay gap, you could actually end up arguing for the suppression of men’s pay or celebrating its decrease.

More to the point, what are employers being asked to action here, when many of the changes are broad social and cultural shifts, rather than sexist employment practices? It is true that, in the past, the labour market was rigidly segregated according to sex. As a consequence, men and women in their 50s and older today entered a labour market in which women were often not treated fairly. There was a cultural situation where women were more likely to take considerable time out of work to raise a family. This alone explains pay differentials that are still being felt today. But, as I say, as young women are earning more, these things are less of a problem. If we end up thinking that the reason the pay gap exists is older women and those differentials, I am not keen that we end up dumping older female employees so that, on paper, the gap is narrowed. I am not suggesting that anyone is saying that, but I am saying that we should not deal with this in a technical fashion.

I now arrive at something in which I have more expertise: older women. We arrive at the menopause part of the new section to be inserted by this clause. My concern here is that the Bill may end up amplifying the problems caused by the menopause for female employees, unintentionally presenting menopausal women as victims unable to cope. This could re-stigmatise the menopause—the opposite of what is intended. We should remember that the menopause is a natural life stage that all women go through and experience, and they all experience it differently in its duration and symptoms.

I worry that some of this has led to awareness raising that can mystify the menopause and turn it into an imagined horror story. I remember talking to a group of young students some years ago. I made a quip about being menopausal and they all said, “Oh no—how awful. That’s grim. How are you coping? Are you feeling all right?” They seemed terrified at the prospect. The menopause suddenly appeared to be an insurmountable series of anguishes that they would never cope with. Inevitably, they had been on a well-being course that had given them awareness training on the menopause. Do we want such attitudes becoming embedded in attitudes to female staff in the workplace, along with the association that, if you are menopausal, you are a delicate flower who needs to be worked around?

What exactly will employers be required to do to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the specific needs of menopausal women? I have read activist demands that include the widespread availability of cooling fans; menopause champions and ambassadors in every workplace and department to encourage anti-stigma dialogue across the workforce; therapist sessions, including the availability of therapy dogs; and training courses for HR and management to look at everything from thermostat levels to developing menopause-sensitive language codes. To be honest, lots of these ideas stray dangerously close to condescending women. It might well be that this is not what the Government have in mind at all, but we have no idea if that is true because there are no details in the Bill—in fact, the details are all deferred until after the Bill is passed.

Do not get me wrong—I have been a vocal supporter of improving access to HRT on the NHS and, as a woman of a certain age, I am rather too familiar with some of the debilitating symptoms. But we should be wary of the calls, for example, for menopause leave and time off, with no questions asked, when using the word “menopause” would be enough to mean that—without any evidence and based on lived experience—employers are just meant to accept that there is a problem. There is a danger of green-lighting a mission creep not dissimilar to the crisis of so many not in work citing mental health problems—and I am really pleased to see that the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, has raised this. That is a new social problem, and I do not want the menopause to become another one.

Again, possibly none of this is what the Government intend, yet we are using legislation to demand that employers must take steps to support employees going through the menopause. That seems completely inappropriate and unjustified, and it is bound to lead to mission creep if this legislation is used to that end, with this clause in it.

I will make two quick points as a PS. Can the Government please be careful with their language? Usually, it is the Government lecturing people like me on the Back Bench about watching our words and what language we use, but, whether we like it or not, the word “gender” has been corrupted by ideology. The pay gap that the Government seek to tackle is between the two sexes—a fear that biological women may be discriminated against as women. I am not being pedantic or referencing the culture wars here; I have been at a number of official corporate events over recent years where businesses were patted on the back for helping women break through the glass ceiling and for their work on the pay gap only for the examples of success given to be trans women—that is, men who identify as women—on corporate boards. I want to avoid that con happening.

--- Later in debate ---

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and to my noble brother opposite, that we are taking a delegated power, mirroring the approach taken for gender pay gap reporting. The use of regulations in this way will enable us to share as much detail to employers as possible while maintaining flexibility, which is essential to good employment practices. We are aware that most employers think of equality and inclusion as a whole. That is why we are aiming to reflect how employers already work by proposing a single plan covering both the gender pay gap and the menopause. For these reasons, we believe that equality action plans will benefit women in the workplace and that this clause is vital to strengthening the opportunities available to women. I therefore beg to move that Clause 31 stands part of the Bill.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke, some of whom were more sympathetic than others to what I was trying to raise.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, made an important point when he talked about the importance of accurate data. I agree, but data and statistics are not flat lines; they are complicated. I tried to indicate, without boring your Lordships with lots of statistics, that the gender pay gap number in relation to statistics is to do with age, the past, the change in relation to young women, and so on, which nobody has come back on. In fact, there are books written, and I have papers, and I have read them all—I will not bore your Lordships now—but I suggest that this is not the key issue facing women at work today.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, came back on a lot of the points in terms of the aspirations, and I agree with him. However, the Government are overcomplacent about the problems of delegated powers and legislative oversight, which I also raised as a substantial part of my complaint. There was no comeback. I supported the Government when they were in opposition. They constantly raised these issues, and I went along with them and supported them.

Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, suggested, I thought this was a modest proposal, but somehow I have managed to be accused of fuelling Donald Trump and Nigel Farage, and this was called an illustration of my political journey from far left to far right. I will not do a full critique of the attack on me, which was very personal and personalised, but I would like to point out something.

I was and am a member of the left, and the fact that the Labour Party and the left have moved in a different direction from mine does not necessarily mean that I am the one who has moved to the right. I spend a lot of time talking to ordinary working-class people—women and men—who are tearing their hair out at the attacks on the living standards that they are going through under this Government. Therefore, to be lectured about not understanding the fight against inequality, and the idea that anybody who stands up and challenges an orthodoxy on a potentially bureaucratic plan—by the way, I never mentioned employers and costs; I said it was an insult to women that we got reduced statistics and bits of paper, which was a different point. But anyway, it is crucial that we should challenge the orthodoxies of gender equality when they are presented in this way without being treated as though one is a far-right pariah. It is unworthy of the nature of this House, which is to debate and scrutinise, in my opinion. I simply try to do that.

I still want to push this—more so now than before—on Report, but for now I will not oppose this clause standing part of the Bill.

Clause 31 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friends on this side of the House have commented on this amendment in far better terms than I could, but I will make a supplementary point. I was very surprised to see this amendment, because one of the perennial themes that we have heard throughout all stages of the Bill in this House has been a complaint about the alleged level of extra bureaucracy that it is supposed to impose on employers. Yet here we see a veritable feast of form-filling and requirements to report on those forms at regular intervals. I suggest that this amendment is not needed; it is surplus to requirements because it places unnecessary burdens on employers.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. It is very important that we do not suggest that giving a helping hand to those who have been politically deprived of equality equals equality. It can also equal tokenism. Working-class people, women and people from ethnic minorities have been promoted to positions in authority, and people basically point them out and say, “Look at them: they succeeded”. That is the opposite of equal treatment, and condescension is not a good look.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I can hardly follow my noble friend Lady O’Grady in being the TUC’s first woman general secretary, but I was the first woman leader of Newport City Council after decades and the first woman leader of the Welsh Local Government Association—and am still the only one.

I was also a public service employee for 35 years, when I taught in schools in London and south Wales, so I know about positive action. When I became a public service employer, as the leader of Newport, what I tried to do with positive action was to actively take a range of measures and initiatives to encourage people from communities that were underrepresented. We wanted them to bring their talents, experiences and expertise to our organisation, and we wanted them to join us.

Our selection process was no different: through the use of positive action, we did not seek to remove competition; rather, we wanted to allow everyone the same level of opportunity. That final selection for a post was always made on the merit of the applicant. We built our workforce so that it reflected the rich diversity and complexities of our community of Newport and we attracted the best talent from the widest pool of people.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Davies because I absolutely agree with what he says. I would add, just from my own experience, that, early in my working life, I worked in a retail organisation where there was a staff forum and where I and colleagues were organising to establish a trade union. The difference is this: that staff forum was set up by the employer. It was not set up by workers. That staff forum was funded by the employer; it was not funded by workers. That staff forum was not democratic, whereas the whole point of a trade union is that it is a democratic organisation of working people. I would hope that one of the aims we could share across this House is to see an increase—an expansion—of genuine collective bargaining, because the evidence is very clear that, internationally, we see that the demise of collective bargaining has been associated with growing inequality, worse conditions at work, a poorer share of the wealth that workers help produce and no independent democratic voice.

I would hope that, in this country, we recognise that there are many, many working people who feel they have been denied a genuine voice—an independent voice—at work and in society, and they are rightly fed up about it. If we want to tackle that—if we want to tackle inequality and the sense of powerlessness that many people feel—it is collective bargaining through the route of independent, democratic trade unionism that we all need to see grow.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this group and I am torn between both sides. I have some cynicism about the Opposition’s attempt at recognising non-trade unions and staff associations. I entirely understand the point that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, has just made about employer-led staff clubs, which I have been, over the years, invited to join. While they have been very pleasurably good social forums, they are very different from trade unions.

However, I am afraid that there is a danger that we can romanticise what contemporary trade unionism is, based on the very fine history of 150 years of struggle. I do not actually think that trade unions at the moment should take for granted that workers will be loyal to them, because there have been far too many instances of trade unions not being fit for purpose. Indeed, there is often a huge gap between trade union leaders and trade union members. Many members are leaving unions or not joining them, and that is not always because of evil bosses in a kind of caricatured way.

At Second Reading, I made the point—and I am only repeating it here now—that, for example, the Darlington Nursing Union has been set up because the nursing unions have abandoned female members of staff who were nurses and who have been attacked by their HR departments and their employers for their political views in relation to gender and sex. As it happens, we now can appreciate that they were simply reiterating their right to privacy as biological women—something that the Supreme Court has now at least acknowledged is the law—but they have been harassed and bullied and so on, and the trade unions abandoned them.

I made a point about the Free Speech Union. I appreciate that it is not a trade union, and nobody, least of all me, is suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Young, who is in his place, will become the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, of future negotiations. Despite the fact that that is an unlikely role for the noble Lord, Lord Young, the Free Speech Union has been forced into existence and has represented workers who have been done over by their employers when their trade unions have abandoned them. That is the point I am making.

The UCU is one example of a university union. I was a NATFHE rep for many years in the further education sector and I have watched in horror the way that that union has degenerated and sold out its members. So, for the record, I would prefer that we did not caricature each other in a way that does not represent the contemporary time. The trade unions today are not the trade unions of old. They could do with upping their game. Similarly, I do not think the trade unions are the evil enemy of employers, as is sometimes implied by people sitting closer to me on this side of the House.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. We are having a good debate and I very much hope to keep it friendly. What the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, was really rather flying pigs.

I, obviously not like most of the Committee, am old enough to remember the 1970s. I remember the destruction of the British automobile industry by the trade unions. London docks was destroyed by the trade unions. This led, through the 1970s, to the “winter of discontent”, which led to the necessary emergence of a Government under Margret Thatcher who sought to control the trade unions and do something about the destruction they were wreaking on the British economy. We all remember that; I am not fantasising about this. This 150-year story of the great things wrought by the trade unions is really difficult to let go by without saying something.

Right now, only 22% of workers in the UK belong to unions. Why is that? It is because of the destructive nature of those unions. Let us remember that, of that 22%, most are in the public sector. Public sector workers have a monopoly in the areas they occupy and in return are being rewarded by a Labour Government. We saw the sorts of rises, which were completely unjustifiable compared with what people in the private sector were earning, that the Labour Government awarded many public sector trade union workers when they came to power.

We saw how there is—I am not saying anything we do not all know—a wonderful relationship between the unions and the Labour Party. I saw a number—I do not stand here asserting it is true, but I saw it and it seems reasonable—that, since 2011 the trade unions have given £31 million to the Labour Party. Whether that is true or not, we know the figure is of that order. This is wonderful, but it increases the size of government, because of the deals the Labour Government have to make with these trade unions. It increases the cost and complexity of government, and it increases in general the cost of regulation to all employers.

All those things destroy the economic growth which, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said earlier, we are all trying to achieve. I ask the Government please not to give us guff—I hope it is not unparliamentary to say that—about the positive effects of the trade unions. They are destructive.

--- Later in debate ---

I believe the Government should trust workers to take responsibility for their own employment decisions. If workers want to request guaranteed hours, of course they should have the right to do so, and the freedom to ask without fear of discrimination or retribution. By undermining this basic principle of worker autonomy, the Government are sending a dangerous message on the real value they place on workers’ rights. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, until my earlier rant on trade unions, I had not been available to speak consistently in the debates on Clauses 1 to 8, although I have been listening in or following them. I have not been able to be here because of the problems of contemporary work: a portfolio career running from one job to another and never having time to do everything I want to do.

One of the reasons I am very keen on an impact assessment on the impacts of Clauses 1 to 8 on these sectors—the subject of the amendment to which I added my name, looking at hospitality, retail and health and social care—is that I feel as though the modern employment landscape has changed so dramatically. Despite the fact that we have a Bill about modernising employment rights, I have sometimes felt that there has not been an adequate recognition of how things have changed. As I hinted at earlier, there is a rather caricatured view on a variety of sides of the Committee, as though we were stuck in the 1970s and every employee and every worker was a public sector worker with a nine-to-five job. That is just not what it is like. The contemporary workplace often needs flexibility, for the sake of the workers as much as anything. But it is an argument, and I am not going to go into the details.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt—of wherever—for allowing me to put my name to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, explained well the different issues that have been raised in the debates until now, as I understand them. On different Bills I have raised the problems in these sectors, so I will not repeat them. But I note that, in a debate on Martyn’s law—which has now become an Act of Parliament as the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act—I raised the real problems that the hospitality sector is facing at the moment because it is under the cosh and overregulated. People who work in that sector feel that it is not going to survive. There are the national insurance contributions and the regulations being brought in. The retail sector, such as convenience stores, will now face a whole barrage of assaults in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill; I talked about that at great length, so I will not repeat that.

I fear that the health and social care sector has exploited care workers via zero-hour contracts; I have talked about that in the past. A modernisation of the health and social care sector is required, and I am disappointed that the present Government have not brought that forward. The one thing that I would like a Bill on is the modernisation of the health and social care sector, instead of these other Bills, which I think do some damage. Despite that, all that the amendment I am supporting calls for is an impact assessment of Clauses 1 to 8.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am delighted that consultations are occurring but, as legislators, we are asked to vote on a Bill without having seen the consultations. The Minister can tell me that there are no gaps because it will all be done for us. I do not know why we do not sack ourselves; what are we doing, sitting here, reading through line by line in Committee and discussing a Bill that we are told not to worry our little heads about? Those are the gaps.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

First, I did not say “little heads”. It is important that we continue to have conversations with stakeholders. Most noble Lords know, and I am sure the noble Baroness knows, that employment law includes a lot of regulations. Previous employment legislation puts further regulations in place. It is important and right that we speak to a wide group of stakeholders, businesses, workers, trade unions and everybody involved in this, so that we get it right.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

One last thing: to be frank, I want the Government to speak to wider groups of stakeholders than the official bodies that represent people. It is simply that it should have been done before the Bill was brought to us. I want it to be noted on the record that wide consultation work should have been done, but the Government should not have brought legislation that could have unintended consequences that damage workers’ rights, while they proclaim that it will save workers’ rights. If they had not done the consultations, they should never have brought it to Parliament to be discussed.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Baroness has said. The Bill has gone through the other House and been scrutinised line by line. We have also taken the point on board here and we will continue with further consultation.

Tackling Child Sexual Abuse

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that the noble Baroness will bear with me. I understand that there is a case to be made for a national inquiry, but the view that the Government have taken is that the IICSA recommendations, made over seven years—which were put to the previous Government and are now being implemented over the next 12 months by this Government —are the basis of what would come out of any national inquiry. There are issues to address, and we have tried to ensure that there is an independent review of the policing response in the areas that the noble Baroness has mentioned. If there are issues about the culture, or how those charges or investigations took place, they will be looked at.

There is the pot of money that we put aside for local authorities to determine a local response, if they wish, and they can apply for that. We are putting in place a framework that will made be public very shortly. We are trying to ensure that the victims, which the noble Baroness rightly put at the heart of her contribution to the House, are served well, which is why we want to ensure that we do not drag out, over a long period, things that we can do now.

The review of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will report shortly with immediate responses about what happened in certain local authority areas; undoubtedly, it will be painful reading and will create further debate. There will be the police and inspectorate reports on the current positions that we have talked about to date. The legislation currently before the House of Commons, on the recommendations that will come forward shortly, will put in place, by the end of this year, a range of measures that will, I hope, prevent the creation of future victims.

I understand why both the noble Baroness and her Front Bench have called for a national inquiry, but I believe that the response needs to be made now. That is why we are trying to put some energy—through my ministerial colleagues in the House of Commons—into this area to deliver some urgent outcomes. We are always open to further lessons. This is not the end of a process; it is an ongoing process. The key thing should be to prevent future victims, to prevent systematic abuse and to hold those people who have abused to account.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister emphasised the importance of now, but I want to emphasise that these are not historic cases of grooming gang abuse. If you look, you will see that the rape and systematic sexual abuse of young women and girls is still happening. We sometimes talk about it as though it was in the past, but it is happening now. That is why some of us get frustrated at the rather slow response.

The Minister keeps saying—this was also said in the other place—that there is a £5 million fund that councils can apply for, as though it is something they would want to apply for. The frustration is that the councils do not want to apply for the money because they are the people who are being accused of covering up the abuse in the first place. So they are not exactly queuing up and saying, “Give me some money, so I can look into myself”. That is why so many of the victims, from Rochdale, Bradford, Huddersfield, Oxford and so on, feel so frustrated: they feel like they are banging their heads against a brick wall.

Although I have reservations about mandatory reporting, in the instances of the grooming gangs, reports were made. People knew about it. The reports were made to people in social services, education and so on, but they were ignored. They were covered up and people looked the other way. When the Minister says that we have immediate solutions such as mandatory reporting or a £5 million fund, it just sounds like he is talking about a different issue.

I will make one final point. These are gangs, not just arbitrary individuals. With child abuse in the Church, we did not shy away from recognising specific child abuse scandals, but it did not mean that I then thought that everybody in the Church of England or every Catholic was an abuser. We should not shy away from the particular ethnicity and religion of these gangs now, because it does not mean we are saying that all people of that religion or ethnicity are paedophiles or rapists—of course not. Do not let us be frightened to say the truth.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s contribution, as ever. Since the election, a new child sexual abuse police performance framework has been developed. We have put in place legislation, which will be before this House shortly, on online offending, abuse and grooming enabled by artificial intelligence. We have put in place new performance powers for Border Force to detect digitally held child sex abuse material at the border. We are putting new restrictions on sex offenders changing their names. We are increasing investment in law enforcement capability through police undercover online networks and tackling organised exploitation programmes. Those measures are before the House now.

The Government have had to both develop that at policy level and put it into legislation and are now taking those matters through both Houses of Parliament. Slow though it might seem, in my experience of nearly 14 years as a Minister over two sets of Governments, it is actually quite a speedy process. By the end of this year, we should have legislation in place to deal with a whole range of issues that are currently being recommended to us and are important areas which will help prevent abuse and support victims.

The noble Baroness mentions mandatory reporting. Yes, it is there and, yes, it was ignored. The difference now is that, in the legislation before the House of Commons which will soon be before this House, there will be professional sanctions against those who fail to undertake mandatory reporting. That is not the case currently, and that is why we are strengthening the regime on mandatory reporting to try to ensure that we beef it up to hold people to account if they fail to report incidences of sexual abuse that come before them.

The noble Baroness is right that we should not ignore where abuses are undertaken by particular ethnic minorities, but the simple point that I would make is that we should tackle the sexual abuse of children wherever it comes from. If there are particular lessons to be learned from the grooming gangs issue, that is what the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will bring to us very shortly, that is what the police are looking at now through a historical reassessment of the cases and that is what we have asked HMIC to examine as well. I simply say to the noble Baroness that there are things that she thinks may not be happening, but I hope she can trust us that there are positive actions being taken by the Government on these issues and there will be further reports back and legislation in this House during the course of the next few months.

Apple: Advanced Data Protection Service

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes interesting points. The Government take privacy very seriously and have a strong reputation internationally for protecting human rights. Access to data can happen only under specific circumstances and with strict safeguards, and it is taken, when it can be taken, against child sexual abusers or terrorists. I come back to the point that I cannot comment on the operational issues relating to points made in this House today, including neither confirming nor denying the existence of any notices, and that is the position that I will have to advise the House of during the course of this Question.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I understand the Government’s concern with their own privacy and secrecy, less so that of family group chats and journalists’ WhatsApp messages. To avoid that, does the Minister acknowledge that it is not possible for Apple to open doors to all its customers’ data and ensure that only the police and intelligence services walk through, when it is obvious that criminals, foreign adversaries and others would exploit that weakness? Also, at a time when the Government are seeking to establish the UK as a leading hub for innovation and technology, does the Minister agree that it would be baffling if the Home Office were to squander that advantage by trying to bully tech companies into undermining their users’ privacy, security, civil liberties and free speech?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Investigatory Powers Act, on which I served during its legislative passage with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, contains robust safeguards. It contains independent oversight to protect privacy and ensure that data is obtained only on an exceptional basis and only when necessary and proportionate to do so. That is the only answer I can give the noble Baroness today. I cannot comment on the operational issues or on the case she has mentioned in relation to Apple. I cannot confirm or deny any notices, and I have to stick to that position today for the House and for national security issues.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

This Bill is not only about sending a signal to all people who organise public events to carry out sensible measures, but about providing a degree of compulsion and expectation on those who do not do that already. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I slightly query the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that a change of tone and consensus has broken out. We are at a stage where there is no point fighting until the last man standing. There are some fundamental philosophical disagreements about what we are doing in relation to this Bill, and I raise those because they relate to the amendments we have heard about.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that, for smaller venues with a capacity of, say, 50 or 100, we are establishing the notion that everybody should be sensible and take precautions. My argument is simply that we do not need new legislation at any level to encourage that, and that this could have been done through present legislation. For example, we have oodles of health and safety legislation. Councils are for ever issuing guidance on how events should be organised. This is a hammer to crack a nut, and it might have unintended consequences. That is what all of us have argued.

When I explain to people what I am doing in the House of Lords at the moment and what Bills I am following, and I explain this one, they are totally bemused that, in tackling terrorism, we are having a conversation about premises and regulators. They are more than aware that we need to tackle the problem and the threat of terrorism, and this just does not feel as though it is the most important way of dealing with that. The right reverend Prelate made a good point: it is not as though terrorists sit around and say, “That is a 500-seater”. As we know, whether it is a dance class in Southport or, in the case of Sir David Amess, an MP holding a surgery, it can be small places; or it can be the use of a vehicle as a weapon at a Christmas market. We have been through these different examples.

The question before us is whether the Bill will keep the public safe. My contention is that I am not convinced it will, but it will do a lot of damage to the public realm, and it could undermine civil society. Some of these amendments would at least help to remove the threat of legislative intervention from the smaller venues that are likely to be at the heart of community and civil society events. Of course there is a difference when there is a law. Even if you are a small venue, you might think “We do take precautions. We have 200 people. It is not as though we wander around oblivious to the protection of anyone who comes into our premises”. Once you have the threat of a regulator and a law, it is coercive and there are threats and things you need to do—I do not mean reports that have to be written—and you are answerable. As we have seen in every aspect of the evidence that has been given in consultation, people are put off; they say it is not worth running the venue or the event, and volunteers are standing down, as a number of later amendments will indicate.

We may have to make the best of what I consider to be an unnecessary and distracting law. I want to fight terrorism, but not this way; none the less, we should at least make the best of a bad job.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a useful if very short debate, and many of the issues raised in Committee have been repeated.

Most of these amendments would greatly increase the number of premises and events exempt from the provisions of the Bill. In particular, I want to speak against Amendments 2, 3 and 5 from the Conservative Benches. As has been described, they would increase the threshold to 500, or 300 for standard premises, or, in the case of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, from 800 to 1,000 for enhanced premises.

I will make two brief points, which are very much in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. First, it is worth recalling that the Bill, to quote from the Long Title, is

“to reduce the vulnerability of the premises or event to, and the risk of physical harm to individuals arising from, acts of terrorism”.

It is not a Bill that will prevent terrorism per se; it is about protecting individuals. It is about having a plan in place for what to do in the horrific eventuality of an attack and having someone responsible for ensuring that lives can be saved, so that people can be evacuated or invacuated as quickly and as safely as possible. Having such a plan, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others have said, is surely just common sense and good practice for any event or premises, no matter what its size.

Increasing the thresholds to such a degree as these amendments propose would, in our view, risk negating the very purpose and value of the Bill, as it would exempt so many additional premises or events. We cannot and should not necessarily make assumptions about the size of the venue or event that a terrorist or terrorist organisation would choose to attack. Being prepared, and having thought through an escape plan and what to do to save lives in the event of an attack, gives reassurances to the public and has to be good practice. I would even argue that it makes good business sense, if people, including potential customers, feel reassured.

Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the figure of 200 is already a compromise. The previous draft Bill produced by the former Conservative Government had a threshold of 100. My party and others, including the Home Affairs Select Committee, expressed concern that this would impact too many businesses and their premises, so the figure was raised to 200. As I said in Committee, I would have preferred 100, but I understand the reasons for the compromise.

For both these reasons, these Benches will not support any amendments this afternoon if they are pushed to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 13 and 25 in this group. Amendment 13 seeks to introduce a provision for exemptions to public protection procedures under the Bill. While I fully support the legislation’s intent to enhance security and preparedness in the face of the ongoing terrorist threat, I believe that a blanket one-size-fits-all approach is neither practical nor proportionate. This amendment introduces flexibility to ensure that obligations under the Bill are applied where they are truly necessary, without imposing undue burdens on venues where the risk is demonstrably low.

We must remember that security measures come at a cost, not only in financial terms but in administrative burden, operational complexity and resource allocation. Many smaller premises, community organisations and low-risk venues will struggle to comply with requirements that may be disproportionate to their actual risk profile. For example, a village hall hosting occasional gatherings, a small charity-run space or a low-footfall museum in a rural area does not face the same level of threat as a major city-centre venue yet, as the Bill stands, they may all be subject to the same requirements.

This amendment does not seek to weaken security; rather, it ensures that security measures are appropriately targeted. It would allow exemptions to be granted where a venue could clearly demonstrate that it does not meet a reasonable threshold of risk; that could be assessed based on factors such as size, location, historical risk data and the nature of the events that it hosts. The Government must consider whether it is justifiable to place the same regulatory demands on all premises, regardless of their individual circumstances.

The Bill must be robust, but it also must be fair. An exemption mechanism would ensure that security resources, both financial and operational, are directed where they will have the greatest impact rather than being spread thinly across venues that pose little to no realistic security concern. I urge the Government to consider the practical implications of this legislation and accept this amendment in the spirit of ensuring a proportionate, risk-based approach to public protection.

In Committee, the Minister helpfully said on 5 February that the responsible person would

“consider the appropriate procedures in the light of the cost and resources … Accordingly, no procedure is required to be put in place at unreasonable cost to the responsible person”.

His assurance is welcome, but the problem is that the Bill does not appear to allow the responsible person to consider appropriate procedures in the light of their cost. The Minister also said:

“What we are asking for in the Bill … is that he thinks … about the consequences and about whether there is a threat”.—[Official Report, 5/2/25; col. 794.]


Yet the Bill makes no allowance for the responsible person to think about the consequences and whether there is a threat—that is, assess the risk—as the Minister suggests. Instead it demands that, without consideration of the risks, the responsible person puts in place the costly rules that I am concerned about.

I am deeply concerned that, if we allow these rules to stop harmless, peaceful community events around our country like the ones that I referred to in Committee, as my noble friend Lord Murray so aptly said earlier, the terrorists will have won. The Minister’s encouragement to rely on the

“so far as is reasonably practicable”

wording is helpful—but the problem is that the term is subjective. Those enforcing the law are not the same people as those who make it, so phrases such as this are open to variations in interpretation.

Furthermore, one of the really important problems that the Bill creates is that it is, as Bills often are, very broad-brush in its drafting, especially in the public protection procedures and measures. It leaves the detailed requirements to be fleshed out in guidance and advice, so at this stage we have no way of knowing how difficult they are going to be to comply with.

On Amendment 25 and returning to the subject of thresholds, which we debated a moment or two ago, when the subject was raised in Committee there was much discussion of the level of the lower threshold—that at which premises became qualifying premises or an event becomes a qualifying event, as the case may be. This amendment approaches thresholds in another way, still seeking to address the concern that the selection of the level of the thresholds is based on very little science and, once the Bill is passed, they are set in stone effectively for ever—and they certainly cannot go up. The Bill would benefit from having an understandable framework under which the Secretary of State could vary thresholds upwards or downwards from time to time, which would also remove an element of doubt from the Bill as its stands, in that there is currently no clarity over how and when the Secretary of State may exercise his or her power to reduce thresholds.

The thing that is missing from the Government’s approach is a lack of any science to the question as to how the level of risk—for example, of a terrorist attack—changes from time to time. In Committee, the Minister mentioned the fact that the national threat level was then, as it is now, at substantial. As he knows, there are four other national threat levels—low, moderate, severe and critical. The setting of the national threat level is based on the assessment of risk by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. This amendment therefore seeks to allow the Secretary of State to vary the thresholds with the national threat level.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

First, it is really gratifying to hear from the Minister at the start that the Government are listening, have listened and have acted accordingly. I really do welcome the reining in of Henry VIII powers and the remarks that the Minister made. On listening, do feel free to carry on.

Some of the arguments that have already been made and which will be made in this group and others are about whether the Government are still considering the points about ensuring that the Bill does not have the unintended consequences that some of us dread. Throughout Committee, I was struck that the Government stressed that the Bill was not a one-size-fits-all measure, and they did not feel that that was appropriate. Earlier, the Minister made the point that there are exemptions for this Bill and that this House itself is not under the same requirements as other venues—and I have referenced again that there is a different approach to places of worship. That is appropriate, because we do not want it to be one size fits all.

I have put my name to Amendments 13 and 25, which respond positively to the ministerial commitment to flexibility and agility. As we have already heard, there is a constant theme and genuine worry about the unintended consequences of the Bill harming civil society and the social fabric of communities by taking an unnecessary regulatory toll on events. As I have said, it can feel as though the discussions we have here are far removed from the material threats that society faces from terrorism. I appreciate what was said earlier: if the Bill passes, nobody is claiming that it will stop terrorism. None the less, we are constantly told that lives will be saved if we pass the Bill so there is a moral onus on us to pass it. However, we need to take a broader approach.

Prevent: Learning Review

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Again, he brings a perspective that is helpful to inform government policy as a whole. I am not aware of anybody having their reputation slurred by political correctness, but I say genuinely to him that I have a great admiration for all individuals, in the police and elsewhere, who work to help the Prevent programme have the successes that it has.

There are failings in these cases—again, every individual can fail at different times. Are they systemic? That is what we are asking the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, to look at. Are there suggestions for improvement? Yes, there undoubtedly are. Are there suggestions for future legislation? Probably. But the question for me is: is it still worthwhile investing in support for professionals to undertake diversionary work for younger people who are coming into contact with neo-Nazis and Islamists, or indeed who are forming views which will lead to terrorist action downstream? The answer to that question is a resounding “Yes”. As the Government, we have to give full support to those professionals who are making judgments that I do not have to make on a daily basis, but they do. They deserve our full support, but that does not mean that we do not have to learn lessons when things have gone wrong—and in this case, and in the case of Southport, things have gone wrong and lessons need to be learned.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have heard the passion and fury from Katie Amess, David Amess’s daughter, over recent weeks, demanding a full inquiry. I would just like to say that she is very much her father’s daughter and he would be so proud of her. She feels that the Government are ignoring her. I ask the Minister whether he will please look seriously at her common-sense suggestion that the Axel Rudakubana Prevent inquiry is expanded to include Katie’s father’s murderer, Ali Harbi Ali, because, as she says, it is wrong to pick and choose which murders Prevent failed to prevent should be investigated.

Also, does the noble Lord agree that both cases have a lot in common, not least that politicians can get distracted by some bizarre blame games. When Sir David died, there was a swathe of people discussing online civility—anything but discussing radical Islamism. After the Southport killings, what have we been discussing? Selling knives on Amazon. It does not feel too serious to me. A full inquiry into both together would be helpful for everyone.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. We have ordered a public inquiry into the Southport murders. We agreed to do that and we are looking currently at terms of reference and a number of other measures to get that inquiry under way. We have asked for an initial Prevent review from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in relation to the murder of Sir David. Like the noble Baroness, I pay tribute to Sir David’s daughter, Katie, who has done herself proud in standing up for the legacy of her father, and also in standing up to make sure that her father has justice and that lessons are learned. That is a vital role for her to do.

We will first review the examination by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, of what has happened, on top of the reviews that have been undertaken, which we published this week. In the light of that, we will consider further discussions downstream. That might not satisfy the noble Baroness now, but I am trying to put that into the context of where we are to make sure that we do not lose valuable lessons from what happened to Sir David.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 37B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. The amendment seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 31 to safeguard the right to protest, as protected under Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998. The amendment makes it clear that nothing in the Bill should be construed as infringing on the right to protest, provided that such protests are conducted peacefully and lawfully, do not incite violence and do not threaten public safety or disrupt essential services. Furthermore, it proposes that any action taken under the Bill that impacts the ability to protest or assemble should be subject to review to ensure that fundamental freedoms are not unduly restricted.

The right to protest is a cornerstone of any democratic society and one of the primary means through which individuals and groups can express their views, voice grievances and influence public discourse. Throughout history, peaceful protests have played a transformative role in shaping our society, strengthening democratic governance and securing fundamental rights and freedoms. From the suffragette movement, which fought for women’s right to vote, to more recent demonstrations calling for climate action and social justice, the ability to gather, express dissent and campaign for change has been essential to our democratic values. Indeed, the richness and resilience of British democracy have often been reinforced by the willingness of citizens to stand up and speak out when they see injustice or seek reform.

However, the context in which we now consider this amendment is one of heightened security concerns. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly seeks to enhance public safety by imposing new security obligations on certain premises to protect against the ever-evolving threat of terrorism. As noble Lords will agree, this is a pressing and legitimate concern, and our duty to protect citizens from harm is paramount.

Yet, as we pursue this noble objective, we must be vigilant in ensuring that necessary security measures do not inadvertently erode the civil liberties that define us as a free and democratic society. The fight against terrorism must never become an excuse to undermine the very freedoms we seek to protect. Ensuring compatibility with human rights principles is not merely a legal obligation—it is a moral imperative.

This amendment provides much-needed clarity. It recognises that, although security is of the utmost importance, it must be balanced with the protection of democratic rights. The conditions it outlines are both reasonable and proportionate. They would ensure that protests remain peaceful, lawful and respectful of public order while preventing unnecessary or heavy-handed restrictions that could stifle legitimate dissent. The provision for review is particularly important. It would ensure accountability and create a safeguard against potential overreach by authorities. This is essential in preserving public trust, especially in the sensitive area of counterterrorism measures. If people perceive that security measures are being used to suppress dissent rather than to protect them, we risk undermining the very co-operation and solidarity needed to combat threats effectively.

Critics may argue that the amendment is unnecessary because existing legal frameworks already protect the right to protest. However, clarity within the legislation is crucial to avoid legal ambiguities or unintended consequences. By explicitly affirming the compatibility of this Bill with the right to protest, we would send a strong message that we value security and civil liberties equally and make it clear that security and freedom are not mutually exclusive but must coexist in a healthy democracy.

In practical terms, this amendment would also support public co-operation with counterterrorism efforts. When people see that their rights are respected and protected, they are more likely to trust and engage with security measures. Public trust is a critical component of effective counterterrorism strategies. A society that respects the right to peaceful assembly is one where people are more inclined to work with, rather than against, the authorities.

To be clear, this amendment would not weaken the Bill’s security provisions, or shield unlawful, violent or disruptive activities. Rather, it reinforces the principle that peaceful and lawful protest should not be treated as a threat to public safety or security. It provides assurance that this important legislation will not inadvertently target the exercise of democratic freedoms.

Moreover, we must consider the international dimension. The United Kingdom has long been regarded as a bastion of democracy and human rights. By enshrining protections for the right to protest in this Bill, we would reaffirm our commitment to those values on the global stage and demonstrate that it is possible to confront terrorism without compromising the fundamental freedoms that are the hallmark of a democratic society.

This amendment would strengthen the Bill by ensuring that it aligns with the fundamental principles of democracy and human rights. It would send a clear and important message that we can protect our citizens from terrorism without sacrificing the freedoms that define our society. Security measures that respect civil liberties are not only more just but more effective in fostering a cohesive and resilient society. I therefore urge the Government and noble Lords to support it. Let us demonstrate that we are committed to both safeguarding our citizens and upholding the principles that make this nation great. By doing so, we can ensure that our response to terrorism remains not only strong but principled, just and democratic.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, sometimes the world goes a bit topsy-turvy and mad. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has given an inspiring rendition of the importance of the right to protest. I kept thinking that I was sure that I made many a speech like that—not as well or with such wonderful rhetoric—saying that the right to protest should never be compromised when that side was in government. There are times when you wonder what is going on. However, I concede that I have thought that there could be problems in this Bill around the right to protest, so I am glad that it has been raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, made a very lawyerly speech. I did not understand all of it, but it is worth probing this. The other day, I talked about farmer protestors meeting in a barn and wondered whether this would apply, who would be the responsible person and so on. There is something in this. It is also what I had in mind when I supported the amendments about the Henry VIII powers, because there is no doubt that those powers give the Secretary of State the right to interpret public safety and security in such a way that our civil liberties could well be compromised in the name of public safety. In that sense, at least some reassurance from Minister would be very welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 46 and in support of Amendment 47 tabled by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. These amendments address two crucial concerns regarding the implementation and potential impact of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: the effect on the night-time economy and the importance of proper consultation and guidance for businesses.

The first amendment, Amendment 46, would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within 18 months of the Act’s passage reviewing its impact on the night-time economy, jobs and growth. Specifically, it would assess the effects on public houses, nightclubs, bars, restaurants, cinemas and other late-opening venues. The night-time economy is a vital part of our nation’s cultural and economic life. It provides employment for thousands of people, contributes billions of pounds to the economy and plays a central role in fostering vibrant communities. However, it is also an industry that has faced significant challenges in recent years, first with the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and now with rising operational costs and economic uncertainty.

While the security measures outlined in this Bill are essential to protect the public from the threat of terrorism, it is vital that we do not inadvertently place an unsustainable burden on businesses in the night-time economy. Venues that already operate on tight profit margins may struggle to absorb the costs associated with implementing new security requirements, such as enhanced surveillance, access control systems and staff training. By requiring a formal review of the Act’s impact on this sector, Amendment 46 would provide an essential mechanism for accountability and evidence-based policy-making. It would ensure that Parliament remains informed about any unintended consequences and allows for adjustments to be made if necessary. Crucially, this review would help strike the right balance between public safety and economic vitality.

The second amendment, Amendment 47, seeks to delay the commencement of Parts 1 and 2 until draft guidance has been issued to businesses and a proper consultation has taken place. This is a sensible and pragmatic approach that prioritises clarity and fairness for businesses. It is one thing to pass legislation, but it is another to implement it effectively and responsibly. For businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, sudden and unclear regulatory changes can be disruptive and costly. Without proper guidance, there is a real risk that businesses may struggle to understand their obligations under the Act, leading to confusion, non-compliance and potentially adverse outcomes for security and commerce.

By ensuring that draft guidance is published and consultations are conducted before the Act’s provisions come into force, Amendment 47 would promote a smoother and more co-operative transition. It would allow businesses to prepare adequately, understand the requirements and implement the necessary measures in a way that is both effective and economically viable. Moreover, consultation with businesses is essential to ensuring that the measures introduced are practical and proportionate. Those who operate public venues have valuable insights into the challenges and realities of implementing security measures, and their input can help shape more effective and workable solutions.

Amendments 48 and 49 are probing amendments on the timescale for implementation of the Act. We discussed implementation timescales briefly on the first day in Committee, and the Minister confirmed that the Government think that the Bill will take a two-year period to implement. I have tabled these amendments to understand better how that period will work. Can the Minister confirm which parts of the Bill are likely to be implemented before that two-year period has elapsed? Can he give us an indication of whether the Government are firmly committed to implementing the Bill in full by the end of the two years? We feel very strongly that it would be helpful for organisations and events that would be affected by the Bill’s measures to have as much information as possible as soon as possible. Can the Government confirm how they will keep those organisations and events updated on progress so that they can plan appropriately?

In conclusion, these amendments do not seek to weaken the Bill or undermine its vital security objectives. On the contrary, they would strengthen it by ensuring that its implementation is thoughtful, measured and responsive to the needs of businesses and communities. Amendment 46 would provide a mechanism for accountability and assessment, ensuring that the impact on the night-time economy is carefully monitored. Amendment 47 would prioritise proper consultation and guidance, fostering co-operation and compliance among businesses. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support these amendments as a means of enhancing the effectiveness and fairness of this important legislation. Together, they represent a balanced and pragmatic approach that upholds public safety and economic resilience. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly support Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst, and I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I wanted to put my name on this group, but I missed the deadline. I think it is a crucial group and I hope that the Government will be very positive about it, because the night-time economy is very worried that its venues are going to be badly affected by this, and I think it would be very constructive for the Government to adopt this amendment as some kind of reassurance.

I was inspired, indirectly at least, to get involved in supporting Amendment 46 by the Prime Minister. Yesterday, on the front page of the Daily Mirror, Keir Starmer was saying that he backed the fight to save the great British pub:

“there's nothing any of us like better than going to the local for a pint, myself included”.

He said:

“They are the places where friends, family, community come together around something which is very British – the pub. It’s a place of warmth, of opportunity, to have a nice time with friends, family and for people to have the friendship and engagement that is so important to their wellbeing”.


The Prime Minister was supporting a campaign to save pubs precisely because pubs are struggling. Data from the Valuation Office Agency in December showed that the number of pubs in England and Wales fell by 402 last year. That was a net figure that took into account new pubs opening but did not include premises standing empty that are still classified as pubs. As pub numbers have plunged by more than 2,000 since the start of 2020, and with industry experts such as AlixPartners warning that 3,000 more pubs, bars, restaurants and clubs are at risk of closing in 2025, I want the Government to note that this Bill represents another burden and that we should at least keep our eye on, monitor and be accountable about whether unintended consequences will damage the sector.

Publicans and experts blame a cocktail of supply and staffing costs, rising energy bills, and those controversial, crippling national insurance contributions, but stakeholders raise all the time regulatory demands and the costs in terms of licensing. There is a certain dread of what this legislation will mean, especially because pubs are trying to make more of themselves as venues—for example, for quiz nights and community choirs. In Neil Davenport’s “Letter on Liberty”, Pubs: Defending the Free House, there is a discussion about a mini boom post-lockdown of pubs as new live-music venues. That thrill of face-to-face live events and the public square as a place of freedom is lucrative as well, so we need to be careful that this Bill does not unintentionally end up killing that off.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, this amendment is about ensuring that our regulatory framework for public protection is as efficient, effective and co-ordinated as possible. It is about asking the right questions, gathering the necessary evidence and being open to reform where it is in the public interest. I therefore urge the Government to accept the amendment and commit to conducting a thorough review of the role of the SIA.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Secondly, what in particular is the Home Office or the relevant ministry’s evidence of the impact that personal liability for such penalties, in particular custodial sentences, will have on the willingness of volunteers to accept the personal liability that is imposed on the person responsible for qualifying premises and/or events, whether in Clause 4 at the lower level or in Clause 7 at the enhanced level? Those are my questions. It may not be possible to answer them now, but I think this is an important practical point going forward.

[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.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord in the desires that he expressed, but in my view those desires are not assisted by this amendment. It is otiose and tautological compared with the rest of the Bill. Sir John Saunders, in his recommendations in volume 1 of his three reports on his excellent inquiry into the Manchester Arena events, emphasised that it was necessary to place the duties on individuals—to make sure that individuals took their responsibilities properly—and that indeed has been the objective of the campaign led so well by Mrs Murray.

In my view, if one reads Amendment 1 and then the Long Title of the Bill, one sees that the Long Title covers everything included in Amendment 1 and an awful lot more. My view is that we should not enter into a discussion about what in the abstract is required of premises; that is not what the Bill is about. It is about placing on individuals enforceable responsibilities, the failure of which would provide serious consequences for those individuals. That is why we are here, and that is why we should stick to the Long Title without this amendment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am minded to support the amendment, but maybe that is because I am a little uncertain about how we are going to ensure that what we all want, which is to protect the public, is guaranteed by the Bill. I worry about a certain mission creep. At Second Reading, a lot of people quoted Sir John Saunders saying:

“Doing nothing is, in my view, not an option”,


but I also quoted Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, who quoted him as saying:

“Equally, the Protect Duty must not be so prescriptive as to prevent people enjoying a normal life”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/24; col. 625.]


As I understand the aim of the amendment, it is simply to ensure that we do not forget what the point of the Bill is. Whether we like it or not, regulatory powers have a tendency of leaving their original aim and growing or going elsewhere. In that sense, I want to ensure that we do not forget what the Bill is about, and that means this amendment. It might seem silly to say that, and tempting to say, “We won’t forget what this Bill is about”, but a lot of the evidence in relation to the Bill does not indicate that the specific measures in it will actually keep people safe from terrorism. I do not doubt that it puts a huge amount of responsibility on individuals, but I do not know that the end result is going to be what we intend it to be. I was of a mind to think that the amendment might help to keep focus; that is one of the things that I was attracted to.

One of the things that is nagging me—and I am going to raise it here because it seems an appropriate place—is that, if we are going to say that the aim is to protect people from terrorism, we also need to know what we mean by terrorism. I am not being glib. The Government themselves have noted that the Bill is partly in response to the changing nature of terrorism—we now have lone-wolf terrorists; it is not straightforward, so we cannot just rely on the secret services and so on—so the changing nature of those terror threats requires this regulation. However, I do not know that we are closer to knowing what that definition of terrorism is. We can all say, as we all will, that we want to pass a piece of legislation that will keep people safe from terrorism, yet we have decided that we do not know how to define terrorism.

Let us think of the official confusion in relation to Axel Rudakubana. As one journalist pointed out last week, saying that he was known to the authorities is an understatement. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out that this is about putting responsibility on individuals but, in that instance, it is hard to name an authority or individual who did not know the threat embodied by that young man, including the police, social services, mental health services, counter-extremism services, education establishments and Childline. He actually said, “I am going to be a mass murderer”, and we know about the ricin, the al-Qaeda manual, and so on. Yet he was not labelled a terrorist. I worry that, if we are confused about our definitions, in relation to this Bill as well, there could be problems.

I have a final point on this. I also worry precisely because we have decided, or declared, that terrorism is changing—I do not challenge the idea that there is something in this—such that somebody who created ricin and had an al-Qaeda manual was not labelled a terrorist. He did not fall through the net—he was caught in the net—yet, none the less, as has been pointed out, nothing was done.

At the same time, we have an expansive slippage between the notions of extremism and terrorism. It has become very unclear what we mean. It might be a joke, but it was revealed over the weekend that the report commissioned, albeit rejected, by the Government, featured a reading list indicating dangerous, far-right extremism that could lead to terrorism. A viewing and watch list was included, featuring Michael Portillo’s “Great British Railways” programme and “Yes Minister” as potentially indicating a problem.

You know, that is, like, “What? How mad”. The reason I am mentioning it is that I do not want mission creep in relation to definitions, or in relation to the regulatory aspects of this Bill. I am terrified of the unintended consequences for community organising, civil society, venues and so on. I just think there is nothing wrong with a very specific reminder of what we want this Bill to do. That is what attracted me, at least, to this amendment.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I of course approve of the Government’s overall intention behind the Bill. However, I have serious concerns about how it will be implemented and whether it is necessary to have this wide range of powers on quite small organisations, events and places that will have events coming within the scope of the Act—when it is an Act—only once or twice a year. We could have real problems there.

My concerns are similar to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, from whom we just heard. There is a real need for focus, and for the Secretary of State, when making regulations, to get them sharply on the point. This is especially so in relation to the likely impact on smaller businesses as well as voluntary and community-run organisations in the standard tier premises. There is a lack of evidence that the Bill will adequately reduce the threat of terrorism to smaller organisations, if indeed they are likely to be at risk.

There will be problems too for one-off and occasional events, which may attract quite large numbers, but in informal surroundings. There will be a big burden on them. How will it really work? So, the purpose is necessary. Just because there are going to be 850 people at an event, do we really need the whole panoply of this Bill?

In 2023, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee produced a report, which, for those who have not looked at it recently, is well worth looking at. It was a careful and well-evidenced report that addressed the then draft Bill. I know that things have moved on since then, but the conclusions reached by that committee on the evidence to which the report referred highlight areas that need to be addressed in the approach to be adopted today.

The committee pointed out that in the 2010s—a slightly different period from the one that my noble friend Lord Davies opened on—there were 14 terror attacks. A lot of those involved knives; there were also vehicle attacks, bombs and one firearm. This was in the 2010s. The majority were out of scope of what is in the Bill: they were on the streets, on Crown premises such as barracks, or on transport. Those would not be covered by the Bill, yet they were the bulk of the attacks. This Bill is irrelevant to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I understand and accept what the noble Baroness was attempting, but Clause 5(2) refers to

“if an act of terrorism were to occur on the premises, at the event or in the immediate vicinity of the premises or event”.

To me, that seems to fulfil all requirements.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am slightly wary, because I want to probe what we mean by the definition of buildings. I find these issues interesting. but I am less interested in them technically and will probably be accused of steering into Second Reading territory.

I genuinely think that trying to clarify what we mean by “building” is important. It speaks to my fear that the Bill might unintentionally dampen down civil society, have an impact on grass-roots activity and lead to a hyper-regulation of public spaces. I do not think that is what it intends to do, so I urge the Government not to expand beyond a narrow view of what a building is.

I was struck when a village in Lincolnshire was forced to cancel its Christmas fair, after it had been told to block off roads due to the risk of a potential terrorist attack. In a discussion on this, somebody noted that it was because there were worries about the impact of Martyn’s law, when it becomes law. I did a little digging and discovered a number of organisations that said that councils and other organisations were citing Martyn’s law guidelines—as we know, it is not a law—in a risk-averse way, pushing back against large gatherings such as bonfires and so forth.

My nervousness is that this law will be used to push a precautionary principle when it comes to civil society. I get anxious about that, so the last thing I want to do is to interpret any gathering, temporary or otherwise, where there are a lot of people, as a building or structure. Somebody just made a point in relation to markets and Christmas markets. One organiser said, “If this carries on, I doubt we will continue, as it takes all the joy out of it”. I just remind the Committee, to go back to the Home Secretary’s point, that the aim of the Bill is not to destroy the capacity of ordinary people to gather, because that would be to let the terrorists win. So, whatever way we come down on our definition of buildings, let us not forget that there is a cost to pay if we overinterpret this to say that, “There is a large group of people; terrorists can attack them; close everything down”. In which case, the terrorists will have won, and what is the point of that?

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, whichever way we look at this, I suggest that it is absolutely plain that we need a clear definition of “building”. A number of good points have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, made a good suggestion. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is also a good one. There is merit also in taking at least part of the Building Act, but “building” needs to be defined. Thus, I think it must be clear, when one considers it, that Section 121(2) of the Building Act is not completely apposite, because it does include the words,

“a vehicle, vessel, hovercraft, aircraft”.

One could include the definition there but exclude expressly those words or any other bits. One could do it by reference to the Building Safety Act, or it may be that the best route is to go to the definitions section at the back, look at the two existing statutes that are in place and take a good definition combining those where appropriate. I suggest that we certainly need a proper definition of “building” at the back, which must include demountable, collapsible buildings—things that very often look almost like a tent. Are large tents to be included, or a circus site event which could hold 500 people? If we are going to protect people, let us get it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, despite supporting the Bill in general, I strongly support Amendment 11, which I will speak to. An assessment of risk, which is generally agreed to be appropriate in all aspects of modern life, seems to be absent from the Bill. Any premises or event, regardless of the real risk of it being attacked, must take a series of potentially very costly precautions.

It is worth noting that of the 15 terrorist attacks to which the impact assessment seems to refer as the main basis for the Bill, six were in London, two in Manchester and one in Liverpool, and all were in urban areas. In fact, all of them were in areas that had tarmac underneath them; not a single one was in a rural area. Does that suggest that it is right to treat events in rural settings as being as high risk as those in urban areas? It is like applying 20 miles per hour speed limits throughout the entire country: it might marginally improve safety, but at a cost of bringing the economy to its knees. In their search for economic growth, is this really what the Government want? I urge them to introduce a little good sense and allow there to be an assessment of risk in these situations.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I urge the same in relation to that amendment: having a specific risk assessment and some flexibility and common sense. I will ask the Minister about how you can have that flexible attitude to buildings.

I was very impressed by the letter from the Minister on places of worship. It was very sensitively handled, and it understood, as it said, the unique work of faith communities and so on. It did not say that no faith community buildings would be exempt, but it understood that they could be treated differently, with a certain sensitivity for what their roles are. We heard a number of very good speeches on that at Second Reading which asked the question, “Well, if you can look at a church or another place of worship in that way, why can’t you look at somewhere else like that?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 6 and 7, in my name, follow a similar line to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost. His request is that the threshold moves to 300; mine is that it moves to 400 or 500. The truth is that I do not think there is a magic number. I think the number was first 100, and I am grateful to the Minister for moving it to 200, but as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, there is no particular reason for this number. It can be almost any number; it is just that you capture more and more businesses, village halls and voluntary organisations by going for the lower number. I want to push for this to be debated fully this evening, because this is one of the core issues within the Bill and something that needs a lot of time.

The amendments seek to increase the threshold and exempt smaller venues. That would be so important for so many of them. It is about viability and costs, as many businesses are struggling with all the costs that face them. The Government should be trying to protect them and these premises from further resource pressures. Therefore, it is the damage that is going to be done that I ask the Government to think about. By raising the threshold, these amendments would alleviate the administrative and financial responsibilities involved and associated with implementation, while concentrating resources and efforts on larger premises, which will always be higher-value targets for terrorist activities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made a very important point in an earlier group. Every time we do anything like this, we say to the terrorists that they have had another victory and done something more, by making us start to change our lives—that is what is happening here. I feel very strongly that we need to minimise the effect on the people of this country, as much as we possibly can, and go for the largest number that can possibly be considered. I cannot believe that there is not an argument we could have which would enable the Government to accept a number of 400 to 500; they may wish to consider the 800 number, but that is another issue. I am less concerned about that; I am concerned about smaller organisations—the voluntary organisations and smaller business—and the chilling effect that this will have.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, when I heard about this Bill originally, one could see and understand that it made sense for Wembley Stadium or somewhere of that nature. But when under the last Government, not this one, I saw that the figure of 100 was being used, I realised how many small businesses and small organisations such as church halls would be affected. It made me ask a question, which the Government have rightly answered. All the consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny, and all the trade organisations that were asked, have said there is very little evidence that, for the safety of small venues, this legislative regulatory framework will keep people safe. What it is guaranteed to do is stymie entrepreneurship and volunteering in local areas, and make people think that it is just not worth organising events or staying open.

I congratulate the Government on having listened to that and for raising the standard tier from 100 to 200 people. Having done that, the question is why they stopped at 200—why not 300 or 400? These numbers are not rocket science, and this is not a glib or silly point or playing games. That is why I raised—rather badly, a moment ago—that, on the numbers game, education settings and places of worship are classified as standard duty premises, regardless of their capacity, because they are different kinds of premises.

We know that it does not have to be this number or that number otherwise people will be killed in terrorist offences. The Government are prepared to be subtle and flexible, and this Bill can be the same. It is worth us probing why the Government stopped at 200. I would go higher, because I am very worried that it will stymie community organisations and small businesses, which will just fall apart.

The Government have a mission of growth and keep saying that they believe in it. They do not want to be saying to new companies or to the hospitality industry that they are going to have to fulfil overregulatory bureaucracy to survive. It is not that such organisations do not care about their clientele or staff; it is that this Bill does not just demand that they think about that but that they must fulfil, under threat of law, a particular set of regulatory mandates. It is difficult; that is what they have all said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, not for the first time in a debate on terrorism in your Lordships’ House, I have to say that I do not want to be the person who in a few years’ time says, “I told you so”. This Bill is about terrorism. If a terrorism act resulted in the deaths of 20, 30 or even two or three people in a hall that was holding a qualifying event that had 232 people, for example, in the audience, in both Houses we would be saying, “Something’s got to be done. We got this wrong”.

I remind your Lordships that one of the most notorious and most damaging terrorist attacks this country has ever seen took place in a public house in Birmingham. So the idea that we hold a sort of numbers auction on the capacity that qualifies under the Bill is, I am afraid, foolish and wrong. Indeed, I am very concerned about this debate on numbers, because it runs the risk of being part of a playbook for terrorists to read—and many terrorists do read very carefully, both on the internet and elsewhere, when they are making their decisions.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

On that basis, there would be no numbers, no tiers and no distinctions at all in this piece of legislation. One of the most shocking and barbaric actions happened recently with the group of—what was it?—40 young children at a dance class. Those of us trying to seriously probe what regulation would mean based on numbers—because there are numbers in this Bill—does not mean that we want to encourage terrorists to go in and kill people in any circumstance. It is wrong, because a lot of the terrorist things that have happened recently have happened because we did not do something before, not because of the numbers of a venue and regulation—for goodness’ sake.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

If the noble Baroness had waited until the end of my next sentence, I would have answered her question. I recognise that we have to set some number. It was suggested that there was no reason for a figure of 200. Can I just remind your Lordships—because it has not been mentioned yet in this debate—of part 8, volume 1, of the Saunders report? Sir John said, at paragraph 8.43, which I am sure all noble Lords will have read with care:

“An important question for the government will be whether setting the level for the Protect Duty in the first category at venues with a capacity of 100 or more is workable. Very different issues will arise for venues capable of accommodating an audience of only 100 people and one capable of accommodating many thousands such as the Arena”.


That is the Manchester Arena.

The stated aim of the consultation on which those comments were based, said Sir John,

“is for ‘light touch’ regulation. While that may be justified when dealing with smaller venues, it seems to me that different considerations should apply to larger commercial premises. Not only are the potential consequences so much more serious but, for that reason, these premises are more likely to attract the attention of terrorists. They are also likely to have greater resources to put protective measures in place”.

In the final part of what I regard as a very important quotation from Saunders, he says, at paragraph 8.45:

“I recommend that when considering the shape of the legislation, the government considers whether it will be necessary to have further categories above the 100 capacity. While categorising by capacity may be the most straightforward way of deciding on the nature of the Protect Duty to be imposed, there may be other factors that need to be considered. For example, it may be appropriate to use different capacities depending on whether the venue is indoors or outdoors. This will need to be considered”.


I also know, as many other Members of this Committee will know, that Figen Murray and those such as Brendan Cox, who have been the backbone of her campaign, have researched these matters with care, and they were asking, on the basis of the evidence they obtained, for a lower figure of 100. I accept that we have to have some figure, but it must not be one which is part of the encouragement or playbook of terrorists.

The Government have accepted that that figure of 100, which Sir John Saunders had in mind and which was adopted by Mrs Murray, should be raised to 200 and have nuanced the legislation in various parts of this Bill, exactly as Sir John Saunders anticipated and recommended should be done. I therefore believe that this is a reasonable balance and that we should now recognise that this is a proportionate and nuanced provision and stop playing about with these numbers.