Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I do not want to pour cold water on the proposal as it seems to be getting a lot of support, and I support the principle of it. I am very taken with some of the simple measures that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, outlined. However, they are not all simple measures. I have been on local authorities and seen how planners can get carried away with some of their proposals. All of a sudden, we are into not simple proposals such as those we have heard about today, but much more elaborate ones that would be impossible for the business or the community centre to implement.

We need to be careful about the proposal. I am happy with the principle, but the outworking could be much more difficult. I say in response to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough, let us not forget that a lot of the buildings in Northern Ireland that were protected against terrorist attacks were public buildings. That money was coming from central funds, not community organisations, churches, local football clubs or sports clubs.

I support the principle of this proposal, but I urge some caution as well.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, I think that this amendment has a lot of merit. It certainly raises some very important issues. Ahead of this Bill, I met with people from the insurance industry. They very much made the point that time and money could be saved by incorporating some of these security provisions at the design phase of public buildings.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made a very powerful case for why this amendment would make sense. Clearly, retrospectively trying to put in measures for effective and safe evacuations and invacuations is frequently going to be harder and less cost-effective than building them in at the planning and architectural design stage for new public buildings. As others have hinted, this amendment is perhaps not for this Bill but for a future planning Bill, but it raises a common-sense and important set of issues. I look forward to Minister’s reply.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, my two colleagues mentioned the situation in Northern Ireland. The Minister will be very familiar, from his service there, with a lot of this. A lot of the protections that were put in place were against blast. Terrorist tactics have changed and will continue to change. You cannot simply look at what the threat might have been 30 or 40 years ago: look at the threat that we face today, but in 10 years or 20 years, it may be very different.

The trick will be to have flexible thinking going into the actual design, so although the nature of the threat will change over time there will at least be a bit of future-proofing—that is the language we would need to use. All those lessons should be learned. I served on the Northern Ireland Police Authority, which had to deal with the threats to buildings in those circumstances and to other Civil Service facilities. The Minister will be very familiar with all that. The key is for those who design or adapt buildings—because more buildings are going to be adapted than built from scratch—to show a bit of flexibility in those processes and put a little thought into what might be coming down the road. Our buildings were largely protected against blast, which would not necessarily be the only thing that is at risk.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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 amendment gives powers to the Secretary of State to make some modest payment for the training of the 22,000 or so volunteers who will be needed to implement the Bill’s provisions. It also reflects the fact that the railways have to observe many current regulations that are increasing their costs. Their volunteers are now being asked to prepare professionally to undertake the additional obligations imposed by law. The amendments in this group—I support those from the noble Baronesses opposite—are important to raise awareness of the new and onerous obligations being imposed on the voluntary sector, and it seems reasonable that some acknowledgement of this should be made to assist it to fulfil its obligations. I beg to move.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 26, 27 and 29 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.

This is an absolutely key group of amendments. The many organisations which contacted us about the Bill always raised, without exception, training and information campaigns. Last week, I spoke to a friend who manages a theatre in east London. She told me that she has already put in place most of the measures contained in the Bill and already done the training. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, in reality that applies to the larger venues; these amendments are particularly targeted to the smaller venues, which have not yet put in place, or even thought about, many of the provisions in the Bill.

Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that the proper provisions are in place, so that staff at venues—especially smaller venues—are adequately equipped and trained to respond to threats. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, many smaller venues are run by volunteers or communities with little or no formal training in event management or public protection procedures. Amendment 26 would address this by ensuring that all venue staff and volunteers—whether in a pub, a church hall or another venue—would be equipped with the right training to prepare them to keep the public safe or to minimise casualties if there were to be an attack. Many organisations have expressed their concern to us about the lack of clarity in the Bill and said that, while the Bill would be helpful, training would be absolutely essential to make it work properly.

Amendment 26 would cover evacuation procedures, the monitoring of premises, physical safety and security, and the overall provision of protecting lives. It would also establish a full training implementation plan, with the Secretary of State regularly updating Parliament to ensure that the right progress was being made. Crucially, it would also ensure that our businesses are fully supported and given the clarity that they need to plan. The public deserve to know that, wherever they are, staff are properly trained to respond to any such emergencies or attacks. They should have confidence that venues are held to a consistent standard of preparation and readiness. For the venues themselves, it would be helpful to provide clarity and consistency on the standards that they have to meet under this law.

As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, there are concerns from many of the smaller venues and businesses about the financial impact and additional bureaucracy that these requirements may bring, which is why the new clause that we have tabled proposes a practical training plan to minimise the financial burden with scalable and specific training.

Amendment 29 is connected to this. As there is currently no specific requirement for training in this Bill—unlike the draft Bill presented by the previous Government—there is nothing to ensure that any training that could be provided is of a sufficiently high standard, quality or value for money. There were many speeches at Second Reading about the flourishing number of consultants offering their training services.

More tailored training will increase protection and raise awareness of the threat of terrorism for not only staff but volunteers. It is important to ensure that venues, staff and volunteers not only know what to do in the event of a terrorist attack but are confident that such training is delivered by competent and well-qualified professionals. In Amendment 29, we therefore suggest that an approval scheme is established for training—something that my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to as a sort of kitemark for training.

Amendment 27 requires the Secretary of State or the SIA to provide information and material to assist in the understanding of, and compliance with, the requirements under the Bill, including by way of an information awareness campaign. It also requires the Secretary of State to provide resources to implement this. Although advice is available online at ProtectUK, many businesses are unaware of this or find the information difficult to understand. This could lead to difficulties in implementing or complying with this legislation. A similar concern applies to parish and town councils, which typically own a range of premises—both indoor and outdoor spaces. They are also responsible for a large number of public events. It is therefore vital for the local council sector to have ongoing support and funding to assist with compliance with the new legislation.

Will the Government undertake a significant communications campaign to raise awareness of the new duties in this Bill? Will they provide a dedicated programme of tailored support and guidance? Will they undertake to provide clear, relevant and accessible information as well as online resources and tools on implementing and complying with this legislation?

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, my experience of smaller venues is that they are significantly more adept, knowledgeable and willing to explain security and safety procedures in advance of any event. I cannot recall this ever happening in a larger venue. This morning, I was at a once-Jewish theatre where, a very long time ago, a false alarm was called. There was some panic and 19 people were trampled to death while leaving the venue. In some of the large venues across the world—including in this country, specifically sports venues such as football venues—many major tragedies have taken place when there has been a chaotic leaving of a venue.

This Bill is highly appropriate and worthy. One can see the rationale and the urgency with which the Government—with cross-party support—brought it forward. However, it strikes me that there is a danger that we miss one key aspect. The risk of terrorist attacks is the risk of the attack, but it is also the risk of panic and chaos at any perception of one, however falsely or maliciously the panic or evacuation is created.

Judging from how things have been developing since this Bill was announced, I have noted that, for example, elderly, somewhat disabled football fans—those with walking sticks—have been told that they cannot sit in certain seats because their ability to evacuate in an emergency may not meet the time criteria. So, people who have willingly sat very safely and require—sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently—assistance have in recent months been told: “You may not sit in this seat because you will be a risk”. I would put that as one of the unforeseen consequences.

Let me turn that round into the positive, in the context of Amendment 24 on training. If we take a football stadium of any team in the top two divisions in England, we find a set of stewards whose turnover—not always, but usually—is very high. I have met stewards who were not aware of the layout of the stadium at all and could not solve basic problems, because they were new and did not have that knowledge. Usually this is in attempting to get into stadiums, where one interacts with the stewards.

At the football stadium I go to most regularly, like most other major stadiums, two-thirds of the people who attend go every single week. They sit in the same seat in the same part of the stadium. I know where my seat is. I know the people alongside me. I know people in the row behind and the row in front. In any emergency, we know what the flow is at any one time when leaving the stadium. We know where to go because we are there on every single occasion. The average will be 20 to 25 times a year in the same seats and the same venue.

Therefore, if one wants to maximise safety in the context of terrorism—an actual attack or anything thought to be one which could create an emergency evacuation—should one train up 300 to 500 regular attenders in the basics of what to be looking out for and to do in any eventuality, I put it to the Minister that the chances of success would be significantly higher. That does not fit all venues: not all venues will have a majority of people who know the venue better than anybody because they go to the same seat regularly, but that is a strength that should be capitalised on. I would like to see customers who regularly sit in the same location in the same venue trained up; I have proposed it to one major football club, in this case suggesting 500 supporters. This would be a free resource, not instead of but additional. On the objective of this Bill, that would not just bring some buy-in but make major venues significantly safer for all of us. Training by the venue of those who attend on a regular basis ought to be part of the mix in taking this forward.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Suttie]

30: Clause 12, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) In preparing guidance and providing advice under subsections (2)(a) and (b), the Security Industry Authority must, in particular, take account of existing duties, controls or other legal requirements on qualifying premises, including existing licensing requirements.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe how the requirements of this Act will complement and enhance existing legal requirements on qualifying premises.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 30 and 31, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, are probing amendments that aim to clarify how the provisions in the Bill will complement or enhance existing legal requirements on qualifying premises.

In speaking ahead of the Bill to a number of organisations with an interest in it, we heard from the live events industry that it is already heavily regulated and subject to a number of legal requirements under existing licensing laws. Music venues, festivals and events are regulated under the Licensing Act 2003 with, where appropriate, highly developed counterterrorism measures secured by licence conditions and overseen by the safety advisory groups, in accordance with long established and authoritative guidance such as the Purple Guide. This is an important local dimension for a number of events. There will already be local regulatory and partnership structures for counterterrorism resilience. LIVE, the live music industry body in the UK, which has spoken to us about the Bill, has told us that for larger festivals measures have already been taken to protect visitors and workers from terrorist attacks. That is because every venue and festival that comes under LIVE has a premises licence, which means they are already considering counterterrorism, safety and security in the running of the premises or events. As part of that, venues and festivals already work closely with safety advisory groups, which take advice from local police forces and counterterrorism security co-ordinators. Amendment 30 therefore asks for reassurance from the Minister that account will be taken of that in preparing guidance and advice under the Bill. I am sure he will agree that it is important to try, wherever possible, to avoid duplication between this Bill and existing requirements under the Licensing Act, and to promote coherence between the two regimes as far as is practicable to do so.

We heard similar concerns from the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre, which has resulted in our tabling of Amendment 31. To be effective, it is crucial that the SIA understands the industries that it is overseeing, including theatre. In particular, it must be familiar with their operations and existing security arrangements. I ask the Minister whether it is the Government’s intention that the SIA will undertake engagement work with sectors, such as theatre, that will be affected by this new legislation to understand their individual complexities and how they currently work.

Paragraph (ii) of our amendment would require the SIA to take account of particular considerations relating to adjacent premises, premises within other premises and areas in the vicinity of buildings. The Bill defines “premise operator” as the freeholder or leaseholder and “event organiser” as the entity overseeing event delivery. However, some theatres operate within multipurpose venues, such as university complexes. Similarly, many venues hold multiple events concurrently and the security stance changes from time to time. Is the intent that the venue will be required to submit its plans for each change of activity or change of resource? It is important for the guidance to reflect how various duty holders in a multipurpose setting can co-ordinate procedural measures. We urge the Minister in his response to give as much clarity for that industry as possible.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

Having heard the opening speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the one thing that seems clear to me is that there will be different bodies out there with different responsibilities and we will have the SIA coming in. It is important that, before Report, it is clear who will sit at the top and have the last word, because there may be competing interests from different authorities. I do not know what all the details are, but the noble Baroness has set this out. If it is to be the SIA, so be it, but there may be other bodies which know much more about important matters. There needs to be thought within government about how that is to be addressed with specialist knowledge and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments and contributions to the Committee. I think I have said already that guidance will be produced by the Home Office and by the Security Industry Authority. I do not need to go into the detail of that, as I have already covered it.

In relation to that, importantly, on Amendment 30, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, besides investigations and enforcement, a primary function of the Security Industry Authority will be to advise, educate and support those who fall within scope of the legislation. That is part of its role. As well as the general overarching role, the SIA’s guidance will look at how it can exercise those new functions. It already plays a significant role in safeguarding the public, through the regulation of the private security industry. We believe that it has a wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation which better protects the public.

I accept that the regulator implementation programme, which is the nub of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, is in the early stages of development. However, the Government are clear that we expect the SIA to engage in work with existing public safety bodies—this goes to the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, endorsed—before this new regime comes into effect.

It is important that the provisions under Clauses 5 and 6 are set down, but they have a crossover of responsibility in certain areas, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness indicated. Ultimately, the SIA has a responsibility to regulate the functions of this Bill. The guidance will ensure that that aligns with existing requirements, so far as is relevant to the SIA carrying out its regulatory functions. Therefore, while the amendment highlights this area, I hope it is one that is not developed further, because existing proposals in the Bill, and in the intention I have given, mean that the SIA has responsibilities which I hope are clear.

Amendment 31 would place a statutory duty on the SIA to consult with stakeholders in different sectors. The amendment would require the SIA to consult in relation to requirements at contiguous premises, premises within other premises, and areas within the vicinity of buildings. I hope I have already set out that we recognise the importance of communication and that understanding the impact on affected sectors is pivotal to ensuring effective implementation. This includes the operational guidance to be issued under Clause 12 by the SIA and the statutory guidance I have referred to several times issued by the Home Office under Clause 27. The Government do not expect that the SIA’s operational guidance will address matters specifically set out in the amendment, such as premises within premises, as it will relate to its functions.

Furthermore, it is already the Government’s clear expectation that the SIA should engage with relevant stakeholders on its guidance, where appropriate. “Relevant stakeholders” means a whole range of bodies, potentially including local authorities. Again, I hope that we do not need to place a statutory duty on the SIA, because that will be part of its core business, as directed by the Government under this legislation, in the event of it becoming law downstream.

Amendment 32 has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I hope I have given sufficient reassurance that the Home Office and the SIA recognise the value of engagement on the implementation of the important legislation before us. The department has already worked with local authorities as key stakeholders, and we expect that to continue. I know what the noble Lord’s intention is with this, but the question is whether we place a statutory duty on the SIA to notify local authorities of the guidance, as opposed to the SIA doing it as part of the general consultation.

The guidance will be published and will be publicly available. I am hoping that the SIA will give appropriate communications to accompany publication. This publication should be no surprise to local authorities, because, two years downstream, when it is potentially implemented, there will be plenty of opportunity to have that discussion.

Amendment 36A is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I understand that the intention is to clarify the purpose of Clause 27(4). As I have already set out, the Government are acutely aware of the need to provide help and support in complying with the requirements of the legislation through guidance under Clause 27.

Clause 27(4) applies where it is alleged in proceedings that a person has contravened a requirement imposed by Part 1 of the Bill. In such a case, the clause provides that the person may rely on proof they acted in accordance with this guidance as tending to establish that there was no such contravention. The intention of the clause is to provide comfort and reassurance to those responsible for qualifying premises and events, as it allows the person to rely on proof that they acted in accordance with the guidelines as showing them to have likely met the relevant requirements. It will not provide absolute proof but will be given the appropriate weight in proceedings, as the circumstances and other evidence must be. All of those things will be taken into consideration.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 36A would put beyond doubt only that a person may adduce evidence to that end. The effect of this would be to provide a lesser level of protection to someone faced by allegations than is provided for by the current drafting. I do not believe that is the intention she had in tabling this amendment. Furthermore, the clause has precedent in other regulatory regimes, namely, the Building Safety Act 2022. Its inclusion recognises concern about the implementation of what would be a novel regime.

I hope that, with those explanations, noble Lords will not press their amendments at this stage and accept the comments I have made from this Front Bench.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. As I said at the outset, these are primarily probing amendments from the live events sector, which wanted clarity on the coherence and the crossover between various regulatory bodies.

I will read Hansard and check what the Minister has said. What is clear is that there needs to be effective communication between the various bodies. There needs to be very clear guidelines and guidance for the organisations, so that they understand what is required of them. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

I shall make three quick points. First, I hope the noble Lord can in summing up this debate reassure the Committee about proportionality and that it is not the intention of this Bill to attack or penalise volunteers—it is to encourage volunteers to play their role fully in the understanding of what this Bill is about and the need to prepare for the eventuality of a terrorist attack.

Secondly, I have listened very carefully and I have a lot of sympathy on the issue of volunteers. I am a volunteer trustee on several boards and I know about the liability that you have as a trustee on a board. You do have personal liability—but that does not put me off, and I hope that it will not put lots of other people off. I cannot support these amendments, because I think they water down the core element of individual responsibility in the Bill.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

For what criminal liability is the noble Baroness as a trustee going to be liable, other than the criminal offence of fraud?

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

That is a fair point—but you are financially liable as a trustee.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

You can insure against that, and I am sure the noble Baroness is insured as a trustee.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

For me, the amendments water down a core element of the Bill, which is about individual responsibility—people taking responsibility for ensuring that an organisation or an event at a venue has thought about what it will do in the eventuality of an attack. That is the key purpose of this Bill.

Thirdly, it would be useful if the Minister could write a letter or bring forward proposals to illustrate how volunteers will be treated with due respect and that it will be understood that this legislation must not put them off, which is why an information campaign is so important. A public information campaign should reassure people.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments.

Amendment 35, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, looks at the timing of the payment period across regimes where a time is specified under Clause 17(5). I hope I can reassure him by saying that the period of 28 days in the Bill is a common period across other such regimes. The key point to make to the noble Lord, in relation to his amendment, is that the period currently specified at Clause 17(5) establishes a period that is not less than 28 days, beginning with the day on which the notice is given.

The key point is that the SIA may determine a period for a penalty payment. That might well be 42 days, 62 days or 38 days, but it will not be less than 28 days. It may be greater than 28 days, depending on the person’s circumstances and any representations they make before the SIA issues a notice. Once notice is given, the period may be subsequently varied, and a person has the right to appeal a penalty notice to the tribunal. The Bill is not being prescriptive, except in the sense that there is a minimum period of 28 days. After that, the period is for determination accordingly. I suggest that the noble Lord reflects on his amendment in due course, because I think the Bill meets the objective of his amendment, which is to give individuals a longer period should they require one.

Amendments 35A, 35B, 36ZA and 37ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, address some really important issues, which are how we encourage, nurture and involve volunteers and make sure that any regulatory regime does not frighten them off or stop them from taking part. It is a noble aspiration from the noble Lord, and one that I would share generally. However, I do not share it in the sense of the amendments he has brought forward. The thought behind them is extremely important, however.

Volunteers, as the Committee will know, play a critical role in communities across the country. The Bill is designed to ensure that we support volunteers at a time of crisis, in the event of a terrorist attack, by providing for a nominated person to act properly and take steps to deal with that attack. I remind the Committee of the main purpose of the Bill, which is to ensure there are plans in place, mostly under Clause 5, with a responsible person making the split-second decisions needed in the moment of a terrorist attack.

The noble Lord has acknowledged the step we have already taken of increasing the threshold from 100 people to 200. There are some 10,000 community centres across the country, and we estimate that only 13% will now be in scope. The vast majority of community halls will not be in scope. But again, I come back to the basic principle of the Bill: someone has to hold the responsibility for devising the plan under Clause 5 for the various measures that need to be taken. In doing that, other volunteers and members of staff are not liable for any action in the event of a breach of those plans; it is only the responsible person.

The basic tenor of the noble Lord’s amendments is whether the responsible person will no longer step up to the plate because they are worried about the consequences of not meeting the obligations under the legislation. Again, I say to him that the purpose of the Security Industry Authority is not to jump from step A, which is a plan, to step X, which is to take someone to court and put them in prison. The purpose of the Security Industry Authority is to ensure that guidance, support, nurturing and help are available. It is to ensure that the people who take on that onerous responsibility have that support to meet the obligations of the Bill. Yes, there is a penalty in the event of a failure; ultimately, however, the purpose of the SIA is to offer the guidance to make sure that the penalty does not happen.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made one point with which I agree. It is that there is a need for focus. Unfortunately, this amendment is not focused. He talks of the threat of terrorism: the Long Title and the text use the term “acts of terrorism”, and that is where the focus needs to be.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a short debate on Amendment 1. If the Committee will indulge me, I am keen to very briefly set out an overall approach from these Benches to Committee stage. I reiterate that we support the Bill. We recognise that families and survivors have already had to wait a very long time to get this important legislation on the statute book, but we believe it is also important to get clarity on certain areas of the Bill and to probe the thinking behind some of the drafting, so that it can be the best Bill possible. I also pay tribute to Figen Murray and the campaign team. They have done an amazing job, but there remain areas in the Bill that are very much a framework. Greater clarity, as well as reassurances from the Minister, would be helpful.

I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, regarding Amendment 1. In fact, I was sitting in my office this afternoon thinking, “Isn’t that exactly what the Long Title of the Bill says, so what is the added purpose?”. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but I am afraid that I too did not really hear the additional purpose of his amendment. As I see it, the purpose of the Bill is about public confidence and public protection, as well as the protection of premises. In other words, it should be about people as well as just premises.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it is about people taking responsibility for themselves. It is about making sure that people feel safer when they go to a venue or an event. On Saturday, I happened to go to a theatre in central London where I was asked to open up my rucksack. I also went to a very small private museum on Sunday, staffed by volunteers, where I was not only asked to show my rucksack but had it confiscated and put in a locker. These things do not necessarily cost money, since at that museum they were volunteers.

The Bill should be about introducing measures that minimise the risks, making sure that venues and events have a plan in place and a person responsible for implementing that plan

“to reduce the vulnerability of the premises”

as it says in the Long Title of the Bill. The Bill is also about making sure that there is a plan in place in the tragic event that an attack happens. One of the main problems that I see with this amendment is that it sets out only part of what the Bill aims to do. Yes, the Bill is about protection of premises from terrorism, but it is also about having plans in place to minimise the number of casualties in the extremely unfortunate case that an attack occurs. We should remember that people who are involved in an attack have injuries for life—and not just physical injuries. They can also have emotional and mental health injuries. For that reason, from these Benches, I am afraid that we cannot support this amendment.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this short debate on Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He was right, at the start, to remind us of the reason why this Bill has been put in place, as did the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. That is because of attacks on Borough Market, on Manchester Arena and on London Bridge. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned a death today in Sheffield, about which I pass on my sympathies to the family. I cannot comment in any more detail at this time, but ongoing investigations will take place.

I understand the intention of the amendment, but, if I may, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey have endorsed what I would have said from this Front Bench about the Bill. The Bill has a Long Title, which I which will not read for the convenience of the House, but it is on the face of the Bill, and that is relatively clear as to what the purpose of the Bill is. The Bill is designed, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, to ensure that premises and events in scope are better prepared for an act of terrorism, should one occur. We have taken some expert advice on what that should be, and the consideration is that there are certain measures that could be put in place which, if they were in place prior to a terrorist attack occurring, could potentially save lives.

For ease of Members, although we are jumping ahead slightly, I refer them to Clause 5, which sets down a number of public protection measures that are required. This goes to the heart of what of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned about what we should do in the event of an attack. In Clause 5, the Bill sets down a range of measures, including

“evacuating individuals from the premises … moving individuals to a place on the premises or at the event where there is less risk of physical harm … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.

They are specifically in Clause 5 and, later on, in Clause 6, setting out clear objectives for both public protection procedures and measures. Those procedures are designed to reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals if an act of terrorism were to occur.

I am straying into the sort of Second Reading debate area that we have had, which I do not want to do, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and others mentioned the issues around the scope of the Bill, the cost of the Bill and other issues there. We have taken a measured approach and have made some changes, based on consultation, raising the level of the threshold in the Bill from 100 to 200, with a later second tier of 800. That will reduce the number of venues taken into the scope of the Bill from 278,900 down to 154,600, with 24,000 in the higher tier; so we are cognisant of the fact that there were, potentially, a number of areas where that would have brought a lot more premises into scope and created much more difficulty for people.

What we are trying to do with this legislation is to establish the principle that we have requirements in place which are there for low-level training and support for individuals to be able to understand what happens in the event of a terrorist attack. Again, I said at Second Reading that, downstream, we have to undertake a lot more work to prevent any attacks in the first place; but, in the event that one happens at a premise in scope, we have to ensure that measures, as in Clauses 5 and 6, are in place. I think that the Explanatory Notes, the Long Title and the clauses that I have mentioned meet those objectives, but that is for the Committee to determine.

I will add one more point, if I may. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talked about the two-year period for implementation. By all means, let us have a debate about that downstream, but, again, what this Committee is trying to do—and what the Government are trying to do in supporting this House and supporting the objectives of Figen Murray and the campaign—is to make sure that the measures in place are effective; are implemented in an effective way; have proper oversight and regulation from, as we will discuss later, the Security Industry Authority; and that we give consideration to all other bodies impacted by the Bill to allow time for them to undertake the training, undertake and understand the legislation and put preparations in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I was not going to be involved in this, but I have a history of ministry in this country, including over the summer months, and after Easter, there are many gatherings that all meet in large tents. Big tops can house up to 10,000 people. If the clause is limited to buildings, so many vulnerable places and open spaces will be left out.

In this country in the summer, there are incredible gatherings—particularly of young people—that do not take place in what you would call a building. They will be in the big top. Subsection (5) tries to define “premises”, which is a much more flexible word than concentrating on “buildings”. Of course, some meetings will be taking place in buildings. The heart of all of this, however, is large gatherings of people—particularly of young people in the summer. Noble Lords would be absolutely surprised by how farmers lend their land for these kinds of concerts, which can go on for a while.

The people who organise these events, such as spring harvest, hold the responsibility for the protection of people, as laid down in the Bill—not because it takes place in a building but because of the event itself. So I would want to look for a tighter definition than what a building is, because I think we know what a building is. I want the events, where they take place and those responsible to have the same due regard as those who have big theatres. So, will the Government continue their flexibility in their definition as they did in subsection (5)? They may borrow some of the phrases from these amendments, but just remember that we get gatherings that are just so vast, you would not actually be providing protection against terrorism for that many people.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I have three brief points to make in response to this rather interesting short debate. My first point relates to Amendment 20, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. As my noble friend said, it is very much a probing amendment that resulted from organisations that organise events and have premises but are unclear as to the definition. They are people who want to do the right thing but want a greater explanation on the record from the Government as to what it actually means in practice.

My second point continues the flattery of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. If the noble and learned Lord is asking a question, I feel it is one that has to be answered. He is asking the right question although, as he acknowledges, perhaps he has not come up with the right answer yet in terms of the wording. I hope the Government will return to this before Report with some of the suggested wording, taking on board the various points that have been raised.

My third and final point relates to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In many ways, the noble Baroness hits the nail on the head; we should not let the terrorists win. But that is what the Bill is about: it is about getting the balance right between not letting terrorists win and yet letting the public feel safe to go to events and public buildings and not worry, because they know that somebody, somewhere has thought about what to do in the case of an attack.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That was an interesting group. I thank noble Lords for tabling the amendments; they are worthy of discussion and I hope I can answer each point in turn.

Essentially, there are two issues: the definition of “building” and the definition of “immediate vicinity”. I will try to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, in their amendments.

Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord De Mauley, seeks to amend the definition of “premises” in Clause 2(2) so that the term “building” refers to the definition at Section 121 of the Building Act 1984. The Bill has carefully defined qualifying premises and qualifying events to ensure that it is able to appropriately catch the wide range of premises and events that there are, and the definition in the Building Act sadly does not align with this.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, sort of stole my notes on this, because she commented that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, includes a number of moveable objects, such as transport items and transport purposes. I confess I did not know that before the amendment was tabled, but research helps on these matters. Having looked at what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has said, there are parts of the definition in the Bill that are not replicated in the Building Act. The term “building” is commonly used and the Bill relies on this ordinary meaning. We do not want to over-define terms that are already well understood, particularly where doing so may create confusion or indeed loopholes.

For those reasons, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the extension to transport objects—including hovercraft—means that the definition of “building” in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 is not really appropriate for this definition today. I hope the noble Lord can accept that and I hope my comment reflects what has been said in Committee today.

I turn now to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It was interesting, and I understand the intention of his amendment. I have not been in this House long, but I sense that the noble and learned Lord’s contributions are ones the House listens to; so I understand and accept the point he has brought forward today.

Clause 2(2)(b) specifies that “qualifying premises” must be wholly or mainly used for one or more of the uses specified in Schedule 1. These uses cover activities where the premises are accessible to or used by the public. I hope I can reassure the noble and learned Lord that temporary buildings can form part of such premises. I hope that will give him the reassurance he seeks in relation to his amendment.

The amendment would extend the scope of Clause 2 to include temporary buildings or structures even if they are not a feature of the usual activities undertaken at the premises. For example, where a field is not in scope, erecting a very temporary structure for the purposes of an event, such as an annual village fete, could draw the field into scope of Clause 2 under this amendment. It may not normally meet the conditions elsewhere, by the very nature of the building being put up, but it would then be drawn into scope by his amendment.

The Government are mindful of the many temporary and one-off events that occur across the UK, many of which will draw large crowds and consist of temporary structures such as tents and staging areas. It is the Government’s intention to capture these events under Clause 3. We have carefully designed the criteria to do so, in a way that strikes a balance between achieving public protection and avoiding undue burden on businesses, organisations and local communities, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, again including the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst.

To that end, we are not looking to legislate for all events and Clause 3 carefully clarifies this. As such, open access events that do not have such checks in place will not be in scope of the Bill. The Government do not consider it appropriate or practical for events that do not have these types of controls and boundaries in place to be in scope. Again, I understand why the noble and learned Lord tabled his amendment, but I hope that on reflection he can accept the points I have made and will not take his amendment further.

Amendment 20 is important, because it asks for genuine clarification. I hope I can give clarification to both noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, on this amendment, which seeks to examine the meaning of “immediate vicinity”. I want to first reassure that the duties under the Bill do not require responsible persons to implement procedures or measures that are beyond their control. Self-evidently, there are some things in the immediate vicinity that will be beyond their control: for example, erecting safety equipment on pavements or other land for which they are not responsible outside the premises.

As I have already set out, the purpose of the Bill is to require people in control of qualifying premises and events to take steps aimed at reducing the risk of physical harm to people in the event of a terrorist attack that might directly impact their venue. An act of terrorism close to a building may also result in physical harm to people inside that building, as well as to people queuing, entering, exiting or even just passing by. Therefore, when considering appropriate procedures and measures to reduce physical harm from, and vulnerability to, terrorism, it is right that duty holders also think about what they should do for their premises in the event of an attack taking place just outside.

We have not deliberately chosen not to define “immediate vicinity” for the purposes of this Bill. The Bill relies on what we term the ordinary meaning of those words. What constitutes the immediate vicinity of a premises or event will depend on its specific circumstances. If the Bill were prescriptive and, for example, to stipulate a certain distance from the premises, it would undermine the flexibility with which requirements can apply to a range of venues in an array of different places. For example, the procedures appropriate for an inner-city pub are likely to be quite different from those for a sprawling visitor attraction in the countryside.

--- Later in debate ---

Can the Minister explain why we cannot have more of that: a specific risk assessment for types of buildings, and an assessment of the importance for communities of certain buildings, without that meaning that you are being cavalier about people’s safety or public protection? Already, the Government have conceded that not all buildings—not just places of worship but schools and educational facilities—are being treated the same. A few of us, especially me because I organise events, would rather that he did that a bit more across the Bill.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too shall be very brief. We believe that all three amendments would have the effect of watering down this draft Bill and reducing the number of premises that would be covered by it. These amendments are working on the assumption that smaller events and venues are less at risk. Can the Minister say whether the Home Office has done any analysis on whether it is indeed the case that smaller venues are less at risk from terror attacks? Is that not, in itself, an assessment of the unknown? It seems to be the case that terrorism and extremist-related attacks are increasingly unpredictable and random in nature.

Noble Lords have talked about the compliance burden. Again, I would like to know a little more about how the Minister would see that in reality. Am I right in assuming that, in the 24-month rollout period before the Bill is implemented, the Government will continue to carry out extensive consultation with the sector and adopt a pragmatic, realistic and common-sense approach, following their consultation with the industry?

As I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I feel that this is about striking a balance between not discouraging creativity and not causing a considerable financial burden to small venues and small events, while maintaining a sense of security in the public. Public confidence and a sense of security play a huge role in people’s minds when they consider whether they will go to an event or venue. People feeling unsafe is not good for business.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11, standing in my name, as well as Amendments 4 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst.

Amendment 11 seeks to establish an exemption for premises which have been assessed to be in a low-risk category by an independent assessor. As the Minister knows, we have concerns about which premises will be required to implement security measures under the Bill, and we feel that there should be some flexibility for the premises that are affected by it.

It may be that the correct flexibility would be delivered by Amendment 22, in the name of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, which will be debated later in Committee, or by Amendment 8, in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. However, the overriding point here is that there must be some flexibility in approach.

Not all premises that are currently caught by the Bill are in need of these additional measures, and it equally may be the case that the Bill as drafted will miss a number of premises that are in need of them. We hope the Government will listen to these concerns and engage positively so that we can ensure that the right premises are required to put in place the appropriate measures to protect the public from the risks of terrorism. This amendment would make this judgment an independent one, taking the discretion out of the responsibility of the department and giving premises that are at low risk access to a route to exemption. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s remarks in response to this debate, and I hope he will engage with me as we seek to deliver the flexibility I have spoken about today.

I will now speak to Amendments 4 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, which seek to clarify the Bill’s language around the frequency of a premises breaching the capacity threshold. As drafted, the Bill says that the measures will apply when a premises reaches the threshold in the Bill “from time to time”. This is far too vague, and the organisations affected by the Bill need clarity now. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst has rightly seized on this point and argued forcefully for the need for clarity today. While I expect that the Minister will tell us that this can be addressed through guidance, it is important we get clarity in the Bill.

To establish a way forward, I ask the Minister to set out what timeframe the Government expect to appear in the guidance. If the Government can answer that question today, can he explain why that timeframe cannot appear in the legislation itself? It is our view that setting the timeframe in law would give businesses and other organisations which will be regulated under the Bill certainty that this definition will not be altered through guidance. I hope the Minister can see how the lack of clarity on this point in legislation could leave space for the timeframe to be changed over time, which could see more venues caught by the rules than is appropriate, and Parliament would have no input in that process.

As I said in the opening debate in Committee, the seriousness of the issues involved in this Bill means we must get the legislation right. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to this probing amendment and look to table constructive amendments to Clause 2 where necessary at Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, at the risk of incurring the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, while we are on the subject of nickel-and-diming over numbers, how did the Minister settle on a figure of 800 attendees, above which an event becomes a qualifying event and compliance becomes significantly more expensive? It is quite a specific number. One might have expected a round number, such as 1,000. What specifically led the drafters to go for 800?

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, as other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Carlile, have said, there are many who feel that 100 would have been a better threshold, including many of the families of the victims. There is no amendment to reduce the threshold to 100, which is a shame, not least because I know it is what many in the Martyn’s law campaign group would have liked to see.

We should recall that the House of Commons backed 200, which is probably an acceptable compromise because, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, we ultimately will not agree on this, but it has to be about a compromise and the House of Commons overwhelmingly supported 200. Pushing the threshold up to 400 or 500 would destroy the whole purpose of the Bill.

It is, of course, important, as some noble Lords on the Conservative Benches said, that we do not overly add to the burden, or add unnecessary obstacles to creativity or to developing a sustainable business model. But encouraging people in charge of venues or events to think through what they would do in the event of a terrorist attack surely makes good business sense. There is in what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, proposes the risk of unintended consequences. There is a risk that raising the threshold would put people off going to small venues and small organisations of, say, under 200 or even under 100, because they will know they have not been covered by the Bill.

We on these Benches will support the Government in their threshold of 200 unless, in the course of further debate, there can be really compelling reasons to change our minds.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, when the Minister comes to answer this short group of amendments, could he comment on what assessment there has been of the SIA’s capacity to advise and regulate these potentially hundreds of thousands of applications, and on the capacity of the security industries and consultancies that will provide expertise to assist applicants in putting forward their detailed plans?

We have had a very emotive discussion on these amendments, which I regret to a degree, because this is an incredibly important discussion about where the line falls. There does have to be a line, but one consequence of moving it from 100 to 200, or 200 back to 100, or to 500, or whatever it may be, is around the actual pragmatic capacity of the regulatory body, the Government and the industry that will provide consultancy services to enable what everyone in this Chamber wants to happen. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that point when he comes to respond.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will try to be as short as possible at this time of night. Schedule 2 excludes from the scope of the Bill sports grounds that are not designated sports grounds. So far, so good—but it is not straightforward. The exclusion for recreation and leisure in part 1 of Schedule 2 applies only where those attending are not members or customers who paid. If it is a members’ club, you are not excluded.

Furthermore, a sports ground is defined as being a sports ground within Section 17 of the sports grounds Act, or whatever it is called. The definition in that Act says that it means

“any place where sports or other competitive activities take place in the open air and where accommodation has been provided for spectators consisting of artificial structures or of natural structures artificially modified for the purpose”.

The reference to accommodation for spectators could well include a pavilion or some other fairly relaxed accommodation, with perhaps a bar attached and changing facilities, and so on. It does not have to be a pavilion as I understand it, which would include accommodation for 800 people. It is just a sports ground which has accommodation, because you are looking at the sports grounds Act.

So a question arises where there are quite large playing fields, a pavilion and a members’ club, and 200 people come from time to time to watch the match on Saturday against other clubs. It is not a lot of people, and children come, and everyone else. From time to time—because that is the wording in the Bill—there is a match against their local rivals, and they bring 400 friends along, and the home team have got 600, so you have 1,000. Are they going to have to search everyone who comes, and every car, and so on?

I am not saying that this is entirely wrong, but I do suggest that thought has to be given to how it will bite. What is the definition of an outdoor event or a sporting event of the sort I have in mind, such as football matches between local villages and towns? Cricket matches sometimes attract quite a lot of people. I am not talking about county grounds but just matches between two clubs that are old rivals on a bank holiday or something like that. This is all in the open air, in a completely unconfined space and, one hesitates to say, not on the highest level of the risk register. I am not going to tempt fate by saying anything else. I ask the Minister to consider this, certainly before Report.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, given the hour, I shall be extremely brief. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made some very convincing points, but I am afraid we still basically disagree with most of these amendments, because we disagree with the premise that rural sports grounds are less likely to be attacked. I do not think that there is evidence for that—at least, I remain unconvinced that there is evidence.

My second point echoes that of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about requesting sector-specific guidance. I think that that would be a very useful thing for the Minister to pursue. Having sector-specific guidance for sports grounds would perhaps help with some of the concerns that noble Lords on the Conservative Benches have raised this evening.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I too will be as brief as I possibly can. I support the amendments to Schedule 2 tabled by my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord De Mauley. The amendments seek to clarify and refine the scope of the Bill by excluding certain venues used for open-air sporting and cultural activities in rural areas, as well as sports grounds that are not designated under current regulations. Amendments such as these are vital for ensuring that the Bill remains proportionate and practical, while safeguarding essential aspects of our national life, including grass-roots sports, rural cultural activities and events that are deeply woven into the fabric of local communities.

I will briefly address the amendment from my noble friend Lord De Mauley, who I understand will return to it later. Rural venues face a unique set of challenges. They are typically more remote, less densely populated and often lack the infrastructure and resources available to larger urban or suburban venues. Their security needs and operational realities differ significantly from those of stadiums, arenas and other major event locations. So it is essential that we do not impose disproportionate burdens on these rural venues, which are often run by volunteers or small organisations with limited budgets. They bring significant social and economic value to rural communities, fostering local identity and social cohesion. Requiring them to adopt extensive and costly security measures risks driving many of them out of operation, depriving rural areas of vital cultural and recreational opportunities.

Similarly, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan to exclude sports grounds that are not designated under current regulations is both reasonable and pragmatic. Designated sports grounds, by definition, already meet specific criteria regarding their capacity and usage, and they are often subject to existing safety and security frameworks. Non-designated sports grounds, on the other hand, are typically much smaller venues, hosting grass-roots and community-level events, so it would be disproportionate to require these smaller, non-designated grounds to implement the same level of security measures as large, professional sports facilities. Such a requirement would likely discourage participation in grass-roots sports and place unnecess- ary financial and administrative burdens on local clubs and organisations, many of which are already stretched thin.

These amendments are not about weakening security provisions, but rather about applying them sensibly and proportionately. By excluding rural cultural and sporting venues and non-designated sports grounds, we can ensure that the Bill targets resources and security measures where they are genuinely needed: at venues that present a higher risk of terrorism and where the scale and complexity of operations justify the investment.

Finally, I commend my noble friends for tabling these amendments and for highlighting the importance of maintaining a balance between security and practicality. I urge the Government to seriously consider these proposals and recognise the value of preserving the unique contributions that rural venues and grass-roots sports make to our society.

Southport Attack

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I think I can best begin by repeating the opening sentences of the Statement:

“None of us will ever forget the events of 29 July. The school holidays had just started, and little girls were at a dance class to have fun, dance and sing. A moment of joy turned into the darkest of nightmares”.


This was one of the most despicable criminal acts in my lifetime. In my previous career—32 years as a detective policing in London—I saw some of the most violent and atrocious criminals at work, but this certainly ranks as the most heinous of crimes. Let me be clear: Rudakubana should never be released from prison. His age means he has not been given a whole life sentence, despite the countless lives he destroyed on that dreadful day and the legacy of mistrust he has sown across the country.

My heart goes out to the victims and families. Not a day has passed since the sentencing that they have not been in my thoughts and in the thoughts and prayers of the nation. I could not possibly imagine their pain but, as a father, albeit of a grown-up family, I can only send them my heartfelt condolences and offer any support I can give. We owe it to the victims, their families and the wider public to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.

In this vein, I must express my grave concerns about the limitations of our current sentencing framework. The public will rightly question how someone capable of such monstrous crimes could one day walk free among us. This is undoubtedly a question of moral clarity and public confidence in our justice system, as I am sure noble Lords will agree. There is a strong case here for amending the law to give clear judicial discretion to award whole life sentences to under-18s. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will conduct a full review of sentencing guidelines for the most serious offences committed by under-18s? Will he also commit to consulting with legal and policing experts, as well as the victims’ families, to ensure that our laws reflect the severity of such crimes and the need to protect society from those who commit them?

Furthermore, this case has highlighted the importance of support for victims and their families, both immediately following an attack and in the years that follow. Perhaps the noble Lord can outline what specific measures the Government are taking to provide such support, including access to counselling, financial assistance and legal advice where needed.

It is right that the Prime Minister highlighted the sale of knives, and we took action on this when in government, banning the sale of zombie knives. As the leader of the Opposition rightly said, we also need to understand issues relating to integration and British values. Can the Minister confirm that integration issues will form part of the Prime Minister’s review into this?

The people of Southport, and indeed the entire nation, are watching. They expect action, accountability and assurance that this will never happen again. We on these Benches are committed to working constructively with the Government to ensure that the lessons of this tragedy are learned and that justice, in its truest sense, is achieved. Let us honour the memory of those we lost by striving for a society where such horrors are not only condemned but prevented.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to discuss the Statement on the Southport attacks that was made in the House of Commons last week.

It is hard to find the words to describe the truly awful brutality that resulted in the violent and shocking deaths of Alice, Bebe and Elsie last summer in Southport: three little girls who set off to enjoy the innocent pleasure of dancing—something which so many children enjoy—only never to return. My heart goes out to their families and friends left behind, as well as to the many left physically, emotionally and mentally scarred after the barbaric events of that day.

From these Benches, we welcome the announcement of the inquiry. A public inquiry is necessary because the Government have a duty to the families to learn the lessons from what happened. An extremely violent young man was identified, by many different people and organisations, yet he was still able to carry out these abhorrent attacks.

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements exist to enable the police and other relevant agencies such as youth offending teams and social services to manage the risk presented by violent offenders, but many are underresourced and lack experienced or qualified participants. Can the Minister say whether the inquiry will aim to establish whether the risks presented by such cases are best managed through MAPPA teams? What are the Government doing to ensure that MAPPA teams are properly staffed and resourced?

Last September, the Committee on Statutory Inquiries of your Lordships’ House published its findings. Paragraph 46 of that report says:

“Ministers should keep in mind the option of holding a non-statutory inquiry (given its relative agility) and then converting it if witnesses fail to cooperate. Ministers should also consider selecting non-judge chairs or appointing a panel. Ministers should meet and consult victims and survivors’ groups before publishing the terms of reference”.


I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this is in line with the approach that the Government intend to take on the public inquiry.

The announcement last week of the introduction of greater checks on age before buying knives online is to be welcomed. As the Home Secretary said last week, it is truly shocking that Axel Rudakubana was easily able to buy knives on Amazon when he was only 17. However, can the Minister clarify what is the current situation for buying knives online from an outlet based outside of the UK? Can he confirm whether it is the intention to introduce age verification for the import of knives to this country?

A great deal has been written and said about the effectiveness of Prevent and the definition of terrorism since the Prime Minister’s and Home Secretary’s Statements last week. It is welcome that there is to be another review of Prevent. I believe the Prime Minister’s Statement raised some important questions. Is a lone attacker—unfortunately, usually a young man—who is obsessed with terrorism and previous terrorist attacks but who is not ideologically driven or working within a recognised terrorist organisation, a terrorist? It is important to consider what would be the consequences of changing Prevent’s engagement in such cases.

Does the Minister agree with Neil Basu, the Met’s former head of counterterror policing, when he said last week that a “Prevent for non-terrorists” is now necessary and will require a “big bill” if we want to be safe? Will the Home Office carry out an assessment of the risks of diverting counterterrorism officers from their core task if the definition is expanded to include extremely violent, physiologically disturbed people who are clearly a danger to society but not necessarily a threat to the state?

The brutal murders in Southport raise questions about dangerous individuals and the internet, as Rachel Reeves acknowledged yesterday and as is made clear by the Home Secretary’s letter to the many tech companies appealing for a change in their attitudes. There have always been dangerous and violent individuals who pose a risk to society, but society now faces an additional threat from individuals who have easy access to radical, violent and extremist views on the internet, which can provide an incentive for attacks and sometimes an utterly misguided sense of identity and justification. Do the Government intend to take further measures to remove such dangerous content and to work with search engines such as Google to divert searches to more positive content, with signposting to organisations that can help such individuals?

The misinformation spread on social media after the attacks last summer in Southport, including from Elon Musk, was truly sickening and shocking. It did absolutely nothing to help the victims and survivors, and had much more to do with identity politics and a right-wing agenda. These are not simple matters with quick-fix solutions. We should be wary of knee-jerk reactions which result in bad legislation. However, the victims’ families deserve to know that we will ask the difficult questions and try to find workable solutions, and, most importantly, learn from the mistakes.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, in addressing the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the House of Commons, our first thoughts have to be with the victims of this horrendous incident: Elsie, Bebe and Alice. Our thoughts are also with the people who were attacked, their parents and the brave people who ran to the defence of those young children, both those at the playgroup event and, later, the security forces, the police, the fire services and others. All of them showed that this horrendous crime will remain with us for years to come.

I will try to answer in detail the points from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. So the House is aware, the Home Secretary’s announcement last week ensured that we will have an independent public inquiry which will look not just at what happened in Southport but at the issue of rising youth violence and extremism. It will look at the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in relation to the Online Safety Act and the importance of taking action to remove content. Members will wish to know that, on 17 March, illegal content removal comes into effect. We have written to online providers to ask them to speed up their response, as is their statutory responsibility, prior to that date.

We will undertake a learning review of the organisation of Prevent generally, which has now been in operation for well over 20 years. The situation within the terrorist community and the areas that Prevent relates to have changed in that time and we need to make sure that it is up to speed. We have appointed the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, as independent commissioner of Prevent and to review this case on a temporary basis.

We will look at knife sales in the police and crime Bill which will come before this House shortly. I will reflect on the points that the noble Baroness raised in relation to overseas sales, as well as the verification of sales that have been brought to the door.

We must remember that the individual who committed these crimes faces a life sentence, given down last week, with a 52-year minimum sentence. The issues that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned about the whole-life sentence are tempered by the fact that the UK Government have signed up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which means that we cannot currently give a whole-life sentence to somebody under the age of 18.

The House should not be confused by this regarding our commitment to the victims of this crime, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, spoke of. We will give them full support. That is why, taking on board the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, we will take some time to appoint the chair of the inquiry and to consult with the coroner and the victims’ families, and to look at the terms of reference for the inquiry. All the points made from both Front Benches are important to be considered by the public inquiry.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned integration. That is key to the assessment of Prevent and to how we tackle those issues generally. I remind him that the perpetrator of this crime was a British-born, British citizen. There are multilayered complexities in the issues that led to the appalling incident in Southport.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness made points about the review of legislation generally. We have asked the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to see whether we are up to speed at the moment. That again will be a considered process, but one which I hope will add value to the work that we need to do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned a range of issues regarding multi-agency teams and their determinations. These are all extremely important. I assure her that we will be examining all this in relation to the response as a whole.

I hope noble Lords will recognise that, for those of us who were Ministers in the first few weeks of office, this was a tremendous challenge. We have to look in slow time at how we best respond to this challenge. We have looked at the incidents that have been referred to and at the sentencing that has now happened in relation to Southport, but we have also had a review of the consequences, post-Southport, of the disorder that took place in the light of that event. As Ministers, it is important for us to get to the stage of looking at what we can do to help prevent incidents like the one that happened in Southport occurring in the future.

I hope that, as a start, the points that my right honourable friend mentioned in the Statement last week and in this updated Statement, post-sentencing, give this House the assurance that this Government will be looking at how Prevent is operating, the incidents surrounding this crime and why the multi-agency support mechanisms did not identify interventions earlier, the Online Safety Act and how we can improve those issues, and at all this as a whole, to ensure that if there are things that we can do in the future to prevent this type of atrocity, we will do them.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Suttie Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to the Bill and for the very collaborative approach he has adopted so far, which is extremely welcome. I echo his words and those of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in paying tribute to Figen Murray and the work of the campaign team, which has been tireless and, I hope, will be ultimately successful in passing this Bill very soon.

Keeping people safe, protected and secure when they are in public venues has to be a key responsibility of the state. For that reason, these Benches welcome the introduction of the Bill and will continue to work with the Government and on a cross-party basis to ensure that we have at the end of this process the best possible legislation, which is both proportionate and workable in practice.

The Bill has been broadly welcomed by all key interest groups, including the victims’ families. It is important that we continue to reach out to all those with detailed or personal understanding and knowledge. In that regard, I am very grateful for the briefing we have received from the Martyn’s law campaign team and Figen Murray. In all our deliberations, it is essential that we remember the potential human impact of not getting this right. The Manchester Arena terror attack was utterly heartbreaking. Deliberately targeting children and young people at a concert is beyond evil. It is so important that we learn lessons from that and other terrorist attacks. Inaction is simply not an option.

The nature of terrorism is changing. There are increased global tensions, including ongoing wars in the Middle East, Sudan and Ukraine. There is growth in state terrorism and information—and misinformation —wars are constantly developing. Threats are no longer necessarily from organised groups. Lone individuals, often with mental health issues and motivated by things they believe that they have read online, can organise random attacks resulting in devastating death and destruction, as we so tragically witnessed over the Christmas holidays in Magdeburg in Germany and New Orleans in the United States.

All this means that we have to change how we think about security, terrorism and potential attacks. As the very powerful briefing note we received from the Martyn’s law campaign team reminded us, we need to ensure that this new law

“will mobilise society against these enduring, and ever-changing, threats and make us more resistant to terrorism, and more resilient as a society … As the tactics of terrorists change, so must our strategies to defeat them”.

As the Minister reminded us, there have been many stages to reaching the Bill we are debating today, including pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation, which have resulted in some substantive changes to the previous draft introduced by the Conservative Party. Notably, the threshold has been increased from 100 to 200 for the standard-sized venues or events. This has not been universally welcomed, with some believing the figure is still too low and others feeling it is now too high.

This is no doubt a subject we will return to in more detail in Committee, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could say in his concluding remarks how the Government intend to assess the appropriateness of setting the threshold at 200, and what criteria and timeframe they will use to make this judgment.

It is very important that there is public trust in this legislation. So many organisations will be directly impacted, from local government to the entertainment industry, the voluntary sector, small businesses and the insurance industry, to name just those that made contact with us ahead of this debate. It is important to keep consulting them to ensure that unintended consequences stemming from this legislation are kept to a minimum.

One issue raised by a great many organisations is the need for greater clarity regarding training and guidance. I know that some welcome commitments, specifically on training, were given to my honourable friend Ben Maguire MP in Committee in the House of Commons, but I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about how the Government intend to ensure an overview of the quality of the guidance and training. In particular, it would be helpful if he could say by whom and how trainers and training courses will be approved.

Closely related to the issue of guidance is the issue of communication and information flow. It is vital that all organisations that will have to comply with this new legislation are aware of what they have to do, in what timeframe, what their responsibilities are and why it is important. They will also need to know what financial assistance, if any, will be available to them. I am sure that the Government are planning a significant information campaign about this legislation, but it would be extremely useful to hear a little more about their communications plans from the Minister in his concluding remarks.

There is also the equally important issue of the information flow from the security services, on which I am sure other noble Lords speaking in the debate will concentrate. It is particularly important for larger venues, especially during times of enhanced national threat levels, that there is an adequate communication between larger venues and the security sector. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about how the interface between the security services preventing terrorism in the first place and those responsible for ensuring security in premises will work in practice.

My final area of concern is enforcement, on which the Minister concentrated rather a lot in his speech. Like him, I believe there is no point in passing new legislation if it is not enforced. Last week, following the New Orleans attacks, there were reports in our media that many of the permanent anti-terror barriers have still not been built in the UK following the 2017 attacks. Several key bridges in London, for example, have not yet introduced the necessary safety barriers. I appreciate that such outdoor attacks would be beyond the scope of this Bill—which is about protecting premises—but the wider issue of enforcement and implementation is incredibly important, not least in terms of ensuring public confidence in the process.

As I understand it, the SIA, the new regulator, will have the power to enforce the anti-terrorism measures springing from the Bill. The public need to have confidence that the measures will be backed up by rigorous enforcement and accompanied by the necessary funding. Can the Minister say whether he is confident that the enforcement measures in the Bill will be strong enough? How will they be monitored? Does he not agree that the SIA will require additional resources and funding?

Getting this Bill right is terribly important, but so is getting the balance right. People must never be too scared to go out and live their lives; nor should we produce laws that end up stifling creativity or local activity and volunteering. We need to ensure that the provisions in the Bill are proportionate. The costs of implementation must not be overly burdensome for small organisations. However, that has to be weighed against the cost of not having effective protection strategies in place. First and foremost, there needs to be confidence that systems and security measures are in place to protect people in public venues. As the Minister said, there has been an extremely long wait for this legislation, but I hope we can now work quickly and effectively, and as thoroughly as we can, to get it done.