Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Hanson of Flint

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner for tabling the first of this group of amendments and to the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Udny-Lister, the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Suttie, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Mann for their contributions.

I would like to just stand back for a moment. All the amendments and comments are about making sure that somebody in a responsible position understands what the provisions of the Bill are so they can make sure that the people who are with them, on a voluntary or professional basis, are seen to understand and are able to implement the legislation in the event, which we hope will never happen, of a further terrorist attack.

The specific question of training is an important one, but I remind noble Lords that there is no requirement in the Bill currently. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned, that was a step back that the Government took to ensure that we carry out specific training on any particular issue. It is essential that we have those public protection measures in place and that people understand them, but is it essential for all the issues that have been raised today to be fully put down and for those “burdens” to be put on to voluntary organisations and organisations in the higher tier?

In Clause 5(3) we are asking for public protection measures, which include invacuation, assessing windows and a whole range of issues about a particular site; and in Clause 6 there are some more detailed observations for the larger premises. What my honourable friend Dan Jarvis in the House of Commons and I are trying to do with the Bill is establish good practice. Accordingly, as has been mentioned in the Chamber tonight, training and instruction will vary according to the types of premises and workers—whether it is a professional building or a small village hall with amateur individuals being trustees and responsible for those areas. The Government consider that the focus should be on how to ensure that people can carry out their roles effectively, rather than requiring the completion of generic or, indeed, one-size-fits-all modules or courses. If no one working at a qualified premises has been informed how to carry out an evacuation procedure, the procedure is, self-evidently, not properly in place and the requirements under this legislation have not been met.

The Government recognise the vital importance of proper instruction, and, as such, the Bill will require some form of guidance and strategy, but I would suggest it does not require prescriptive training along the lines that have been discussed in the range of amendments brought before the Committee today.

Under this legislation, the Secretary of State, the right honourable Yvette Cooper, and any future Secretary of State, must provide guidance under Clause 27 and lay it before this House and the House of Commons so that there is public scrutiny of what that guidance will be in the event of this Bill becoming an Act and Clause 27 passing into law. That guidance will be produced with the specific purpose of helping those in scope in the standard or enhanced tiers to understand the requirements that are required of them and to understand how to comply with them.

Moreover, in Clause 12, one of the functions of the Security Industry Association will be to provide the appropriate advice to those in scope of the requirements. Where provided, such advice cannot replace, but may be complementary to, the statutory guidance produced by the Secretary of State. It is intended that the Security Industry Association will support and guide those who are responsible for the premises and events and will seek to educate rather than enforce in the first instance. Through the process of implementation, the Home Office is intending—I hope I have given reassurance previously on this—to support the SIA, to ensure that the advice it provides and the guidance it produces assists those who fall within scope, drawing appropriately on relevant stakeholders. The Home Office is committed to ensuring that the SIA brings in the right people with suitable qualifications and expertise to ensure effective performance.

I hope that that reassures the Committee. It does not set down a template for training because training is not required, but it will set down guidance for organisations in the standard or enhanced tiers to ensure that they know what is required of them, and the legislation is clear in Clauses 5 and 6 as to what that is.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Has he given more thought to the sector-specific guidance, as we have touched on previously in Committee? He relies on the guidance that the Secretary of State for the Home Department will have to bring forward but, as this debate has shown, the application for a heritage railway association or a small football club varies hugely. If he and his department were willing to look at sector-specific guidance that would take in all the specific situations that volunteers and staff in those organisations face, that would go some way to helping.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a valuable point. But consider, for example, that the provisions were for a standard-tier building. The standard-tier building under Clause 5(3) requires “public protection procedures”: evacuating individuals; moving individuals; preventing individuals from entering or leaving; and providing information to individuals on the premises. Those requirements in Clause 5(3)(a) to (d) apply to a heritage railway, a village hall, a small football club, or a small church—they apply to any particular premises. What that clause and therefore what the training/understanding is about is making sure that, be it a railway, church, village hall or football club, those provisions are understood by the people who, in the event of an attack, would be in the building and would be directed by the responsible person, or their delegated named person, to understand—if this building were a village hall—which entrances they need to lock or open, which windows to shut or not, and what the evacuation procedure for the building is.

There is a training element in that, but it is really in the understanding. The guidance that the SIA and the Home Office will produce downstream—it is downstream because this is not yet an Act and there is a two-year implementation period—will be designed to make sure that whatever the circumstances, individuals who are responsible people under the legislation understand what their responsibilities are. I am acutely aware that there are, as there are now, a number of individuals offering types of training before this Bill is even legislation and has Royal Assent.

Do we, as the noble Baroness says, produce a Home Office list of “supported individuals”? Our aim is to try to simplify and de-bureaucratise this, as far as possible, so that it is easily understood by those who are “responsible individuals”, and the costs are not excessive. The requirements in the legislative amendments being discussed today would add potential layers of bureaucracy and would not achieve the fundamental objective, which is, “What do I have to do in the event of a terrorist attack in the premises that I am responsible for, whatever size those premises are?”

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Hanson of Flint

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front-Bench spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for their contributions to this debate. My noble friend first drew my attention to his concerns during the pre-discussion of the Bill, as well as at Second Reading. I wrote to him on his concerns prior to Christmas. I hope that I can again assuage his concerns expressed in the discussions we have had this evening.

Amendment 10 seeks to ensure that railway vehicles, such as trains, that are temporarily stopped at a station are excluded from the assessment of the number of individuals that it is reasonable to expect from time to time at railway stations. I hope I can give my noble friend some assurance that a train that stops at a station as part of its journey does not form part of the station premises. Clause 2(2), which sets out what a qualifying premises is, states that the site must consist of

“a building or a building and other land”.

If I can put it this way, the train has a temporary interaction with the station as it passes through—rather like it does when I travel through Crewe on a regular basis—but the passengers on the train are not “present on the premises” for the purposes of the definition of qualifying premises. The train and the building are completely separate. A train in use as a train is a vehicle, which is not a building, so the train will not form qualifying premises in its own right either. I therefore hope that Clause 2 is sufficiently clear on what constitutes a premises.

Amendment 12 looks at the definition of a railway station in Schedule 1, which has been drawn from Section 83 of the Railways Act 1993—on which I served at the time; that takes me back 32 years, which is a long time ago—which in turn stems from Section 67 of the Transport and Works Act 1992. A station may include some or all parts of the premises that this amendment appears designed to remove. Furthermore, the words that the amendment would remove are a non-exhaustive list. These areas are already capable of falling within the definition if they are used in connection with the station.

I hope my noble friend will understand why I do not think it appropriate to change the definition for the purposes of this legislation, as it may remove some parts of a station which may form part of its premises. Where there is not already a legislative requirement comparable to the Bill, it is the Government’s intention to include such of those parts within scope where they properly form part of the premises for the purpose of the Bill’s objectives. Again, the building and the rail are separate entities.

For station premises which fall under Clause 2, the parts that the amendment seeks to exclude may form part of the premises and therefore may be relevant to taking forward public protection procedures or public protection measures, as far as is reasonably practicable. I know from previous exchanges I have had with my noble friend that this amendment seeks to exclude the specified parts of a station premises in order to provide greater clarity that these would not feature in an assessment of the numbers of persons it is reasonable to expect at a station premises. Locations such as a forecourt or a car park are usually transient locations. It would be difficult to envisage a scenario whereby a car park would have great significance to an assessment of the number of individuals present on the premises.

Therefore, I recognise the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment, but I do not consider it an appropriate approach. I therefore hope that I have assuaged his concerns.

It may be helpful if I put Amendments 16, 17 and 18 in context by setting out the Government’s approach to the application of the Bill to transport premises. Where a transport premise satisfies the Clause 2 premises criteria, it is considered that it is comparable to other publicly accessible premises that the Bill captures, and it is appropriate and necessary, therefore, to include it within the Bill’s scope. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of Schedule 1, therefore, include definitions of relevant transport premises for this purpose.

It is expected that, for example, some airports, railway stations and bus stations will, under the definition in the Bill, be qualifying premises required to take forward the Bill’s requirements. This is considered appropriate, given that the security of the public at those premises is of equal importance to that of the public at, for example, an entertainment centre or a large retail premise. However, paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 excludes those transport premises that are already subject to existing requirements to consider and mitigate terrorist threats. To do otherwise would confuse and duplicate burdens on operators and give no additional public protection benefits. Excluded premises therefore include airports, national rail and underground premises, international rail premises and port facilities, as described in the schedule.

I turn to Amendment 16 specifically, which I know is of concern to my noble friend. Where there are premises that are shared—for example, where a national rail and a heritage railway station are concurrent or form part of the premises—there may be parts of those premises that are subject to legislative requirements related to mitigating terrorist threats, and parts that are not. If there are premises, or parts of premises, that meet the Clause 2 criteria and are not subject to existing legislative requirements, it is considered that they should meet the requirements of the Bill.

I want to pay tribute to the volunteers and those who run heritage railways. The Llangollen heritage railway is not too far from where I live. The Government consider heritage railways, as described by my noble friend, as primarily visitor attractions that help support tourism and the local economy rather than necessarily means of transportation in themselves. They are, by their definition, very different from the rest of the rail network, which is already required to have appropriate security procedures and measures in place.

As such, it is not considered appropriate that parts of the heritage railway premises at shared or joint stations should automatically be excluded from the scope of the Bill where equivalent safety provisions are not already in place. To do so would mean there would be no requirement for parts of these premises to consider appropriate security procedures and measures, and the security of the public at heritage railway centres is just as important as at any other premise within scope of the Bill.

In previous discussions and exchanges with noble Lords, I have emphasised very strongly that the measures required for the above-200 premise in Clause 5 are important but not onerous measures, and ones that volunteers at railway stations or elsewhere would wish to adopt as good practice, as well as being a legal requirement under the Bill. Evacuating individuals, moving them to a place of safety, preventing them from entering or leaving premises and giving them information, is all good practice, but with the legislative back-up of the Bill.

So I hope that the distinction between trains as trains on the move, and buildings as buildings, is one where my noble friend can understand where the Government are coming from and accept. I hope that is sufficient to persuade him and the triumvirate of noble Lords who raised these concerns not to press the amendment. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, wishes to contribute, so I will certainly let him.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. Is he able to say anything on the points I raised about the secondary powers that the Bill brings about and grants to the Secretary of State to vary some of the conditions, and particularly how that would relate to organisations such as those in the heritage rail sector that are reliant on a large number of volunteers? Would he accept that there is a difference between a business that has an employee who has an ongoing responsibility for following changes in the law that the Secretary of State makes through secondary powers and the burden that is imposed on organisations where volunteers have to keep abreast of changing laws? They may be following closely the deliberations on the primary Act, but the Act provides for a number of secondary powers that would be more difficult for them to follow than an organisation with full-time employees.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I accept that there will be requirements for guidance. Again, the purpose of the Government is to ensure that we have that guidance in place, and that will be circulated via the Security Industry Association in due course. I hope that will help. The Secretary of State’s powers will be subject to further amendments and discussion later on. Hopefully, I will be able to give some assurances on that.

I thought my time was over, which is why I was sitting down, but instead I shall turn to Amendment 17. By virtue of Section 119 of the Railways Act 1993, such requirements as requested in Amendment 17 apply to railway stations in Great Britain. However, as my noble friend said, Section 119 of the Railways Act does not extend to Northern Ireland. Therefore, where there are stations within the Northern Ireland Railways network that meet the Clause 2 criteria, I consider it appropriate that the Bill is applied to those stations accordingly.

On Amendment 18, I understand from my noble friend’s explanatory statement that the intention behind it is to exclude stations or parts of stations that are not buildings. There are some important factors to consider regarding that intention. First, to be a qualifying premise within the scope of the Bill, the premises must consist of a building or buildings or the land, and if there are stations or indeed premises that do not meet this condition, they would not be qualifying premises. The formulation of the Bill at Clauses 2 and 3 is to capture premises where there is control and ownership of that venue, not to capture freely accessible open spaces. However, there are obviously many premises that are constituted of a building or of the land that fall under premises defined in Clauses 2 and 3. Where that is the case, it is our intention that those parts of premises that constitute land with a building should be in scope. To exclude those premises at stations or other premises would have a detrimental effect on the aims of the Bill.

Again, I draw all noble Lords back to the basic premise of the Bill, which is to provide a basic floor for conditions for premises over 200 and over 800 where we have the appropriate requirement to ensure that we put in protections in the event of an attack on those premises. I hope my noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lady Ritchie, if she is here, will see the consequences of what I have said. As such, I cannot support the amendment, but I hope I have explained the reasons why.