Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLord Watts
Main Page: Lord Watts (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Watts's debates with the Home Office
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberThe noble Baroness is revisiting areas that we discussed during the passage of the legislation, on which I gave, I hope, clear answers. The statutory guidance—which I do not have with me, but which is quite a significant document—was published to give guidance to those nominated individuals responsible for managing properties for which they have a responsibility. We have also taken on over 100 new operational posts in the Security Industry Authority to assist with that, and there will be further guidance on contact that can be had. We also have a digital system undertaking, which we are issuing the contract for now, to manage this in an effective way. So I hope that those who have concerns will be able to look at the guidance and meet the statutory responsibilities that both Houses of Parliament have passed.
My Lords, Direct Action is taking action in the City of London to vandalise buildings and intimidate staff. Have the Government any plans to address this problem, which is costing millions of pounds in the City of London?
Those who commit those types of offences do not fall within the remit of Martyn’s law, but they do fall within the remit of other criminal justice legislation. If individuals committing vandalism or intimidation on buildings or staff can be identified, they will face the potential, through the City of London Police, of being taken to court and put in front of a jury. If the jury decides that they are guilty, they will be sentenced and face a penalty for that. It is absolutely right that we condemn those actions. There are democratic ways that people can make protests without damaging buildings and intimidating people.