Prevent: Learning Review

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I conducted the first Prevent review in 2011 and started what became the Shawcross review, which I strongly support. I thank the Government for the remedial steps that have been taken, as described in the Statement, following the loss of a valued colleague with whom I too was in the House of Commons and had many happy exchanges. Can we now be a little bit more positive about the future? Does the Minister agree not only that there have been successes, as he just described, but that some of them have been quite remarkable in turning young men and women from becoming potential terrorists, and that we should not let up in enhancing the effectiveness of Prevent in what is an extremely challenging and difficult area of work, which is sometimes underestimated?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for both his previous work on helping to support to development of the counterterrorism strategy and his comments. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, there have been around 5,000 successful Prevent referrals since 2015, and there are people now living productive, constructive lives who may have gone down the radicalisation route had Prevent intervention not taken place.

I add that I was in the Home Office from 2009 to 2010, and in the Ministry of Justice from 2007 to 2009, and when we dealt with Prevent then it was an entirely different world. There was no Twitter or Facebook; the internet was relatively in its infancy. In the 14 to 15 years between then and my return to the Home Office, there has been the dark web, radicalisation, fake news—a whole range of things. One of the key issues for the future is asking the tech companies to step up to the plate on what they need to do to help support the Prevent strategy and deradicalisation. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has written to tech companies, following both the Southport and Sir David Amess reviews, to ensure that we can examine, with them, their responsibilities once the Online Safety Act comes into effect on 17 March.

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. He is right that Prevent can be a success and we should not throw it out on the basis of failings that are self-evident but which are not the full story of how the Prevent strategy has worked.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 37A is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. Clause 31 of the Bill provides that,

“Except so far as this Part or regulations under this Part provide, nothing … confers a right of action in any civil proceedings in respect of a contravention of a requirement imposed by … this Part”.


It then goes on to say that that subsection

“does not affect any right of action which exists apart from the provisions of this Part”.

I was quite confused by that clause, and relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, also sought clarity. Our amendment would provide that:

“Nothing in this Act or regulations made under it affects any right of action in civil proceedings”.


If we have interpreted the provision correctly, that is a rather more straightforward way of saying it.

When the point was raised at Second Reading, the Minister said that the lack of time meant that we did not have the opportunity then to discuss the clause in detail. He said there would be opportunities in due course, so I am taking this opportunity. My question is, quite straightforwardly: does the amendment express what the Government are seeking to say, particularly with regard to breach of statutory duty? If it is not as the amendment sets out, why not? I beg to move.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to act as junior counsel to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I listened carefully to some comments that the Minister made on Monday, which alluded to this clause, and I thought about them carefully, but they were brief and I, too, wish to test what is really intended by the Government. My feeling is that the Government have made an inadvertent mistake in Clause 31 which they can easily rectify.

This Bill is designed to protect citizens by imposing clear statutory duties. When clear statutory duties are imposed and there is a breach of those duties, it is very common for a citizen who is a victim of that breach to be able to bring a civil action. The purpose of the civil action is often to recover damages, though it may involve other declaratory judgments too.

I want to give a few examples, because I think we are going to have one substantive debate on this clause and then a decision will be reached. I am going to mention a number of instances in which breach of statutory duty gives rise to a civil action to obtain judgments of the kind I mentioned. First, driving a vehicle in an unsafe condition gives rise to a statutory duty which can result in a judgment for damages. In this Bill we are talking about something much bigger in scale than driving a vehicle in an unsafe condition, but it may have exactly the same consequences.

There are other examples. If there are unsafe systems or means of work in any workspace, there can be an action for breach of statutory duty without it being necessary to prove negligence, nuisance or any other tort —civil wrong—that requires specific proof of certain aspects. Allowing a vehicle to be driven by an uninsured person allows a claim for breach of statutory duty. The failure to arrange compulsory insurance for employees allows such a claim. If a landlord fails to provide habitable standards, equally, there can be such a claim. If a company fails to disclose required financial information to investors, there can be such a claim for breach of statutory duty.

If a shop sells faulty electrical equipment whereby a fire is caused in the home for which it has been bought, for example, one does not have to prove negligence. One may have an action under the Sale of Goods Acts or their equivalent, but there is an opportunity to obtain damages for breach of statutory duty. At a construction site, the failure to provide safety barriers gives rise to such an action. If we go to a restaurant and suffer food poisoning because it has failed to reach the statutory hygiene standards, we can make a claim for damages for breach of statutory duty. If one fails as an employer to provide proper training to employees on handling hazardous chemicals, that too gives rise to a potential claim for breach of statutory duty. I have chosen just a few examples—and there are others—where one does not have to prove negligence and the components of negligence.

Such provisions are all designed to secure protection for individuals without the need to prove those other elements of common-law civil wrongs. I do not understand why those rights are removed by Clause 31(1). I invite the Government to reflect on what is, as I have suggested, probably an inadvertent failure.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to differ with the noble Lord, but not because I do not want deserving people to recover compensation. My reading of the Bill as it stands is to the effect that, as drafted, Clause 31 achieves two things. First, it puts beyond doubt any question whether the breaches of requirements under the Bill can of themselves be a ground for a civil claim. It says plainly that such breaches will not in themselves be a ground. However, it is important to be aware that the fact that a breach of duty under the Bill or regulations has occurred will still be evidence that will be admissible in a civil claim which alleges negligence or other breach of common-law duty. The important point is that there may have been a breach that was without negligence.

If there has been a breach then it will be strong evidence that something has gone wrong that should be compensated for, but it may be capable of explanation and justification in the civil courts, which does not excuse criminal liability. Put simply, the Bill as drafted makes plain that a breach of statutory duty will not of itself alone give rise to an actionable breach of duty sounding in damages.

Secondly, as it stands, the Bill makes it clear that what is said in Clause 31(1) does not affect—that is, detract from—any right of action that exists in common law. In other words, a claim of negligence, in particular, or any other common-law right will remain; so this provision takes nothing away. Where, in a civil action, the claim establishes that as a matter of fact there has been a breach of such statutory duty, that will be evidence in the case and it is likely to be strong evidence. It will be a matter for the court to determine whether it is evidence of negligence or other evidence that might give rise to a justifiable claim for damages, and what weight to give it. I hope that is clear.

The amendment proffered to us would delete the whole of the existing clause, and would simply say:

“Nothing … affects any right of action”.


With respect, I suggest that that would be less clear and less helpful to the courts, because it will leave open a possible argument that breaches of statutory duty are themselves grounds for action, even where no want of care has been established. That would be getting closer, in effect, to strict liability for civil damages, however blameless the body or person concerned. That is why it is a step too far. It is unnecessary and potentially damaging, when we look at the vast range of bodies and people who will be affected.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who I respect very much as a lawyer. To say that this applies strict liability is, with respect, completely wrong, is it not? All strict liability requires is proof that damage has taken place. Breach of statutory duty involves at least a failure to act on the part of the person sued. To elide this into strict liability is just not correct.

Citizenship Applications

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I can give some figures, but not off the top of my head. I will certainly write to her about that.

The key question is illegal migration. The guidance we are talking about is on revising procedures for those who have entered the United Kingdom illegally and currently could apply for British citizenship after a period of 10 years. We have lifted that 10-year procedure, so no one can have British citizenship approved, as a presumption, if they have entered the country illegally. They can still apply for British citizenship and have mitigating circumstances brought forward, should they so wish. A range of measures has been issued in the guidance published this week.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Can the Minister assure those of us who stood shoulder to shoulder with the Labour Party in opposing the previous Government’s completely discredited Rwanda proposals that people who come within asylum criteria are not affected by the announcement made today?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

People entering the United Kingdom or applying for asylum using a viable and legal route are not affected. Individuals who come here through illegal routes will be subject to the criteria in the guidance, which are that they can apply for British citizenship, but the presumption is that it will be refused unless they bring forward mitigating circumstances, which can be considered.

The noble Lord will know that the Bill introduced in another place on Monday repeals the Rwanda Act, on which we have already spent a wasteful £700 million. We will come to this House in due course to say that it was not a deterrent for illegal migration, and we should be looking at legal, safe routes, which I know the noble Lord supports.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

The second part of Amendment 24B would ensure that the Secretary of State, who will be aware as time goes by what sort of times are in practice necessary, spells it out. The Secretary of State can list the factors to be taken account of—because, otherwise, “reasonable time” is going to be meaningless. It does not have to be too definitive, but it is common in the courts to give examples and factors in legislation of what will be a reasonable time or reasonable practice, and so on. What is reasonable for the tribunal, when looking at all the other pressures, may be hopelessly too long for a body with premises that it cannot use. I ask the Minister in all seriousness to consider the practical aspects of this and how it might be made to work.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 24B to Clause 11, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. Clause 11 requires determinations by a tribunal to be made on a perfectly reasonable list of subjects; I hope and expect that the tribunals would respond proportionately to the urgency of the questions asked. However, Clause 11 raises the responsibilities of the Security Industry Authority—SIA.

As those of us who are interested in the Bill know, it gives the SIA very new functions to which it is not yet accustomed—unlike anything it has done before. With that in mind, I have met and corresponded with Heather Baily QPM, who is the chair of the SIA. Although she has been very helpful, I remain unsatisfied at this stage with what we know about what the SIA is going to be doing. We know it is being given two years to learn the skills and measures it has to comply with and deal with, but we need something more than that before the Bill reaches Report.

I wrote to the SIA and suggested a list of issues it should inform your Lordships’ House about before we debated these amendments. At the very least, I urge the Minister to ensure, by Report, that the SIA—which I know has done a lot of work on the Bill already—sets out a proposed, not definitive, timetable for what it is going to do over the next two years to ensure that it carries out its responsibilities under the Bill. That would include giving information about the sorts of issues and how they would be raised by the SIA under Clause 11.

We are not going to have a complete picture of what will happen under the Bill, unless the SIA informs us in some detail. We need to know, as soon as possible, about what affected organisations and we, as the public and Parliament, are expected to accept from it as its responsibility under the Bill.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I will say a word about Amendment 24B. It is quite unusual for a tribunal or a court to be required by statute to deliver its judgment within a “reasonable time”. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, realises that a proposition of that kind—which is so general—requires definition.

That brings me to the second point, which is the power given to the Secretary of State to define the length of a “reasonable time”. The problem the Secretary of State faces is that if he gives a definition, it will have to last, presumably, until some further exercise of the power is resorted to. Looking ahead, it is very difficult to know what exactly the reasonable time would be. At the very least, I would expect that if the Minister were attracted by that amendment, it would be qualified by “after consultation with the tribunal”. To do this without consultation with a tribunal would be really dangerous because it might set out a time which, realistically, given its resources, the tribunal cannot meet.

I see what the noble Lord is trying to achieve, but it has difficulties. To try to define “reasonable time”, even with the assistance of a tribunal, is a task that would not be easily achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister, and for his assurance. Of course, I was aware of the substantial sum of money that is being given to the SIA to enable it to carry out these activities. However, if it is well in hand, surely we have reached the point at which at least an outline plan could be given by the SIA as to what it is proposing to do with that money? This relates to a number of amendments that we are going to be considering later, and I thought I would get my blow in on this early. I suspect that there are going to be real concerns about a regulatory authority that has never regulated anything like this. Surely it would be right for us to be given at least a two- or three-page outline of what its proposals are, because it must have at least reached that point.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am in danger of straying into a future set of amendments, or indeed a general Second Reading debate on the Security Industry Authority. I say to the noble Lord that the SIA currently has a very good record of processing licensing applications—93% within 25 days—and has an 86% satisfaction rating by individuals in terms of their interaction with the authority. Ministers are going to be accountable for the performance in the event of this Bill becoming an Act. We have said, particularly my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Security Minister in the House of Commons, that there will be key ministerial engagement with the SIA in helping to develop and shape that plan over the two-year period between the Bill potentially receiving Royal Assent, and its implementation by the SIA and this scheme becoming live.

We may have that Second Reading debate in later groups of amendments. I hope I will be able to reassure the noble Lord then that Ministers have taken decisions to put the SIA in the prime spot of the regulator. Ministers want that to succeed, and they will be making sure that the plans are put in place to make sure that it succeeds, because this legislation is meaningless without the regulation, delivery, oversight, guidance and training that we believe the SIA can put into place. We will revisit that downstream.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his contribution; I think he stole some of the lines that I was going to use. He made the very clear point that the tribunal has a responsibility for setting its timescales and its deadlines, and that it is not for ministerial direction to do that. The tribunal system is well established, with statutory rules and experienced judges and officials who understand the need to make timely decisions in a variety of contexts. It is these rules and processes that should determine how that tribunal operates: with appropriate parliamentary and ministerial oversight—certainly—through amendments to legislation relating to courts and tribunals.

I note the potentially positive objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. He wants to see a definitive timescale set, but if we included that provision in the Bill, it would set an unhelpful precedent and cut across the roles of the Tribunal Procedure Committee and the tribunal procedure rules. I do not anticipate a large number of cases coming before a tribunal anyway, because I hope that—again, as with most of the issues in the proposed legislation—we can resolve these matters well downstream. In the event of an issue coming to a tribunal, it is right and proper—and I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned this—that the tribunal itself is able to operate effectively, with its own well-established framework to deliver its own fair decision, and not be hampered by timescales set by legislation which may not anticipate what will happen two, three, four or five years down the line. Therefore, I will take support where I can get it and thank the noble Lord for his contribution.

The tribunal has an overarching duty to deal with cases fairly and justly. If an arbitrary time limit is imposed, the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, may undermine that existing duty.

I hope that, in my response, I have given some comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and that I have explained to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, why I wish them both not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will have realised from the last debate, my noble friend and I are rather keen on accreditation of training—I will come back to that in a moment—but I should make it clear that we should not be using the term “kitemark”; I know I always do. Apparently, that is the term used by the British Standards Institution for products—as I discovered a while ago when I got this wrong in another context.

Accreditation of training is not quite the same as accreditation of the trainer or the provider. I am a little confused about some of this amendment: the terms “accredited” and “certified” are both used, and I do not know whether it is intended that there is a difference between them. When the noble Lord winds up this debate, perhaps he could tell us—that may be something or nothing.

I had written down, “Is this delegation of responsibility or liability?” The noble Lord just talked about sharing liability, but I do think that that is the direction that the Bill is going or should go in. I find quite a lot of difficulties with this amendment, although there are points where our thinking coincides. As it stands, I do not think we could wholly support it.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has been very careful in the drafting of this amendment and I respect the work he has done, although, like the noble Baroness, I do not agree with the amendment. It seems to undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to place responsibility on those people who control premises. To create a box-ticking exercise of this kind, which is what it would amount to, would simply facilitate the payment of an annual subscription and leave it to some other company to take that responsibility.

The noble Lord will be aware, I am sure, that, when somebody employs an independent contractor to carry out part of the work they are contracted to do—for example, a floor layer to do part of a construction contract—the person who engages that independent contractor has at least a common-law responsibility to ensure that they take reasonable steps to ensure that the independent contractor is competent and does the work properly. This amendment would appear to remove that potential responsibility. All of us who have been involved in cases involving questioning the work of independent contractors will know that sometimes such claims can be successful because the employer has not carried out proper scrutiny of the independent contractor.

I also draw to the House’s attention paragraph 8.106 of Manchester Arena Inquiry Volume 1: Security for the Arena. Sir John Saunders recommended that

“consideration is given to amending the SIA legislation to require that companies which carry out security work which may include a counter terrorism element are required to be licensed”.

He recommended, therefore,

“that only fit and proper companies carry out this work”,

under an amended SIA licensing procedure similar to the procedure that the SIA already operates for security companies carrying out door security work and similar activities. If the aim of the Bill is, as I believe, to place clear responsibility on those who operate property to take reasonable steps to secure the public against terrorist acts, that responsibility should not be shuffled aside by an amendment of this kind.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I am slightly concerned about this amendment. We have had, in previous stages of the Bill and in previous debates in Committee, concerns about the number of private contractors—the snake oil salesmen whom the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, talked about—who will crawl out of the woodwork and offer advice to people that they do not need, because either it will be common sense or there will be perfectly clear guidance issued by the Home Office and the Security Industry Authority that will make clear the sorts of things they need to do.

I am worried that, after all the discussion we have heard from His Majesty’s Opposition in Committee about the costs and burdens that will be placed on village halls, small enterprises and so on, they will now be encouraged by this amendment to go down the route of employing contractors who will seek to make a profit out of the arrangements, which will in fact add to the costs, when the reality is that they could do this themselves using the advice and guidance that we expect will be provided by the Security Industry Authority.

I am reminded of those companies that used to advertise themselves as being able to secure you a European health insurance card. I am not trying to raise any issue about the EU, Brexit or remain. This was, as noble Lords know, a system whereby all you had to do was put into the Department of Health’s website your name, address and national insurance number and you then got your European health insurance card, which would help defray the costs of falling ill within the EU. There were companies that would charge £15, £20 or more, simply for filling in the details you would provide them. I wonder whether the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, might inadvertently create a market in which companies would recycle the guidance and advice issued by the Security Industry Authority and charge people for it.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

On 16 September 2016—I think I have the date correct—the noble Lord made a very strong statement in which he condemned the layers of bureaucracy and regulation in the European Union. Does he not think it is weird and even bizarre for a serious Conservative to be recommending a regulator of a regulator when just a regulator might do very well?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

There is a big difference between organisations set up in the framework of the European Union and us deciding how we work our own bureaucracy. There is a lot of value in an independent panel to examine the work of a regulator that is taking over a new and very large area of work. So, no, I would not agree with the parallel; regulation and independent review are appropriate when we are creating a new regulator with a new set of work—that is the issue that is here today.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

In closing, I urge noble Lords to support this amendment. It will strengthen the Bill, provide clarity to those implementing it, and reinforce our collective resolve to protect the public of this great country. This is a cause we can all unite behind—the cause of national security, public safety and the defence of the freedoms that make this nation great. Let us seize this moment to get it right. I beg to move.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, we are with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on this. If the market to which he is referring is the one I am thinking of, dispersing people from that site would be very difficult, with a bloody great rock and a castle in the way.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his support of my amendment, but I am afraid I am going to question one part of his amendment. The section in the Building Act 1984 refers to a

“permanent or temporary building, and … any other structure or erection”,

including

“a vehicle, vessel … aircraft or … movable object”—

there is mention in the section of hovercraft. I find it difficult to see how this would be quite the right reference for the Bill.

We have Amendment 20 in this group, which seeks to take out the reference to “immediate vicinity”, and is a probing amendment. This would mean that the objective would not include reducing the risk if an act of terrorism occurs in the immediate vicinity of premises or an event. That is not what we are aiming to achieve; we are aiming to understand, and allow interested organisations to understand, what “immediate vicinity” means. A lot of organisations that briefed us are concerned about this; owners and operators want to comply with the law, take all reasonable steps and do the right thing, but they are not quite sure what that means.

We have heard about grey space, which is the public space outside a building where, by definition, event organisers and security personnel have no control, and only the police can control them—for instance, an area where people queue on a pavement to enter premises but are outside neighbouring premises, or queues which cross over one another.

I assume that the words

“so far as is reasonably practicable”

are the key to what immediate vicinity means in any given situation. Does that phrase mean only what is physically practicable, as a matter of physical layout and the scope for protective measures, or where it is appropriate for an owner to control what goes on, or is it also what is financially practicable, and is that related to the scale of an event or the activities taken over a period as a whole, or to the financial position of an owner of operator? The Explanatory Notes say that what is reasonably practicable is to put in place particular procedures, but I am not quite sure that that answers the point.

It strikes me that what is in the immediate vicinity of any building may affect insurance issues, such as the premium payable by the owner or whether a claim by an owner is met by insurers.

As well as the Minister clarifying the point today, if he is able to, can he tell us whether the Home Office has considered the need for guidance, perhaps with examples of what is in the immediate vicinity? However, as I typed that, I thought that that could be confusing, because if an example is not there then people may think that it would not apply. What help can the Home Office give, or ensure that the Security Industry Authority gives, to help the assessment of whether an area is within the immediate vicinity of premises?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I will deal with Amendments 3 and 20; I do not wish to say anything about Amendment 2.

So far as Amendment 3 is concerned, I am sure we have all attended many events that have taken place in large, demountable premises. It is a long time since I have been to the International Eisteddfod in Llangollen, but certainly the last time I attended the arena was a demountable premises—I would have called it a building—that could be packed up on lorries, taken away and stored somewhere. We have all been to sporting events in premises like that. It is a bit of a puzzle to me as to why, in Clause 2(2), the Government diluted the word “premises” by referring to buildings in Clause 2(2)(a). I urge the Government to consider, before Report, putting a definition of premises and/or buildings in the interpretation section at Clause 33. It is my belief that, subject to whatever decision we reach in your Lordships’ Committee about the number of people attending an event which brings those premises within this Bill, we need to include demountable premises.

I turn next to Amendment 20. I mean it when I say that anything that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee or Lady Suttie, say, I treat with great seriousness, having known them for a very long time. When I hear the noble Baronesses say something together then I treat it with even more respect. However, I have looked at their amendment, alongside Clause 5(2). I urge the Government to consider whether their amendment dilutes the effect of this Bill, rather than achieves their aims—and I do not wish that to happen.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will respond to that very quickly, because I was waiting for the “but”. It is a probing amendment. I looked for ways to introduce the concept of immediate vicinity in order to question it, and this was the first time where I could do so. I hoped that that would be clear. I certainly am not seeking to dilute the Bill, merely to seek clarity.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 8 similarly seeks to raise the threshold for mandatory compliance with the requirements of the Bill to

“300 people, or, if smaller”,

where

“the Secretary of State determines that the premises are at a heightened risk of terrorist attack”.

This is a more flexible measure than the amendments proposed by my noble friends, although I entirely agree with the sentiment of the speeches that we have heard from my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Udny-Lister, and in an earlier group by my noble friend Lord De Mauley.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, observed a moment ago, the Government were entirely right to increase the threshold from 100 to 200, but I suggest that 200 is still too low and will cause disproportionate expense and disruption to small businesses. In particular, I will focus on the potential impact on community volunteering.

In engaging in the balancing act of the protections which this Bill will afford, one must look at the history of the type of terror attacks that we seek to address. As my noble friend Lord De Mauley observed in his remarks, they are largely urban and at large venues. While the Minister is right to say that attacks can happen at any premises at any time, it is also right to say that there is a greater risk at certain types of venues and in certain locations, and that is borne out by the history of terrorist attacks. It is therefore incumbent, I suggest to the Committee, that this legislation adopts a flexible approach to risk. I have sought to reflect that in my Amendment 8.

I suggest that we must have a proportionate approach, or this legislation will have the effect of closing largely community venues, much valued by people up and down this country. One needs look only at the Home Office’s own impact assessment, produced with the Bill. At page 9, the authors note that among respondents to the survey of premises with a capacity of 100 to 299—the owners of smaller premises, places of worship, village halls and community centres—only four in 10

“agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack”,

and

“Around half … reported that the revised requirements would be difficult to take forwards … Six in ten … were at least somewhat concerned that the cost of meeting the standard tier requirements will affect their organisation’s financial ability to continue operating”.


This Bill is a sledgehammer that is going to crack the nut of our village halls. I ask the Minister: if, two years down the line, after the implementation of these procedures, we find it is very difficult for village halls to find trustees and volunteers who are prepared to take on the legal obligations of the enforcement regime that this Bill imposes and those village halls start to close, what will the Government do to undo the damage wrought to our communities by the closure of these much-valued venues?

I strongly commend my amendment and a measure of flexibility to the Government and the Committee this evening.

[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.

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

My Lords, I too recognise that inevitably we have got to fix a figure, and that is for this House and/or another place to do. I would just like to say one thing about Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, where he says,

“if smaller, the Secretary of State determines”.

One has to see the reality of that, which is that this would probably happen anyway—although I support his amendment—to the extent that how or why would the Secretary of State intervene? He would intervene only because of intelligence.

We have to remember that it is not just what we all think in here. Our intelligence services have kept us safe—touch wood—we are told from many planned incidents over the last few years. Therefore, regardless of the number being six or 800, we rely on them to come through and tell us where the threat is. We have been talking about whether it is a small premises that is attractive to terrorists or a large one, or whether it is a significant name of an event or whether it is the people attending. They will go first to find a target that will gain them the maximum amount of attention. They then say, according to what happened with us and I am sorry to go back to it, “Which one is easy for us to go for?”.

We cannot decide that in here. But we must put the numbers down. I agree with Amendment 8 from the point of view that it recognises that the Secretary of State must have the power to intervene on any event, and not just necessarily the Secretary of State but the police and the intelligence that leads to some form of action on it. So I do support the amendment.

Extremism Review

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Of course I can. Might I suggest to the noble Lord that the next time a leak finds its way to him, he puts it in an envelope and posts it back to the Home Office? That would be extremely helpful. I put that on the record for any noble Lord who receives in the post a document marked “Private: not yet government policy”; it is good to send it back to us.

There are no plans to change the definition of extremism, which was set out by the previous Government in March 2024. It sets down three points, which are: negating or destroying the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; undermining, overturning or replacing UK systems of liberal parliamentary democracy; or intentionally creating a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in either of the first two points. That is the definition of extremism. It has not changed, and was not going to be changed. The leaked document did not include a change and it is not government policy. I will buy the noble Lord some envelopes for the future.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that Ministers have a perfect right to reject documents that are placed before them, wherever they come from, and that this is not a matter for journalistic surprise? Does he agree that we should do nothing to dilute the considerable effectiveness of counterterrorism policing, which involves a number of authorities and public bodies? Does he also agree that Parliament and even the media should await patiently the two reports by experts in the field, to which he referred earlier, and confirm that we will then enjoy informed debate rather than wild comment?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I agree with all three points that he has mentioned. The key point is that Governments consider a range of advice. I give a commitment from this Dispatch Box, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would from the House of Commons, that when any change or development of policy is made it will be reported to this House and to the House of Commons. That is the right and proper thing to do. As for speculation on leaked documents and advice given to Ministers: Ministers decide. They receive advice, commission potential papers and deliberate on them. The two reviews we have established are designed to create debate and bring forward suggestions that Ministers will ultimately decide on. I thank the noble Lord for his comments, with which I agree, and welcome his support.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, having spent just over half of my life in one or other House of this Parliament, I regret that I have become more resistant than I should be to campaigns. But I am proud to support the campaign that has led us here today, and I congratulate the Government and, indeed, the Opposition on their support for this legislation in general terms and on their willingness to improve the Bill as we work our way through it. I particularly congratulate Figen Murray, whom I have met on a number of occasions, and her supporting team, on everything they have done. They have taken a balanced and constructive approach and have been ready to listen to arguments on some of the difficult issues that have already been discussed during today’s debate. Of course, we should never forget all those who suffered as a result of the Manchester Arena attack.

I also congratulate Sir John Saunders, who conducted a magnificent inquiry into the Manchester Arena attack, using all the skill that he gained as a judge in Birmingham Crown Court and later as a High Court judge. It was an absolute model of its kind and we owe Sir John a great deal.

What we are discussing here is not something that fills a gap but something that completes more fully counterterrorism law and provisions in this country. Making these particular provisions is going to be very useful in that task.

In supporting the Bill, I do however want to raise a few issues that I urge the Government to consider. The first echoes what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady May, in relation to the SIA. I had some dealings over the years with the SIA and, as the noble Baroness said, it has been dealing mostly with security guards and other individual issues, so it is embarking on new and difficult territory. The two-year introduction period, which is long, nevertheless allows for full and proper implementation to be achieved. It will need that time and it will need every bit of help that it can be given, including by us as legislators.

Part of the SIA’s task is to produce legal guidance on the provisions of the Bill. I hope that some scoping of that legal guidance has taken place and I also hope that we can see at least a draft of such a legal guidance before Committee, so that we can consider and comment on such guidance. There is a great deal of expertise in your Lordships’ House that would assist the SIA and it is perfectly reasonable to ask for that to be seen as part of the legislative process.

I turn next to a difficult issue about civil liability. There may well be cases where normal civil liability—that is to say, mostly for negligence or breach of statutory duty, under ordinary civil claims procedures—might be justified and appropriate in relation to the failure to meet the requirements set out by the Bill, the Act as it will become, and the legal guidance that has been issued. Clause 31(2) appears to share that view. However, Clause 31(1) as described and explained in paragraph 166 of the Explanatory Notes—I will not read it now because it would take too long—excludes claims for breaches of statutory duty. I do not begin to understand the rationale for that. As a veteran of industrial injuries claims—hundreds and hundreds of them in my time as a barrister—I know that it is absolutely common- place to plead in a claim both breach of statutory duty and negligence, and often judges give judgments in which damages are awarded for both breach of statutory duty and negligence. Why is that excluded here? I believe it is an inadvertent mistake that should be reviewed.

I turn next to the question of corporate civil liability. In some parts of the Bill there are provisions that appear to extend corporate civil liability—but they do not. What is provided in the Bill is that, if a company commits an offence, an officer, as described in Clause 26(2)(a) may also be liable for the offence that has been committed. But it does not make the company liable if an individual who works for that company has committed an egregious act that otherwise might give rise to criminal liability. The bar against establishing the liability of a company in any civil proceedings is high because, to use the vernacular phrase often used by lawyers, there is a requirement to show that someone who is the eyes and ears of the company is responsible for the wrong that has been committed. That has not been extended in this Bill, even though it has been extended elsewhere in legislation in the recent past. So I ask the Minister to examine that issue and I would be very happy to discuss it with him further. Indeed, I pay tribute, as others have, to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, who could not have been more available to all of us in this House who wished to discuss this Bill with him.

I turn next to planning and licensing considerations. Planning considerations arise when an application is made for planning consent for a new venue, obviously, or for significant alterations in the planning provisions for a venue. The issues raised in this Bill should become central to such planning applications. Equally, it should become central to licensing authorities’ considerations when they are deciding whether permanent or temporary licences should be granted. Indeed, I would suggest that those who are already involved—I know there are distinguished organisations, particularly in Manchester, involved in training commercial entertainment and retail centre providers—should be asked to train planning officers, councillors and licensing authorities in these matters.

I echo something that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady May, about consultancies. I fear, having represented at one time a lot of villages in rural Wales, that those village hall committees may find themselves paying not £300 a year but a great deal more to some good and some pretty awful consultancies, which do not have very much to offer and where such things could be offered in a different way. We owe a duty to those who run village halls and similar entities to be assisted to avoid unnecessary costs arising from the Bill. If there are necessary costs, so be it, but not unnecessary costs.

I emphasise—and this has not been said—that the Bill does not remove from the public their sense of responsibility. How many of us have been to venues where we waited in a queue while somebody brought into that venue—be it a theatre, nightclub or restaurant where there is security—large bags full of unnecessary quantities of possessions that are almost impossible to examine in a meaningful way without the mechanics or machinery for search? The public must understand that it is their responsibility when they go to such a venue not to take with them haversacks on their backs containing their overnight clothes and equipment for the weekend. This is something that requires all of us to do our duty as citizens.

Finally, I regard this as a very good Bill. If the Minister can provide reassurances on the subjects that have been raised by me and others, it would be very welcome. What we are doing is improving the safety of the public, albeit arising from tragic circumstances that should never have occurred.

Hezbollah: Threat to the United Kingdom

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Godson, for his inspiration in having this debate and for his searching speech. We look forward to the Minister’s answers.

I would like to approach this issue in a slightly different way. In my view, one of the answers to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Godson, is by increasing the efforts that our country makes in diplomacy in Lebanon and the region. If Lebanon could emerge from its current political stasis and from the tragic situation it finds itself in militarily, then Hezbollah would matter but little in that country. It would be diminished by Lebanon becoming once again part of the comity of nations.

As it happens, I have a very close friend, Dr El Zein, who is a distinguished academic working in Beirut. He is a family man who is connected with many politicians there; he is not a politician himself. He and I have been speaking every day for the last few weeks, and he has been sending me his daily diary which includes his family moving to their little flat in the mountains but with another 20 people there with them. It is part of what has been happening in Lebanon.

I ask our Government to recast their approach to Lebanese politics and to resist merely following in the slipstream of the United States, which since 2006 has been responsible for what has become inept diplomacy and the increase of the power of Hezbollah. The Lebanese people are now hugely angry with Iran, the proxy warrior that supplies the weapons and experiences almost none of the grief.

Our Government should engage with other European Governments, as well as with the United States, and with all parliamentarians in Beirut, including Hezbollah. I know that our Government are very reluctant to talk to even Hezbollah members of parliament there, but that is an unrealistic approach. They do not like what is happening in their country at the moment either.

Why do we not help them towards, for example, the election of a new President, through the parliament system of electing a President? They have been without a President for two years. There are candidates who could become President of Lebanon who would be recognised throughout the world for what they have done as economists, bankers and businesspeople, and in other ways. Lebanon will not have its place in the world without a new President. This would also increase the respect in which our country and our Foreign Office are held. Iran has betrayed Lebanon. We can help the Lebanese back into a position of welcome among nations.

Violent Disorder

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his response and the questions he has brought forward today. I am particularly pleased, as I mentioned, with the support that was given at the time of the incidents and the discussions we have had with colleagues around the response at a local level from members of the Church of England. I also welcome the condemnation he echoed of violent acts. He will know that the issues of community cohesion he mentioned are difficult issues to deal with, but ones that it is essential that this House and the Government grasp and take forward. I hope he will welcome that the Deputy Prime Minister is going to be leading on community cohesion. We will be looking at what we can do to bring groups together to look at how we bring together all the issues to which both Front Benches have referred.

While I cannot give assurances today on timescales or terms of reference, these will be issues that this House and the House of Commons return to regularly, because we have to tackle the underlying causes of individuals feeling alienated from society. There is no excuse for that behaviour—it is criminal behaviour and will be dealt with as criminal behaviour—but we still have to understand the reasons why people have fallen into that criminal behaviour, just as we would on any other aspect of criminal behaviour. I give the right reverend Prelate the assurance that that will be undertaken by the Deputy Prime Minister and others in the coming months.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, in welcoming everything that has been said so far in this debate, and welcoming my old friend to this House and to the Front Bench, I ask him whether he agrees that the actions of online entities such as Channel3Now in Pakistan, allowing online advertising sites to make money by purveying violent, demonstrably deliberate untruths about the country we live in, is wholly unacceptable. I suggest that at least the possibility of further regulation should be used to compel internet entities to see it as their duty to refute the broadcasting of such content.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is nice to see the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, again. We have seen each other in a number of guises over the years, and I am as surprised as he is to find myself here today responding to these issues. He raises an extremely important and valid point. Much of the content that fired the organisation of some of the events we saw, not just in Southport but across the whole United Kingdom, began its life in an internet or social media post that encouraged poor behaviour, not just in the UK but, as the noble Lord said, outside the United Kingdom.

The Online Safety Act was passed by both Houses in the last Parliament and was the child of the previous Government. The level of implementation of some of the measures in that Act needs to be looked at. My right honourable friend Peter Kyle, the Secretary of State for DSIT, has met with social media providers to look at the internet and what role it played, and we will review the policy over time. This is an organically growing issue, but the points the noble Lord mentioned are extremely valid, are registered by this Government and are ones that this Government will look at and take forward in due course.