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.