Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Hanson of Flint

Report stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will respond very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. With due respect, it is not because I say so; it is because we have had a consultation. We had consultations in 2021 and 2023, when his party was in government, we have had discussions with the Home Affairs Select Committee and public discussions on this issue generally, and a revised figure was part of the consultation to determine the lower figure. So the 800 figure is not because I say so: it was determined by the previous Government—his Government—and endorsed by this Government coming in. Your Lordships’ House should remember that that figure came out of discussion we had following the Manchester inquiry and inquiries into other similar recent events.

I do not want to test the patience of the House. We had a long discussion in Committee and on the amendments we discussed earlier. Following engagement with stakeholders, the security industry and the public at large, and with the recommendations of several sets of officials dealing with several sets of Ministers, we have come to the conclusion that there is no right number —I accept that—but that the number of 800 will ensure that we bring into scope a large number of premises that have a higher level of security but should be doing those things on the basis of good practice and as part of normal training and induction for members of staff.

The 800 figure applies to the Wembley Stadiums—large football stadiums and the larger venues. I believe they can accommodate the restrictions and requirements in the Bill. The cost that we have estimated for the higher tier is only just over £5,000 per establishment. A £5,000 opportunity cost that might not even be a physical cost is not a burden on that establishment, but it may help to save a life. In the event of a terrorist attack, which we will try to prevent downstream, the measures in this Bill may help to save a life. Had they been in place at the Manchester Arena when the attack took place, lives may have been saved. That is an important consideration. I commend the 800 figure to the House and I hope it will reject the noble Lord’s amendment if he presses it.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for what he said, but I respectfully point out that a threshold of 1,000 would catch events at the Wembley arena. His position on 800 will catch the event we discussed in Committee and that I talked to him about, which cannot possibly afford a figure of £5,000. It does not make £5,000.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, the figure of £5,000 is an opportunity cost. It may well be that it is in time given by volunteers. There is no cash payment up front by any organisation to any outside organisation to provide that level of assurance.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

It is impossible to know the answer. I think the Minister knows that and I do. Let us not waste any more time. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that, in this case, the Government have listened to the arguments made in Committee calling for further constraints on the powers in Clauses 5, 6 and 32. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for pressing the Government in Committee on these matters. This issue was also raised by a number of other noble Lords, and I have certainly reflected upon it. As we know—particularly on this Bill—collaboration and cross-party consensus have underpinned much of the Bill’s development and progress, for which I have been grateful. In this spirit, having reflected on the points raised in Committee, the Government have tabled amendments to further strengthen the safeguards on the use of certain Henry VIII powers in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has done me the great honour of signing the amendments, post my tabling those. He cannot be with us today for other reasons, but I know that the House will note that he has added his name to these amendments and has taken a constructive approach accordingly.

The government amendments are very clear. First, they consolidate in Clause 32 the powers previously found in Clauses 5 and 6, which would allow the Secretary of State to add, omit or amend public protection measures or procedures in the Bill. Secondly, and more significantly, the amendments place conditions on these powers that the Secretary of State must satisfy, as well as the powers in Clause 32 to change the qualifying thresholds for the standard and enhanced tiers. These government amendments limit the use of the powers to lower the thresholds, or to add new procedures or measures, to where the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so for public protection—I put that phraseology before the House.

Conversely, the thresholds can be raised—or procedures or measures omitted, or have their descriptions amended —only if the Secretary of State considers that their retention is not “necessary for public protection”. Necessity sets a higher bar than the previous drafting did, and how the regime is functioning and the nature of the threat from terrorism at the time will be among the factors most relevant to the Secretary of State’s consideration, as will the availability of other means of public protection.

The House will know that the nature of terrorism is very often unpredictable, and methodologies may change over time. In tandem, so will the ways in which society can effectively respond. How certain businesses operate may also evolve over time, such as in the way that customers engage with them. The Government consider that this approach now strikes the right balance between ensuring that the Bill can be kept up to date, and providing in the Bill an important set of further safeguards to ensure that these powers, if used, are used appropriately and with proper consideration.

Furthermore, government Amendment 28 will require the Secretary of State to formally consult such persons as they consider appropriate before exercising any of the powers specified in Clause 32. This includes the powers previously contained in Clauses 5 and 6, which are now consolidated under Clause 32. One of the main demands of a number of colleagues in the House was that we undertook further consultation. Consulting relevant stakeholders is now integral to the development of the Bill, and it has been the Government’s clear intention that this will continue. In the light of the points made in Committee when we debated these clauses, the Government are content to put that wider consultation in the Bill, which I hope assists noble Lords in their deliberation on these issues.

So the Government have listened, and I hope that helps. I hope to have the support of the House for the amendments we have tabled. I will obviously respond later, if the House will allow me, to any points made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, in respect of their amendments. In the meantime, I beg to move government Amendment 12.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

“so far as is reasonably practicable”

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

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

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

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

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Lord De Mauley and Lord Hanson of Flint

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am again grateful to noble Lords for the constructive way in which they have approached the amendments before us. If I may, I shall start with Amendment 11, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. The first and foremost point I want to make on Amendment 11 is the one that is made to me as Minister by the security services. The threat to the United Kingdom from terrorism is currently substantial. Terrorists may choose to carry out attacks at a broad range of locations of different sizes and types, as attacks across the UK and around the world have shown. As I have explained during the passage of the Bill, the Bill is not about preventing terrorist attacks—that is the job of our security services and the police. The objective of the Bill is to ensure that public protection procedures and measures are put in place to reduce the risk of physical harm if an attack occurs and the vulnerability of premises and events to attacks.

The key point for the noble Lord is that this is not related to the particular premise or a particular time, be it rural or not and inside or outside the scope of the Bill. It is about ensuring that the threat, which is substantial, is recognised, and that can happen at any premise and at any time. That is why we believe the amendment to be well-intended but not in keeping with the objectives of the legislation, so the Government cannot support Amendment 11 for those reasons. If the Government took a position on setting a size threshold in the Bill and considered the noble Lord’s amendment the right approach, we would end up discarding a large number of premises that could, due to the threat being substantial, be subject to attack. That point was made very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in her contribution.

Amendments 4 and 9 have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. They would change the provision of Clauses 2(2)(c) and 2(3)(a), which provide that, to be in scope as qualifying premises, 200 or more individuals must be reasonably expected to be present on the premises at the same time in connection with uses under Schedule 1 “from time to time”, as we have stated. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord would change “from time to time” to refer to the number of individuals expected “not less than once a month”. This would change both the number and range of premises caught by the Bill either at all or at enhanced duty premises.

The Government’s intention in bringing forward the Bill is to ensure that we examine that, where significant numbers of people gather at premises, steps have been taken to protect them against terrorism. This should be the case whether the relevant thresholds are met on a daily or monthly basis or less frequently. An assessment based on the number of people expected at least once a month would not take into account the myriad ways in which different premises are used and attendances fluctuate over the course of a year. For example, there is the seasonal nature of sports grounds and visitor attractions, and a monthly assessment would take those premises out of the equation.

Therefore, I hope the noble Lord is again offering me a probing amendment to examine, but I cannot support its current phraseology.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

So, is once a year “from time to time”?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are trying not to define what “from time to time” is because, for example, if a premise on one day of the year met the threshold, that would be from time to time, or it might be monthly or daily. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would mean a prescriptive assessment on a monthly basis, and that in my view would not be sufficient, given the substantial level of the threat.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

I understand the difficulty that the Minister is in, but the point I am trying to make is that it is important that those operating the premises know what they are required to do. Unless they know what “from time to time” means, it is very difficult for them to do that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Without straying into other parts of the Bill, I would hope that people and premises that fall within scope of the Bill, be it a 200 or an 800 threshold, would have clarity over their responsibility areas. If they look at Clause 5, “Public protection procedures”, they will know exactly what is required of them for those public protection matters that fall within the scope of the Bill. So, whether it is “from time to time” as in one day a year or as in every week or every month, if we are more prescriptive, as would be the case under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we would take out a number of premises that—even if it was only one day a year, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned—would still meet the criteria of the scope of the Bill. My judgment is that the measures in Clause 5 are important but not onerous. They are about training, support and examination of a number of areas. Therefore, if from time to time, one day a year, a premise falls within scope to meet the objectives, the responsible person needs to examine the premise and look at the measures needed in place. That is the reason.

I say that not because I want to impose burdens on a range of bodies but because the terrorist threat is substantial. While the terrorist incidents have occurred in large cities, there is no likelihood that they may not occur in other parts of the country. Therefore, those measures are required within the scope of the Bill. From my perspective as the Minister responsible for taking the Bill through this House, it is important that they are required on a “from time to time” basis, not on a very prescriptive monthly basis. That is why I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendments.