Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest, having for a long time been a member of the board at the Rose Theatre in Kingston, the capacity of which is over 800 when you include staff, volunteers and performers. I declare the interest because I still refer to them as “us” and “we”.

There is a lot of experience in the Chamber today, among not only the speakers but the people listening too. My experience is minor, but because I feel quite affected by it, I am declaring it as an interest as well. On 7/7, when the Mayor of London was in Singapore, after the announcement about the 2012 Games, the officers at City Hall told me that I was the most senior politician in the building—I was chair of the assembly at the time. I realised rapidly that the officials needed someone to report to, and that my role was to be supportive and make sure that those in operational roles were able to get on with the job without any interference from people such as me. That was my big learning from that. Subsequently, the London Assembly looked at communications on the day, including the role of the media. I echo a good deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady May, said about communications.

It was inevitable that words such as “balanced” and “proportional” would be used a good deal today, and they have been used by those who have made representations to us. What they mean to the user is of course affected by where that person is looking from. I would add the words “objective” and “measured”. It may be difficult not to focus on the most recent event, but not every situation is coverable and the Bill does stop, or seek to stop, all terrorism.

As my noble friend Lady Suttie made clear, Liberal Democrats support the Bill. Personally, I would have preferred the title to mention people, or at least the Bill to give them some priority over premises, because this is about people. I welcome the amount of consultation and general work in the lead-up to this. That needs to continue, as many noble Lords have said, including in the preparation of regulations and guidance. I accept that regulations will be needed. I do not think that from these Benches we will be quite as critical about regulations as we often are—although we reserve the right to be a bit of a nuisance.

I asked the Rose Theatre for its views, and it gave me only about three lines. Basically, it said that it wants easy to follow guidance. It will not be entirely easy, because events differ, numbers of volunteers and casual staff differ, incidents differ, and there are different factors and responses required—evacuation or invacuation —and the right response may be counterintuitive. Premises do not follow a single pattern, and the Bill extends beyond buildings.

At this point, I ask the Minister if the Government have in mind further clarification of the term “in the vicinity”. That is clearly troubling owners and operators as to how far their responsibility extends and what, in practical terms, they can do. It troubles me because of consequences for compliance and, perhaps, insurance cover.

We have made it clear that our principal concern is about training. I have seen the letter from the Security Minister to my honourable friend Ben Maguire MP, which says that guidance will signpost a range of suitable free training offers. I am interested in the term “free”. I know that it is envisaged that the SIA will provide a good deal of guidance, but like other noble Lords I think that the legislation seems to create quite a market for trainers, not all of them as skilled as they would present themselves. I gather it is not envisaged that the SIA will have to approve training programmes or trainers. I would like to explore at a later stage whether there is scope for some sort of franking approval, so that it is the properly skilled consultants who are relied on, as it is likely that people will think that it is the responsible thing to do to get in someone to make sure that they are doing the right thing.

The SIA is in a pivotal position—again, the noble Baroness, Lady May, talked a good deal about this. Under Clause 12, it is to prepare guidance about how it itself proposes to exercise its functions. I find “guidance” a rather curious term here. It is to have extensive powers. For now, I will just mention non-compliance penalties: the maximum of the greater of £18 million and 5% of qualifying worldwide revenue. That is an awful lot of power. It also suggests quite a lot of scope for avoidance through how accounts are structured and gives the SIA a lot of scope in determining—the word is how it “regards”—what comprises revenue. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, mentioned the briefing we received today from the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health. It raised some of these points about how the SIA will operate, given its new functions, so can the Minister say something—anything—about its governance?

On insurance, perhaps I am too cynical in envisaging the scope for squabbles about the extent of cover and exclusions relating to alleged non-compliance and the assessment of what is “reasonably practicable”, but I think I have a fellow cynic sitting across the Chamber from me at the moment. I may also be too cynical about legislating for co-ordination and co-operation, but I do not think this is a novel provision.

Related to this, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about Clause 31, which provides that the Bill gives no right of action in respect of non-compliance. I do not really understand how this can work. One question is whether non-compliance can be used in evidence in civil proceedings. The noble Lord shrugs his shoulders—exactly; that will not show in Hansard, I am afraid. I also want to pursue the observations of the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation on Clause 18—he refers to a number of provisions and queries their impact—and on Clause 32, as it affects alterations to thresholds. He draws attention to the shortcomings of unamendable regulations, which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned. If it would be helpful for the Minister, I would be happy to table amendments for these matters to be discussed in detail later rather than today.

Planning and licensing have rightly been mentioned, but perhaps we should add building regulations, which may be more relevant on a day-to-day basis. Various organisations have raised concerns about the costs, and we have heard what the Minister had to say on them. We must acknowledge the burden, including costs, which local authorities will incur.

The Government’s explanation for the particular treatment of places of worship is that they, to quote the Minister’s letter,

“are different to other premises … in being readily accessible and welcoming to all, without the same commercial drivers … usually having no restrictions on entry, or staff routinely present.”

A lot of community organisations would say, “Well, that’s us too.” The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, had quite a lot to say about this; I agree with very much of what he said. The Government also refer, with regard to places of worship, to

“developing measures to better mitigate threats through local police engagement”,

but that must also apply across the board. Of course, a lot of places, particularly places of worship, have their own security arrangements.

Recently, I visited a synagogue that I had not been to before. Its entrance was not easy to spot, but the Muslim cab driver who took me did spot it. He said, “It must be here: I can see the security”. If there is a danger in this Bill, it is perhaps that people will see the regime as a complete substitute for other measures, including their own common sense. There will be points raised in the form of amendments because it is what we do here, but from these Benches, supporting the Bill, our amendments will be because we want to see the Bill as clear and effective as it can be.