Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, my amendment seeks to raise the qualifying premises threshold in this Bill from 200 to 500. This is a necessary and proportionate adjustment to ensure that the legislation is both effective and enforceable. At its core, this Bill is about ensuring that public venues take reasonable steps to protect the public from the ever-present threat of terrorism. This is a goal that we all share, but it is also our duty as legislators to ensure that any obligations that we impose are realistic, achievable and properly targeted. The current threshold of 200 is, in my view, too low. It captures far too many small businesses, community venues and organisations that simply do not have the resources to comply effectively with the security measures required under this legislation.

We must therefore ask ourselves what we are truly trying to achieve. If the Bill is about protecting high footfall venues that are most likely to be targeted, a threshold of 500 is much more appropriate. A venue that regularly accommodates 500 people is a significantly different proposition from one with just over 200. The former will have the infrastructure, resources and operational capacity to manage the enhanced security obligations that the Bill requires, whereas the latter will often struggle under the weight of compliance, detracting from the effectiveness of the legislation as a whole.

Moreover, this is a question of enforcement. By setting the threshold too low, we risk overburdening the enforcement agencies tasked with ensuring compliance. We should be concentrating our efforts where they will make the most difference: on larger, more high-risk venues, where the potential impact of an attack would be greatest. A threshold of 500 strikes that balance.

I also want to address the issue of fairness. Many small and medium-sized businesses are still recovering from the financial strain of recent years. The hospitality, entertainment and cultural sectors in particular have been hit hard. If we impose overly stringent requirements on smaller venues, we risk pushing them into further difficulties, leading to unintended consequences such as venue closures or reduced community engagement. This is not, therefore, about opposing security measures—far from it. It is about ensuring that these measures are appropriate for the size and nature of the premises they apply to.

I do not bring this amendment forward lightly. I support the principles of the Bill and I recognise the importance of making public spaces safer. However, legislation must be both proportionate and practical. The Government have not, in my view, provided sufficient justification for the 200-person threshold, and nor have they demonstrated that raising it to 500 would compromise security in any way.

On the contrary, I believe this amendment enhances the Bill by making it much more targeted and therefore effective. For these reasons, unless I hear a clear commitment from the Government today that they will reconsider their position, I will be dividing the House on this amendment. I urge noble Lords to join me in supporting a measured, proportionate and practical approach to this issue.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 3 in my name, which seeks to raise the threshold for a qualifying premises from 200 to 300, with an exception to allow the Secretary of State to set a lower threshold if any particular premises are at a heightened risk of terrorist threat.

While I agree with many of the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister in relation to 500, it is important that the House has the option to consider other variable thresholds. I suggest that this amendment, in setting the threshold at 300 with the flexibility to include other venues between 200 and 300, is a pragmatic, measured and proportionate adjustment that balances the need for public safety with the realities of implementation of this expensive and burdensome set of regulations on small businesses and community venues.

While we should do as much as possible to reduce the impact of an attack, should one occur, we must ensure that pubs, village halls, community spaces and other, similar venues are not subject to undue regulatory burdens where the risk does not justify them. By raising the threshold to 300, we are ensuring that those venues most at risk are prioritised. Almost all venues under 300 will now be excluded by reason of this amendment, while providing a degree of flexibility for exceptional cases where a lower threshold may be warranted.

The logic behind this adjustment is clear: a threshold of 200 captures too wide a range of premises, including many small business and community venues that may not have the capacity or resources to implement the complex security measures required by the Bill. Many of these venues operate on tight budgets and rely on volunteer or part-time staff. I worry greatly that one of the unintended consequences of the Bill will be to drive such small business and community facilities—which are presently just about managing and just about balancing their books—out of business, with the consequent massive impact on our communities and high streets. If this happens, the terrorists will have won.

I do not need to remind the House that the Home Office’s own impact assessment estimates that the costs to business of the measures in the Bill, at present values, are likely to be between £4.871 billion and £563.4 million, with the Government’s best estimate at £1.785 billion. This additional burden will land just at the time when small businesses and community ventures are reeling from additional regulatory burdens and rising taxes.

Increasing the threshold to 300 would ensure that the primary focus remained on larger venues with higher footfall and, therefore, greater potential risk. As I observed in Committee when debating these amendments, one need look only at the Home Office’s own impact assessment to see the considerable level of concern about the viability of small businesses and community ventures. At page 9, the authors note:

“Among respondents to the survey of premises with a capacity of 100 to 299”—


the respondents being the owners of smaller premises, places of worship, village halls and community centres—only

“four in ten … agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack … 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”.

However, in my amendment I recognise that security concerns are not always dictated by capacity alone. This is why it would allow for the Secretary of State to include particular premises that are at heightened risk of terrorist attack. This provides flexibility.

Commendably, prior to the introduction of the Bill, the Government raised the proposed threshold from 100 to 200 following the outcome of the consultation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister that there has been nothing in the debates on the Bill which really justifies the figure of 200, when set against the potential impact on the large number of premises now caught by the present threshold. The proposal in the amendment is a cautious—and, I suggest, proportionate and sensible—step, and I invite noble Lords to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

The figure of 300 would have a similar effect. The noble Lord raises a sceptical eyebrow at me. We have hit on a figure. His Government wanted 100; the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, and others have argued for 500; we are arguing for 200. That is a reasonable balance, I think, between the two. I have given him assurances in Committee and at other stages that that is an appropriate figure.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he give us the percentage figure? If it is 4% for the 500 threshold, what is the figure for 300?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can give the noble Lord the figure, if he allows me a moment to find it. I have the figure in this pile somewhere and I will await some dissection of the file to arrive shortly to give him a definitive figure on that, if he will allow me. If not, I will come back to that in a moment. From my perspective, the figures of 800 and 200 are correct. I have that figure to hand somewhere—here we go. See: I knew at the end of the day, with a little bit of diligence, no ambush and advance notice, I could find the figure. Raising the threshold to 300 would mean that only 92,288 premises—or 10%, down from 17%, of eligible premises—would be captured. The figure that we have currently is significantly higher than that.

Again, 92,288 is a significant number of premises covered by the Bill, but if I go back to Clause 5(3), those requirements are not what I would term onerous. They are good practice. There are things that a good employer should do. They are things that good volunteers should do. There are things that are applicable not to stopping terrorism but to providing security in the event of a terrorist attack being undertaken. Again, if this House were a premises covered by the legislation, which it is not, and an attack were happening now, the responsible person here would have to decide which exit we went from, whether we stayed under the table, whether we shut the door and who should we contact. Those are the requirements in Schedule 5 to the Bill. They are not onerous, and I think that, on balance, as wide a group of premises as can be included is the desired amount, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister, wishes to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

3: Clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(ca) the premises have a capacity of more than 300 people or, if smaller, the Secretary of State determines that the premises are at heightened risk of a terrorist threat, and”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment aims to protect small businesses from disproportionately burdensome security requirements while maintaining adequate protection against terrorism threats.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

In the light of the opinion expressed in the Division, I will not be moving Amendment 3.

Amendments 3 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. I will make a connected but slightly separate point. After Committee, the Minister very kindly wrote to me on the reviews, particularly the post-implementation reviews. A copy of the letter is in the House of Lords Library. For the benefit of noble Lords, he said:

“I would like to reassure you that a post-implementation review will be undertaken”—


which is what we sought—

“and this will assess whether the legislation delivers the Government’s policy objectives … this will include analysis of the costs and impacts on qualifying premises and events … this will naturally include smaller businesses and community-run premises where they fall in scope. The Government’s intention is that the review will be conducted, at most, within five years of commencement … This will incorporate … microbusinesses and small community premises”.

I am very grateful to the Minister for the indication in his letter. Can he let us know, from the Dispatch Box, whether the Government intend to publish the outcome of those reviews?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 19, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, I will speak also to Amendments 20 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 19 would require the tribunal to consider whether a notice should be ordered to be of no effect in circumstances where the tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time. That is the context for the amendment.

The fundamental background behind this amendment is that the SIA will issue notices; we do not know how many, at this stage, but there is a strong likelihood that they will be appealed in significant numbers. This will likely be a major additional burden on the First-tier Tribunal, raising questions on capacity and speed of response. It is also right to say that many of the regulated persons are responsible for events with a hard deadline, which carries with it financial and operational consequences. How will events deal with a situation where their appeal is lodged with a tribunal but no determination has been made in a reasonable time?

Amendment 19 seeks to prevent people being left in limbo. It would follow Clause 16(7), which allows the tribunal to decide that an order is of no effect until the appeal concludes, and it should be read in that context. In that sense, Amendment 19 is simply an additional protection for those organising events if, for whatever reason, the tribunal has simply not been able to determine the appeal within a reasonable timeframe. I hope the Minister understands the reasons behind this amendment, and I am keen to hear his response.

I will speak more briefly on Amendments 20 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 20 seeks to extend the grace period from 28 to 42 days. This is a practical adjustment: compliance with new regulations takes time and, while security must remain a priority, we must recognise the operational realities faced by businesses, charities and community groups. A slightly longer grace period provides a fairer timeframe for implementing necessary measures without imposing undue pressure. An additional 14 days is a reasonable and fair addition of extra time.

Finally, Amendment 23, again tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, calls for local authorities to be consulted. Local authorities are on the front line of implementing security measures under the Bill, and their insight and expertise should be taken into account. Consultation will ensure that security policies are practical, properly resourced and, critically, aligned with local needs. Effective counter- terrorism measures require co-operation at all levels and this amendment strengthens that collaborative approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister in reply.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26. I am sure we all know how important volunteers are in the way our society works. Across the country, many vital community venues are run on our behalf by volunteers who give up hours and hours of their time to help run community enterprises—for example, village halls and community centres. I am also sure that noble Lords will have found that it is getting more and more difficult to persuade people to take on voluntary roles and responsibilities. It is very much harder to persuade people into senior voluntary roles, particularly if those roles carry with them personal risk to that volunteer, either of financial liability or criminal liability.

As I have made clear in previous debates on this legislation, I am very concerned that this Bill will unintentionally have a significant negative impact on members of our community volunteering. By Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26, I seek to ensure that voluntary unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees are exempt from the personal and criminal liability under Clauses 24, 25 and 26 of the Bill, provided, of course, that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence.

As I observed in Committee, when this Bill was considered in draft by the Home Affairs Select Committee, it heard evidence about the impact of these proposed measures on community volunteering. The committee, under the then chairmanship of Dame Diana Johnson, reported in July 2023 and said this in paragraph 39:

“However, we are concerned that the capacity figure of 100 for standard tier premises, which will capture some small and micro-sized businesses, and community-run and voluntary groups, could be disproportionate and burdensome. This category is particularly troubling because it would include many smaller venues that may not have sufficient resources to cover costs of what is proposed. It would also cover village halls, places of worship and similar amenities that provide vital community support, often on low budgets. If such places are forced to close down, this represents a win for terrorism, rather than an effective means of combatting it”.


I could not have put it better myself.

In light of this and other representations, the present Government increased the threshold from 100 to 200, and I commend them for doing that, but that increase is no sufficient answer to the problems that have been raised. I remain concerned that, with the effect of the measures in the Bill—on top of the other measures facing volunteers across our community, which we heard so ably outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in an earlier group—there is a risk that we will have fewer volunteers and volunteer leaders, which may mean wide- scale closures of village halls and community centres up and down our country.

It is clear to me that the effect of the measures in the Bill as it presently stands runs the serious risk that the new liabilities in the Bill will reduce the appetite for members of the public to step forward and volunteer. This is, in any event, in an era when public involvement in these sorts of institutions is waning. It is important that the Government do not make it harder and harder to be a volunteer or a trustee of these institutions.

The amendments that I propose here are directed to removing the worst of the disincentives for people to volunteer. The way Amendment 21 works, as the House will have seen, is to remove the risk that a volunteer or unpaid trustee would be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed under Clause 17, provided that they were acting at all times in good faith and within the scope of their duties.

Amendment 22 would exclude a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee from the daily penalties, described in the Bill as being up to £500 a day. I suggest that that sort of measure is a powerful disincentive to people to volunteer, due to the risk of their own personal liability for these sums.

Amendment 24 would exempt volunteers, unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees from criminal liability, provided again that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence. I hope the House will agree that it is a significant disincentive to volunteering to think that you face, on a cursory reading of the Bill, the risk of up to two years in prison for failing to adhere to the strictures of the regulations made under the Bill.

I appreciate that, as the Minister will no doubt tell the House, these criminal powers will be used only rarely and are a maxima, and I am sure all that is right. However, the fact is, if it is in the statute, it will act as a disincentive to volunteers. People will not want to be the responsible person, because they will not want to take the risk of going to prison.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

21: Clause 17, page 13, line 16, at end insert—
“(7A) A voluntary unpaid office holder or unpaid trustee must not be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed under this section, provided that they acted in good faith and within the scope of their duties.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that financial penalties do not apply to volunteers serving in good faith.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Although I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, I at least take some heart from the fact that a review will be conducted and I am very grateful for the support expressed for these amendments by the right reverend Prelate. I have also been, frankly, disappointed by the approach from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who could have chosen this moment to make a real mark on this legislation to help volunteering. But with that, and the fact that there would appear to be little prospect of this amendment succeeding, I will not move Amendment 21.

Amendment 21 not moved.

County Lines Drug Trafficking

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle ‘county lines’ drug trafficking.

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

The Government’s county lines programme is targeting exploitative drug-dealing gangs while breaking the organised crime groups behind this trade. The programme has closed more than 400 drug-dealing lines since July 2024 alone. The Government are committed to halving knife crime in the next decade and to tackling the violent gangs who lure children into crime. We will be introducing a new offence of criminal exploitation of children in the crime and policing Bill, which will be published very shortly.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I admire the Minister’s indefatigability in addressing three of noble Lords’ Oral Questions today and I thank him for his Answer. An estimated 14,000 children are at risk of child criminal exploitation as a result of county lines drug trafficking. In 2022, it was reported that there had been 8,000 arrests since the introduction of the county lines programme in 2019; that is an average of 2,600 per year. In the last nine months, Home Office statistics appear to show that there have been around only 500 arrests. Why is this, and what are the Minister and his department planning to do about it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that I can answer only for the period from July 2024 to September 2024, which are the latest figures. These figures show that 400 deal lines were closed, more than 200 dealers were arrested and charged, 500 further arrests were made, and there were 800 safeguarding referrals for children and vulnerable people. He asked what we can do in particular—yes, roughly 14,500 children have been impacted by county lines, and first and foremost we are looking at how we can support those children.

Very shortly—in fact, tomorrow—the new offence of criminal exploitation of children will be introduced in the police and crime Bill. I look forward to the noble Lord’s support on that. It will mean that we can go after the gangs who are luring young people into violence and crime, and we will have an additional penalty for individuals who exploit and damage children as a result. So there are short-term interventions to be made, but there are long-term measures too.

I would also say to the noble Lord that the additional 13,000 neighbourhood police officers will be an extremely important way of gathering intelligence, putting police boots on the ground and putting the fear of God into those people who are undertaking county lines activity.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

37B: After Clause 31, insert the following new Clause—
“Right to protest(1) Nothing in this Act is to be construed as infringing upon the right to protest, as protected under Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.(2) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to protests or demonstrations, provided that such protests or demonstrations do not directly incite violence, threaten public safety, or disrupt essential services, and are conducted peacefully and lawfully in accordance with existing legal frameworks governing public gatherings.(3) This Act shall not be used to impede, restrict, or unlawfully interfere with the right of individuals to express dissent through peaceful means, whether in public or private spaces, so long as such activities are in compliance with the principles of non-violence, respect for others’ rights, and public order. (4) Any action taken under this Act that affects an individual or group’s ability to protest or assemble shall be subject to review to ensure that it does not unduly restrict fundamental freedoms.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the compatibility of the Bill with provisions on protest under the Human Rights Act 1998.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, in an earlier day of Committee, the Committee heard an exchange between my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower and the Minister. It was pointed out that political gatherings of more than 200 people quite frequently happen in Members of Parliament’s constituencies. Quite often there is a local issue, or indeed a national issue, that encourages public engagement. One of the features of this Bill is that it is striking that there has been no discussion about the impact of the measures in the Bill on the right to protest. That is an ancient right under common law but it is now found also, in part, in Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act.

One of the Bill documents produced by the Home Office—quite rightly—when this Bill was produced was the human rights memorandum prepared for the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member. That document does not appear to engage with the question of whether this Bill will infringe or curtail any person’s Article 10 or 11 rights to protest. It is noticeable, given that omission from the human rights memorandum, that the Minister and his equivalent in the Commons certified on the front of the Bill that, in their view, it was compliant with the convention. I am afraid that I beg to differ with that analysis—at least to the extent of the amendment proposed on the Marshalled List today.

We will look at what the amendment does in a second. By way of background, it is important to point out that on 6 February this year, the Court of Appeal, presided over by the Lady Chief Justice, produced a judgment in the case of Sarti, Hall and Plummer against the Crown: 2025 EWCA Crim 61. The Court of Appeal considered, as part of the Just Stop Oil protests, appeals brought by individuals who had been protesting by closing Earl’s Court Road. The Court of Appeal, reversing or revising earlier decisions of the courts, determined that it was not necessary for a criminal court hearing a charge of this type to go through the elaborate proportionality tests required in the earlier Shvidler case, and therefore it was for the court to implement Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023.

Noble Lords will be asking, “Why is all this relevant?” It is relevant for this reason: Section 11 in Part 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 imposes an obligation to notify the police in advance of the date, time and proposed route of any public procession or protest which is intended

“to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person or body of persons”,

or to

“publicise a cause or campaign”.

That obligation to notify the police is not addressed in any way in the provisions of Clause 3 of our Bill, which defines “qualifying events”, and it is not inconceivable to see that there may well be a situation where a public protest falls within the definition of Clause 3.

The Bill is silent about who may be considered the responsible person and who may be liable to regulation by the SIA. In fact, the whole thing is simply inapposite. But it is not inconceivable that, unless an amendment of the type that I propose in the Marshalled List is inserted, there is a risk—albeit, as I am sure the Minister will tell me, it is a small risk—that these measures might be used to curtail protest, or have the unintentional consequence of curtailing the democratic right to protest.

For those reasons, I draw the attention of the Committee to the provisions of my amendment. Clearly, the first proposed new subsection simply ensures, as a matter of construction, that nothing in the Bill should be viewed as curtailing those Article 10 and 11 rights. Similarly, it makes clear, in proposed new subsections (2) and (3):

“The provisions of this Act shall not apply to protests or demonstrations, provided that such protests or demonstrations do not directly incite violence, threaten public safety”,


et cetera. The third provision is:

“This Act shall not be used to impede, restrict, or unlawfully interfere with the right of individuals to express dissent”


or to protest. So, in that way, this measure will simply ensure that the Bill could not be misread by any future Government, or indeed by anyone. I can see no reason why His Majesty’s Government would not accept this amendment or something similar. I look forward to hearing some good news from the Minister. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and other contributors to this debate that I have been on a few demos myself. I have quite enjoyed them; they are part of the democratic right to oppose certain things. Although my demo days have gone for the moment, because, as a Government Minister, I support government policy, there may be occasions in the future when I want to go on further demonstrations. I do not anticipate this Bill or any other legislation—apart, perhaps, from the legislation put in place by the previous Government—curtailing that democratic right to protest.

I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that none of the Bill’s provisions are intended to interfere with people’s rights, which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act, including the right to protest. To be clear, the Bill aims to protect the public, not to infringe their rights. The noble Lord will note that something that I never expected to happen to me again happened with this Bill. On the front of it are the words:

“Lord Hanson of Flint has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998”,


and, for the benefit of the House, I will repeat what it says:

“In my view the provisions of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”,


of which the right to protest is at the heart.

The noble Lord referred to a number of points around the undergrowth of the legislation and some of the clauses and schedules that he has concerns about. However, the front of the Bill says—and I put my name to it—that it is compatible with the convention of human rights. In my view, the measures are carefully developed to ensure it appropriately and proportionately captures the places and requirements of qualifying premises and events. In the development of the Bill, we have been mindful of its application to protests and demonstrations.

The expectation is that most demonstrations and protests will not fall within the Bill’s scope at all. They will not constitute “qualifying premises” under Clause 2, as they are not qualifying activities under Schedule 1. Even if they were, it would be unlikely that the premises would be wholly or mainly used for those purposes.

Some large demonstrations and protests may be qualifying events. However, many will not have to put in place the specific measure to check entry and, as a result, will not satisfy the criteria to be a qualifying event under Clause 3. An open access event, which is how I would term some of the demonstrations that I have been on, might have more than 800 attendees at a time—that number would be a good demonstration—and will not be within the scope of the Bill. Where demonstrations or events are within the scope of the Bill, it is right that the relevant provisions will apply. In some cases, large numbers of people will be gathered in a location where the organiser must have adequate control to consider and take forward appropriate security measures and procedures, so far as is reasonably practical.

I hope to reassure the noble Lord, His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that, within the Bill’s scope, we are required to act compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. I can say from this Dispatch Box that nothing in the legislation interferes with that.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for teasing out the discussion. I look forward to perhaps joining him on a demonstration, if we ever find shared common ground. But, for the moment, his pressing is valuable as it gives me the opportunity to say that he can undertake protests without worry about the Bill’s provisions—unless, of course, his protest falls within the scope of the Bill, in which case it is treated no differently from any other aspect of life that falls within the scope. I hope he will reflect on that and withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the Minister. Obviously, the Section 19 declaration on the front of the Bill is a statement that, in the Minister’s view, it is compatible with the Act. As one of the very small number of Ministers who has signed a Section 19(1)(b) statement, which is to be signed in different circumstances, where you are not so confident, I can assure the Minister that such a statement of opinion is not conclusive. The courts regularly find that measures in Acts of Parliament—for example, in the recent litigation about the Northern Ireland legacy Act—are in fact incompatible, notwithstanding statements or declarations of compatibility on the front of the Bill.

Be that as it may, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I obviously agree with much of it, but I still wonder whether he might go back to the department and consider whether it is appropriate to put in just a short clause along the lines I suggested, to make crystal clear that the right to protest is not to be interfered with indirectly and unintentionally by the measures in the Bill. For now, of course, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 37B withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

40: After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
“Tax relief incentives for security investments(1) The Secretary of State, in consultation with HM Treasury, must establish a tax relief scheme for qualifying investments made by businesses to reduce the vulnerability of premises to acts of terrorism at premises covered by this Act.(2) Qualifying investments include but are not limited to—(a) surveillance and monitoring equipment,(b) physical barriers and access control systems,(c) staff training on counter-terrorism measures, and(d) cyber-security infrastructure for venue security.(3) The scheme may provide tax deductions of up to twenty-five per cent for eligible security expenditures.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment incentivises businesses to voluntarily strengthen their security infrastructure to reduce the vulnerability of premises to acts of terrorism by offsetting the financial burden through tax deductions. It encourages innovation and investment in counter-terrorism technologies while reducing reliance on public funding.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, with some trepidation, I find myself leading the next group as well; I hope not to try the patience of the Committee. The Committee discussed similar suites of amendments in earlier groups. Amendment 40 is designed to seek to defray some of the costs of implementing measures made necessary by the effect of the Bill. As the Committee will have noted, it requires the Secretary of State to set up a tax relief scheme for qualifying investments. Those investments are set out at subsection (2), including

“surveillance … equipment … physical barriers and access control systems … staff training on counter-terrorism measures”,

and

“cyber-security infrastructure for venue security”.

We know that the costs of the measures in the Bill are estimated in the impact assessment at somewhere between £4.8 billion and £500 million, with the best estimate being £1.7 billion. If a measure similar to this were brought in, it would make cost-neutral to businesses the implementation of the measures in the Bill. Of course, there would be a cost to the Government, but this is, after all, a government policy.

My Amendment 45 seeks to do the same sort of thing but without the creation of a tax incentive. It would require the Secretary of State to provide grants or funding schemes for voluntary and community organisations. This amendment goes to my earlier group of amendments, seeking to mitigate the impact on voluntary and community organisations. This is quite similar to the debate about general funding that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, spoke to on the last day of Committee. I will not expound at length on that now, but I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what consideration was given to providing financial support to voluntary and community organisations, whether the Home Office considered the Bill’s impact on volunteering and people wanting voluntarily to run village halls and community centres, the Home Office’s estimate of any impact on recruitment—or whether the issue was not considered at all. If the Minister does not have the answer to hand in his bundle, I would be very grateful if he wrote to me. I would also like the Minister to outline what discussions have been had, if any, with the Treasury on creating a tax scheme of the type I advocate in Amendment 40. I beg to move.

[Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise in advance. The Minister will tick me off for this being a Second Reading intervention, and I should have been here on Monday to say it, but I would like briefly to give a small plug for an organisation that has not been mentioned at all at this stage: the National Protective Security Authority. This is an arm of MI5 which gives free advice on personnel security, physical security and other forms of security. It is informed by a knowledge of terrorist and state threats. It is based not only on the understanding of those threats but on commissioned research from universities. It will give advice for free—paid for by the taxpayer—to all sizes and shapes of organisation. When we are talking about the costs of this, and in the earlier stages about the so-called cowboys giving advice, I recommend that whoever is affected by this legislation looks at this website and seeks this free advice as their first step. I am sorry for the commercial plug and apologise for intervening at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

That covers, I hope, the financial support for businesses and community organisations. Both, I think, are answered by the fact that, even now, we assess that only 13% of the community and village halls that the noble Lord is concerned about will fall into the scope of the Bill. Raising the threshold from 100 to 200 has taken out a significant number of lower-usage village halls, et cetera. We have had to make that determination in response to consultations and Home Affairs Select Committee scrutiny, picking up the Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and others before me did a considerable amount of work on in the Home Office. We are coming to the point where simple, low-cost, cost-estimated primarily to time is where I would leave the noble Lord. The tax relief and financial grants are not really a direction of travel that the Government are going to go down.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who spoke, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for reminding us of the existence of that part of the security service. It could provide very useful assistance to the SIA, which, as we know from other groups in this Committee, is not really ready for the role that this legislation is going to thrust upon it. I have no doubt that that body at MI5 will be very helpful.

I am also grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for supporting these amendments, and I share his sentiment that a large number of faith-based institutions that operate on a shoestring budget are going to struggle to implement the measures in the Bill. On the same theme, I wholly endorse the amendments from my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, particularly in respect of small arts venues and theatres and, more generally, in terms of meeting the additional expenditure to be imposed on local authorities. As ever, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, who always speaks great sense.

The Minister makes many fair points. The Bill did pass through the Home Office when I was there, but I was the Minister for Migration and Borders. I know the Bill was the subject of considerable comment and constructive criticism by the Home Affairs Select Committee. The Home Office responded to the consultation and the Bill was reconsidered. There was a consultation paper and the decision taken to increase the threshold was done in light of the consultation that was launched by the last Government. I suspect that, had we been there, we would have made that sensible decision too. As I said in my earlier speech, I commend the Government for raising that threshold to 200.

That having been said, I do think the Government should ensure some sort of short-order post-legislative scrutiny to ensure that the burdens imposed by this legislation are not very damaging to our micro-businesses and small communities. I know there is always a measure of post-legislative scrutiny, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could write to me just to confirm what arrangements are in place in relation to this Bill—and, ideally, before Report, so we can consider how best to see whether there is an impact, as I fear there may be and, if there is, what measures we can take to ameliorate it. With that, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 40 withdrawn.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 35 seeks to extend the grace period for the payment of a penalty notice from 28 days to 42 days. The intention behind this change is to ensure that individuals and businesses who receive a penalty notice are not unduly penalised by an unreasonably short payment window, allowing them more time to address the fine in a manner that is fair and manageable.

In many circumstances, particularly for small businesses and those already facing financial pressure, a 28-day period may not provide sufficient time to arrange payment, especially if the penalty notice is unexpected or substantial. Extending the grace period to 42 days would offer a more reasonable timeframe for individuals and businesses to manage their obligations without rushing into payment or incurring additional costs. A longer grace period would also account for the reality that certain individuals or businesses may face logistical challenges in arranging payment within a short window. This might include delays in receiving the penalty notice, awaiting advice or support on how to address the fine, or having to co-ordinate the payment within the wider operational needs of their business. Extending the period to 42 days would provide the flexibility needed to handle these situations responsibly.

The principle behind penalty notices is not to punish excessively but to deter non-compliance while giving those who have committed an infringement a chance to rectify their actions in a reasonable manner. By extending the payment period, we can help avoid situations where individuals or businesses are unable to pay within the initial 28-day period and, as a result, face additional penalties or other consequences that exacerbate their situation unnecessarily. This amendment would therefore ensure that the penalty system remains proportionate and that the focus remains on encouraging compliance rather than imposing punitive measures that may create further hardship.

Extending the grace period would also encourage greater compliance with the penalty system as a whole. When individuals and businesses are given adequate time to pay, they are more likely to do so in full, reducing the administrative burden on chasing unpaid fines. Furthermore, it would prevent the risk of penalties escalating due to an inability to pay on time, which could of course undermine the effectiveness of the penalty system.

It is also worth noting that longer grace periods are common practice in other areas of regulation and penalty enforcement. For example, when it comes to tax payments, local government fines and other civil penalties, 42 days is frequently viewed as an appropriate balance between giving adequate time to pay and maintaining the deterrent effect of the fine. The amendment would align the penalty notice grace period with that established precedent, ensuring consistency across regulatory frameworks.

Extending the grace period for the payment of a penalty notice from 28 to 42 days would strike a fair and reasonable balance between ensuring compliance with public protection requirements and avoiding undue financial hardship. The amendment would provide individuals and businesses with the time they need to manage their responsibilities without excessive penal- isation, fostering a system that is both effective and compassionate. I urge the Government to accept the amendment and support a more balanced and equitable approach to penalty notices.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 35A, 35B, 36ZA and 37ZA. When the Bill was considered in draft by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which reported in July 2023 under the then chairmanship of Dame Diana Johnson, she said of the Bill—which at that point had a threshold of 100 for the basic tier—with the endorsement of the committee, having heard evidence about the impact of these measures on volunteering:

“However, we are concerned that the capacity figure of 100 for standard tier premises, which will capture some small and micro-sized businesses, and community-run and voluntary groups, could be disproportionate and burdensome. This category is particularly troubling because it would include many smaller venues that may not have sufficient resources to cover costs of what is proposed. It would also cover village halls, places of worship and similar amenities that provide vital community support, often on low budgets. If such places are forced to close down, this represents a win for terrorism, rather than an effective means of combatting it”.


That is at paragraph 39 of the report, and I could not have put it better myself.

The committee made that cogent point and it was responded to; in my Second Reading speech, I praised the decision taken by the Home Office under the present Government to increase the threshold for the standard tier from 100 to 200. But I remain concerned that the effect of the measures in the Bill will be to greatly harm village halls and community centres up and down our country. In particular, the effect of the measures in the Bill will reduce the appetite for members of the public to step forward and volunteer in senior roles in village halls and community centres. In an era when public involvement in these sorts of institutions is waning, it is important that the Government do not make it harder and harder to be a volunteer or a trustee of these institutions. One of the unintended effects of the Bill might be that village halls are no longer the beacons of stability and assistance within the communities that they encourage. The amendments that I propose are directed to removing the worst of the disincentives for people to volunteer and to become trustees.

The way it works in my amendments—if the Committee were to look at the supplementary Marshalled List—is that Amendment 35A seeks to remove the risk that a volunteer or an unpaid trustee would be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed under Clause 17, provided that they were acting at all times in good faith and within the scope of their duties. I do not ask for a general exemption, whereby they can act in bad faith and still expect to be exempted.

Amendment 35B would exclude a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee from the daily penalties, which are described in the Bill as being up to £500 a day. I suggest that that is a powerful disincentive to volunteers due to the risk to their personal liability.

Amendment 36ZA would exempt from criminal liability those volunteers, unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees, provided again that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence. I hope the Committee will agree that it is a significant disincentive to volunteering to think that you face, on a cursory reading of the Bill, the risk of up to two years in prison for failing to adhere to the strictures in the Bill.

I appreciate that, as the Minister will tell me, this will be used only in very rare cases and is a maxima. I am sure all of that is right. However, the fact that it is in statute will be a disincentive. People will say that they are happy to volunteer but will not be the responsible person because they do not want to take the risk of having to go to prison. This amendment addresses that concern.

Finally, Amendment 37ZA simply clarifies what I think is probably already clear in the Bill: that there is no right of action generated by the Bill against a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee in the event that a dreadful incident occurs at their venue and that they might be personally liable. Again, that would be a significant disincentive to volunteering.

I hope it is clear why I seek these amendments to the Bill. I very much hope the Government will look carefully at creating the kind of exemptions sought by these amendments.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

28: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Private sector engagement in counter-terrorism measures(1) The responsible person for any qualifying premises may fulfil their duties under sections 5 or 6 by contracting with an accredited private security provider to conduct risk assessments and provide ongoing security services.(2) The Secretary of State must maintain a list of certified private security firms authorised to provide such services.(3) Security providers must comply with the national guidelines for counter-terrorism risk assessments and be subject to regular audits by the Security Industry Authority.”Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment which seeks to explore reducing the burden on public sector resources by encouraging the engagement of qualified private security companies. It leverages private expertise to enhance the resilience of high-risk premises against terrorism threats while maintaining government oversight to ensure quality and compliance.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I turn to the amendment in my name, the sole amendment in this group, which concerns private sector engagement in counterterrorism measures. The Committee will be aware that this amendment, as part of my approach in other amendments proposed to the Bill, seeks to soften the effect of the measures in the Bill on small businesses and community ventures.

As the Committee is aware, on page 2 of the Government’s impact assessment prepared by the Home Office, in the “Summary: Analysis & Evidence” section of the policy options signed off by the Minister, is a box giving the range of costs to business of implementing Martyn’s law. The high estimate is £4.87 billion; the low estimate is £563 million, and the Home Office’s best estimate is £1.785 billion. These figures, which are to be carefully borne in mind by the Committee and House in considering the Bill, are the subject of considerable concern on these Benches, particularly given how they must chime with the other problems presently faced by businesses and in light of the Government’s growth agenda.

That disquiet is amplified, particularly in light of the debate we have just had, by the detailed analysis provided by officials on how they reached those figures. On page 27 of the impact assessment, at paragraph 119, we are told that, in drawing up these figures:

“The cost of training is assumed to not be financial, there is no prescribed format requiring the use of particular resource and some training material will be provided for free”.


Then we are told:

“It is assumed that all sites will take up the offer of free training material. This means the only applicable cost”,


taken into account in reaching those startling appraisals of the cost,

“is the loss of employee time when doing the training”.

We are further told:

“Some large businesses may use a commercial provider, which would increase the costs to business. This has not been estimated within the impact assessment due to the absence of specific data on the number of sites who will use a commercial provider for training and a lack of understanding of the costs charged by commercial providers for this training”.


This amendment attempts to address, in some part, the problems that arise from having an imposition on small businesses. It seems most unlikely that small businesses will take up solely free training offerings. Given the level of penalties imposed by the Bill and the criminal liability, they will look to private contractors to advise them on the implementation of measures to meet their new duties under the scheme. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, some of these may be snake-oil salesmen or racketeers.

The amendment is designed to allow a business faced with an obligation to take steps under the Bill to contract out, to a degree, their duties under Clauses 5 or 6 by using an accredited private security provider to conduct risk assessments and to provide ongoing security services to the firm. This would have two effects. The first would be to allow businesses to use the private security sector to help them meet their security objectives. This would result in a better set of security plans. Through the operation of the free market in the provision of such advice, it would also allow a company or community venture seeking such assistance to choose a package that they could afford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by re-emphasising the purpose of this legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that she is unconvinced of the need for it. This legislation will save lives. There are people who died because people did not know what to do when a terrorist attack occurred, and there are people whose lives were saved and who are walking the streets today because people took action when a terrorist attack occurred. The purpose of this legislation is to put in place a framework so that individuals know, if a terrorist attack occurs, what their responsibilities are in that moment; it is not to stop terrorism per se, or to worry about what happens afterwards to the perpetrators, but to stop terrorist activity damaging individuals’ lives in that moment. That is the purpose of this legislation.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has brought this amendment forward constructively, but I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Elliott, that it will dilute responsibility, because there is a named person and that named person is a named person whether or not they subcontract to a security consultant. It will increase the very cost that the noble Lord has been seeking to reduce during the passage of the Bill to date. It will add potential burdens, on small organisations in particular. It will create a market for the very snake-oil salesmen that this Committee is trying to avoid engaging with. It will set standards which are unrealistic when compared to the standards being set by the Home Office and/or the Security Industry Association. It will sow confusion, and it will put burdens on the very people who the noble Lord, deep down, wants to make sure do not have such burdens.

The Home Office’s whole approach is to try to make sure that the provisions in Clause 5 for the smaller tier, and the provisions in Clause 6 for the enhanced tier, are in place and can be simply understood and embedded in good practice. That is certainly true for the enhanced tier, because, by and large, it is made up of professional organisations that will embed the requirements in their day-to-day activity. For smaller organisations, it is about a simple level of guidance and support, which has a legislative component in that someone is responsible. Someone needs to make sure that measures are in place, such as simple evacuation, invacuation, shutting windows or hiding under a desk—whatever is appropriate for that local provision—without the need to have expensive tailored security provision on top. The cost estimate we have put in the Bill is around £330 for the standard tier, and that is in time, not necessarily in cash.

The noble Lord’s proposal would create confusion. Someone would undoubtedly say, “I have to have a consultant”, and someone would undoubtedly pay a consultant, and then the next village would say, “They’ve paid a consultant. We have to do the same”. The next village would say the same, and the costs and the burden would rise on those businesses, when the requirements of the Bill are actually simple and straightforward.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Does the Minister not think that, for example, a village hall that has developed a terrorism action plan along the lines of that required by Clause 5 will want to test that to ascertain whether it meets the requirement before the Security Industry Authority comes to inspect it? In the event that it is inspected and its plan is found wanting, it becomes liable for the heavy penalties that we see later in the Bill. It is surely a natural human reaction to want to test that, and they will do it by going to the private market. Is it not sensible to build into the Bill a measure that allows them to do that? It is simply going to happen. People are going to want to test their plans. Surely he must understand that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I would argue that the way to test those plans is to test them against the Home Office guidance and the security industry guidance. It is not potentially to go out and say to Mr or Mrs security consultant, “Please come in at an exorbitant cost to check that the five exits that we’ve got in this village hall and the plan I’ve put down to work on them meet the requirements of the Act”. The Bill has been determined in such a way that the Home Office does not believe that the requirements are onerous for the standard tier organisations, and even for the enhanced tier the anticipated cost is around £5,000. That will be standard practice for a large arena or large organisation, without the requirement to have those further security consultants test it accordingly. In my view, though the House will determine this in due course, the amendment would dilute the responsibility on the responsible person for bringing forward those plans in the first place.

I say to the noble Lord that I know why he has done this. All the way through the Bill, he has argued to reduce the burdens on small organisations, but this amendment would simply increase those burdens. It would create uncertainty, jealousy and cost, and it would not achieve the objectives that he said. I hope that he will not at any stage, either now or on Report, bring this amendment back for this House to determine.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate on the amendment, particularly the Minister. I might just address one or two of the points raised. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, yes, the accreditation referred to in my amendment is the same as the certification.

I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Of course, I do not seek to replace the contingent liability on a contractor in contract law for faulty advice or workmanship in the floor example that he provided. I am suggesting more that the contractor would share the liability under the statute—the daily penalties and the financial penalties that can be imposed by the SIA and the criminal liability under the Act, which I think is separate from ordinary contractual liability, which would be recoverable under a civil action in the courts.

However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out and reminding me of the passage in the Saunders report saying that the advice provided needs to be clear and to assist the parties that receive that advice. That is exactly what my amendment seeks to achieve. The reality, as I sought to argue to the Minister a moment ago, is that bodies subject to duties under the Bill will look for advice because of the penalty regime, particularly the contingent criminal offence, which would fall upon the responsible person. One therefore expects that there will be a market for advice, and it is important that it is regulated to prevent the snake-oil salesmen that noble Lords across the Committee have expressed an intention to avoid.

I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies for his support for my amendment, and to all other noble Lords for contributing to the debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and that in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.

In the Manchester Arena Inquiry report by Sir John Saunders, the Security Industry Authority came in for considerable criticism. I refer particularly to paragraphs 3.25 to 3.38 of volume 1 of his report. In particular, the inquiry found that there was a lack of effective enforcement measures by the SIA, and this gives rise to considerable concerns about the readiness of the SIA to undertake this task. In previous groups, the Minister has said that one of the purposes of the two-year implementation period is to get the SIA ready for this much greater task. One of the points raised by the amendments in this group is that the SIA is compelled to consider other aspects of information which may be provided by local authorities. I suggest to the Committee that that is a useful and beneficial thing for the Bill to consider.

[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.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. Notwithstanding what my noble friend Lord De Mauley just said about pursing his amendment later, I support the sentiment behind it.

In another Bill before your Lordships’ House, the Football Governance Bill, we are looking at the implications for football clubs, particularly those at the lower end of the pyramid. I was therefore attracted to what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said and what his amendment seeks to do by looking at venues with a capacity of under 10,000—the sports grounds and stadia which attract a smaller number of people but still have sizeable crowds. As we discussed in the previous group, they are run by volunteers as much as, and indeed often more so, than full-time staff, with all the implications of that.

My noble friend, in talking about the London Marathon and the Oxford and Cambridge boat race, brought a number of important examples of sporting events which take place in both private establishments and in public. The growing interest in the parkrun movement springs to mind as another example. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a bit more about whether those more informal but regular sporting events which attract large numbers of people would be covered by the Bill, and if so, how.

I certainly agree with what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said in his concluding remarks. It will be very important to have some guidance here. I said at Second Reading that some more sector-specific guidance is needed. My noble friend’s suggestion of working with DCMS, on behalf of the many and varied sectors which that department has the pleasure of working with, would be very valuable because that can get us into some of the minutiae that my noble friend’s speech just set out. Those minutiae are very important, as the organisations and volunteers that run events are grappling with the duties the Bill will impose upon them.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I also support my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I wish to ask the Minister two questions that arise on this topic that I have found in the impact assessment.

At paragraph 68, there is a description of the enforcement regime in relation to the provisions in the Bill:

“Enforcement will be delivered via a mainly civil sanctions regime”.


In respect of a standard duty premises, we can see that there is a fixed penalty and an ability for the regulator to impose a fixed penalty of £500 per day from the date on which the

“penalty is due until the date the contravention is rectified or the notice is withdrawn by the Regulator”.

There is furthermore a power, in the most “egregious cases” according to the impact assessment, of a criminal prosecution of the relevant person. My first question picks up on a theme in an earlier group. To what extent does the Minister think this will have an impact on volunteering and the willingness of people to take on roles where they would be responsible for facing such enforcement?

My second question is in relation to the funding estimates in the impact assessment. One can see, in paragraph 98 on page 23 of the impact assessment, there is a description of how it is that the civil servants have reached their valuation of what the Bill is going to cost. In the previous paragraph, they discuss the impact of outdoor festivals, but in paragraph 98 they say that outdoor events other than festivals

“have not been included in the analysis. These events are not included due to the absence of specific and accurate data about the number of events and their respective capacities. This lack of a comprehensive list of these events means that a reliable estimate of the number of events could not be made. Therefore, outdoor events other than festivals have been excluded from the appraisal analysis”.

I suggest to the Committee that this is simply not good enough. This is an impact assessment which tells us on its first page that the possible financial impact of these measures is somewhere between £1.8 billion, which is the best case, and £4.9 billion. To simply exclude the valuation from outdoor events because no attempt can be made to assess how many people may attend is simply not good enough. We can see this is a policy that has been developed without the needs of the kinds of small sports grounds that my noble friend has identified. Would the Minister agree that the common-sense position would be to consider excluding completely these kinds of small sporting venues from the operation of the Bill?

[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.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

A few years ago, I produced a report for the Mayor of London on London’s preparedness to deal with a terrorist incident. The question he wanted me to answer was whether he was putting enough armed support officers in the capital to deal with the sorts of attacks that had taken place in Paris and Brussels in recent years. I think he wanted to be in a position where he would be able to say, should something dreadful have happened after my report, “Well, I asked that Lord Harris to do a report for me and he said it would be okay”. I am afraid that is not the answer that I gave the mayor. I said, “Ultimately, it’s down to you. What is the risk appetite that you have for coping with this? Of course you could reduce the risk significantly by doubling or quadrupling the number of armed support units, but what is your risk appetite to do that and what do you think the consequence is?” That is exactly where we are on this Bill: what is our risk appetite?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

What is the noble Lord’s risk appetite for closures of community venues and village halls as a consequence of these provisions if the threshold is set too low?

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

That is what it means to consider your risk appetite: you consider the risk of something dreadful happening and the risk and the consequences associated with trying to address it. That is the choice we must make. I suspect that ultimately we are going to disagree on this. My risk appetite, because I do not really like being killed in the name of some terrorist or other ideology, is that I would prefer the number to be smaller; I would prefer it to be 100. I accept that some noble Lords opposite would rather see the figure set higher. We have a different view of the risk appetite.

My answer to all these amendments is that the Government have consulted widely and responded to that consultation. They have increased the number from 100 to 200. Personally, I am prepared to accept the risk judgment made by Government Ministers on that basis. That is the way in which we should approach it. We will all have different numbers in mind and different views of risk appetite, but ultimately we expect our Government to take a sensible, balanced risk appetite, and I believe that this is it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Sorry, I left north Wales at 7 am, so it has been a long day already. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned the figure of 800. Why have we come to our figure? I can make all sorts of justifications. Two hundred takes into account the greatest number of large premises, so it is a figure that we have determined accordingly. We have to set the figure at a certain level and we have done so following the wide range of consultation that has taken place.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

To what extent has the department made an evaluation of the impact on volunteering of the measures as they are currently proposed, with a threshold of 200? Does the Home Office have a threshold for the number of trustees that they think will go unfilled, or the lack of volunteering in community ventures and village halls, as a consequence of the threats and burden imposed by these measures?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The measures that we have accepted are part of the consultation that we have undertaken. The noble Lord was a Minister standing at this Dispatch Box in this department during the genesis of this Bill, so he will know that there has been wide consultation on these matters. Again, I point him to Clause 5 on public protection measures. Clause 5(3) refers to

“evacuating individuals from the premises … moving individuals to a place on the premises … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.

Are those onerous issues? Or are they things that, even in our own assessment, are relatively low cost in terms of training? That relatively low cost is, essentially, in person hours when determining what those requirements are.

Again, we could fix a number. If I fixed the number at 300, 400 or 500, we would take even more premises out, but that would dilute the purpose of this legislation, which is to set good practice for the prevention of an attack when an attack is occurring and the steps that can be taken to save lives. People’s experiences—not mine, but those in the consultations of the public inquiry—mean that the 200 figure we have now settled on is the right one. I commend that figure to the House and hope that noble Lords will support it in due course when it comes to the final decision by this House before Third Reading.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 17th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out “must, within 6 months of this section coming into force” and insert “may”

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, which is tabled in my name, I will speak in support of the other amendments in this group, all of which relate to Clause 1.

It is worth pointing out in a sentence that the present position under Appendix FM of the UK Immigration Rules is that a person granted refugee or protection status is entitled to make an application for family members to join in two circumstances. Depending on eligibility requirements, they must be a partner—that is, someone in a genuine relationship—or a child under the age of 18 who is not married or in a civil partnership. That is the present legal position. This Bill would have the effect of broadening that application, and we are going to look at that in a second.

At the Second Reading of this Bill, which was held on 18 October, I intervened on the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to ask whether she could inform the House of how many people she envisaged would be granted refugee family reunion status on an annual basis under this Bill. Her answer was:

“I will not go into that now; I do not have it in my speech. I am time-limited and conscious of other people’s need for that time. I will happily tell the noble Lord later”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 360.]


I have yet to be told how many people the noble Baroness envisages would be admitted on an annual basis under these measures.

Clause 1(1) provides that:

“The Secretary of State must, within 6 months … lay … a statement of changes in the … ‘immigration rules’”.


That would have the effect, as per the wording in subsection 1(3), of requiring that there be leave to

“enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted protection status”.

Nothing in that clause suggests that there is any control on the number of people who may be admitted.

The term “family members” is specifically defined in Clause (1)(5)(a), which provides that it includes a person’s

“parent …. spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner … child, including adopted child, who is either … under the age of 18 or … over the age of 18, but dependent on the person… sibling, including adoptive sibling”.

Clause (1)(5(b) states that it includes:

“such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to … the importance of maintaining family unity … the best interests of a child … the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted protection status and another person … any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted protection status”,

and

“such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

This is possibly the most expansive definition of “additional family member” that could be conceived.

My amendments are targeted to address that issue in the Bill. The reason for this is that, clearly, the admission of refugees’ additional family members to this country places a strain on domestic limited resources, including accommodation, financial support, education facilities and medical facilities. As the House of Lords Library briefing noted, since 2015, some 64,000 additional family members have been admitted under the present scheme. I suggest that, under these proposals, that number would be multiplied very many times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I ask the noble Lord, who I think has also put forward Amendment 14, whether children who have been formally adopted are contained within the Immigration Rules?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Appendix FM, as I understand it—although I would have to check—does allow for an application to be considered by the Home Office in respect of a formally adopted child. But I am sure the Minister can confirm, or otherwise, in relation to that.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Given that the last Government did not set up safe, legal routes and actually encouraged the small boats, does the noble Lord have no shame in actually suggesting that this will do the same?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Well, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is wrong: there are a number of safe and legal routes, as she will hear in a moment from the Minister. We are part of the UK resettlement scheme and there are a number of other routes, including the Ukraine family scheme and the Hong Kong scheme: these are all safe and legal routes. So I have absolutely no shame in standing here and asserting that this Bill would be contrary to the interests of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I regret that I was not here for Second Reading, but my Green Party colleague, my noble friend Lady Bennett, was.

I absolutely oppose all these amendments. I have been at debates on a couple of Bills in this Session where the Conservative Peers have been, I would say, playing games. That does not show respect to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Shame.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, gave me a very sneaky answer earlier. If he is a distinguished lawyer, I can see how he might win cases by being sneaky like that. He knows very well—look, he is laughing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

That is unparliamentary language.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Is it? I do not think it is.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord has had his say.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, knows very well that when I say “safe and legal routes”, I mean for any and every nationality—not just the few that the previous Government thought were acceptable to come to Britain.

Also, if noble Lords are rude enough to go over the advisory time limit and show disrespect to the Committee, perhaps their microphones should be turned off.

On the other Bills I mentioned, the Conservatives have been filibustering. They have been making some of these Bills quite unpleasant to sit through when one cares about the issue at hand. Personally, I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, even though he did not give way to me. He is absolutely right that this is petty bickering; I really cannot stand it. We need safe and legal routes. The previous Government did not give us those routes for all nationalities, which means—

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness give way?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

No; I will give way in a moment—perhaps.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness give way?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

No. The previous Government actually encouraged the small boats. They encouraged people to come by routes that were not safe.

The Green Party supports this Bill. It is time to remove the barriers so that desperate children can be reunited with their families in safety.

--- Later in debate ---

I think I have got to the end of the amendments included in this group. I hope I have, albeit in very shortened form, answered the points that have been made. I cannot accept any of the amendments in the group.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate on this group of amendments, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who, with her customary elegance, has outlined her response to the amendments. I am particularly glad to note that we agree on the importance of integration in relation to additional family members—if not on too much else.

I am also pleased to note that I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on his matter of principle that the detail should be in the Immigration Rules. That is one of the reasons why I, like the Government, oppose the Bill in total. But, if we are to have the Bill, I suggest that we need the amendments. As I understand it, the Government remain against the Bill, notwithstanding the very elegant tightrope on which the Minister trod.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his speech. Possibly one might have thought, from listening to it, that the purpose of the Bill was solely in relation to children, but of course we can see that Clause 1(3) relates to family members of

“a person granted protection status”.

So that is all people, not just those under 18.

To the question from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I agree with her too. I certainly do not intend by my amendments any alteration to the present scheme in Appendix FM. It works well and allows the Secretary of State to amend the scheme, which is the correct way that these things should be done.

Lastly, turning to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I obviously do not accept that the Government caused the small boats crossings; they sought very hard to address them and succeeded in bringing them down, and they brought in the Rwanda scheme to stop them. I still maintain that, had it been switched on, it would have achieved its deterrence objective, but that is a debate for another day. The noble Baroness suggested that the term “safe and legal routes” should be defined in the way she suggests: as a route open to anyone for application. I am afraid that that is not the meaning of safe and legal routes. It is a term used in statute and means just what it says on the tin: a route that is safe and legal.

This Government, and the previous Government, have welcomed a great many refugees: over half a million in the last 10 years, including refugees from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. These are great things that we can all be proud of. However, through these amendments I say that the Bill would unfortunately overwhelm our resources to deal with this sort of migration. With that, I will withdraw my amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I would like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for being so rude about him. I like to think that I speak the truth, but sometimes the truth verges on utter rudeness, and I am extremely sorry for saying that.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am very grateful. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister identified, the principle that the first duty of government is the protection of its people is one that is redolent in this legislation. In an era when terrorism remains a persistent and evolving threat, as the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, both noted, it is essential that we equip ourselves with the tools necessary to mitigate risk and enhance public safety. This Bill, by introducing a Protect duty, sends a clear message that safeguarding our citizens in public spaces is a shared responsibility. As the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Hogan-Howe, noted, this legislation completes the triangle of counterterrorism law and, indeed, it gives substance to what was previously a thinner field in the Prepare and Protect arena, as identified by my noble friend Lord Parkinson. All in all, this Bill is a significant step, but its practical implications warrant close scrutiny.

One of the most encouraging aspects of this Bill is its emphasis on partnership. Public safety cannot be the sole preserve of law enforcement or the intelligence services. Venue operators, local authorities and private security firms, together with the owners of establishments covered by this Bill, all have a role to play. However, to make this partnership effective, we must ensure that all stakeholders are properly equipped to meet the challenge. This includes access to training, resources and clear guidance on best practices. Prior to implementation, the Government should establish a comprehensive support framework to help businesses and organisations meet their obligations under this legislation. I understand that this is planned, but we have yet to have the detail. I have no doubt that the Minister will provide further detail on that in due course.

As was so well put by my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and a number of other noble Lords around the House, there are significant concerns about the identification of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator in the context of this Bill. It may be that there are other bodies—for example, local authorities—which would be better at providing this regulation, and there may be an argument that it is consistent with the roles in respect of licensed premises. However, that can be explored further in Committee. At the least, as moved in the other place by my honourable friend Alicia Kearns, we believe that there should be a report reviewing the role of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator, to be laid before Parliament 18 months after Royal Assent. This would allow stakeholders to review and provide input on the appropriateness of the Security Industry Authority enforcing the measures in this Bill —in due course again reviewing whether their enforcement is done properly and to appropriate standards and ensuring that people attending venues are safe.

We also need to be alive to preventing the expansion in costs caused by gold-plating the provisions in these Bills in accordance with suggestions by consultants, about which we have heard so much across the House this evening and was particularly noted by my noble friend Lady May and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

In passing, I endorse the call by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the House be shown at least outlines of the draft guidance, which is suggested in the Bill at Clause 12(2)(a), to be generated by the SIA, and the guidance to be generated by the Secretary of State in Clause 27. I also endorse the call that the Government provide an indication as to whether such guidance would be sectoral, for the reasons identified by my noble friend Lord Parkinson in his speech.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, stated, the Bill provides an opportunity to leverage technology in our fight against terrorism. Advances in surveillance systems, AI and data analysis can play a critical role in identifying threats before they materialise. I therefore encourage the Government to look at ways to encourage innovation in this area. Could we, for example, incentivise the adoption of security technology? Could we establish a recognition scheme for businesses that go above and beyond in their security measures and in relation to measures and steps taken to address the problems in communication, as noted, again, by my noble friend Lady May and others? Such initiatives would not only enhance public safety but encourage a proactive security culture.

As my noble friend Lady Newlove made clear, one of the hallmarks of our society is the freedom of our citizens to gather and enjoy public spaces without fear. It is vital that, in our pursuit of public safety, we do not inadvertently stifle the very freedoms which we seek to protect. If I may echo the powerful points made in different ways by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that is another way in which terrorism wins. This Bill must not lead to an environment of excessive regulation or create barriers for community events. It is all a balancing act.

I therefore ask the Minister to clarify how the Government intend to monitor and evaluate the impact of this legislation, post commencement, on civil society and volunteering. This goes directly to the issue which I have no doubt we will explore in Committee as to the threshold. I agree with many of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The House will want to look both at the threshold and at the power of the Secretary of State to lower that threshold.

Terrorism knows no borders, and our approach to security must reflect this reality. While the Bill focuses on domestic venues, we must not lose sight of the international dimension. The UK has a proud history of leadership in counterterrorism co-operation. How will the measures in this Bill align with broader international efforts? Are we sharing best practices in relation to the protection of public spaces with our allies and learning from their experiences? This exploration of factors is all part of the cool-headed approach encouraged by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and I would endorse such an approach in Committee in this House.

Finally, I highlight the importance of community resilience. No piece of legislation can be a substitute for an engaged and vigilant society. This Bill provides an opportunity to foster greater awareness and preparedness at grass-roots level. Simple measures such as public awareness campaigns and community training programmes can make a significant difference. Empowering ordinary citizens to recognise and report suspicious activity is one of the most effective ways to prevent attacks.

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill is now a necessary piece of legislation. It reflects our commitment as a party to safeguarding the public and addressing the challenges of the modern age. However, as my noble friend Lord Frost observed, we must ensure that this Bill is implemented with care and foresight by fostering partnerships, embracing innovation, safeguarding freedoms and preserving community volunteering. We can create a security framework that is not only robust but reflects our values. We on these Benches look forward to working with colleagues across the House, as we have done hitherto, to ensure that this Bill delivers proportionately the protections that all our citizens deserve.

I have a few final questions to pose to the Minister. What assurances can the Government provide that businesses and venues will have sufficient time, importantly, and resources to comply with the new requirement before the penalties are enforced? Will implementation take place only when the relevant authority, possibly the SIA, is able to cope with the implementation of the provisions in the Bill? It may be that 24 months, although it is a period that has found some favour in the House, may not be long enough for the SIA to arrange its affairs such that it can administer the system. Is it right that the regulator would adopt a pragmatic and understanding approach to enforcement, particularly at smaller venues, at the outset of the commencement of the Bill’s provisions? Secondly, will there be specific government-funded training programmes to help smaller venues understand and meet their obligations under the Bill? Thirdly, is it intended that the new measures will integrate with other existing counterterrorism efforts on intelligence sharing and operational co-ordination?

On a specific point, there is a provision in the Bill for enhanced-tier premises to submit revised security plans to the SIA whenever they are changed or created. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson noted, there are concerns about the routine provision of these highly sensitive documents to the SIA. Would it not be better simply to have a dip-sample approach, such that every premises has to update its plan and make it available for a spot check by the SIA? This would have the benefit of reducing the administrative burden on both the participants and the SIA. No doubt that can also be explored in Committee. Finally, will the Government keep these measures under review to ensure they continue to strike the right balance?

While I look forward to the Minister’s responses, I also look forward to continuing the co-operative and iterative cross-party process that the Bill has hitherto enjoyed. I am sure that it will achieve its vital aims effectively and fairly in the end. It is a matter of grave regret that we need to have such a Bill, but it is clear, given the present and enduring terror threat, that we need such a Bill.

Defending Democracy Taskforce

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I hope I can assure my noble friend that the Government take the issue of deepfakes, AI and misrepresentation extremely seriously. We will be looking at that as part of the task-force remit. There are also powers within the Online Safety Act, and we are certainly reflecting on the points mentioned by my noble friend because it is important that we have integrity in our elections. People need to understand what that integrity means. It does not mean deepfakes purporting to be somebody or something they are not.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, we are told that the Defending Democracy Taskforce will report in due course. Can the Minister guarantee to us that that report will be provided in good time for the May elections?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is a continuing process and, as the noble Lord will know, the task force was established when his Government were in office and continues now. It is an ongoing process; we are looking at this and will produce lessons whenever they are forthcoming. In relation to the local elections in May, we have extended Operation Bridger, which gives support, if required, to Members of Parliament and Members of this House and key individuals who face elections in May. That operation, Operation Ford, is available to give support to individuals who face election at any time when parliamentary elections are not forthcoming.