Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it seems appropriate that we are discussing the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill today, on the 10th anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. Armed with Kalashnikovs, two Islamists, enraged by the satirical magazine’s depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, stormed into a workplace and murdered 12. There was a memorial protest at Trafalgar Square this morning: well done to the organisers, OurFight.uk, and all attendees, because it is important that we do not forget.

Ten years ago, “Je suis Charlie” rang out as an international call to action in defence of the Enlightenment principle that no idea, belief or figure is beyond scrutiny or satire. We were united then against the culture of fear that Islamist terrorism was trying to impose on free speech and a free society. Sadly, within months, too many liberal apologists in the arts, literature and media started to argue that the cartoonists had been a bit too offensive to Muslims, and that perhaps the staff were asking for trouble. Since then, terrorist atrocities have become too normalised in European cities, in my opinion.

I am all for any measures that tackle terrorism head-on, but I have concerns about this particular legislation. I have heard the message to this House from Dan Jarvis, Minister of State at the Home Office, who, to quote him, gave

“a gentle word of encouragement to colleagues in the other place”,—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/24; col. 758.]

meaning us, calling for consensus and stressing that the Bill should proceed smoothly. That sentiment has been echoed here today, and in the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, who has urged us to deliver without further delay.

I am also aware of the emotional weight on our shoulders here. The Bill has been called Martyn’s law, as we have heard, in honour of Martyn Hett, who was so brutally and tragically murdered in the Manchester Arena attack in 2017. I am very conscious that these legal changes have been vigorously and compellingly argued for by Martyn’s mother, Figen Murray, for years, as we have heard. Despite the undoubted admiration that has been expressed here today for Figen’s courage and determination, I think we need to take a step back.

Our obligations as legislators means that we need to remain cool and dispassionate in bringing in laws, ensuring that legal changes are fit for purpose and proportionate, and that we consider the unintended consequences. In that sense, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Frost, that however emotional this might be, and however serious it is, we have to be cool-headed. There are certainly points of concern and clarification that need to be probed during the stages of the Bill, and we should not have undue haste.

On a positive note, I welcome some modifications that this Government have made to the Bill. I am glad that concerns raised in consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny were listened to, especially the raising of the standard tier from 100 to 200, which will remove a large number of village halls, for example, from scope. I actually disagree with Figen, Brendan Cox, Nick Aldworth and the Martyn’s law team, who urged us, in a briefing today, to return to a starting threshold of 100. I am rather concerned that the Bill gives the Home Secretary discretionary powers to lower it to 100, without any clarity as to what might justify such a move.

I am pleased that education settings are now classified as standard duty premises regardless of capacity, although I am rather mystified that universities and higher education institutions are not included. We have already seen the way that the costs of security measures have been used as an excuse to close down debates on university campuses. The last thing we want is to turn universities into fortresses against public debate in any way.

It is positive that the Government claim to want a lighter-touch approach but, as we know from bitter experience, any powerful national regulator can lead to mission creep, and the paraphernalia around regulation is what worries me. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady May—though it is not reassuring—who is not in her place, that the consultants she talked about are already queueing up at the doors of those of us who organise events, offering to give us cheap advice on how we can comply with this law.

I declare an interest here. The Academy of Ideas, of which I am director, organises public events and debates ranging from our annual Battle of Ideas festival, now in its 20th year, which attracts thousands of members of the public, to more modest salons, seminars and panel discussions. We work with a wide range of venues of all shapes and sizes. The Bill will impact on our work through the potential added costs in hiring venues, liability, bureaucracy, et cetera.

More crucially, the aim of our work is to reinvigorate the public square and cultivate political and social engagement, for all ages but particularly for young people, at town hall-type gatherings, to open up conversations for the public with the public in public. That broader public square may be adversely affected by this law if we do not keep our eye on it. Civil society, people self-organising and getting together and grass-roots gatherings risk being curtailed. We need to think hard when we are told by small venues and event organisers, such as voluntary organisations and community groups, from church halls to small football clubs, that people will be put off volunteering by too much regulatory responsibility and paraphernalia. We need to probe what the consequences of such legal burdens could be in terms of loss of community infrastructure and assets.

In the most recent consultation, many respondents still expressed reservations about not just the financial implications and the fear of big fines—you cannot underestimate that—but the time spent on burdensome and bureaucratic admin. Venues are worried about their ability to meet legally mandated requirements with the limited resources available to them. There is genuinely some panic about how people will cope.

The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, was spot on to note that the Protect duty must not be so prescriptive as to prevent people enjoying normal life. Yet consider the plethora of venues swept up by this law: pubs with beer gardens, swathes of the hospitality industry, which is already on its knees, libraries, museums, galleries, entertainment venues and even childcare facilities—lots of places where people socialise. These are places where normal life happens. I appeal to her idea that we must ensure that, although it might not be the intention of the Bill, there are no consequences which will lead to a more restricted public square and more impoverished normal life; otherwise, the terrorists win.

The Minister says that the Bill will save lives. That is quite a “gulp” moment. We need to be clear about whether it does. We are told that it will lead to a reduction in terrorist attacks or less vulnerability to them, but it is a bit disconcerting that the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report and the Regulatory Policy Committee both queried the lack of evidence about whether the proposals will lower the threat of terrorism. Will lives be saved? I am still not convinced.

I understand the explanation about the changing nature of the threat, with DIY lone wolf attacks emerging out of the view of the security services, but if this means that greater swathes of public space can be possible targets, where anything can be used as a weapon—we think of the lethal use of the car in the recent awful New Orleans and German Christmas market attacks—is a focus on protecting bricks and mortar not rather missing the point? But if everywhere is a target and everything is a weapon, how will we avoid living in a police state? The worry is that the legislation could lead to energy being expended on a process-driven, box-ticking approach that may miss, for example, the deeper cultural and social challenges that we face.

It was harrowing to read in Sir John Saunders’ Manchester Arena inquiry, which others have commended and which is crucial to this discussion, about the preventability of Salman Abedi’s suicidal atrocity and the catalogue of failures in the months and even hours before he detonated that terrible bomb at the Manchester Arena. Venue regulation formed only a tiny fraction of Sir John’s recommendations. It seems pertinent to look at what the first volume of the inquiry told us about security at the venue.

In plain sight, Abedi was lurking around the arena for an hour and a half, acting suspiciously. We are told that he looked shifty and nervous and was fidgeting, carrying a huge, bulging rucksack and praying. One of the waiting parents, Christopher Wild, was so alarmed that he reported concerns that Abedi might be a bomber to security guards at 10.14 pm—16 minutes before the explosion happened. Mr Wild was fobbed off.

Maybe the training in this Bill would make those guards act differently. But let us also remember that we know from the inquiry report that one guard was suspicious but did not confront Abedi because he was

“fearful of being branded a racist”.

This points to the dangers of narrowing the threat of terrorism to organisational or technical issues. It suggests that we need to tackle more difficult challenges, such as the corrosive creed of identity politics, that can act as a barrier to acting on our instincts or using common sense for fear of being demonised—or recognising that promiscuous use of accusations such as “racist” and “Islamophobic” can paralyse individuals in society from doing the right thing. As we are all vividly aware at present, myriad local authorities, social workers, educationalists, care home staff and police officers failed to expose or intervene to stop gangs of men of largely Pakistani heritage committing industrial levels of rape and sexual abuse of girls throughout the UK, for fear of appearing racist, stirring up community tensions or being seen as—maybe I should not say this—jumping on a far-right bandwagon.

This Bill will not work if we do not confront that chilling impact of trepidation about speaking out over suspicions, exposing the ideologies fuelling and inspiring modern-day terrorism and doing the right thing. Je suis toujours Charlie.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord in the desires that he expressed, but in my view those desires are not assisted by this amendment. It is otiose and tautological compared with the rest of the Bill. Sir John Saunders, in his recommendations in volume 1 of his three reports on his excellent inquiry into the Manchester Arena events, emphasised that it was necessary to place the duties on individuals—to make sure that individuals took their responsibilities properly—and that indeed has been the objective of the campaign led so well by Mrs Murray.

In my view, if one reads Amendment 1 and then the Long Title of the Bill, one sees that the Long Title covers everything included in Amendment 1 and an awful lot more. My view is that we should not enter into a discussion about what in the abstract is required of premises; that is not what the Bill is about. It is about placing on individuals enforceable responsibilities, the failure of which would provide serious consequences for those individuals. That is why we are here, and that is why we should stick to the Long Title without this amendment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am minded to support the amendment, but maybe that is because I am a little uncertain about how we are going to ensure that what we all want, which is to protect the public, is guaranteed by the Bill. I worry about a certain mission creep. At Second Reading, a lot of people quoted Sir John Saunders saying:

“Doing nothing is, in my view, not an option”,


but I also quoted Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, who quoted him as saying:

“Equally, the Protect Duty must not be so prescriptive as to prevent people enjoying a normal life”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/24; col. 625.]


As I understand the aim of the amendment, it is simply to ensure that we do not forget what the point of the Bill is. Whether we like it or not, regulatory powers have a tendency of leaving their original aim and growing or going elsewhere. In that sense, I want to ensure that we do not forget what the Bill is about, and that means this amendment. It might seem silly to say that, and tempting to say, “We won’t forget what this Bill is about”, but a lot of the evidence in relation to the Bill does not indicate that the specific measures in it will actually keep people safe from terrorism. I do not doubt that it puts a huge amount of responsibility on individuals, but I do not know that the end result is going to be what we intend it to be. I was of a mind to think that the amendment might help to keep focus; that is one of the things that I was attracted to.

One of the things that is nagging me—and I am going to raise it here because it seems an appropriate place—is that, if we are going to say that the aim is to protect people from terrorism, we also need to know what we mean by terrorism. I am not being glib. The Government themselves have noted that the Bill is partly in response to the changing nature of terrorism—we now have lone-wolf terrorists; it is not straightforward, so we cannot just rely on the secret services and so on—so the changing nature of those terror threats requires this regulation. However, I do not know that we are closer to knowing what that definition of terrorism is. We can all say, as we all will, that we want to pass a piece of legislation that will keep people safe from terrorism, yet we have decided that we do not know how to define terrorism.

Let us think of the official confusion in relation to Axel Rudakubana. As one journalist pointed out last week, saying that he was known to the authorities is an understatement. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out that this is about putting responsibility on individuals but, in that instance, it is hard to name an authority or individual who did not know the threat embodied by that young man, including the police, social services, mental health services, counter-extremism services, education establishments and Childline. He actually said, “I am going to be a mass murderer”, and we know about the ricin, the al-Qaeda manual, and so on. Yet he was not labelled a terrorist. I worry that, if we are confused about our definitions, in relation to this Bill as well, there could be problems.

I have a final point on this. I also worry precisely because we have decided, or declared, that terrorism is changing—I do not challenge the idea that there is something in this—such that somebody who created ricin and had an al-Qaeda manual was not labelled a terrorist. He did not fall through the net—he was caught in the net—yet, none the less, as has been pointed out, nothing was done.

At the same time, we have an expansive slippage between the notions of extremism and terrorism. It has become very unclear what we mean. It might be a joke, but it was revealed over the weekend that the report commissioned, albeit rejected, by the Government, featured a reading list indicating dangerous, far-right extremism that could lead to terrorism. A viewing and watch list was included, featuring Michael Portillo’s “Great British Railways” programme and “Yes Minister” as potentially indicating a problem.

You know, that is, like, “What? How mad”. The reason I am mentioning it is that I do not want mission creep in relation to definitions, or in relation to the regulatory aspects of this Bill. I am terrified of the unintended consequences for community organising, civil society, venues and so on. I just think there is nothing wrong with a very specific reminder of what we want this Bill to do. That is what attracted me, at least, to this amendment.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I of course approve of the Government’s overall intention behind the Bill. However, I have serious concerns about how it will be implemented and whether it is necessary to have this wide range of powers on quite small organisations, events and places that will have events coming within the scope of the Act—when it is an Act—only once or twice a year. We could have real problems there.

My concerns are similar to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, from whom we just heard. There is a real need for focus, and for the Secretary of State, when making regulations, to get them sharply on the point. This is especially so in relation to the likely impact on smaller businesses as well as voluntary and community-run organisations in the standard tier premises. There is a lack of evidence that the Bill will adequately reduce the threat of terrorism to smaller organisations, if indeed they are likely to be at risk.

There will be problems too for one-off and occasional events, which may attract quite large numbers, but in informal surroundings. There will be a big burden on them. How will it really work? So, the purpose is necessary. Just because there are going to be 850 people at an event, do we really need the whole panoply of this Bill?

In 2023, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee produced a report, which, for those who have not looked at it recently, is well worth looking at. It was a careful and well-evidenced report that addressed the then draft Bill. I know that things have moved on since then, but the conclusions reached by that committee on the evidence to which the report referred highlight areas that need to be addressed in the approach to be adopted today.

The committee pointed out that in the 2010s—a slightly different period from the one that my noble friend Lord Davies opened on—there were 14 terror attacks. A lot of those involved knives; there were also vehicle attacks, bombs and one firearm. This was in the 2010s. The majority were out of scope of what is in the Bill: they were on the streets, on Crown premises such as barracks, or on transport. Those would not be covered by the Bill, yet they were the bulk of the attacks. This Bill is irrelevant to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I understand and accept what the noble Baroness was attempting, but Clause 5(2) refers to

“if an act of terrorism were to occur on the premises, at the event or in the immediate vicinity of the premises or event”.

To me, that seems to fulfil all requirements.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am slightly wary, because I want to probe what we mean by the definition of buildings. I find these issues interesting. but I am less interested in them technically and will probably be accused of steering into Second Reading territory.

I genuinely think that trying to clarify what we mean by “building” is important. It speaks to my fear that the Bill might unintentionally dampen down civil society, have an impact on grass-roots activity and lead to a hyper-regulation of public spaces. I do not think that is what it intends to do, so I urge the Government not to expand beyond a narrow view of what a building is.

I was struck when a village in Lincolnshire was forced to cancel its Christmas fair, after it had been told to block off roads due to the risk of a potential terrorist attack. In a discussion on this, somebody noted that it was because there were worries about the impact of Martyn’s law, when it becomes law. I did a little digging and discovered a number of organisations that said that councils and other organisations were citing Martyn’s law guidelines—as we know, it is not a law—in a risk-averse way, pushing back against large gatherings such as bonfires and so forth.

My nervousness is that this law will be used to push a precautionary principle when it comes to civil society. I get anxious about that, so the last thing I want to do is to interpret any gathering, temporary or otherwise, where there are a lot of people, as a building or structure. Somebody just made a point in relation to markets and Christmas markets. One organiser said, “If this carries on, I doubt we will continue, as it takes all the joy out of it”. I just remind the Committee, to go back to the Home Secretary’s point, that the aim of the Bill is not to destroy the capacity of ordinary people to gather, because that would be to let the terrorists win. So, whatever way we come down on our definition of buildings, let us not forget that there is a cost to pay if we overinterpret this to say that, “There is a large group of people; terrorists can attack them; close everything down”. In which case, the terrorists will have won, and what is the point of that?

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, whichever way we look at this, I suggest that it is absolutely plain that we need a clear definition of “building”. A number of good points have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, made a good suggestion. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is also a good one. There is merit also in taking at least part of the Building Act, but “building” needs to be defined. Thus, I think it must be clear, when one considers it, that Section 121(2) of the Building Act is not completely apposite, because it does include the words,

“a vehicle, vessel, hovercraft, aircraft”.

One could include the definition there but exclude expressly those words or any other bits. One could do it by reference to the Building Safety Act, or it may be that the best route is to go to the definitions section at the back, look at the two existing statutes that are in place and take a good definition combining those where appropriate. I suggest that we certainly need a proper definition of “building” at the back, which must include demountable, collapsible buildings—things that very often look almost like a tent. Are large tents to be included, or a circus site event which could hold 500 people? If we are going to protect people, let us get it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, despite supporting the Bill in general, I strongly support Amendment 11, which I will speak to. An assessment of risk, which is generally agreed to be appropriate in all aspects of modern life, seems to be absent from the Bill. Any premises or event, regardless of the real risk of it being attacked, must take a series of potentially very costly precautions.

It is worth noting that of the 15 terrorist attacks to which the impact assessment seems to refer as the main basis for the Bill, six were in London, two in Manchester and one in Liverpool, and all were in urban areas. In fact, all of them were in areas that had tarmac underneath them; not a single one was in a rural area. Does that suggest that it is right to treat events in rural settings as being as high risk as those in urban areas? It is like applying 20 miles per hour speed limits throughout the entire country: it might marginally improve safety, but at a cost of bringing the economy to its knees. In their search for economic growth, is this really what the Government want? I urge them to introduce a little good sense and allow there to be an assessment of risk in these situations.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I urge the same in relation to that amendment: having a specific risk assessment and some flexibility and common sense. I will ask the Minister about how you can have that flexible attitude to buildings.

I was very impressed by the letter from the Minister on places of worship. It was very sensitively handled, and it understood, as it said, the unique work of faith communities and so on. It did not say that no faith community buildings would be exempt, but it understood that they could be treated differently, with a certain sensitivity for what their roles are. We heard a number of very good speeches on that at Second Reading which asked the question, “Well, if you can look at a church or another place of worship in that way, why can’t you look at somewhere else like that?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 6 and 7, in my name, follow a similar line to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost. His request is that the threshold moves to 300; mine is that it moves to 400 or 500. The truth is that I do not think there is a magic number. I think the number was first 100, and I am grateful to the Minister for moving it to 200, but as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, there is no particular reason for this number. It can be almost any number; it is just that you capture more and more businesses, village halls and voluntary organisations by going for the lower number. I want to push for this to be debated fully this evening, because this is one of the core issues within the Bill and something that needs a lot of time.

The amendments seek to increase the threshold and exempt smaller venues. That would be so important for so many of them. It is about viability and costs, as many businesses are struggling with all the costs that face them. The Government should be trying to protect them and these premises from further resource pressures. Therefore, it is the damage that is going to be done that I ask the Government to think about. By raising the threshold, these amendments would alleviate the administrative and financial responsibilities involved and associated with implementation, while concentrating resources and efforts on larger premises, which will always be higher-value targets for terrorist activities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made a very important point in an earlier group. Every time we do anything like this, we say to the terrorists that they have had another victory and done something more, by making us start to change our lives—that is what is happening here. I feel very strongly that we need to minimise the effect on the people of this country, as much as we possibly can, and go for the largest number that can possibly be considered. I cannot believe that there is not an argument we could have which would enable the Government to accept a number of 400 to 500; they may wish to consider the 800 number, but that is another issue. I am less concerned about that; I am concerned about smaller organisations—the voluntary organisations and smaller business—and the chilling effect that this will have.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, when I heard about this Bill originally, one could see and understand that it made sense for Wembley Stadium or somewhere of that nature. But when under the last Government, not this one, I saw that the figure of 100 was being used, I realised how many small businesses and small organisations such as church halls would be affected. It made me ask a question, which the Government have rightly answered. All the consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny, and all the trade organisations that were asked, have said there is very little evidence that, for the safety of small venues, this legislative regulatory framework will keep people safe. What it is guaranteed to do is stymie entrepreneurship and volunteering in local areas, and make people think that it is just not worth organising events or staying open.

I congratulate the Government on having listened to that and for raising the standard tier from 100 to 200 people. Having done that, the question is why they stopped at 200—why not 300 or 400? These numbers are not rocket science, and this is not a glib or silly point or playing games. That is why I raised—rather badly, a moment ago—that, on the numbers game, education settings and places of worship are classified as standard duty premises, regardless of their capacity, because they are different kinds of premises.

We know that it does not have to be this number or that number otherwise people will be killed in terrorist offences. The Government are prepared to be subtle and flexible, and this Bill can be the same. It is worth us probing why the Government stopped at 200. I would go higher, because I am very worried that it will stymie community organisations and small businesses, which will just fall apart.

The Government have a mission of growth and keep saying that they believe in it. They do not want to be saying to new companies or to the hospitality industry that they are going to have to fulfil overregulatory bureaucracy to survive. It is not that such organisations do not care about their clientele or staff; it is that this Bill does not just demand that they think about that but that they must fulfil, under threat of law, a particular set of regulatory mandates. It is difficult; that is what they have all said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, not for the first time in a debate on terrorism in your Lordships’ House, I have to say that I do not want to be the person who in a few years’ time says, “I told you so”. This Bill is about terrorism. If a terrorism act resulted in the deaths of 20, 30 or even two or three people in a hall that was holding a qualifying event that had 232 people, for example, in the audience, in both Houses we would be saying, “Something’s got to be done. We got this wrong”.

I remind your Lordships that one of the most notorious and most damaging terrorist attacks this country has ever seen took place in a public house in Birmingham. So the idea that we hold a sort of numbers auction on the capacity that qualifies under the Bill is, I am afraid, foolish and wrong. Indeed, I am very concerned about this debate on numbers, because it runs the risk of being part of a playbook for terrorists to read—and many terrorists do read very carefully, both on the internet and elsewhere, when they are making their decisions.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

On that basis, there would be no numbers, no tiers and no distinctions at all in this piece of legislation. One of the most shocking and barbaric actions happened recently with the group of—what was it?—40 young children at a dance class. Those of us trying to seriously probe what regulation would mean based on numbers—because there are numbers in this Bill—does not mean that we want to encourage terrorists to go in and kill people in any circumstance. It is wrong, because a lot of the terrorist things that have happened recently have happened because we did not do something before, not because of the numbers of a venue and regulation—for goodness’ sake.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

If the noble Baroness had waited until the end of my next sentence, I would have answered her question. I recognise that we have to set some number. It was suggested that there was no reason for a figure of 200. Can I just remind your Lordships—because it has not been mentioned yet in this debate—of part 8, volume 1, of the Saunders report? Sir John said, at paragraph 8.43, which I am sure all noble Lords will have read with care:

“An important question for the government will be whether setting the level for the Protect Duty in the first category at venues with a capacity of 100 or more is workable. Very different issues will arise for venues capable of accommodating an audience of only 100 people and one capable of accommodating many thousands such as the Arena”.


That is the Manchester Arena.

The stated aim of the consultation on which those comments were based, said Sir John,

“is for ‘light touch’ regulation. While that may be justified when dealing with smaller venues, it seems to me that different considerations should apply to larger commercial premises. Not only are the potential consequences so much more serious but, for that reason, these premises are more likely to attract the attention of terrorists. They are also likely to have greater resources to put protective measures in place”.

In the final part of what I regard as a very important quotation from Saunders, he says, at paragraph 8.45:

“I recommend that when considering the shape of the legislation, the government considers whether it will be necessary to have further categories above the 100 capacity. While categorising by capacity may be the most straightforward way of deciding on the nature of the Protect Duty to be imposed, there may be other factors that need to be considered. For example, it may be appropriate to use different capacities depending on whether the venue is indoors or outdoors. This will need to be considered”.


I also know, as many other Members of this Committee will know, that Figen Murray and those such as Brendan Cox, who have been the backbone of her campaign, have researched these matters with care, and they were asking, on the basis of the evidence they obtained, for a lower figure of 100. I accept that we have to have some figure, but it must not be one which is part of the encouragement or playbook of terrorists.

The Government have accepted that that figure of 100, which Sir John Saunders had in mind and which was adopted by Mrs Murray, should be raised to 200 and have nuanced the legislation in various parts of this Bill, exactly as Sir John Saunders anticipated and recommended should be done. I therefore believe that this is a reasonable balance and that we should now recognise that this is a proportionate and nuanced provision and stop playing about with these numbers.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. In particular, I shall speak to Amendments 21, 23 and 39, but I support the other one too. We have to remember that we have to uphold parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, explained, these are Henry VIII clauses. They will effectively bypass the scrutiny of Parliament. They will allow Ministers to change key aspects of public protection measures and to do so by means that should be employed only in exceptional circumstances.

This is particularly ironic in the light of two recent statements by this Government’s Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. In his maiden speech in July last year, he said that the Government would

“seek to promote the highest standards in how we legislate”

and seek

“to increase … accessibility and certainty”.—[Official Report, 23/7/24; col. 372.]

in how we make law, including not abusing the use of secondary legislation—I remind the House of that. On 22 November, in the Attorney-General’s 2024 Bingham Lecture, he addressed the erosion of the separation of powers and the usurpation—his word—of parliamentary sovereignty and judicial authority. He stressed the importance of the separation of powers and public confidence in democratic institutions.

In the present instance, we have procedures in the Bill that have been carefully considered and subject to full scrutiny. They will have been endorsed by both Houses of Parliament upon the Bill’s passage; that will be put to one side if they are then changed by regulation. Such sweeping powers undermine legal certainty; they are simply not appropriate in this instance. If we are to have effective measures—we have looked at the detail and found that these measures must have everyone working together to be effective: members of the public, the police, the emergency services and the SIA—it is important that everyone feels bound in and supportive.

If, having been through a long and tough series of debates in these Houses, the primary legislation is then just put to one side by successive Secretaries of State, we have all wasted our time. The public will perceive that and there will be a serious loss of democratic accountability and confidence.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was glad to add my name to Amendment 21, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and Amendments 23 and 38.

I am very concerned about what I consider to be the introduction of an anti-democratic part to this Bill, which is worrying and unnecessary in terms of delegated powers and secondary legislation. It opens up the potential for an overreach of powers in relation to the use of Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, explained brilliantly how the regulations can be amended in terms of the list of public protection procedures and measures that qualifying events and premises will be obliged to put in place. It feels as though that makes a mockery of the hours that we are spending here. I do not know why we are examining every line to ensure proportionality and those of us who raise concerns about overreach and so on are reassured that this will proceed carefully and not get out of hand, when all that could be wiped away with a pen stroke. Allowing this particular policy to be, potentially, reshaped to create further obligations on premises, venues and businesses and so on, fuels my fear of an excessive expansion of this policy and the aims of the Bill through regulation, without any of us having any oversight.

Those of us who worry about mission creep—or, what is more, who know the way in which the fear of terrorism and the call for safety have been used over many years as a potential restriction on freedom and civil liberties—will therefore at least want to pause and receive an adequate explanation of why on earth these Henry VIII powers are necessary if, as the Government assure us, this will not be a disproportionate Bill.

The regulator created by the Bill will already have immense powers to issue fines for non-compliance, restriction notices and so on. Many venues fear that this will kill them off financially; we have heard much testimony on that. There is already a sort of fear of God among many organisations associated with civil society and the public square, let alone the already decimated hospitality industry, about how they are to cope with the requirements of the Bill and to plan to deal with its requirements. It might well be argued that this is the price we pay for protecting the public, but that would be if they knew exactly what they had to do to plan for the Bill. These Henry VIII powers give the Secretary of State the power to make those threats to venues far more onerous. They cannot possibly plan for them.

This is all in a context in which a whole range of committees and consultations that have looked at this legislation have noted that there is no evidence that the measures listed in the Bill will have any effect on reducing the threat of terrorism, particularly in relation to smaller venues. One does not want to feel that we are in a situation of introducing legislation that could destroy businesses and aspects of civil society without evidence and that would allow the state to have ever-greater power in relation to surveillance—what those venues do and so on—just so that you can say to the public that you are protecting them, when in fact you might not be protecting them at all.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments on delegated powers and the Henry VIII clauses is a key area of contention in the Bill. On behalf of these Benches, I have added my name to Amendments 21 and 38 in this group. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, they were beautifully and comprehensively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, so I shall keep my remarks fairly brief.

It is true to say that the amendments in this group are now truly cross-party. I suspect that there are several noble Lords on the Government Benches who would rather agree with them too. I note in passing, as an observation of more than 11 years in your Lordships’ House, that parties tend to oppose Henry VIII clauses when they are sitting on the Opposition Benches, whereas they tend to introduce them once they are in government. If the previous draft Bill under the previous Government was perhaps too prescriptive, many of the concerns about this Bill now stem from the fact that it lacks clarity and leaves too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State, without parliamentary oversight. Like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I very much agree with the Constitution Committee’s letter in that regard, in particular the sentence that says that

“delegated powers are not an appropriate route for policy change”.

I think that is a truism, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

As the Bill currently stands, we are concerned that there is too much power left in the hands of the Home Secretary. In particular, there is a risk that if at some point in the future, God forbid, there is a horrendous terrorist attack, the Government may feel under huge pressure to react and, indeed, sometimes potentially to overreact. In such circumstances, there is always a tremendous amount of pressure to respond to events. In those circumstances, it is all the more important that Parliament can debate such measures and that there is proper and full consultation with the sector.

As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, Amendment 38 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that any change to the threshold would have to be justified by a change to the terrorist threat. We touched on this in earlier debates in Committee and it strikes me as a reasonable and common-sense approach. I hope that the Minister responds positively to these comments and concerns and that, if the Government feel unable to accept the amendments as currently drafted, they bring forward their own amendments before Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of the amendments in this group, particularly that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I have an interest to declare, in that I have 250 or 300 church buildings in my diocese that will come under the terms of the Bill when it is enacted.

I turn first to the provision of training. When, about 20 years ago, I first became a trustee of a large defined benefit pension scheme, it was quite scary, but I found that the Pensions Regulator provided me with training, which, as far I could work out, was free for me at the point of access. The principle that training should be provided and not just left to the private sector—to the snake-oil sales men or women, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, just referred to—is important, so that the state can provide good training or enable it to be provided. Similarly, back in 2000, I was involved with a group of friends when the asylum seeker dispersal scheme first began. I set up and won the contract for Yorkshire and the Humber to prove that this could be done morally and effectively, and not simply as a rent-seeking exercise at the expense of the asylum seeker.

State provision, ideally of a good standard that would drive up the quality of standards provided by alternative providers—the amendment does not say it all has to be done through the state—is much to be welcomed.

I recall the difference between volunteers and paid staff. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, said, for something that might be covered by one full-time staff member, it takes quite a number of volunteers, each giving small amounts of their time, to make happen. In my churches I have many volunteers—probably several thousand in the diocese of Manchester—who require DBS clearance for their work with children or vulnerable adults. The law is that those who are volunteers get the DBS clearance process for free; I have to pay for clergy and other paid staff of the diocese, but for volunteers it is provided free of charge. It is a good idea to find ways to help the many volunteers who enable small organisations, whether they are churches, heritage railways or small football clubs. My football club, Salford City, is in a rather lower league than the top two, but, again, there are many volunteers on duty to make sure that things are carried out properly.

I support the amendments in this group and hope that we can find some way of ensuring that good-quality training is provided that will avoid voluntary organisations in particular falling into the hands of those who will either charge them so much that they give up or exploit them for their own ends.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am genuinely torn and confused by this group of amendments. As this is Committee, I want to try to probe it a little because I do not know which way to go.

I was pleased that the Government listened to the consultations about training and, it seemed to me at least, dropped the notion of a one-size-fits-all approach. I thought that was commendable and still do. I know from my experience of organising events that at the same venue you can, for example, have different kinds of events that will have different requirements and need different types of training. I absolutely do not want to go against the idea of listening and thinking to ensure that training is not a source of problems for venues.

I also have a certain dread of training. Noble Lords have already noted that there are a lot of rackets about. When I looked into the original Martyn’s law provisions when they were proposed under the other Government, I saw how many adverts there were from consultants offering to prepare organisations for the legislative change. I got very anxious about that, because they were expensive and no one knew whether they were of the right calibre and so on. There was a worry that security firms in particular would make a packet. Having said that, it is the case that, inevitably, smaller organisations will not necessarily know how to do the training themselves and will turn to third parties.

I am not sure what I think about the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, but I think there is something in this. On the one hand, the thing which has worried most voluntary organisations is what they will do about training. I know from my work in the voluntary sector that a lot of volunteers are put off by the notion that they will all be sent off on safety training courses. It is the dread of your life: you are giving up your time for a good cause to help people, and you think, “Oh God, am I going to be jumping through those hoops?” On the other hand, it is understandable that smaller organisations are not going to have expert trainers on hand and so will need to bring in third parties. That is where one becomes unsure about what they are going to get, and there have been some suggestions in the amendments.

The other thing is that there has been quite a move to reassure venues that there will be signposting of suitable free training offers online. Those kinds of box-ticking exercises are really not worth even being free. There is a danger that training, if it is treated as a box-ticking exercise, will lack quality control and give a false sense of security that the measures are being followed.

Obviously, what I have just said is contradictory, because I do not actually know quite how one should tackle this, but the Government cannot just brush aside the concerns; these are genuine dilemmas that I do not think the Bill addresses at present. There will be real on-the-ground issues that venues face if this legislation is passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I have listened to this amendment with some interest, and I understand the noble Lord’s reasoning for tabling it—sometimes such things require expertise. But I do not accept taking it away from public finances into the private sector, because the private sector will probably be financially burdened enough by this legislation.

My concern is that it might provide the opposite of the noble Lord’s intended idea. It might be very costly, as has been outlined, and you might not get the expert advice you need. But I do not disagree with the principle of allowing outside advice. That could be done through a training system for each individual company rather than being provided by an independent company. If there was a terrorist incident, one of the first things that might be asked is “What advice and what training did you take in respect of securing your premises and ensuring public safety?” So I understand the basis of the amendment, but I am not so sure that it is entirely there.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this group, but I will make a couple of points. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is not necessarily one I support, but the idea that snake oil salesmen are confined to the private sector means the fact that people are not aware of what is happening among NGOs, the voluntary sector and charities, particularly in terms of training. Goodness knows, there is a huge amount of guff being peddled and sold from that direction, so I want to at least acknowledge that it is not just private providers.

Even if I am not particularly moved by the amendment, it is also not entirely fair to suggest that it is trying to sell training certificates that will falsely imply that people will feel safe because they have had some accredited training. If I am honest, my concern about the whole Bill is that the public are being told that if we pass the Bill, they will be kept safe from terrorism. That is mis-selling.

I have raised these points throughout our discussions on the Bill. We face huge challenges when it comes to terrorism, extremism and keeping the public safe, and, of all the pieces of legislation we could bring in, this is the least effective and the most anodyne, and will have no impact at all on public safety. Yet it is heralded as being so important. So it is a bit rich to have a go at one amendment for doing that, when in fact it could be levelled at the legislation as a whole.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. This amendment introduces a new clause on private sector engagement in counter-terrorism measures. It is designed to allow those responsible for managing high-risk or qualifying premises to contract with accredited private security providers for risk assessments and ongoing security services. It mandates that the Secretary of State maintains a list of certified private security firms and that these firms comply with national guidelines and be subject to regular audits by the Security Industry Authority.

I commend this amendment for its forward-thinking approach in leveraging private sector expertise to enhance our national security posture. In an era when terrorism remains an ever-present threat, we must not limit ourselves to traditional, often overstretched, public sector resources. Instead, we should embrace innovative partnerships that can deliver rapid, expert responses to evolving threats, while ensuring accountability and the highest standards of practice.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, this amendment is about ensuring that our regulatory framework for public protection is as efficient, effective and co-ordinated as possible. It is about asking the right questions, gathering the necessary evidence and being open to reform where it is in the public interest. I therefore urge the Government to accept the amendment and commit to conducting a thorough review of the role of the SIA.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very keen on Amendment 33 although I have not put my name to it—it is in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst. It suggests an advisory board for the SIA with the intention of ensuring a collaborative approach to regulation.

I am keen on the amendment because one of my fears about the Bill is that it could be one of those laws that, in effect, means the state abdicating responsibility for public protection and outsourcing it to businesses and community organisations with very much a “You’re responsible for that” attitude, and it is then policed by the regulator. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, I am worried about the damage that might do to civil society.

I really like the idea of addressing some of the issues raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about how we ensure that there is a more collaborative approach. I would like civil society not to feel that it is being done to, dumped on or put in charge of public protection on its own. This strikes me as a good way of approaching that.

I put my name down specifically on Amendment 34 because one of the important things about it is a review that considers all the implications of the Bill some way down the line. We need to be able to consider trade-offs all the time. It is wrong to suggest, as I think was suggested in a debate on an earlier group by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that those of us who were trying to consider cost-benefit analysis and trade-offs were being somehow glib about the possibility of people being killed in a terrorist bomb and that we somehow have a “higher-risk appetite”—the phrase used—or a higher threshold for risk-taking, whereas the important and responsible thing to do would be to ensure that we always considered safety first.

I think we have to acknowledge—

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness is misinterpreting what I said. I said that in making these judgments, you had to have a risk appetite and that you needed to do that explicitly. I was not saying that any particular risk appetite was right or wrong; I was saying it should be made explicit. I certainly was not suggesting that the noble Baroness was therefore glib about people being killed. I was merely saying that that is the trade-off, and anyone making those decisions has to be clear about the trade-off they are making.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification and I am relieved to hear it. I think it was the bit where somebody asked, “How would you answer the situation where 199 people were killed if the limit was 200?” All I am saying is there is often a conversation like this when we talk about safety, risk and responsibility.

I like this amendment because it introduces into the debate about the Bill the opportunity—some months down the line—to have a cost-benefit analysis of whether it has worked. I first came into this House at the height of the lockdown period. On a number of occasions—rather tentatively at the time, because I was new—I, along with others, called for a cost-benefit analysis. I kept asking, with lockdown and all those measures in the name of safety, whether we could just assess whether they were the only way that we should proceed. I was told that we had to be very careful because old people were going to die, and so on and so forth—you are familiar with the arguments.

The reason I mention that is that we can now look back and say that many of those old people were locked up in care homes and greatly suffered. We can say about young people—when some of us argued that we should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of closing schools—that we now have a crisis of worrying about pupils and the impact that lockdown had on them. There is a discussion that the Government are initiating about the cost and impact of lockdown on employment people’s habits as we speak.

It is sensible with a Bill such as this to introduce a review that will give us the opportunity to do a cost-benefit analysis. This is particularly important because a regulator is introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, explained that we need to be able to see whether the regulator is the appropriate way of getting what we would like, which is more public protection, or whether, in fact, it undermines some of the important aspects of local regulatory interventions.

We debated a very interesting group just before the break, when the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, raised the point about the number of regulatory regimes that each venue already apparently has to adhere to in terms of licensing, and so on. This amendment gives us an opportunity to see whether the central regulator is the appropriate way of ensuring that we keep people safe with respect to premises and terrorism.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 44 in my name, and I can probably be quite brief, as it covers similar ground to Amendments 33, 34 and 36, which have been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Davies. However, my amendment is complementary to the amendments already on the table. It does not replace them; it is consistent with them, but it looks at the problem slightly differently.

I think it is fair to say that those who have engaged with the SIA over the years have mixed views about its effectiveness even now, and that is when it has focused entirely on one fairly discrete industry. Now we are proposing a huge expansion of its role to cover all kinds of premises and organisations of all kinds of sizes, including voluntary and commercial organisations and so on; it is a huge expansion of the authority’s role. All these amendments really speak to the fact that there is some uncertainty about how that is going to be carried out in this very complicated and publicly sensitive area.

My Amendment 44 looks at this in a slightly different way and proposes an independent review panel. Of course, that could sit alongside the various advisory bodies that have already been spoken about, but, for two reasons, there is some value in having an independent panel when looking at these problems. First, it establishes a degree of distance. Its reports to Parliament will have a degree of independence of commentary, of not needing to ingratiate itself necessarily with the regulator and the industry. That is what is needed in this situation of a new area of work for the authority.

More important is the point that is in proposed new subsection (3) in my amendment, which is the specific risk of overreach—I have spoken about this on one or two occasions before as we have considered this Bill—and that, once you establish a bureaucracy, everybody has to pay attention to that bureaucracy; once something is in law, that has to be the priority for those who are operating it. There is a temptation for the legal authority to overreach and to lay down rules for its own convenience, rather than for the genuine good functioning of those that it is regulating; and to maybe not look sensitively at the different sizes and natures of organisations but simply to lay down one set of rules. History suggests that with these regulators the effect is that the regulatory burden goes up and is insensitive to the people being regulated. That is why there is particular value in looking at the issues of overreach and how bureaucracies work in practice and why there is particular value therefore in it being an independent body. So, to conclude, I hope the Government will be able to give serious consideration to this idea, along with others in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord calls it bureaucracy; I call it life-saving measures. The Bill is about putting in place life-saving measures to ensure that, in the event of a terrorist attack, individuals know what to do. That might save lives downstream. That is a type of bureaucracy that I am quite happy to accept. There are many burdens and bureaucracies in life, such as health and safety legislation, mine legislation and road safety legislation. There is a whole range of burdens that are there to save lives and this is the same process.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

As I said earlier, there is no doubt that everyone in this Committee would like to save lives. It is a question of balancing whether the Bill and all that it does is life saving. If that is the answer, then there is no debate. If the narrative is, “We’re on the side of life saving, and anyone who doesn’t go along with this Bill, or is critical of it, doesn’t care about life saving”, then what are we having this debate for?

I want to reflect on the “collaborative nature” put forward in Amendment 33. The very people who really care about life saving are all the different local groups, and the amendment simply suggests that there could be a collaborative approach. I know that it has been described as a quango. I have always thought of the party opposite as people who are interested in stakeholders and local groups. There are so many groups in scope of the Bill that you cannot just go to some big organisation that represents them. The amendment refers to having more of them involved.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I accept that, which is why this Government—and the previous Government—undertook several consultations, opened themselves up to scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee, had widespread consultation on changes to the Bill after this year’s general election, which we reflected on, and have listened to concerns about continuing further bureaucracy. The judgment of the Government is that this legislation is an effective way of helping ensure that we put in place protection measures in the event of a terrorist attack. To do that, we have to issue guidance via the Home Office and the Security Industry Authority. The further level of bureaucracy mentioned in the amendments would not help with that. We have had pre-legislative scrutiny and two public consultations and have engaged with law enforcement groups, victims’ groups, the Martyn’s law campaign team, Survivors Against Terror and parliamentarians generally. The statutory board would be an additional administrative layer that would be unnecessary and unhelpful.

Amendment 34 seeks to ensure that we judge the performance of the SIA at a time when it is not yet up to speed on the actions it will take in relation to this legislation. It is neither possible nor fair to judge the performance of the regulator so early in its lifespan. Ministers will examine that under the issues in Clause 12 that we have responsibility for.

Amendment 36 seeks to ensure that changes are made to the enforcement regime. As we see it, the enforcement regime has been developed drawing on lessons from existing regulators. The SIA will use different measures as appropriate to the breach in question. The SIA’s approach will be aligned with the Regulators’ Code. While Clause 20 sets out particular matters that the SIA must take into account, including the recipient’s ability to pay, the list is not exhaustive. If we impose that statutory duty, for example, to consider the views of local authorities, we will create additional burdens for the SIA and for local authorities that would provide that information.

Amendment 44 from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, again provides an additional level of bureaucracy that is not required to be able to hold the SIA to account. Overall on these amendments, there should be clarity about the SIA’s role. The Bill sets out clarity on that. There are currently powers for Ministers to intervene on a range of matters relating to the SIA, including the appointment of the chair and members. Ministers will be held to account on their performance.

The Government want the Bill to succeed. Therefore, between Royal Assent and any implementation date, Ministers will be on the case week in, week out to make sure that the SIA is fit for the purpose designed by the Bill, delivers, has appropriate guidance, involves all the organisations impacted by the Bill downstream and puts in place a range of measures to help support the training and development of people to make sure the Bill functions as we intend it to. Advice is good, but we have been through a big consultation, and this House and the other House have the ability to hold us to account. The amendments are therefore unnecessary in order to make effective use of the SIA.

--- Later in debate ---

Secondly, what in particular is the Home Office or the relevant ministry’s evidence of the impact that personal liability for such penalties, in particular custodial sentences, will have on the willingness of volunteers to accept the personal liability that is imposed on the person responsible for qualifying premises and/or events, whether in Clause 4 at the lower level or in Clause 7 at the enhanced level? Those are my questions. It may not be possible to answer them now, but I think this is an important practical point going forward.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, on tabling these amendments. I think that they talk to some of the concerns raised informally at Second Reading and throughout Committee by some of us, which may not have been explicitly looked at. I very much support the spirit of this group.

I have had constant concerns about the unintended consequence of this legislation damaging the informal realm of civil society and the public square. The invaluable arena of community life allows social cohesion through, sometimes quite loose, local gatherings that are often organised by groups of volunteers and voluntary gatherings. Even though they are quite loose informal organisations, they are the cement that holds society together in many ways. In that sense they are loose; they are not paid and not necessarily professional, but they are the very heart of our communities.

I think we got a sense of that the other day in Committee. When the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, spoke about public protection procedures, he painted a vivid picture of the widest range of public activities that could be affected for any of us who work with small literature festivals—things that I know something about—art exhibitions in local areas that are put on regularly, or debating groups getting together. I was down at the farmers’ protest today. This might not endear me to the Government—although maybe it will—but they have been having lots of local gatherings in barns up and down the country, planning their action. That is what we want politics to be like; these are the very people who are our most active and engaged citizens.

In the arts, debate or politics sphere, it is always really difficult to encourage people to take on the role of trustee, chair of a committee and so on, because these are unpaid roles with responsibilities. It is difficult as it goes, but there are people who are prepared to do it. These amendments are important because they probe whether we can ensure that we do not make it more difficult to keep those people involved through the potential of this Bill to threaten them for a liability way beyond that which they might have signed on for—not because they will all wander around being irresponsible about the threat of terrorist attacks in barn meetings with farmers. It is not that they are recklessly inviting awful things to happen, but they will say, “I’m not going to formally put my name to that, because why would I?” Often people are retired, or they are doing it as public citizens, and it is just too much hassle.

How do I know that, apart from by talking to lots of people? It is because, as the Minister has rightly noted, through this Government and the Government before them, this Bill has had a lot of consultation and discussion. The one thing that consistently gets raised in all the evidence that I have read is that small and community organisations are frightened of it. One key thing they mention is that it will put people off volunteering for their organisations. The Minister is right to say, “We listened to a lot of those consultations”, and I am glad about that—but they did not listen to all of them or agree with all of them. That is fair enough, but it is perfectly reasonable to raise things that came up consistently in all the consultations and ask the Government to think again at this point, with some very creative, positive and constructive probing amendments about what we can do to reassure our most active and engaged citizens that this Bill will not threaten them. I ask the Government to take these amendments away and see whether they can come up with a constructive response to them.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, sometimes the world goes a bit topsy-turvy and mad. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has given an inspiring rendition of the importance of the right to protest. I kept thinking that I was sure that I made many a speech like that—not as well or with such wonderful rhetoric—saying that the right to protest should never be compromised when that side was in government. There are times when you wonder what is going on. However, I concede that I have thought that there could be problems in this Bill around the right to protest, so I am glad that it has been raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, made a very lawyerly speech. I did not understand all of it, but it is worth probing this. The other day, I talked about farmer protestors meeting in a barn and wondered whether this would apply, who would be the responsible person and so on. There is something in this. It is also what I had in mind when I supported the amendments about the Henry VIII powers, because there is no doubt that those powers give the Secretary of State the right to interpret public safety and security in such a way that our civil liberties could well be compromised in the name of public safety. In that sense, at least some reassurance from Minister would be very welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 46 and in support of Amendment 47 tabled by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. These amendments address two crucial concerns regarding the implementation and potential impact of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: the effect on the night-time economy and the importance of proper consultation and guidance for businesses.

The first amendment, Amendment 46, would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within 18 months of the Act’s passage reviewing its impact on the night-time economy, jobs and growth. Specifically, it would assess the effects on public houses, nightclubs, bars, restaurants, cinemas and other late-opening venues. The night-time economy is a vital part of our nation’s cultural and economic life. It provides employment for thousands of people, contributes billions of pounds to the economy and plays a central role in fostering vibrant communities. However, it is also an industry that has faced significant challenges in recent years, first with the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and now with rising operational costs and economic uncertainty.

While the security measures outlined in this Bill are essential to protect the public from the threat of terrorism, it is vital that we do not inadvertently place an unsustainable burden on businesses in the night-time economy. Venues that already operate on tight profit margins may struggle to absorb the costs associated with implementing new security requirements, such as enhanced surveillance, access control systems and staff training. By requiring a formal review of the Act’s impact on this sector, Amendment 46 would provide an essential mechanism for accountability and evidence-based policy-making. It would ensure that Parliament remains informed about any unintended consequences and allows for adjustments to be made if necessary. Crucially, this review would help strike the right balance between public safety and economic vitality.

The second amendment, Amendment 47, seeks to delay the commencement of Parts 1 and 2 until draft guidance has been issued to businesses and a proper consultation has taken place. This is a sensible and pragmatic approach that prioritises clarity and fairness for businesses. It is one thing to pass legislation, but it is another to implement it effectively and responsibly. For businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, sudden and unclear regulatory changes can be disruptive and costly. Without proper guidance, there is a real risk that businesses may struggle to understand their obligations under the Act, leading to confusion, non-compliance and potentially adverse outcomes for security and commerce.

By ensuring that draft guidance is published and consultations are conducted before the Act’s provisions come into force, Amendment 47 would promote a smoother and more co-operative transition. It would allow businesses to prepare adequately, understand the requirements and implement the necessary measures in a way that is both effective and economically viable. Moreover, consultation with businesses is essential to ensuring that the measures introduced are practical and proportionate. Those who operate public venues have valuable insights into the challenges and realities of implementing security measures, and their input can help shape more effective and workable solutions.

Amendments 48 and 49 are probing amendments on the timescale for implementation of the Act. We discussed implementation timescales briefly on the first day in Committee, and the Minister confirmed that the Government think that the Bill will take a two-year period to implement. I have tabled these amendments to understand better how that period will work. Can the Minister confirm which parts of the Bill are likely to be implemented before that two-year period has elapsed? Can he give us an indication of whether the Government are firmly committed to implementing the Bill in full by the end of the two years? We feel very strongly that it would be helpful for organisations and events that would be affected by the Bill’s measures to have as much information as possible as soon as possible. Can the Government confirm how they will keep those organisations and events updated on progress so that they can plan appropriately?

In conclusion, these amendments do not seek to weaken the Bill or undermine its vital security objectives. On the contrary, they would strengthen it by ensuring that its implementation is thoughtful, measured and responsive to the needs of businesses and communities. Amendment 46 would provide a mechanism for accountability and assessment, ensuring that the impact on the night-time economy is carefully monitored. Amendment 47 would prioritise proper consultation and guidance, fostering co-operation and compliance among businesses. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support these amendments as a means of enhancing the effectiveness and fairness of this important legislation. Together, they represent a balanced and pragmatic approach that upholds public safety and economic resilience. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly support Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst, and I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I wanted to put my name on this group, but I missed the deadline. I think it is a crucial group and I hope that the Government will be very positive about it, because the night-time economy is very worried that its venues are going to be badly affected by this, and I think it would be very constructive for the Government to adopt this amendment as some kind of reassurance.

I was inspired, indirectly at least, to get involved in supporting Amendment 46 by the Prime Minister. Yesterday, on the front page of the Daily Mirror, Keir Starmer was saying that he backed the fight to save the great British pub:

“there's nothing any of us like better than going to the local for a pint, myself included”.

He said:

“They are the places where friends, family, community come together around something which is very British – the pub. It’s a place of warmth, of opportunity, to have a nice time with friends, family and for people to have the friendship and engagement that is so important to their wellbeing”.


The Prime Minister was supporting a campaign to save pubs precisely because pubs are struggling. Data from the Valuation Office Agency in December showed that the number of pubs in England and Wales fell by 402 last year. That was a net figure that took into account new pubs opening but did not include premises standing empty that are still classified as pubs. As pub numbers have plunged by more than 2,000 since the start of 2020, and with industry experts such as AlixPartners warning that 3,000 more pubs, bars, restaurants and clubs are at risk of closing in 2025, I want the Government to note that this Bill represents another burden and that we should at least keep our eye on, monitor and be accountable about whether unintended consequences will damage the sector.

Publicans and experts blame a cocktail of supply and staffing costs, rising energy bills, and those controversial, crippling national insurance contributions, but stakeholders raise all the time regulatory demands and the costs in terms of licensing. There is a certain dread of what this legislation will mean, especially because pubs are trying to make more of themselves as venues—for example, for quiz nights and community choirs. In Neil Davenport’s “Letter on Liberty”, Pubs: Defending the Free House, there is a discussion about a mini boom post-lockdown of pubs as new live-music venues. That thrill of face-to-face live events and the public square as a place of freedom is lucrative as well, so we need to be careful that this Bill does not unintentionally end up killing that off.