Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on the first Home Office Bill to come before this Parliament under the current Government. I want to start with why we are here today. It has been more than seven years since an appalling act of terrorism was perpetrated as a music concert drew to a close in the Manchester Arena. Twenty-two people were killed and many more injured on that terrible night in May 2017. We think of them today and hold their loved ones in our thoughts and hearts, as we do with everyone who has been impacted by terrorism.

Noble Lords will be aware that this legislation has been a long time in preparation, including—and I acknowledge this—by the previous Conservative Government. It has been a long time coming but is now before us today. This Government wanted to move swiftly to introduce the Bill following the general election, to deliver on our manifesto commitment and the promise that the Prime Minister made to Figen Murray, who has campaigned tirelessly to introduce today’s proposed law. Figen’s son, Martyn Hett, was among those killed in the Manchester Arena attack. The fact that we are debating this Bill today is a direct result of her tenacity and persistence, and that of her colleagues in the campaign team. The commitment and courage that she has shown in campaigning for changes that will benefit others is, quite frankly, extraordinary. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to her for all that she has done and continues to do in the field of terrorist prevention. The Bill we are debating today is the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill but, in essence, for the reasons I have just mentioned and due to the campaigning spirit of Figen Murray, this Bill is now Martyn’s law.

Noble Lords across this House will agree that the number one priority of any Government is to keep their citizens safe. Sadly, since the start of 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks, including the Manchester Arena attack I referred to. These incidents have shown that the public may be targeted at a wide range of events and public venues and spaces. The nature of the terror threat has become less predictable and potential attacks harder to detect and investigate. While we recognise that the risks posed by terrorism are already considered at some premises and events, the absence of legislation and requirements means there is no consistent approach, which then results in varied outcomes.

Engagement with business has highlighted that counterterrorism preparedness often falls behind areas where there are long-established legal requirements, such as health and safety. If that were not enough, the Manchester Arena Inquiry and the prevention of future deaths report from the London Bridge and Borough Market inquests called for clarity of responsibility for venue operators regarding protective security. That simply is what this Bill aims to do. It is designed to bolster the UK’s preparedness for and protection from terrorism. It will achieve this by requiring for the first time that those responsible for certain premises and events consider how they would respond in the event of a terrorist attack. Further, at larger premises and events, additional steps will need to be taken to reduce vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

To be in scope of the Bill as qualifying premises, 200 or more individuals must be reasonably expected from time to time to be present at the particular premises at once. In addition, the premises must be used for one or more of the uses specified in Schedule 1 to the Bill—for example, as a venue, restaurant or bar. For those premises that are in scope, a tiered approach has been established by the Government, with requirements varying accordingly.

We have tried generally to put premises where 800 or more individuals are reasonably expected in an enhanced tier. Premises where between 200 and 799 individuals are reasonably expected to attend will fall into a standard tier. Events will be in scope only where 800 or more individuals are reasonably expected to be present on site for the event at any point and where the other conditions in Clause 3 are met, including that there is an appropriate level of control of access to the event. These qualifying events will also be in the enhanced tier. In limited cases, the Bill ensures that some qualifying premises will be placed in the standard tier regardless of numbers, such as places of worship. This recognises that places of worship play a unique and important role in communities across the country and are often readily accessible and welcoming to all.

This means that there will be certain requirements for those premises. Those responsible for the qualifying premises and events will be required to notify the Security Industry Authority that they are responsible for qualifying premises or events, and to have in place appropriate public protection procedures to reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals in the event of an act of terrorism at or near the premises or event. These two requirements apply to all in scope of the Bill but are the only obligations on those responsible for premises in the standard tier.

What does “public protection” mean? Public protection procedures are intended to be simple and low-cost. There is no requirement to put in place physical measures under this requirement, but there are four categories of procedure. First, evacuation—meaning the process of getting people safely out of the premises—needs to be identified. The second is a word I had not come across until recently: invacuation, which means the process of bringing people safely into safe parts within the premises if required. The third is lockdown, which is the process of securing premises to restrict or prevent entry by an attacker by, for example, locking doors or closing shutters. The last is communication, which relates to the process of alerting people on the premises to the incident and directing them away from danger.

In recognition of the potential greater impact of an attack, premises and events in the enhanced tier will be required to consider additional requirements. This includes the requirement to assess the public protection measures that are appropriate to reduce the risk of harm or vulnerability to a terrorist attack and, so far as is reasonably practical, to ensure that such measures are in place. These public protection measures are as follows: first, measures relating to the monitoring of premises and events and their immediate vicinity, which could include monitoring for warning signs and suspicious behaviour that might indicate a potential attack; secondly, measures relating to the movement of individuals into, out of and within the premises at an event, such as search and screening processes; thirdly, measures relating to the physical safety and security of the premises or event, such as safety glass or hostile vehicle mitigation, where appropriate; and, fourthly, measures that relate to the security of information about the premises or event that may assist in the planning, preparation or execution of acts of terrorism.

In the enhanced tier, the organisations responsible will be required to provide the Security Industry Authority with a document setting out their public protection procedures and measures, and how these may be expected to reduce the vulnerability and risk of harm from terrorism. Where the responsible person is a body and not an individual, it will be required to designate a senior individual to have responsibility within the body for ensuring compliance with the legislation’s requirements. However, I assure the House that this person will not be directly or personally liable for compliance. Part 2 amends the licensing legislation in England, Wales and Scotland to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information in those premises plans.

None of this is practical unless we have compliance and enforcement on top. I hope noble Lords will agree that it is no use having these requirements if an effective enforcement regime is not in place to ensure compliance. The Government have determined that, given the Security Industry Authority’s years of experience of increasing security standards around public safety and its wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation that better protects the public, it is the most appropriate body to oversee enforcement. My department, the Home Office, will work closely with the SIA to develop its new regulatory function, building on existing expertise and knowledge in both the Home Office and the SIA. It will, I hope, bring in the right people, with the right expertise, to ensure an effective and proportionate regulatory approach.

The Government are clear that they will expect the SIA’s role to be supporting and advising businesses in the implementation of the legislation in the first instance, if approved by this Parliament. However, it is necessary for the SIA to have an appropriate toolkit of powers and sanctions to carry out inspections and enforce the new regime. This will include the power to issue penalties for serious or persistent non-compliance. To reflect the potential for more serious consequences at larger premises and events, we have included in the legislation weightier penalties for the enhanced tier. These sanctions will be primarily civil, with a small number of criminal offences to underpin the regime and deal with serious non-compliance. Looking at Clause 20, I assure noble Lords that the SIA will be required to consider a range of factors when determining the amount of penalty, including the ability of the premises or event to pay any penalty.

The Bill also requires the SIA to prepare operational guidance, which will set out how it will discharge its duties. Such guidance will be approved by Ministers at the Home Secretary level.

I reassure noble Lords that there will be a significant amount of time following Royal Assent, if this House approves the Bill, before these requirements will be commenced—at least 24 months. We are doing that so that those organisations can plan and understand, guidance can be delivered and there can be a transitional period to ensure that the objectives are achieved in a way that is helpful to all. That will ensure that those responsible for premises and events will be given time to understand and, where necessary, act upon the new requirements. The Government will also continue to work closely with businesses and organisations to help them to prepare for the new requirements.

As the Home Secretary said when this Bill was debated in the House of Commons, wherever they are and whatever they are doing, people deserve to be safe and feel safe. This Bill is designed to complement the tireless and excellent work that our security services, police and other partners already do to keep us safe. To that end, I echo the words of the Home Secretary in saying thank you to everybody across the national security sphere for all that they do. This Bill is about action when a terrorist event occurs, but I reassure the House that the Government’s focus will always be making sure that the public are protected and that we use the powers of government to secure the safety of the public from potential attack in the first place.

Noble Lords will no doubt be familiar with the Bill’s long history, which I have touched on, and the extensive engagement, scrutiny and debate that have gone into the proposals. The proposals I have outlined have included a draft version of the legislation, which underwent pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Select Committee in the Commons, under the previous Government. The Bill has been developed with the aid of two public consultations, conducted by the previous Government in 2021 and 2024. Under this Government, as under the last, we are trying to get the issue right for this House and for the public.

Throughout these processes, a number of concerns have been raised about the legislation’s potential impact, some of which may be reflected in this House today—but I hope that I have listened to, understood and acted on those concerns as reflected. This Government have substantially adjusted the Bill, with some changes from the last Government’s proposals, to strike the right balance in achieving public protection objectives but without placing undue burdens on business or other organisations. Crucially, this Government have raised the threshold for the Bill’s scope from 100 to 200 individuals attending an event. Furthermore, premises and events will meet that threshold, or the 800 threshold for the enhanced tier, only when it is reasonable to expect that at least as many people will be present there at the same time. This approach has been designed to ensure that they are not unfairly brought within the scope based on size alone.

We have also further clarified that the requirements are not one size fits all, which I hope helps the House. Rather, they are to be based on a more location-specific approach. That reflects the fact that the procedures and measures in place at particular premises and events might not be appropriate, reasonable or practical at another event.

Finally, on the reason why the practical standard now applies to public protection procedures required in both tiers, this is a concept which we expect the majority if not all of those in scope to be familiar with, as it is utilised in other regulatory regimes, such as health and safety. We are confident that, with those changes, the Bill strikes an appropriate balance.

That is the Bill before this House. I expect that there will be comment and discussion on this Second Reading, which I welcome. Before I finish, I pay tribute once more to Figen Murray and all those who have campaigned tirelessly for change. It falls to us with this legislation to carry the heavy burden that they have carried since 2017 and to get it on to the statue book as a matter of some urgency.

I thank those in the House of Commons for their scrutiny of the Bill to date and my honourable friend the Security Minister, Dan Jarvis, for his leadership on that. Those in the other place worked constructively and collaboratively to ensure that the Bill is in the best shape possible. I am sure we will experience the same from noble Lords across this House, and I am grateful to those noble Lords who attended the briefing I held yesterday or other meetings organised to discuss the Bill in detail. There is a wealth of experience in this House, and I know that many Members will feel the contents of the Bill personally. I look forward to the scrutiny today and in the coming weeks by noble Lords from across the House. As I look at the list of speakers, I know that they will bring fruitful contributions and suggestions that we will consider, look at and reflect on in due course.

The Bill deserves urgent support to get it through this House. The public rightly deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events. We think we have the right balance. We hope the Bill, as designed by the current Government, will be given a Second Reading and will complete its passage in this House, but we know there will be contributions and discussions today. I think it is important that locations take appropriate steps, as far as reasonably practicable, to protect staff and the public from the horrific events of terrorism.

It does not happen very often, but this Bill, if passed by this House, will save lives. It will aid people to save lives. It will be a testament to the people who have lost lives in the past and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions in the House today. There has been a great deal of expertise and reflection shown, and the serious issues that have been addressed demand a serious response from the Government.

I particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Davies of Gower, for their broad support from the Opposition Front Bench, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her similar approach to cross-party agreement. There may be some areas that we need to look at and examine between us, but I am grateful, and the House and public need to know that there is a broad support for the Bill from the House.

I start with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, because she mentioned victims and they have to be at the heart of our consideration in the Bill. The reason for this Bill is to prevent more victims in the future, as she mentioned.

The noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, held very high office at the time of this atrocity, and I could tell from her contribution how that impacted her and she carried it upon her shoulders. She is one of the few people who has seen the vast vista of the impact of this on individuals, the community and the Government.

I was struck also by the speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. In reflecting on the impact on his city, he also reflected on something that came out of the contributions of all Members, which is the spirit of this nation and that city to ensure that we have integration and a positive approach to our society, and that we do not bow down to terrorists or their threats but do what the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, and uphold the security of our people as the first tenet of good government.

Figen Murray has been mentioned and we have focused on her great efforts, but I think she would also recognise Brendan Cox and others who have supported her, and I want to refer to them from the Government Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris of Richmond and Lady Fox, also mentioned Sir John Saunders, chair of the Manchester Arena inquiry. He deserves our credit and support for focusing the minds of the political class on the solutions to this problem. He said in his report:

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


which was repeated by my noble friend Lady Goudie, and he is right: doing nothing is not an option.

Today, after seven years in gestation, two consultations, a Home Affairs Select Committee report and the power of Figen Murray and her campaign team, we have brought to this House and the House of Commons a Bill that will, I hope, address the issues raised by Members and deliver the prevention of victims that began with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove.

Your Lordships made a number of points and I will try to cover them in broad terms. The points that I will try to address are cost, guidance and communication, enforcement and the SIA, the threshold issue, exclusions, the terror threat and a number of other individual issues that I will come to in due course.

First, I hope I can give confidence to my noble friends Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lady Ritchie that the devolved Administrations were involved in discussions on this at administrative and ministerial level, and will be during the passage of the Bill and in particular during its implementation in due course. But the issues that have been raised are important and I will try to address them in the time that I have.

The cost to business was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Frost, Lord Udny-Lister, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Davies of Gower—in his Front-Bench contribution—my noble friend Lady Ritchie, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. The reason we decided to reduce the number of venues in scope was to ensure that costs are proportionate and do not fall on a range of bodies that it would have been disproportionate to hit.

The changes that we made to the Bill that was produced earlier have taken the number of properties or venues in scope from 278,900 to 154,600 in the standard tier and to 24,000 in the enhanced tier. Overall, the costs have therefore decreased from the estimated £2.17 billion over 10 years to £1.83 billion. For standard-duty premises, we estimate the cost to be around £330 per year, in time and money, and around £5,210—not £52,000, which I think one contributor mentioned—for enhanced-duty premises. Those are the costs, but our focus to prevent victims and to ensure that we put in place some preventive measures is relative. We have tried to assess costs and ensure that the Government take as light a touch as possible to achieve our objectives, while acknowledging that obviously there will be some costs.

We have to take these actions. I appreciate the potential difference of opinion between the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Udny-Lister, and me about some of the burdens—as they described them—but I regard this as an important issue of the security of people who use these venues. Therefore, that is a burden, like many other burdens in society, that we have to accept, adopt and adapt to. That is one of the reasons we have tried to make it as limited as possible.

The second issue that was raised was that of guidance. The noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, all mentioned guidance. Guidance will be set down by the Government on the requirements of the Bill. We will publish it as soon as possible, but I do wish to get it right. I cannot give a timescale on the guidance at this point, because I want to make sure that the Government undertake engagement with key stakeholders across relevant sectors, in industry and in government, to support our understanding of the Bill and the ultimate Act and to address any questions posed.

Guidance was also linked to training. Following pre-legislative scrutiny, it was determined that we did not want to prescribe specific training obligations that applied to both tiers, and that that was not necessary or desirable, but it is entirely reasonable that practical procedures and measures are implemented. Therefore, we will be looking to issue guidance in due course to support identifying suitable training opportunities in an effective and cost-effective way for the individuals concerned. In fact, the noble Baronesses, Lady May of Maidenhead and Lady Harris of Richmond, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, mentioned that.

There has rightly been a debate about the SIA enforcing and having the ability to oversee this potential legislation. First and foremost, the SIA has a full regulatory approach to this matter. There is a two-year implementation period. That goes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, from the Front Bench. The noble Lords, Lord Udny-Lister, Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady May, all mentioned that aspect of the role. We have set out the powers of the SIA in the Bill. It will be given powers to gather information, to inspect premises for such events and to ensure that we assess compliance with powers of entry and interview, consistent with other regulatory regimes.

The SIA will be accountable to Home Office Ministers. This Government have four and a half years left of their term, and this legislation will be implemented after a two-year period as a potential minimum—it may be longer. We will implement the legislation only when the SIA is ready to adopt that role. Home Office Ministers such as myself and my honourable friend Dan Jarvis will be accountable for the performance of the SIA in the period up to it taking on that role, so that the Home Office can make sure that it does the job we want it to do. The SIA has already been engaged in this, it obviously knows the Bill and the direction of travel, and it is working with senior officials in my department to bring forward proposals. It is important that we give the SIA that power.

We can undoubtedly debate this issue further during the passage of the Bill, but we can already understand how the SIA deals with the security industry. Guidance, support, training, point of contact and the inspection regime are issues we will work through and no doubt discuss further in Committee and at Third Reading, but they are solvable and, with political ministerial control, will be about delivery. It is not about passing legislation but delivering an effective mechanism that has that balance between inspection, guidance and training. It is not about setting up an organisation that is not fit for doing that job; we want to make sure that this is a good job done. I hope that will reassure a number of noble Lords who have raised this issue.

The impact of the threshold has been a key issue. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, with his experience, mentioned that, as did the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Frost. The Government have to take a decision on this. Some people have argued for 300 as a minimum threshold, and some for the original figure of 100. I have heard a number of other figures put into the domain at different times. We have had to settle on a figure, and that of 200 is in response to the consultations and the feedback we have had. We have therefore taken out a large number of properties that would have been in the scope. The threshold is something we just have to settle on. I am hopeful that, for all the reasons that have been mentioned, we do not focus so much on the threshold but on the Bill’s ability to encourage good practice as a whole. But we are where we are with the threshold, and colleagues will have to look at that.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, mentioned the 800 figure and the understandable issue that it is in use for maybe one day a year, and there are different thresholds on other days, for perhaps even a month. We have to have a settlement, and we are trying to make things simple. If we had a different regime for different days or months of the year for organisations that might have an 800-plus threshold on certain days of the year, that would overcomplicate the regime we are trying to introduce and create more implementation difficulties downstream. I hear what the noble Lord says, but I hope that he can also hear what I am trying to say about the simplicity of a regime as a whole.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred in private discussions, and today on the Floor of the House, to the powers of the Secretary of State—I wrote “SOS” in my notes, and it sometimes it feels like an “SOS” in this job. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Murray, also mentioned the power of the Secretary of State to make those changes. I have heard what individuals have said, but, again, we have had to make a judgment that, at some point, the Secretary of State might need to look at what has happened with the wider terrorist activity in the country and make a determination accordingly. We can revisit that, I am sure, in due course.

My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—there are too many Harrises—the noble Baronesses, Lady May, Lady Newlove and Lady Hamwee, my noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Udny-Lister, all mentioned the wider terrorist threat. There is a growing threat, and New Orleans, Germany and the 10th anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo attack have shown us that that terrorist threat moves. There is a public responsibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for all of us to be vigilant about how that threat evolves.

There is a need for us to look at long-term conflict resolution, as my noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned. There is a need to look at all the terrorist strategy elements that we can, including facial recognition, AI, and stop and search, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned. Those are all part of the issues we need to look at in the wider terrorist prevention field, which are, in a sense, separate to the Bill but are still drivers for all the reasons why the Bill is necessary. I take that on board and we can have further discussions in due course.

A number of specific issues were mentioned, which I will try to cover in the short time I have left. The first is the issue mentioned, quite rightly, by the noble Baroness, Lady May, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Udny-Lister, and others, about how we design and build terrorist activity out of buildings in new build—it is an extremely important point. The National Planning Policy Framework—the devolved Administrations have their own national policy frameworks—already includes security considerations, as appropriate for new builds, to ensure the health and safety of communities. But I will consider and take away those points as they are very important. They are not in the scope of the Bill but it is important that we talk to the appropriate Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and in the devolved Administrations, just to make sure that we are on the ball on those issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the issuing of instructions and the overriding of the tenets of the Bill by the emergency services on the day. It is not the intention of the Bill to have the responsible person, in the event of a terrorist attack, not follow the instructions of the most senior person in the police, fire or other agency that arrives on their doorstep. I make it clear from this Dispatch Box that in that co-operation the lead person should be the responsible professional officer who deals with this on the day. I hope that reassures noble Lords who raised the issue.

We have had some correspondence and discussion around why places of worship are treated differently. We have taken a view—again, it is challengeable in this House but we have—that 200 or more individuals present should be a standard tier impact issue for places of worship, because they play a unique role in our community and across the country. Although they are not invulnerable to attack, I hope that we will continue to work with faith communities to look at how we can help support them in any vulnerability on terrorist issues. I know that is an important issue.

The noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Harris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, asked why schools are treated differently. There are existing safety and safeguarding policies and procedures in place, such as access control measures, lockdown, and evacuation procedures for schools, so we have not tried to impose further burdens because that is good practice that they are already following.

I will reflect on the question of exclusions mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, including this building as a whole, if he will let me, and write to him in due course about those particular issues.

On the civil liability issues mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others, the Bill provides for new requirements on those responsible for qualifying premises, and the effect of Clause 31 is only to prevent these requirements giving rise to a distinct right of action in civil proceedings. I reassure the noble Lord that no provision in the Bill seeks to remove or limit current civil liability. The noble Lord is looking at me quizzically. The lack of time means that we do not have the opportunity to discuss that in detail now but there will be opportunities to discuss that in due course outside this Chamber.

On the issue about railways, raised by my noble friends Lady Ritchie and Lord Faulkner, I wrote to my noble friend Lord Faulkner on 23 December, as he knows. I hope that has satisfied him but, if it does not, we can potentially look at it further. Heritage railways will be in the scope of the Bill—but the buildings, not the railways, if that helps.

The noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Udny-Lister, mentioned licensing conflicts. The licensing regime is separate. There are different regimes; we do not believe the two regimes will conflict.

On the question raised by a number of noble Lords—they know who they are; I will not list them all—about local authorities, in line with established good practice on new burdens assessment, we will undertake an assessment on that, which is in progress and will be discussed and taken forward further.

Finally, I give thanks to those who have contributed and those outside this House who have put pressure on political leaders to make these changes. To extend a hand of friendship to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who said as his first words today that the first duty of Government is public safety—I agree. The first duty of this Bill is public safety. The first duty of this House is to help prevent further terrorist atrocities. We want to understand what has happened to date. We want to take action. The Bill will, I hope, ensure that with all the other measures the Government take, we are putting in place a further deterrent to terrorist offences and giving hope to people that we can honour the memory of those who died in Manchester in 2017, including Figen Murray’s son, Martyn Hett. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 5 to 12, Schedule 3, Clauses 13 to 34, Schedule 4, Clauses 35 to 38, Title.

Motion agreed.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a short debate on Amendment 1. If the Committee will indulge me, I am keen to very briefly set out an overall approach from these Benches to Committee stage. I reiterate that we support the Bill. We recognise that families and survivors have already had to wait a very long time to get this important legislation on the statute book, but we believe it is also important to get clarity on certain areas of the Bill and to probe the thinking behind some of the drafting, so that it can be the best Bill possible. I also pay tribute to Figen Murray and the campaign team. They have done an amazing job, but there remain areas in the Bill that are very much a framework. Greater clarity, as well as reassurances from the Minister, would be helpful.

I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, regarding Amendment 1. In fact, I was sitting in my office this afternoon thinking, “Isn’t that exactly what the Long Title of the Bill says, so what is the added purpose?”. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but I am afraid that I too did not really hear the additional purpose of his amendment. As I see it, the purpose of the Bill is about public confidence and public protection, as well as the protection of premises. In other words, it should be about people as well as just premises.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it is about people taking responsibility for themselves. It is about making sure that people feel safer when they go to a venue or an event. On Saturday, I happened to go to a theatre in central London where I was asked to open up my rucksack. I also went to a very small private museum on Sunday, staffed by volunteers, where I was not only asked to show my rucksack but had it confiscated and put in a locker. These things do not necessarily cost money, since at that museum they were volunteers.

The Bill should be about introducing measures that minimise the risks, making sure that venues and events have a plan in place and a person responsible for implementing that plan

“to reduce the vulnerability of the premises”

as it says in the Long Title of the Bill. The Bill is also about making sure that there is a plan in place in the tragic event that an attack happens. One of the main problems that I see with this amendment is that it sets out only part of what the Bill aims to do. Yes, the Bill is about protection of premises from terrorism, but it is also about having plans in place to minimise the number of casualties in the extremely unfortunate case that an attack occurs. We should remember that people who are involved in an attack have injuries for life—and not just physical injuries. They can also have emotional and mental health injuries. For that reason, from these Benches, I am afraid that we cannot support this amendment.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for this short debate on Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He was right, at the start, to remind us of the reason why this Bill has been put in place, as did the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. That is because of attacks on Borough Market, on Manchester Arena and on London Bridge. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned a death today in Sheffield, about which I pass on my sympathies to the family. I cannot comment in any more detail at this time, but ongoing investigations will take place.

I understand the intention of the amendment, but, if I may, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey have endorsed what I would have said from this Front Bench about the Bill. The Bill has a Long Title, which I which will not read for the convenience of the House, but it is on the face of the Bill, and that is relatively clear as to what the purpose of the Bill is. The Bill is designed, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, to ensure that premises and events in scope are better prepared for an act of terrorism, should one occur. We have taken some expert advice on what that should be, and the consideration is that there are certain measures that could be put in place which, if they were in place prior to a terrorist attack occurring, could potentially save lives.

For ease of Members, although we are jumping ahead slightly, I refer them to Clause 5, which sets down a number of public protection measures that are required. This goes to the heart of what of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned about what we should do in the event of an attack. In Clause 5, the Bill sets down a range of measures, including

“evacuating individuals from the premises … moving individuals to a place on the premises or at the event where there is less risk of physical harm … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.

They are specifically in Clause 5 and, later on, in Clause 6, setting out clear objectives for both public protection procedures and measures. Those procedures are designed to reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals if an act of terrorism were to occur.

I am straying into the sort of Second Reading debate area that we have had, which I do not want to do, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and others mentioned the issues around the scope of the Bill, the cost of the Bill and other issues there. We have taken a measured approach and have made some changes, based on consultation, raising the level of the threshold in the Bill from 100 to 200, with a later second tier of 800. That will reduce the number of venues taken into the scope of the Bill from 278,900 down to 154,600, with 24,000 in the higher tier; so we are cognisant of the fact that there were, potentially, a number of areas where that would have brought a lot more premises into scope and created much more difficulty for people.

What we are trying to do with this legislation is to establish the principle that we have requirements in place which are there for low-level training and support for individuals to be able to understand what happens in the event of a terrorist attack. Again, I said at Second Reading that, downstream, we have to undertake a lot more work to prevent any attacks in the first place; but, in the event that one happens at a premise in scope, we have to ensure that measures, as in Clauses 5 and 6, are in place. I think that the Explanatory Notes, the Long Title and the clauses that I have mentioned meet those objectives, but that is for the Committee to determine.

I will add one more point, if I may. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talked about the two-year period for implementation. By all means, let us have a debate about that downstream, but, again, what this Committee is trying to do—and what the Government are trying to do in supporting this House and supporting the objectives of Figen Murray and the campaign—is to make sure that the measures in place are effective; are implemented in an effective way; have proper oversight and regulation from, as we will discuss later, the Security Industry Authority; and that we give consideration to all other bodies impacted by the Bill to allow time for them to undertake the training, undertake and understand the legislation and put preparations in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I have three brief points to make in response to this rather interesting short debate. My first point relates to Amendment 20, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. As my noble friend said, it is very much a probing amendment that resulted from organisations that organise events and have premises but are unclear as to the definition. They are people who want to do the right thing but want a greater explanation on the record from the Government as to what it actually means in practice.

My second point continues the flattery of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. If the noble and learned Lord is asking a question, I feel it is one that has to be answered. He is asking the right question although, as he acknowledges, perhaps he has not come up with the right answer yet in terms of the wording. I hope the Government will return to this before Report with some of the suggested wording, taking on board the various points that have been raised.

My third and final point relates to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In many ways, the noble Baroness hits the nail on the head; we should not let the terrorists win. But that is what the Bill is about: it is about getting the balance right between not letting terrorists win and yet letting the public feel safe to go to events and public buildings and not worry, because they know that somebody, somewhere has thought about what to do in the case of an attack.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That was an interesting group. I thank noble Lords for tabling the amendments; they are worthy of discussion and I hope I can answer each point in turn.

Essentially, there are two issues: the definition of “building” and the definition of “immediate vicinity”. I will try to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, in their amendments.

Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord De Mauley, seeks to amend the definition of “premises” in Clause 2(2) so that the term “building” refers to the definition at Section 121 of the Building Act 1984. The Bill has carefully defined qualifying premises and qualifying events to ensure that it is able to appropriately catch the wide range of premises and events that there are, and the definition in the Building Act sadly does not align with this.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, sort of stole my notes on this, because she commented that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, includes a number of moveable objects, such as transport items and transport purposes. I confess I did not know that before the amendment was tabled, but research helps on these matters. Having looked at what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has said, there are parts of the definition in the Bill that are not replicated in the Building Act. The term “building” is commonly used and the Bill relies on this ordinary meaning. We do not want to over-define terms that are already well understood, particularly where doing so may create confusion or indeed loopholes.

For those reasons, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the extension to transport objects—including hovercraft—means that the definition of “building” in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 is not really appropriate for this definition today. I hope the noble Lord can accept that and I hope my comment reflects what has been said in Committee today.

I turn now to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It was interesting, and I understand the intention of his amendment. I have not been in this House long, but I sense that the noble and learned Lord’s contributions are ones the House listens to; so I understand and accept the point he has brought forward today.

Clause 2(2)(b) specifies that “qualifying premises” must be wholly or mainly used for one or more of the uses specified in Schedule 1. These uses cover activities where the premises are accessible to or used by the public. I hope I can reassure the noble and learned Lord that temporary buildings can form part of such premises. I hope that will give him the reassurance he seeks in relation to his amendment.

The amendment would extend the scope of Clause 2 to include temporary buildings or structures even if they are not a feature of the usual activities undertaken at the premises. For example, where a field is not in scope, erecting a very temporary structure for the purposes of an event, such as an annual village fete, could draw the field into scope of Clause 2 under this amendment. It may not normally meet the conditions elsewhere, by the very nature of the building being put up, but it would then be drawn into scope by his amendment.

The Government are mindful of the many temporary and one-off events that occur across the UK, many of which will draw large crowds and consist of temporary structures such as tents and staging areas. It is the Government’s intention to capture these events under Clause 3. We have carefully designed the criteria to do so, in a way that strikes a balance between achieving public protection and avoiding undue burden on businesses, organisations and local communities, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, again including the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst.

To that end, we are not looking to legislate for all events and Clause 3 carefully clarifies this. As such, open access events that do not have such checks in place will not be in scope of the Bill. The Government do not consider it appropriate or practical for events that do not have these types of controls and boundaries in place to be in scope. Again, I understand why the noble and learned Lord tabled his amendment, but I hope that on reflection he can accept the points I have made and will not take his amendment further.

Amendment 20 is important, because it asks for genuine clarification. I hope I can give clarification to both noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, on this amendment, which seeks to examine the meaning of “immediate vicinity”. I want to first reassure that the duties under the Bill do not require responsible persons to implement procedures or measures that are beyond their control. Self-evidently, there are some things in the immediate vicinity that will be beyond their control: for example, erecting safety equipment on pavements or other land for which they are not responsible outside the premises.

As I have already set out, the purpose of the Bill is to require people in control of qualifying premises and events to take steps aimed at reducing the risk of physical harm to people in the event of a terrorist attack that might directly impact their venue. An act of terrorism close to a building may also result in physical harm to people inside that building, as well as to people queuing, entering, exiting or even just passing by. Therefore, when considering appropriate procedures and measures to reduce physical harm from, and vulnerability to, terrorism, it is right that duty holders also think about what they should do for their premises in the event of an attack taking place just outside.

We have not deliberately chosen not to define “immediate vicinity” for the purposes of this Bill. The Bill relies on what we term the ordinary meaning of those words. What constitutes the immediate vicinity of a premises or event will depend on its specific circumstances. If the Bill were prescriptive and, for example, to stipulate a certain distance from the premises, it would undermine the flexibility with which requirements can apply to a range of venues in an array of different places. For example, the procedures appropriate for an inner-city pub are likely to be quite different from those for a sprawling visitor attraction in the countryside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I am grateful. Will the Minister undertake to think again on the point I made about certainty when you meet resistance from people with a temporary facility wondering whether they have to go through all the trouble and expense of complying with the measures in the Bill. The problem is that it is quite easy for a lawyer to construct an argument to point to the Building Safety Act, which says that “building” means any “permanent or temporary” building. It does not say that here, so it raises a question as to whether temporary things are covered at all. The way to cut out that argument completely is to include those few words, which I am not sure would do any harm at all to the Bill.

I am not asking for an answer now, but I would be grateful if the Minister would consider very carefully whether there is an advantage in certainty, given that it is important that these measures are capable of being enforced, to avoid arguments going round in circles as to what “building” really means.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I have tried to impress on the Committee that we think that the type of circumstance that the noble and learned Lord has suggested is covered by the Bill. I will obviously examine Hansard and the contributions again in the light of the discussion, but I remain convinced that the Bill meets the needs that the noble and learned Lord is concerned about. However, reflection is always a good thing and I will certainly examine his comments in detail.

I had a sense of a looming intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, before I sit down, but I am obviously just generally nervous of his potential interventions coming my way.

I hope I have satisfied noble Lords and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie. With that, I hope that the amendments are not pressed. I will look at Hansard and at the comments made.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will not try to answer any points about Amendment 20. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned it but did not really emphasise whether his amendment, or a similar amendment referring to temporary structures, would do any harm in this context. I do not think it would, but it is a discussion that we should have.

The Minister is quite right to be wary of any body language demonstrated by the noble Lord sitting immediately opposite me—you never know what is coming.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has made his case and I have made mine. His words are always worthy of examination, and that I will do.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Section 30 of the Building Safety Act 2022 or Section 121 of the Building Act 1984, that is the question.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, makes some strong points, particularly in regard to whether it is capable of enforcement. That is an extremely important point. A number of other important points have been made by noble Lords. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, about people attending events without having to worry and having a relaxed time is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, makes an extremely helpful point about wanting a good definition, which includes collapsible buildings, and he talked about circuses with up to 500 people. All in all, this is a definition that requires some further discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is right that it is for the Government to come forward with a definition that satisfies us all. On that basis, perhaps we can go away, have a discussion, and come back at Report with something that satisfies all of us. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11, standing in my name, as well as Amendments 4 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst.

Amendment 11 seeks to establish an exemption for premises which have been assessed to be in a low-risk category by an independent assessor. As the Minister knows, we have concerns about which premises will be required to implement security measures under the Bill, and we feel that there should be some flexibility for the premises that are affected by it.

It may be that the correct flexibility would be delivered by Amendment 22, in the name of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, which will be debated later in Committee, or by Amendment 8, in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. However, the overriding point here is that there must be some flexibility in approach.

Not all premises that are currently caught by the Bill are in need of these additional measures, and it equally may be the case that the Bill as drafted will miss a number of premises that are in need of them. We hope the Government will listen to these concerns and engage positively so that we can ensure that the right premises are required to put in place the appropriate measures to protect the public from the risks of terrorism. This amendment would make this judgment an independent one, taking the discretion out of the responsibility of the department and giving premises that are at low risk access to a route to exemption. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s remarks in response to this debate, and I hope he will engage with me as we seek to deliver the flexibility I have spoken about today.

I will now speak to Amendments 4 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, which seek to clarify the Bill’s language around the frequency of a premises breaching the capacity threshold. As drafted, the Bill says that the measures will apply when a premises reaches the threshold in the Bill “from time to time”. This is far too vague, and the organisations affected by the Bill need clarity now. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst has rightly seized on this point and argued forcefully for the need for clarity today. While I expect that the Minister will tell us that this can be addressed through guidance, it is important we get clarity in the Bill.

To establish a way forward, I ask the Minister to set out what timeframe the Government expect to appear in the guidance. If the Government can answer that question today, can he explain why that timeframe cannot appear in the legislation itself? It is our view that setting the timeframe in law would give businesses and other organisations which will be regulated under the Bill certainty that this definition will not be altered through guidance. I hope the Minister can see how the lack of clarity on this point in legislation could leave space for the timeframe to be changed over time, which could see more venues caught by the rules than is appropriate, and Parliament would have no input in that process.

As I said in the opening debate in Committee, the seriousness of the issues involved in this Bill means we must get the legislation right. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to this probing amendment and look to table constructive amendments to Clause 2 where necessary at Report.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am again grateful to noble Lords for the constructive way in which they have approached the amendments before us. If I may, I shall start with Amendment 11, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. The first and foremost point I want to make on Amendment 11 is the one that is made to me as Minister by the security services. The threat to the United Kingdom from terrorism is currently substantial. Terrorists may choose to carry out attacks at a broad range of locations of different sizes and types, as attacks across the UK and around the world have shown. As I have explained during the passage of the Bill, the Bill is not about preventing terrorist attacks—that is the job of our security services and the police. The objective of the Bill is to ensure that public protection procedures and measures are put in place to reduce the risk of physical harm if an attack occurs and the vulnerability of premises and events to attacks.

The key point for the noble Lord is that this is not related to the particular premise or a particular time, be it rural or not and inside or outside the scope of the Bill. It is about ensuring that the threat, which is substantial, is recognised, and that can happen at any premise and at any time. That is why we believe the amendment to be well-intended but not in keeping with the objectives of the legislation, so the Government cannot support Amendment 11 for those reasons. If the Government took a position on setting a size threshold in the Bill and considered the noble Lord’s amendment the right approach, we would end up discarding a large number of premises that could, due to the threat being substantial, be subject to attack. That point was made very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in her contribution.

Amendments 4 and 9 have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. They would change the provision of Clauses 2(2)(c) and 2(3)(a), which provide that, to be in scope as qualifying premises, 200 or more individuals must be reasonably expected to be present on the premises at the same time in connection with uses under Schedule 1 “from time to time”, as we have stated. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord would change “from time to time” to refer to the number of individuals expected “not less than once a month”. This would change both the number and range of premises caught by the Bill either at all or at enhanced duty premises.

The Government’s intention in bringing forward the Bill is to ensure that we examine that, where significant numbers of people gather at premises, steps have been taken to protect them against terrorism. This should be the case whether the relevant thresholds are met on a daily or monthly basis or less frequently. An assessment based on the number of people expected at least once a month would not take into account the myriad ways in which different premises are used and attendances fluctuate over the course of a year. For example, there is the seasonal nature of sports grounds and visitor attractions, and a monthly assessment would take those premises out of the equation.

Therefore, I hope the noble Lord is again offering me a probing amendment to examine, but I cannot support its current phraseology.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

So, is once a year “from time to time”?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are trying not to define what “from time to time” is because, for example, if a premise on one day of the year met the threshold, that would be from time to time, or it might be monthly or daily. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would mean a prescriptive assessment on a monthly basis, and that in my view would not be sufficient, given the substantial level of the threat.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

I understand the difficulty that the Minister is in, but the point I am trying to make is that it is important that those operating the premises know what they are required to do. Unless they know what “from time to time” means, it is very difficult for them to do that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Without straying into other parts of the Bill, I would hope that people and premises that fall within scope of the Bill, be it a 200 or an 800 threshold, would have clarity over their responsibility areas. If they look at Clause 5, “Public protection procedures”, they will know exactly what is required of them for those public protection matters that fall within the scope of the Bill. So, whether it is “from time to time” as in one day a year or as in every week or every month, if we are more prescriptive, as would be the case under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we would take out a number of premises that—even if it was only one day a year, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned—would still meet the criteria of the scope of the Bill. My judgment is that the measures in Clause 5 are important but not onerous. They are about training, support and examination of a number of areas. Therefore, if from time to time, one day a year, a premise falls within scope to meet the objectives, the responsible person needs to examine the premise and look at the measures needed in place. That is the reason.

I say that not because I want to impose burdens on a range of bodies but because the terrorist threat is substantial. While the terrorist incidents have occurred in large cities, there is no likelihood that they may not occur in other parts of the country. Therefore, those measures are required within the scope of the Bill. From my perspective as the Minister responsible for taking the Bill through this House, it is important that they are required on a “from time to time” basis, not on a very prescriptive monthly basis. That is why I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

In the case of an enhanced premises, where there is an event of 1,000 people once a year but for the rest of the year there are never more 200 or 300 people going through, does that bring it into that category? You are normally just “qualifying” premises and so must have the facilities and systems in place to deal with a terrorism event if, heaven forbid, such happens, but if, now and again, you get to 800 people, does it mean that you have to search everyone coming and going throughout the year or is it only when there is the event? That is where I have concerns.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that I can help the noble Lord. There are two categories. There is a 200 threshold and an 800 threshold. If a premise crosses the 200 and/or the 800 threshold, it will be responsible for undertaking certain activity as prescribed by the Bill, common to which are the items in Clause 5. From time to time, if an event is over 800, it will have to go to the levels of the Bill for those thresholds of businesses and premises over 800. That is the nature of the proposal before the House in this Bill.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, regarding Amendment 4 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we need to define exactly what we mean by “from time to time”. Is it a decade? It must be defined if organisations are to understand their responsibilities. At the moment, it is unclear. In my Amendment 11, I seek merely to establish an exemption for premises that are assessed to be in a low-risk category by an independent assessor. We have genuine concerns about which premises will be required to implement security measures under the Bill.

I have heard what the Minister has said, but I am not entirely convinced. This is an issue that we will take away and consider before Report. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments to Clause 2 tabled by my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Murray of Blidworth. I am sorry that the Government have declined to give this group a proper title and referred to it as the “degroup”. For the benefit of the Committee, it would have been better for this group to have been given a proper title, such as “capacity of premises”. I hope the Minister will take this back to officials, so that we can have proper titles for groups of amendments going forward.

These amendments collectively seek to adjust the minimum threshold for qualifying premises under the Bill and to ensure that the legislation strikes a careful balance between security and proportional regulation. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 propose raising the threshold from the current 200 person capacity to 300, 400 and 500 respectively. These are important proposals that merit some serious consideration. The current threshold of 200 people is relatively low and risks imposing unnecessary and disproportionate burdens on small venues, community spaces and independent businesses.

I particularly have in mind when communities come together to protest at public meetings called at short notice in community halls, often with more than 200 and perhaps more than 300 people—I see the Minister smiling; we have all been there.

Small and medium-sized enterprises, including restaurants, cafes, independent theatres and community halls, are vital to the social fabric and economic vitality of our communities. Many of these premises operate on razor-thin margins and simply do not have the financial capacity or staffing resources to implement the comprehensive security measures that may be required under this legislation. Compliance with the regulations could entail significant investment in security equipment, personnel, training and operational changes—costs that could be ruinous for smaller businesses.

It is also worth considering the administrative burden that a low threshold may impose on both the businesses themselves and the enforcement authorities tasked with overseeing compliance. By setting the bar at 200 people, the current provision potentially captures a vast number of venues that pose a relatively low security risk. This dilutes resources that could be better focused on higher-risk premises where security efforts would be more impactful. Moreover, we must take a proportionate and risk-based approach to security policy. If we overburden smaller venues with costly and complex requirements, the unintended consequences may be that many of them are forced to reduce their operations or even close altogether. That would deprive communities of essential spaces for social, cultural and economic activities, particularly in rural and underserved areas where small venues play an outsized role.

Raising the thresholds to 300, 400 or 500 people, as proposed by these amendments, would ensure that security requirements are applied where they are most necessary—namely, at larger venues with higher footfall and greater potential risk. It would also signal that this legislation is responsive to the concerns of business owners and recognises the practical realities of running a small venue in today’s challenging economic climate.

It is crucial that we approach this matter with pragmatism and proportionality. A higher threshold would help protect businesses, community spaces and cultural venues from unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining a clear focus on enhancing public safety where it truly matters. We must recognise that many smaller establishments operate on tight margins and have limited resources. Mandating extensive security measures may be feasible for larger venues but could place an unsustainable financial and administrative strain on smaller premises. Raising the threshold would help to ensure that security requirements are applied where they are most necessary: namely, at larger venues with higher footfall where the risks are more significant.

That said, I appreciate the wisdom in Amendment 8, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, which he spoke to with some passion and which takes a nuanced approach. This amendment proposes a dual system where the default threshold is raised to 300 people but the Secretary of State retains the discretion to designate smaller premises as qualifying if they are at

“heightened risk of a terrorist threat”.

That flexibility is crucial. Although larger premises are generally more attractive targets, we must acknowledge that smaller venues can also be vulnerable under specific circumstances, whether due to their location, the nature of the events they host, or intelligence indicating a credible threat. Granting the Secretary of State this discretionary power ensures that the legislation remains responsive to evolving security challenges without imposing blanket requirements on small businesses.

Furthermore, Amendment 8 reflects a thoughtful understanding of the need for a risk-based approach to security. Security should be proportionate to the threat, and, by incorporating an element of ministerial discretion, we can achieve a more targeted and effective framework.

In conclusion, these amendments collectively represent a pragmatic and balanced approach to enhancing public safety while safeguarding the viability of small businesses and community spaces. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to adopting a higher default threshold alongside a discretionary mechanism to ensure that security measures are applied where they are most needed.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I am grateful to noble Lords. A range of amendments have been brought before the House and the nub of the arguments is about the threshold for qualifying premises. That issue was quite rightly debated in this House at Second Reading and was also debated in the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think it was me.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I thought the noble Lord mentioned 800.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

It was the other one.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Sorry, I left north Wales at 7 am, so it has been a long day already. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned the figure of 800. Why have we come to our figure? I can make all sorts of justifications. Two hundred takes into account the greatest number of large premises, so it is a figure that we have determined accordingly. We have to set the figure at a certain level and we have done so following the wide range of consultation that has taken place.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

To what extent has the department made an evaluation of the impact on volunteering of the measures as they are currently proposed, with a threshold of 200? Does the Home Office have a threshold for the number of trustees that they think will go unfilled, or the lack of volunteering in community ventures and village halls, as a consequence of the threats and burden imposed by these measures?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The measures that we have accepted are part of the consultation that we have undertaken. The noble Lord was a Minister standing at this Dispatch Box in this department during the genesis of this Bill, so he will know that there has been wide consultation on these matters. Again, I point him to Clause 5 on public protection measures. Clause 5(3) refers to

“evacuating individuals from the premises … moving individuals to a place on the premises … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.

Are those onerous issues? Or are they things that, even in our own assessment, are relatively low cost in terms of training? That relatively low cost is, essentially, in person hours when determining what those requirements are.

Again, we could fix a number. If I fixed the number at 300, 400 or 500, we would take even more premises out, but that would dilute the purpose of this legislation, which is to set good practice for the prevention of an attack when an attack is occurring and the steps that can be taken to save lives. People’s experiences—not mine, but those in the consultations of the public inquiry—mean that the 200 figure we have now settled on is the right one. I commend that figure to the House and hope that noble Lords will support it in due course when it comes to the final decision by this House before Third Reading.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

I thank everyone who contributed to this section of Committee. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful comments. I appreciate that there is a degree of arbitrariness in this number, but, equally, it is our task to try to make it as non-arbitrary as possible and make sure that the number we eventually choose is as well grounded in reality as it possibly can be.

Perhaps I might be permitted just one remark before sitting down. I say that because there is pressure for risk aversion, and we have heard some of that in your Lordships’ House today. It is important to be careful what we are doing here. We need to keep in mind what the threshold number means. If we set it at 200, for example, we are not saying that we are prepared to tolerate the risk of 199 people being killed in a terrorist attack. That is not what the threshold is about. The risk that we want to tolerate of that is the number zero.

What we are saying is that there is a trade-off. The costs to businesses and society of complying with these measures are justifiable above a certain number when we take the broader risk of terrorism into account. As the Minister said, the risk of a terrorist attack is unlikely in any individual case. We have to be able to debate this number prudentially while understanding exactly what the threshold means. We have debated it and I suspect we will so again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

“a building or a building and other land”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by expressing my deep appreciation to the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Davies of Gower, on the Benches opposite. I think their speeches will be read with great enthusiasm by the members of the Heritage Railway Association, and I am sure that both of them will be welcome at any heritage railway for the next year at least, for understanding so clearly the contribution the heritage railways make to the tourist economy and in terms of increasing general well-being and satisfaction. I thank them very much.

I also thank my noble friend the Minister. I think we are edging towards an understanding where it may be possible to achieve what the Government want to do, while at the same time not jeopardising the financial circumstances of a sector that is finding life very tough, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, pointed out.

Some of the answers that my noble friend gave right at the end of his speech are quite technical—I hope he does not mind my saying that—and I am going to read those with great care and take some advice on them. Again, I welcome his support for the principle behind my amendments. Whether or not we come back on Report is a matter for further discussion, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the efforts of noble Lords in tabling the amendments we are considering and the points they have raised. The intention of the Bill is to provide a framework for security in the event of a terrorist attack: that is its prime focus. I recognise that there will be pressures on volunteers to come to the table on these provisions, but it is part of the scope of the Bill to ensure that happens and there is good practice.

I can assure the Committee that as part of the development of the Bill, both the current Government and the previous Government have carefully considered where it is appropriate to exclude premises and events from its scope. In particular, we have taken into account the potential impact on smaller community and grass-roots premises. For the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned, we have to draw that line in relation to the Bill as a whole.

On Amendments 13 and 15 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the Government are conscious that there are many types of premises used for sports activities with different operating models. That is why we have made revisions to the previous draft version of the Bill to distinguish between sports premises which are open to the public to access freely and those where there is some form of control of entry, whether a ticket check, swipe card access or other.

Schedule 2 to the Bill excludes open-air premises which might otherwise be captured. This includes parks, sports grounds and open-air premises used for recreation or leisure where there are no measures to control access. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, gave me a number of examples, including the boat race, as it involves buildings and tow paths. I will reflect on his examples. My gut feeling is that buildings are covered, but tow paths and other associated provisions are not, except if—as mentioned in the Bill—payment is made, invitations or passes to access are issued, or individuals must be members or guests of a club or association to gain access. I will reflect on his points, however, and prior to Report—which will not be too far hence—I will make sure the noble Lord has a letter in his hand. He can then decide whether to take action on Report or be satisfied; I hope, of course, it will be the latter.

I have the concern that under the noble Lord’s proposals to remove paragraph 3(2)(d) of the schedule, a non-league football match, such as at Flint Town United in the town I live in, with 8,000 people attending, would be out of scope and its security not considered. That is unacceptable, because the amendments could leave only a few hundred premises across the United Kingdom within scope. Again, the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that we put in a basic minimum, which is to provide protection in the event of an attack and steps that can be taken by the associated individual. That is the bottom line, and sometimes it causes reflections that the noble Lord has made.

The costs were touched on by a number of noble Lords. We have estimated that for a standard duty premises the costs will be around £330 per year. That is not cash up front being paid externally; it might just be an assessment of the time involved by volunteers to undertake the training and be the responsible person. Again, there is a judgment to be made, and we have made the judgment that that is a right level of approach. Noble Lords have expressed concerns about that, but I do not think it will reduce the level of volunteers. Nor, having looked at the impact assessment from the Home Office, do I share the concerns that the penalties set out in paragraph 68, for example—which I agree are heavy—will put people off, because we are trying to instil into the system a level of good practice. Downstream, undoubtedly, that will not be administered as a day one fine—there will be discussion between the authority and the regulated premise in due course. I hope that will not put individuals off, but the noble Lord has made his point.

The noble Lord mentioned that officials have drawn up the impact assessment. I pay tribute to the officials for doing that, as they have worked hard, but he will note that the signature on the bottom is of the Security Minister, Dan Jarvis. Political leadership takes responsibility for this document and will continue to do so with the support of officials downstream.

On Amendments 14 and 19 from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the noble Lord himself mentioned that he thinks they need to be reflected on. I will take his word for that and give him the encouragement to reflect on them still further. The Bill sets out that open-air premises which might otherwise be caught are excluded, but he can reflect on his amendments and, if he feels that he wishes to bring them back on Report, a recrafted amendment could be tabled, should he wish to do so. That is his decision and his call in due course.

If I may, I will reflect on all the comments made by noble Lords. There were some detailed questions about the pavilion and reflections on that. I hope that noble Lords will understand that we are trying to achieve a baseline, and we want clarity on that, because clarity means that it serves a purpose so volunteers and others will take the right approach, the SIA will know what it is monitoring, and Ministers and this House will be accountable for the performance. I will reflect on all the points that have been made and, if clarity is required, then we will try and ensure that it happens. I will write to Members and, if noble Lords feel that that clarity is not present in my correspondence, then there will be opportunities later in the day to take action accordingly. With that, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. We both share the overall objectives; of that there is no doubt, and I think that applies to everybody in the Committee. I hope that, in addition to the letter, the Minister will give consideration with his colleagues to sector-specific guidance. That would be very helpful in the context of the sport and recreation world.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I should mention that, if this Bill receives Royal Assent, as I hope it will, then there is that potential two-year implementation period, and we will be looking clearly at guidance to make sure that the wishes of the legislation are reflected in how it can be implemented by a range of organisations.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I appreciate that. By “sector-specific”, I was talking about the sport and recreation world, so I hope that that is also taken into consideration by the Minister. My biggest concern by far is the community amateur sports clubs—the CASCs—the volunteers, and the grass-roots sportsmen and sports-women in this country who give so much of their time voluntarily.

We will go away and consider the response that the Minister has kindly given the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the speeches which have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, talked about sledgehammers cracking nuts; I slightly wonder whether that is what the amendments in this group would have the effect of doing. It is clear that for the qualifying premises—let us separate out the enhanced duty ones for a moment—what is being talked about is taking reasonably practical measures, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, and that there should be appropriate public protection.

When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, I thought that it sounded as if, as an event organiser, he is already exemplary because he has thought about these things. I am sure that he has briefed the volunteers and the people around him about this. I slightly wonder why people have got so worked up about what the consequences and implications of all of this are.

If people want to know why there is this question of whether you invacuate or evacuate—whether you lock the doors or whatever—I am very taken by the accounts I heard of the Borough Market incidents. There were decisions which had to be made instantly as to whether to shut and barricade the doors or bring people in from outside. That assessment is going to be made on the spot, in an instant, but it is much better if the event organisers or the premises organisers have spent a bit of time thinking about it in advance, as clearly the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, has done, briefing each other and considering the various “What ifs?”. There is no right or wrong answer in those cases; you have to make the best assessment, but you will always make a better one if you have thought about it in advance, worked out what the choices are and what drives them.

My other point is about Amendment 22 and the waiving of public protection procedures. This sounds like the sledgehammer to crack a nut, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. A bureaucratic process will be set up whereby an events organiser or a premises organiser will make an application for a waiver to a public body, no doubt filling in lots of forms. Frankly, would it not be quicker just to do what the Bill asks: to make appropriate, reasonable arrangements? That is surely what is there and, if they are appropriate and reasonable, then the organisers will not have problems as a result of this Bill.

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

I am grateful to the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments because, self-evidently, they have generated a discussion on some important points. That is extremely valuable, not just as clarification today but for those who ultimately, should this Bill become an Act, have to implement it downstream, so I am grateful to noble Lords for them. If I may, I will try to deal with the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst, first and then return to that of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, as a separate series in due course.

Amendment 20A from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sandhurst, concerns the procedure under Clause 5 for preventing individuals entering or leaving premises or events. Clause 5 sets out some types of procedure, four in total, of which lockdown procedures may be used to reduce the risk of harm by moving people away from danger. I think the proposals in the legislation are dependent on the premises or event. They would potentially include locking doors, closing shutters or, in some cases, moving people to a safer part of the premise.

The noble Lord highlighted some examples in his contribution. If an armed attacker were outside a theatre, leaving doors open or unlocked would risk the attacker entering the premises. There could be a plan whereby, at certain events, a lockdown procedure would have to be activated to secure the auditorium against entry, such as locking the doors until the police arrive or securing the scene, which may reduce harm to staff and the audience. It might be a procedure relating to particular circumstance. It will vary according to the type of situation or attack.

In some cases—as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey mentioned, this happened in the event at Borough Market—a lockdown might help to save lives. In other cases, it might be more appropriate for people to flee. Statutory guidance will be published by the Home Office/SIA in due course to illustrate the Bill’s provisions, including on public protection measures. During the London Bridge attack—the noble Lord said that he wanted the Minister to give examples—some premises successfully executed a lockdown procedure and, in doing so, saved lives. That is really important to remember.

We are not being prescriptive. Going back to what my noble friend Lord Harris said, the public protection procedures in Clause 5(3)(a), (b), (c) and (d) set down the type of things that organisations and the responsible person need to think about and prepare for as part of a plan. With all due respect to the noble Lord, the changes he is proposing are not necessary because the Government consider that the requirements of the clause are appropriate as drafted. Again—we will come on to this issue in a moment, with other amendments in the name of the noble Lord—we are trying to be proportionate and reasonable.

On Amendment 21A, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that proportionality is at the heart of the Bill as a whole. It is important to remind the Committee that this Bill has been through several iterations. It has been through consultation, drafting, a Home Affairs Select Committee, previous Government engagement and the engagement of this Government. Out of that, we want to get proportionate measures that ensure that in-scope premises and events take proportionate and appropriate steps.

It is about being reasonably prepared and prepared for risk—straying into what the Lord, Lord De Mauley, said—whatever the size or location of a premises. He is right that the majority of these attacks have taken place in urban areas at large venues, or in urban tarmacked areas. That is not to say that it will not happen elsewhere, that a terrorist group will not pick a farm event, a small village hall or another similar event.

That is why not just this Government, but the Government he supported, put in place the measures before us today. It is why the Bill went through a public inquiry, emerging from the recommendations of Sir John Saunders. It is why it went through the draft legislation process, and why the Commons Home Affairs Committee supported it on a cross-party basis, even though the majority of its members were from His Majesty’s Opposition. We are trying to be proportionate and reasonable, and the public protection procedures in Clause 5 are an important element of the Bill’s effectiveness and power.

I hope that assuages the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. Again, we are trying to do something that is proportionate, achievable and relatively cost-effective. I have mentioned elsewhere the cost of the potential measures. We have estimated it at around £330 per year for the lower tier. That is not in terms of cash being paid out to anybody; that is our assessment of the potential costs that can be incurred. It is about good practice, good training, good support, making sure that we have evacuation and invacuation procedures, looking at the exits and entrances and what would happen, and making those assessments, while making sure that the responsible person knows what they are.

The Secretary of State could add further procedures if they consider that necessary, but I am straying into later amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I have some sympathy with those, and I hope that when we reach them—probably now on Monday—I will be able to give some comfort to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Anderson, about the use of Henry VIII powers. However, we will deliver that at a slightly later date in the consideration of the Bill. Whatever happens, if there were any changes under the current proposals, they would be subject to the affirmative procedure, so this House and the House of Commons would have an opportunity to support or reject any changes brought forward by the Government as a whole.

On Amendment 23A, from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sandhurst, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, again gave a reasonable level of support to the idea of a timeframe for any duty and consideration being put in place. Clause 7 places the legislative requirement on those responsible for enhanced duty premises and events to prepare and maintain a document that records important elements of their compliance. That is a valuable document that will help the regulator consider compliance. It should be provided to the Secretary of State via the Security Industry Authority as soon as is reasonably practical. This will enable the SIA to make an initial evaluation of the premises’ or event’s security approach and engage in meaningful discussion or engagement about any potential inspection.

There is no single standard type of premises or event. Some will have long-established premises with little change needed and some will have to make changes accordingly. To ensure that regulatory provisions work as effectively as possible for all, the document should be sent to the SIA at an early stage. However, at the moment, by providing a maximum timeframe of six months, the amendment may result in either inaccurate documents or material that is out of date being sent. It could hinder regulatory activity and it could hinder the provision of advice and help to strengthen the venues’ practices. But I have noted what the noble Lord said and what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in support. Although I do not wish to accept the amendment today, those points have been put on the record and we will obviously examine them in due course.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I genuinely understand his motivation to ensure that the Bill does not render it difficult to put on many events that are valuable for cultural, social, tourist and business purposes. I accept and understand that objective. The Bill as drafted has caused concerns that he has put on the record—which, again, I will examine because of his timeframe, and if he writes to me I will examine those concerns as well—that are founded on his belief that this will be damaging. But, in my view, the Bill sets down the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey mentioned: procedures for public protection in place so far as is reasonably practical. In determining what is reasonably practicable, the responsible person—which may in this case indeed be him—will take into account their operating context and the particular circumstances of the premises or event. They will consider the appropriate procedures in the light of the cost and resources. That is the assurance I give him.

What we are asking for in the Bill, under the various clauses before us, is that he thinks, as I think he has tonight, about the consequences and about whether there is a threat; that he makes that assessment; that he makes the provisions; that he—or she—looks at whether those areas need to have that plan; that he makes sure that the volunteers in an organisation know about that plan; and that he makes sure, potentially, that the paid professionals he or she is dealing with look at and understand that plan. Accordingly, no procedure is required to be put in place at unreasonable cost to the responsible person, and in the measures in the clauses that he mentioned and expressed concern about, such as public protection measures, he will note that there is no mandating of those public protection measures or mention of scanners or other material. There is simply an assessment for the responsible person to organise accordingly.

The first condition in the noble Lord’s amendment for the grant of a waiver is therefore unnecessary. Furthermore, it is anticipated that developing and implementing these procedures should be simple, for cost and staff time. Some of the actions required as part of the procedure could be as simple as locking doors, closing shutters and identifying a safe route to cover. Some of the areas that he has mentioned, such as open-air events, will qualify under the Bill only if they have the requirements in earlier clauses—a building, or a paid entry or exit or ticketing system. Again, I accept that some of the events that he referred to in his contribution may have that, but the whole purpose of the Government’s proposals—which I remind him was shared by the previous Government in broad terms—is to provide good practice, a framework and a consideration for somebody responsible to think of a plan in the event of a terrorist attack.

I assure the noble Lord that this is not about preventing a terrorist attack. That is the job of the police, to whom I pay tribute, the Security Service, to which I pay tribute, and the myriad organisations trying to make sure that we stop bad people doing bad things before they ever get to the stage of doing them. But, sadly, he will know that the risk is always there. The security services try to do this every day of the week, but there may be occasions when something difficult and challenging happens, and this Bill is about what happens when that begins. It is about mitigating the risk, having that plan and proposals in place, and having those public protection measures to stop an attack and reduce the vulnerability in that place.

I genuinely understand the noble Lord’s intention and I look forward to receiving his letter and giving him a full response to it. I hope that I can assure him that the Government’s objective is to put good practice in place at minimal cost and ensure that those people who have a responsibility for an event transmit the evacuation protection plans to those who can impact those plans in the event of that split-second moment, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey said, when a daily event of enjoyment, pleasure and fun suddenly sees, in its immediate effect, a terrorist attack under way. We are trying to ensure that the split-second decisions that saved lives in Borough Market are thought about beforehand to save lives in the event of an attack.

I would love to assure the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that no attack would ever take place at the Caerwys Agricultural Show in my former constituency, for example, or at a scout gathering somewhere else, but I cannot. We will stop it upstream when we can but, in the event of an attack happening, we are asking whether the people on the ground know what to do. That is what the Bill is about, and that is why I urge him to write to me and not to press his amendments this evening, as, indeed, I urge the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst. Their points are well made and they will continue to be considered, not just during the passage of the Bill but, crucially, when Royal Assent is achieved. The two-year period that we have to implement the Bill is the time when the guidance and discussion that the noble Lord seeks will be part of the consideration of this, I hope, successful and productive legislation.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 21 and 23 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. These amendments propose the removal of Clauses 5(4) to 5(6) and 6(4) to 6(6), which currently contain Henry VIII provisions granting Ministers the power to amend by regulation primary legislation relating to public protection procedures, including the ability to make them more onerous.

These are important amendments and I support them for several key reasons. First, they uphold parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. The inclusion of Henry VIII clauses in the Bill would, in effect, bypass the scrutiny of Parliament by allowing Ministers to unilaterally change key aspects of public protection procedures. Such powers should be granted in only the most exceptional circumstances, where there is a clear and pressing need for flexibility.

In this case, however, the procedures in Clauses 5(3) and 6(3) have already been carefully considered and subject to full scrutiny, and will be endorsed by Parliament upon the Bill’s passage. It is therefore difficult to justify granting Ministers the ability to unpick these provisions without returning to Parliament for proper debate and approval.

Secondly, granting such sweeping powers undermines legal certainty. The security landscape is undoubtedly complex and may evolve over time, but that is precisely why legislation must provide a stable and predictable framework. If Ministers can alter public protection procedures by regulation, it will create uncertainty for the businesses, public authorities and other stakeholders that will implement these security measures. This uncertainty could hinder the very objective that the Bill seeks to achieve in enhancing public protection.

Furthermore, the inclusion of Henry VIII clauses risks undermining public trust. Effective public protection measures require the co-operation and confidence of the public and stakeholders alike. If these measures can be altered without consultation or parliamentary oversight through the proper primary legislation process, it may lead to perceptions of arbitrary governance and erode confidence in the fairness and transparency of security regulations.

I am not blind to the Government’s need for flexibility in responding to emerging security threats. However, existing mechanisms allow for swift and proportionate responses without the need for unchecked ministerial power. Maintaining proper parliamentary scrutiny is essential to preserving the legitimacy of any regulatory framework. The amendment strikes a necessary balance between security and democratic accountability. It ensures that any future changes to public protection procedures remain, as they should, subject to the robust oversight of Parliament. I urge the Government to accept this amendment and demonstrate their commitment to parliamentary sovereignty, legal certainty and public trust.

I will now speak to the important amendments to Clause 32 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. They address the regulatory powers granted to the Secretary of State regarding the thresholds for qualifying premises and events under the Bill. Amendment 38 seeks to require that any reduction in the thresholds for qualifying premises and events be justified by a change in the threat level from terrorism. While I appreciate and respect the intention behind this amendment, I must approach it with some caution. The need to ensure that security regulations are proportionate to the prevailing threat level is, of course, essential. However, linking regulatory changes exclusively to a shift in the formal threat assessment may create unnecessary rigidity.

Security risks are often multifaceted and not always captured by changes in official threat levels. Local intelligence, emerging patterns of behaviour or other factors may necessitate adjustments to security requirements even when the formal threat level remains static. For this reason, although I appreciate the noble Lord’s desire for transparency and justification, I am somewhat hesitant to fully support his amendment. None the less, I commend the focus it places on ensuring that regulatory changes are evidence based and justified.

I am more supportive of his approach in Amendment 39, which would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders before making regulations under this section. This is a measured and sensible proposal that aligns with the principles of good governance. The wording, adapted from the Fire Safety Act 2021, provides a strong precedent for such consultation requirements.

Consultation is essential not only for ensuring that regulatory changes are practical and effective but for fostering buy-in from those directly affected by these measures. Venues, event organisers, local authorities and security experts are on the front lines of implementing public protection measures. Their insights and experiences are invaluable in shaping regulations that are both proportionate and workable. Moreover, consultation promotes transparency and accountability, helping to build public trust in the regulatory framework. In a democracy, it is only right that those affected by significant changes to security requirements have the opportunity to contribute their views and understand the rationale behind decisions.

In conclusion, while I take a cautious approach to Amendment 38, Amendment 39 takes a better approach. I urge the Government to look at this proposal as a possible safeguard for ensuring that regulations are both effective and democratically accountable.

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

My Lords, the Dispatch Box can sometimes be a lonely place, but such is life. I hope I can give some comfort to noble Lords who have contributed on the points that they have raised, while also explaining where the Government are coming from.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for his amendments and his constructive approach to the Bill’s proposals. It was good to talk to him outside the Chamber as well as having this debate. He has had support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey also made strong comments on the use of Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from His Majesty’s Opposition Front Benches broadly speaking supported the bulk of the noble Lord’s amendments, with some concerns over Amendment 38. Ironically, it is on Amendment 38 that I can potentially offer the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, most warmth today. I shall try to give the House some comfort on these points and, hopefully, some explanation.

I welcomed the scrutiny of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and of the Constitution Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is a member. The Government carefully assessed each of the delegated powers in the Bill so as to draw them as narrowly as possible and to find alternative mechanisms which remove the need for secondary legislation where possible. Our view, and this is consistent with what we said in opposition, is that Henry VIII powers should be included only where they are necessary to ensure that the legislation continues to operate as intended and where there is a justification for those changes. I believe that is reflected in the scrutiny of the two committees, as the only concern raised was about the linked powers in Clauses 5(4) and 6(4). For the reasons I will set out, the Government still consider the powers covered by these amendments to be necessary.

On Amendments 21 and 23 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I take everything he says to the Committee—and to the Government outside the House—as important and serious. His amendments seek to remove powers that would enable the Secretary of State to add, remove or otherwise amend the public protection measures listed in Clauses 5(3) and 6(3). Members of the Committee will remember that Clause 5 covers a number of measures, such as evacuation, invacuation, preventing individuals leaving premises or providing information to individuals on premises or at an event. They are reasonable measures that can be taken, but the changing nature of terrorism means that over time methodologies may change.

As the ways in which acts of terrorism are carried out change, so too may the many ways in which we need to respond to them. The Government want to keep the legislation under review to ensure that it effectively deals with the terrorist threat while being—this goes to the heart of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said—appropriate, proportionate and done in a reasonable way. These powers better enable the Government to respond to changes appropriately and maintain this balance.

The measures in Clause 5(3) are already constrained. They can be used only to achieve the public protection outcomes of the future Act. The Secretary of State may add further procedures only if it is considered that they would reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals. Similarly, the power to remove or amend the existing public protection measures may be exercised only where it is considered that such changes would not increase the risk of physical harm to individuals. The powers in Clause 6(3) are similarly restricted. The Secretary of State may add further measures only if it is considered that they would reduce the vulnerability of premises or events or reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals. Similarly, the power to remove or amend the existing public protection measures may be exercised only where it is considered that such changes would not increase the vulnerability of premises or events.

There are limited, straightforward proposals in Clauses 5 and 6, which set down a number of potential measures that are in place. Any change under those Henry VIII powers would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Before any regulations under these provisions are made, both Houses of Parliament would have the opportunity to debate and scrutinise changes to the public protection procedures and measures through these powers. Those limitations will help safeguard against unnecessary use of those powers by any future Secretary of State, in line with making sure that the public protection measures in Clauses 5 and 6 are met.

I believe, although I may be in a minority of one among today’s speakers, that the proposals in the Bill are sufficient for any Henry VIII power used in this circumstance to be brought back to the House for affirmative resolution and for the House of Commons to have a similar potential vote in due course. I do not have sympathy with those amendments, although I understand where they are coming from.

However, I will be honest; when I first saw Amendment 38, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I said to colleagues that I thought he has a point—and, if the Committee will bear with me, I think he does. Amendment 38 proposes to look at how we can reduce the qualifying threshold figures, saying that regulations can be made

“only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the reduction is justified by a change in the threat from terrorism”.

There is potentially room there for discussion with the noble Lord outside this Chamber before Report, which is not too far hence, to look at whether we can reach an accommodation to agree that broad principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I shall not try to summarise the excellent speeches that were made—they will come much more clearly in the form that they were made than they would from any summary of mine—but I will pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, who emphasised consultation. As I said at Second Reading, this Bill has in many ways been a model of careful consideration. Look at the work that the Home Affairs Select Committee did on it, the work that was done in another place, the way that this Government have listened, and the way that people right around the country were consulted before these measures, procedures and thresholds were reached. In previous groups, the Minister, quite rightly, has sought credit for the depth of that consultation and the care with which those crucial figures, procedures and measures were arrived at. So although I might not have used exactly the same words as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—she said that to introduce Henry VIII clauses and apply them to these central elements of the Bill when it has already been consulted on makes a mockery of it—I entirely understand where she is coming from.

I am very grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I think he described it as a half concession—and one must take what one can get—on Amendment 38 and the idea that changes to the thresholds should be motivated by a change to the terrorist threat. However, I urge him, while he is in that generous mood, to heed the very strong terms in which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, expressed himself on Amendment 39. If you were seeking a Henry VIII clause in these circumstances, and claiming as your model the Fire Safety Act 2021 which has a duty to consult—I might say a very weak duty to consult only such people as seem to the Secretary of State appropriate—why can that not be followed through into the text of this Bill?

The Minister gave an assurance from the Dispatch Box that there would be appropriate consultation—I think he said that; I do not want to put words into his mouth—although he did say that, on some minor issues, it might be internal consultation only. If the Minister is prepared to say that from the Dispatch Box, let us hope that all his successors are as well inclined to the idea of consultation. But is it really a great stretch to put those words into the Bill as well? I hope that, just as we reflect before Report, the Minister will reflect as well.

If the consultation power is too wide—and I think the Minister took the point that perhaps Amendment 39 applies to a whole range of changes—it could of course be narrowed. Amendment 38 is restricted to specific aspects of the Bill and it would be quite possible to redraft a consultation power that was equally narrow.

While I am on my feet and we are all beginning the process of reflection before Report, might the Minister consider applying the logic that he has brought to Amendment 38 to the lists in Clauses 5 and 6? After all, if reductions in the threshold, as the Minister seems minded to accept, require a change in the terrorist threat—or that there could at least be debate as to whether that is an appropriate precondition—why should not an expansion of the lists similarly require a change in the threat?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The reason I would put is that a change in the threshold would involve bringing a large number of other potential businesses and outlets into the scope of the provisions of the Bill. The changes in Clauses 5 and 6 may tweak or look at the protections available or what other support and training should be given, but they do not bring into scope further premises.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I am grateful for that clarification and answer, but Amendments 38 and 39 are not just about a changing of the threat; they are also about consultation. While the Minister is thinking about consultation in relation to the thresholds, I wonder whether he might think about something similar in relation to changing the lists.

The Minister has offered me half a concession. What I was offering him just now was perhaps half an olive branch. It was a way of possibly coming back on Report with something slightly different from my amendments to Clauses 5 and 6. I think we all have reflecting to do. I am extremely grateful for what I think has been a most useful debate. For the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and to Amendments 24A and 24B in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. Amendment 24 seeks to remove subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 8, probing the implications of this clause for commercial agreements, as highlighted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s note on the Bill.

The amendment rightly seeks to probe how these provisions will affect contractual relationships between private sector actors. There is a genuine concern that the current wording could place undue financial and legal burdens on businesses by interfering with existing agreements. This could lead to significant commercial disputes and unnecessary litigation, ultimately hindering the smooth operation of commercial partnerships.

While public safety is undoubtedly a priority, we must ensure that our approach to security does not inadvertently create a minefield of legal uncertainty for businesses. Subsections (5) and (6) appear to grant broad and potentially disruptive powers that may override established contractual terms. In doing so, they risk undermining commercial stability and discouraging investment in venues and events that play an important role in our social and economic life.

Furthermore, these provisions may disproportionately impact small and medium-sized enterprises that lack the legal and financial resources to navigate complex contractual adjustments. Removing subsections (5) and (6) would encourage a more co-operative and practical approach, allowing businesses to work with public authorities to achieve security objectives without unnecessary interference in their commercial arrangements.

The independent reviewer’s concerns highlight the need for clarity and a balanced approach. Instead of imposing rigid requirements that disrupt commercial agreements, we should be looking to develop guidance that promotes collaboration between duty holders and security authorities. With this amendment, this House can signal our intention to maintain security measures that are both effective and commercially workable.

Amendment 24A in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst is a simple amendment which seeks to establish the Government’s reasons for requiring one senior individual to be responsible for the duties under the Bill for those premises and events with an enhanced duty. This should be something that the Minister can resolve with a clear answer today, and I hope he will be able to give that answer today.

Amendment 24B, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, seeks to establish the timeframe in which decisions by the tribunal have to be made. Clearly, events will need swift decisions from the tribunal if the decisions are to be made before the events themselves are held, and it is surely right that all organisations deserve timely determinations from the tribunal. Can the Minister tell us what his expectations are in this regard? Can he confirm that the Government have assessed the impact of this new duty on the tribunal on waiting times for determinations?

I urge the Government to reconsider the necessity of these subsections and to work toward a more proportionate and practical solution.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for their amendments. I will try to deal with both in due course.

First, Clause 8(5) and (6) introduce a co-operation requirement between persons responsible for those premises under the Bill and those with any other form of control of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. I make it clear to the Committee that this clause relates to the enhanced tier of premises, not the standard tier, so this would be responsible for the very top end of the arena-type premises. The responsibility for implementing the Bill’s requirements will always remain with a responsible person. Nevertheless, for reasons that have been outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, there may be areas where they require permission, support or co-operative steps from other parties to have some level of control of the premises or the event, in order to comply with the requirements of the Bill.

The noble Baroness gave an example which I can repeat back to her, in essence, where the person is a leaseholder who might identify that in order to put in place public protection measures, some changes are required to the building, such as replacing glass or providing alternative exit routes. In order to do that, the lease agreement may specify that permission must be obtained from the freeholder before any alterations are made. The purpose of this would be that if the freeholder were to refuse, or fail to respond to, such a request, this would compromise the responsible person’s ability to take forward reasonably practicable measures and frustrate the potential protection afforded to the premises. Clause 8(5) and (6) have been designed to require in such circumstances the freeholder

“so far as is reasonably practicable”—

the key phrase in the legislation—to co-operate with the leaseholder for the purposes of allowing the Bill’s requirements to be met.

I re-emphasise

“so far as is reasonably practicable”.

The clause does not require those subject to Clause 8(5) and (6) to habitually co-operate; they must co-operate so far as is reasonably practicable. What is reasonably practicable are the very issues that the Committee has already referred to, such as costs, benefits and the difficulties in making the respective relevant change, including considering the longer-term use of the premises.

I should also emphasise that Clause 8 does not automatically override commercial contracts or agreements. There is the co-operative principle that where there are parties with control of premises or events, there will be parties who will work readily with those responsible to take forward appropriate requirements. However, where that is not the case and where there is a dispute, Clause 11—which we will come to in a moment—gives the persons the right to apply for determination at a tribunal. The tribunal may be asked to determine

“whether a person is required to co-operate with the person responsible”

for the duty. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will recognise that there is a reasonable test in the clause as determined, and that the safeguard of the tribunal is there for where there are disagreements in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister, and for his assurance. Of course, I was aware of the substantial sum of money that is being given to the SIA to enable it to carry out these activities. However, if it is well in hand, surely we have reached the point at which at least an outline plan could be given by the SIA as to what it is proposing to do with that money? This relates to a number of amendments that we are going to be considering later, and I thought I would get my blow in on this early. I suspect that there are going to be real concerns about a regulatory authority that has never regulated anything like this. Surely it would be right for us to be given at least a two- or three-page outline of what its proposals are, because it must have at least reached that point.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am in danger of straying into a future set of amendments, or indeed a general Second Reading debate on the Security Industry Authority. I say to the noble Lord that the SIA currently has a very good record of processing licensing applications—93% within 25 days—and has an 86% satisfaction rating by individuals in terms of their interaction with the authority. Ministers are going to be accountable for the performance in the event of this Bill becoming an Act. We have said, particularly my honourable friend Dan Jarvis, the Security Minister in the House of Commons, that there will be key ministerial engagement with the SIA in helping to develop and shape that plan over the two-year period between the Bill potentially receiving Royal Assent, and its implementation by the SIA and this scheme becoming live.

We may have that Second Reading debate in later groups of amendments. I hope I will be able to reassure the noble Lord then that Ministers have taken decisions to put the SIA in the prime spot of the regulator. Ministers want that to succeed, and they will be making sure that the plans are put in place to make sure that it succeeds, because this legislation is meaningless without the regulation, delivery, oversight, guidance and training that we believe the SIA can put into place. We will revisit that downstream.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his contribution; I think he stole some of the lines that I was going to use. He made the very clear point that the tribunal has a responsibility for setting its timescales and its deadlines, and that it is not for ministerial direction to do that. The tribunal system is well established, with statutory rules and experienced judges and officials who understand the need to make timely decisions in a variety of contexts. It is these rules and processes that should determine how that tribunal operates: with appropriate parliamentary and ministerial oversight—certainly—through amendments to legislation relating to courts and tribunals.

I note the potentially positive objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. He wants to see a definitive timescale set, but if we included that provision in the Bill, it would set an unhelpful precedent and cut across the roles of the Tribunal Procedure Committee and the tribunal procedure rules. I do not anticipate a large number of cases coming before a tribunal anyway, because I hope that—again, as with most of the issues in the proposed legislation—we can resolve these matters well downstream. In the event of an issue coming to a tribunal, it is right and proper—and I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned this—that the tribunal itself is able to operate effectively, with its own well-established framework to deliver its own fair decision, and not be hampered by timescales set by legislation which may not anticipate what will happen two, three, four or five years down the line. Therefore, I will take support where I can get it and thank the noble Lord for his contribution.

The tribunal has an overarching duty to deal with cases fairly and justly. If an arbitrary time limit is imposed, the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, may undermine that existing duty.

I hope that, in my response, I have given some comfort to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and that I have explained to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, why I wish them both not to press their amendments.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I can see force in what the Minister has said, so I will not press my amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, will not pursue his amendment. As noble, and noble and learned, Lords will have understood, my question to him was a coded form of opposition. He said “It doesn’t matter that there’s no precedent”, but I think that it matters very much.

On my Amendment 24, I hope it is appropriate to summarise the Minister’s response as saying that there are two conditions for subsection (6) to apply: practicality and reasonableness. He is nodding—I say that so that we will get it into Hansard, because it answers the question raised by the independent reviewer. If we need to come back for any clarity, or if I am misconstruing him, perhaps there will be an opportunity.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. I gave the words “reasonable” and “practical”; they are the tenors on which the legislation would be interpreted.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

That said, this group of amendments is largely sensible—particularly Amendment 25 in the name of my noble friend. By considering them, we will send a clear message that we take the security of our public places seriously and that we stand united in our determination to protect the British people from those who seek to do us harm.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

The Minister is giving a good explanation on bureaucracy and cost, which I think is rational, but I fear I am hearing too much of the Home Office mentality of an “authorised person”. When it comes to dealing with major risk, including dealing with terrorism, the message on the railways, on the London Underground and in airports is that everyone should be vigilant. A huge amount of resource has gone into that messaging.

With the example of parish councils, I do not think anyone is suggesting that parish councils should be required by law to have carried out a training session. Not that long ago, however, I represented about 60 parish councils, and I would expect somebody to be organising a training session for all 60 of those councils to make sure they are all clear about what they should and should not be doing in relation to this. That is a small but crucial event. Is there not a danger that the Home Office thought process of the “responsible person” leaves out the responsibilities of the rest of us and the key role for us to be playing in this?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The purpose of this legislation is to provide guidance for the responsible person where buildings and premises are impacted at the time of a terrorist attack to ensure that the responsible person knows what to do. It is not designed to be worrying about the downstream elements of potential terrorism—although we all worry about these things. We all need to be vigilant on trains and in the street; we all need to understand what is happening; we all need to support the police and the security services. As professional forces, they are doing what they can to prevent an attack occurring in the first place—but, in the event of terrorists choosing to attack a village hall in my noble friend’s former parliamentary constituency, or another railway heritage site, what happens when that attack takes place? That is the nub of what this Bill is about.

The provisions under Clause 5, for smaller premises, and Clause 6, for larger premises, and the provisions on having a nominated person are linked to an understanding of what we do in that circumstance. The amendments today are about whether we need to ramp up training to do that. What I am saying to the House is that the Security Industry Authority and the Home Office will provide guidance on how to understand and implement that legislation, but the specific training and vetting and supporting specific training providers is not one of those obligations. Certainly, however, there will be guidance from the Secretary of State and the Security Industry Authority.

Indeed, as I was saying before my noble friend asked to intervene, there are government fact sheets currently. There is social media promotion of the leaflets and there is stakeholder engagement. We have had a massive consultation, in several incarnations, through different Governments and through various rounds of scrutiny by the public and parliamentarians. What we are trying to get to is an understanding of certain responsibilities that individuals have to have to make sure that there are protective measures in place in the event of an attack, which remains unlikely but could happen anywhere, at any time. When it happens, how do people understand their responsibilities and responses?

The two-year implementation period that we are likely to have before the Bill becomes implemented law, as opposed to Royal Assent law, will allow for wider discussion of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned around whether we need to tailor specific advice or not and will include widespread dissemination of the type of information that the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, have brought forward today. This is a valuable discussion to have, but the aim of the Government is to try to make this as simple as possible; to give guidance to ensure that it is as simple as possible; and not to overcomplicate things by making everyone think, “I have to have training to do this”. It is not about training, it is about responsibilities. Those responsibilities are set down in the Act and guidance will be given in due course.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply at the end of the debate. If I may, I will come back to that in a second. I first want to thank all noble Lords who have spoken, many of them on the other side of the Chamber from me, and one on my side, on the Back Bench here, because there is clearly great public support for the Bill. We are determined that it should pass and that it should work, but we believe that, for it to work effectively, there must be a commitment by the Home Office, the Security Industry Authority and other interested bodies to make certain that there are people in place in the organisations affected who are properly informed and trained in what their duties and responsibilities are going to be.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, spotted the fact that I had the word “may” in my amendment, and not “must”, which does, I hope, leave the Government with some discretion as to how it wants to implement the two-year consultation and implementation period. I hope that there was enough in my noble friend’s speech to indicate that, if it is going to be necessary for some form of structure to be established, it will be necessary not only for guidance to be available; the implementation of that guidance will need to be properly organised, either with public funds or through some other means of providing trainers who are able to do that. I hope that that opportunity is not ruled out and that there is going to be determination to ensure that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be implemented effectively and that the organisations that are required to implement it feel comfortable and are not affected financially by having to take on these responsibilities.

For the moment, I will of course ask the Committee to allow me to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that my noble friend is clear: there is a lot of support for the propositions that all of us have been making in this debate and I hope that we can come back to this at a later stage to see how we can implement them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

In a time when the nature of terrorism is rapidly evolving, we must remain agile and open to new solutions. This amendment embodies that spirit of innovation and pragmatism, providing a framework that ensures both quality and accountability. I urge my noble colleagues to support this amendment, as it represents a sensible and effective means of strengthening our national security infrastructure for the challenges of today and the uncertainties of tomorrow.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by re-emphasising the purpose of this legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that she is unconvinced of the need for it. This legislation will save lives. There are people who died because people did not know what to do when a terrorist attack occurred, and there are people whose lives were saved and who are walking the streets today because people took action when a terrorist attack occurred. The purpose of this legislation is to put in place a framework so that individuals know, if a terrorist attack occurs, what their responsibilities are in that moment; it is not to stop terrorism per se, or to worry about what happens afterwards to the perpetrators, but to stop terrorist activity damaging individuals’ lives in that moment. That is the purpose of this legislation.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has brought this amendment forward constructively, but I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Elliott, that it will dilute responsibility, because there is a named person and that named person is a named person whether or not they subcontract to a security consultant. It will increase the very cost that the noble Lord has been seeking to reduce during the passage of the Bill to date. It will add potential burdens, on small organisations in particular. It will create a market for the very snake-oil salesmen that this Committee is trying to avoid engaging with. It will set standards which are unrealistic when compared to the standards being set by the Home Office and/or the Security Industry Association. It will sow confusion, and it will put burdens on the very people who the noble Lord, deep down, wants to make sure do not have such burdens.

The Home Office’s whole approach is to try to make sure that the provisions in Clause 5 for the smaller tier, and the provisions in Clause 6 for the enhanced tier, are in place and can be simply understood and embedded in good practice. That is certainly true for the enhanced tier, because, by and large, it is made up of professional organisations that will embed the requirements in their day-to-day activity. For smaller organisations, it is about a simple level of guidance and support, which has a legislative component in that someone is responsible. Someone needs to make sure that measures are in place, such as simple evacuation, invacuation, shutting windows or hiding under a desk—whatever is appropriate for that local provision—without the need to have expensive tailored security provision on top. The cost estimate we have put in the Bill is around £330 for the standard tier, and that is in time, not necessarily in cash.

The noble Lord’s proposal would create confusion. Someone would undoubtedly say, “I have to have a consultant”, and someone would undoubtedly pay a consultant, and then the next village would say, “They’ve paid a consultant. We have to do the same”. The next village would say the same, and the costs and the burden would rise on those businesses, when the requirements of the Bill are actually simple and straightforward.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Does the Minister not think that, for example, a village hall that has developed a terrorism action plan along the lines of that required by Clause 5 will want to test that to ascertain whether it meets the requirement before the Security Industry Authority comes to inspect it? In the event that it is inspected and its plan is found wanting, it becomes liable for the heavy penalties that we see later in the Bill. It is surely a natural human reaction to want to test that, and they will do it by going to the private market. Is it not sensible to build into the Bill a measure that allows them to do that? It is simply going to happen. People are going to want to test their plans. Surely he must understand that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I would argue that the way to test those plans is to test them against the Home Office guidance and the security industry guidance. It is not potentially to go out and say to Mr or Mrs security consultant, “Please come in at an exorbitant cost to check that the five exits that we’ve got in this village hall and the plan I’ve put down to work on them meet the requirements of the Act”. The Bill has been determined in such a way that the Home Office does not believe that the requirements are onerous for the standard tier organisations, and even for the enhanced tier the anticipated cost is around £5,000. That will be standard practice for a large arena or large organisation, without the requirement to have those further security consultants test it accordingly. In my view, though the House will determine this in due course, the amendment would dilute the responsibility on the responsible person for bringing forward those plans in the first place.

I say to the noble Lord that I know why he has done this. All the way through the Bill, he has argued to reduce the burdens on small organisations, but this amendment would simply increase those burdens. It would create uncertainty, jealousy and cost, and it would not achieve the objectives that he said. I hope that he will not at any stage, either now or on Report, bring this amendment back for this House to determine.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate on the amendment, particularly the Minister. I might just address one or two of the points raised. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, yes, the accreditation referred to in my amendment is the same as the certification.

I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Of course, I do not seek to replace the contingent liability on a contractor in contract law for faulty advice or workmanship in the floor example that he provided. I am suggesting more that the contractor would share the liability under the statute—the daily penalties and the financial penalties that can be imposed by the SIA and the criminal liability under the Act, which I think is separate from ordinary contractual liability, which would be recoverable under a civil action in the courts.

However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out and reminding me of the passage in the Saunders report saying that the advice provided needs to be clear and to assist the parties that receive that advice. That is exactly what my amendment seeks to achieve. The reality, as I sought to argue to the Minister a moment ago, is that bodies subject to duties under the Bill will look for advice because of the penalty regime, particularly the contingent criminal offence, which would fall upon the responsible person. One therefore expects that there will be a market for advice, and it is important that it is regulated to prevent the snake-oil salesmen that noble Lords across the Committee have expressed an intention to avoid.

I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies for his support for my amendment, and to all other noble Lords for contributing to the debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and that in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.

In the Manchester Arena Inquiry report by Sir John Saunders, the Security Industry Authority came in for considerable criticism. I refer particularly to paragraphs 3.25 to 3.38 of volume 1 of his report. In particular, the inquiry found that there was a lack of effective enforcement measures by the SIA, and this gives rise to considerable concerns about the readiness of the SIA to undertake this task. In previous groups, the Minister has said that one of the purposes of the two-year implementation period is to get the SIA ready for this much greater task. One of the points raised by the amendments in this group is that the SIA is compelled to consider other aspects of information which may be provided by local authorities. I suggest to the Committee that that is a useful and beneficial thing for the Bill to consider.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments and contributions to the Committee. I think I have said already that guidance will be produced by the Home Office and by the Security Industry Authority. I do not need to go into the detail of that, as I have already covered it.

In relation to that, importantly, on Amendment 30, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, besides investigations and enforcement, a primary function of the Security Industry Authority will be to advise, educate and support those who fall within scope of the legislation. That is part of its role. As well as the general overarching role, the SIA’s guidance will look at how it can exercise those new functions. It already plays a significant role in safeguarding the public, through the regulation of the private security industry. We believe that it has a wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation which better protects the public.

I accept that the regulator implementation programme, which is the nub of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, is in the early stages of development. However, the Government are clear that we expect the SIA to engage in work with existing public safety bodies—this goes to the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, endorsed—before this new regime comes into effect.

It is important that the provisions under Clauses 5 and 6 are set down, but they have a crossover of responsibility in certain areas, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness indicated. Ultimately, the SIA has a responsibility to regulate the functions of this Bill. The guidance will ensure that that aligns with existing requirements, so far as is relevant to the SIA carrying out its regulatory functions. Therefore, while the amendment highlights this area, I hope it is one that is not developed further, because existing proposals in the Bill, and in the intention I have given, mean that the SIA has responsibilities which I hope are clear.

Amendment 31 would place a statutory duty on the SIA to consult with stakeholders in different sectors. The amendment would require the SIA to consult in relation to requirements at contiguous premises, premises within other premises, and areas within the vicinity of buildings. I hope I have already set out that we recognise the importance of communication and that understanding the impact on affected sectors is pivotal to ensuring effective implementation. This includes the operational guidance to be issued under Clause 12 by the SIA and the statutory guidance I have referred to several times issued by the Home Office under Clause 27. The Government do not expect that the SIA’s operational guidance will address matters specifically set out in the amendment, such as premises within premises, as it will relate to its functions.

Furthermore, it is already the Government’s clear expectation that the SIA should engage with relevant stakeholders on its guidance, where appropriate. “Relevant stakeholders” means a whole range of bodies, potentially including local authorities. Again, I hope that we do not need to place a statutory duty on the SIA, because that will be part of its core business, as directed by the Government under this legislation, in the event of it becoming law downstream.

Amendment 32 has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I hope I have given sufficient reassurance that the Home Office and the SIA recognise the value of engagement on the implementation of the important legislation before us. The department has already worked with local authorities as key stakeholders, and we expect that to continue. I know what the noble Lord’s intention is with this, but the question is whether we place a statutory duty on the SIA to notify local authorities of the guidance, as opposed to the SIA doing it as part of the general consultation.

The guidance will be published and will be publicly available. I am hoping that the SIA will give appropriate communications to accompany publication. This publication should be no surprise to local authorities, because, two years downstream, when it is potentially implemented, there will be plenty of opportunity to have that discussion.

Amendment 36A is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I understand that the intention is to clarify the purpose of Clause 27(4). As I have already set out, the Government are acutely aware of the need to provide help and support in complying with the requirements of the legislation through guidance under Clause 27.

Clause 27(4) applies where it is alleged in proceedings that a person has contravened a requirement imposed by Part 1 of the Bill. In such a case, the clause provides that the person may rely on proof they acted in accordance with this guidance as tending to establish that there was no such contravention. The intention of the clause is to provide comfort and reassurance to those responsible for qualifying premises and events, as it allows the person to rely on proof that they acted in accordance with the guidelines as showing them to have likely met the relevant requirements. It will not provide absolute proof but will be given the appropriate weight in proceedings, as the circumstances and other evidence must be. All of those things will be taken into consideration.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 36A would put beyond doubt only that a person may adduce evidence to that end. The effect of this would be to provide a lesser level of protection to someone faced by allegations than is provided for by the current drafting. I do not believe that is the intention she had in tabling this amendment. Furthermore, the clause has precedent in other regulatory regimes, namely, the Building Safety Act 2022. Its inclusion recognises concern about the implementation of what would be a novel regime.

I hope that, with those explanations, noble Lords will not press their amendments at this stage and accept the comments I have made from this Front Bench.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. As I said at the outset, these are primarily probing amendments from the live events sector, which wanted clarity on the coherence and the crossover between various regulatory bodies.

I will read Hansard and check what the Minister has said. What is clear is that there needs to be effective communication between the various bodies. There needs to be very clear guidelines and guidance for the organisations, so that they understand what is required of them. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, just to confirm, the noble Lord will be speaking after the Minister.

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

As the song used to say, “It Should Have Been Me”, but there we go.

The key starting point in this debate is the relationship between the SIA, its responsibilities, the Home Office and the people it serves. Quite self-evidently, Ministers decide and have responsibilities under Clause 12 to ensure that the SIA produces an annual report on its performance. It enables the Secretary of State to issue directions to the SIA on what it should be doing if it is not doing what it should be doing, ensures that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint board members, including the chair, and requires the Secretary of State’s approval for the SIA’s operational guidance that will be issued in due course. Ministers will be accountable to this House and the House of Commons for the performance of the SIA. If there is to be an advisory board in place, I suggest that the House of Commons and this noble House suit that purpose down to the ground; they will hold Ministers to account for the performance of the SIA.

In the first instance, I am surprised. Obviously the concept of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has not yet floated across the channel to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, or the Opposition Front Bench, because this set of amendments creates another set of bureaucracy to oversee the SIA and an interface between it and Home Office Ministers. It adds bureaucracy and cost, but not a great deal of value. In doing so, it also confuses the relationship between the Home Office’s direct responsibility to this House and Parliament and the responsibilities of the Security Industry Authority.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that the major expansion of bureaucracy in the Bill comes from the regulatory requirement of so many small premises in the first place? That is the expansion of government activity under the Bill and I feel—I cannot speak for others—very sceptical about it. Does he agree that it is a bit rich, having been willing to preside over this huge expansion of activity, to criticise those of us who want to see it properly monitored to do its job efficiently?

[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 ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

For me, the amendments water down a core element of the Bill, which is about individual responsibility—people taking responsibility for ensuring that an organisation or an event at a venue has thought about what it will do in the eventuality of an attack. That is the key purpose of this Bill.

Thirdly, it would be useful if the Minister could write a letter or bring forward proposals to illustrate how volunteers will be treated with due respect and that it will be understood that this legislation must not put them off, which is why an information campaign is so important. A public information campaign should reassure people.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments.

Amendment 35, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, looks at the timing of the payment period across regimes where a time is specified under Clause 17(5). I hope I can reassure him by saying that the period of 28 days in the Bill is a common period across other such regimes. The key point to make to the noble Lord, in relation to his amendment, is that the period currently specified at Clause 17(5) establishes a period that is not less than 28 days, beginning with the day on which the notice is given.

The key point is that the SIA may determine a period for a penalty payment. That might well be 42 days, 62 days or 38 days, but it will not be less than 28 days. It may be greater than 28 days, depending on the person’s circumstances and any representations they make before the SIA issues a notice. Once notice is given, the period may be subsequently varied, and a person has the right to appeal a penalty notice to the tribunal. The Bill is not being prescriptive, except in the sense that there is a minimum period of 28 days. After that, the period is for determination accordingly. I suggest that the noble Lord reflects on his amendment in due course, because I think the Bill meets the objective of his amendment, which is to give individuals a longer period should they require one.

Amendments 35A, 35B, 36ZA and 37ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, address some really important issues, which are how we encourage, nurture and involve volunteers and make sure that any regulatory regime does not frighten them off or stop them from taking part. It is a noble aspiration from the noble Lord, and one that I would share generally. However, I do not share it in the sense of the amendments he has brought forward. The thought behind them is extremely important, however.

Volunteers, as the Committee will know, play a critical role in communities across the country. The Bill is designed to ensure that we support volunteers at a time of crisis, in the event of a terrorist attack, by providing for a nominated person to act properly and take steps to deal with that attack. I remind the Committee of the main purpose of the Bill, which is to ensure there are plans in place, mostly under Clause 5, with a responsible person making the split-second decisions needed in the moment of a terrorist attack.

The noble Lord has acknowledged the step we have already taken of increasing the threshold from 100 people to 200. There are some 10,000 community centres across the country, and we estimate that only 13% will now be in scope. The vast majority of community halls will not be in scope. But again, I come back to the basic principle of the Bill: someone has to hold the responsibility for devising the plan under Clause 5 for the various measures that need to be taken. In doing that, other volunteers and members of staff are not liable for any action in the event of a breach of those plans; it is only the responsible person.

The basic tenor of the noble Lord’s amendments is whether the responsible person will no longer step up to the plate because they are worried about the consequences of not meeting the obligations under the legislation. Again, I say to him that the purpose of the Security Industry Authority is not to jump from step A, which is a plan, to step X, which is to take someone to court and put them in prison. The purpose of the Security Industry Authority is to ensure that guidance, support, nurturing and help are available. It is to ensure that the people who take on that onerous responsibility have that support to meet the obligations of the Bill. Yes, there is a penalty in the event of a failure; ultimately, however, the purpose of the SIA is to offer the guidance to make sure that the penalty does not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for Amendment 37. I hope I can reassure her that the Security Industry Authority already has robust safeguards and processes in place for discharging its duties under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which ensure that it is therefore compliant with data protection legislation. The Government’s clear expectation is that the SIA will apply the existing safeguards that it has under the 2001 Act when implementing its new regulatory functions under this Bill.

Furthermore, as an arm’s-length body, the SIA must ensure that any disclosures of information under the Bill do not contravene data protection legislation, including the Data Protection Act 2018, or the prohibitions in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The regulator will be able to share information only in accordance with the parameters in the Bill—shortly to be an Act —and other applicable legal requirements, such as those under data protection legislation as a whole. I hope that those three bits of legislation—the Private Security Industry Act, the Data Protection Act and the Investigatory Powers Act—give the noble Baroness the assurances that she seeks.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am not sure that I am reassured, because I do not understand how opposing points can be taken into account. If it is data protection legislation that governs—if that is what prevails—why do we need this subsection at all? I have not looked at the Private Security Industry Act to which the Minister referred, so I will certainly look at that and at what he has just said. I do not want to be difficult; I just want to get an understanding so that everybody understands it, not just me.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Would it help the noble Baroness if I ensure that I write her a letter between now and Report, which will be announced shortly, so that she has clarity on her concerns? To save her having to look it up, I will also send her the relevant section of the Private Security Industry Act 2001.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Sending me the reference will do; computers are wonderful—mostly. I am grateful for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I will speak to Amendment 37A to Clause 31, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. This amendment proposes to remove Clause 31 and replace it with a new provision, stating that:

“Nothing in this Act or regulations made under it affects any right of action in civil proceedings”.


The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill represents a critical step in strengthening the security framework for public venues and premises across the country. The increasing sophistication and unpredictability of terrorist threats demand that we establish robust and effective measures to protect the public. By setting out clear responsibilities for operators of certain premises, the Bill aims to ensure that the tragic events that we have seen in the past are less likely to be repeated in the future.

As we consider Amendment 37A, it is essential to examine whether the proposed changes will support or potentially undermine the Bill’s objectives. At its core, this amendment seeks to clarify that the Bill will not interfere with the right to pursue civil claims. Such a provision could be seen as a safeguard, ensuring that individuals and organisations maintain access to legal redress if they believe that negligence or a breach of duty has contributed to harm caused by a terrorist incident.

This is a significant consideration. Civil liability serves as an important mechanism for accountability and justice in our legal system. It encourages responsible behaviour, provides a pathway for compensation and often plays a complementary role in reinforcing public safety. Ensuring that individuals retain this right can provide reassurance that public security measures do not come at the expense of fundamental legal principles. However, there are important questions that we must address.

First, is this amendment necessary? It is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that civil liability is not displaced unless explicitly stated in the legislation. Therefore, some may argue that this amendment is redundant and risks introducing ambiguity into the Bill’s interpretation. If the existing legal framework already protects the right to bring civil claims, we must carefully consider whether including an explicit provision could inadvertently complicate matters rather than clarify them.

Another practical consideration is the potential impact on compliance with the Bill’s requirements. Premises operators, many of whom are already facing financial and operational pressures, may view the introduction of this provision as increasing their exposure to litigation. This could have the unintended consequence of discouraging proactive security measures if operators become overly concerned about the risk of legal action. It is essential that the Bill strikes a balance between imposing reasonable obligations and supporting those who are making good-faith efforts to comply.

Furthermore, we must assess whether this amendment could lead to increased litigation that detracts from the primary purpose of the Bill. Legal disputes can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, diverting attention from the urgent task of implementing effective security measures. We should be mindful of the potential for unintended consequences that may hinder the Bill’s objectives. It is also worth considering the impact on the insurance market. If the inclusion of this provision is perceived as creating greater uncertainty or exposure to liability, it could lead to increased insurance premiums for premises operators. This may place an additional financial burden on businesses and organisations that are already navigating a challenging economic environment.

That said, the Government must also be mindful of the importance of maintaining public trust and confidence in counterterrorism measures. Ensuring that individuals have access to justice when they have been wronged is fundamental to our legal system and to public confidence in the rule of law. If stakeholders, legal experts or civil society organisations believe that this amendment is necessary to provide clarity and reassurance, their concerns should be carefully considered. Ultimately, the key question is whether the amendment strengthens the Bill by providing clarity or whether it introduces unnecessary complexity that could hinder its implementation. I look forward to hearing the Government’s view on this matter and the perspectives of other noble Lords.

As we deliberate on this amendment, let us remember the importance of striking the right balance: ensuring robust security measures that protect the public, while safeguarding access to justice and upholding the legal rights that are fundamental to our democracy. We must strive to create a framework that achieves both security and fairness in the face of evolving security threats.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling this amendment, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. We have had discussions outside this Committee to examine these issues. I am genuinely sorry that I was not able to allay the concerns expressed in our discussions, but I hope to be able to do so today, formally and on the record. I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which I think were supportive, and those from the Opposition Front Bench made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.

The purpose of the Bill, as we have discussed, is to mitigate the effects of physical harm arising from acts of terrorism. My starting point, which I know will be shared by everybody in this Committee today, is that the people responsible for such heinous acts that might be inflicted as a result of terrorist activity are the terrorists themselves. The purpose of this potential Act, if it is approved downstream, is to ensure that there are requirements on the duty holders under it which make a real difference to the physical harm caused by potential acts of terrorism. For this reason, there is both a set of conditions to put in place, under Clauses 5 and 6, and robust regulatory and enforcement provision in the Bill.

However, the duties should not impose an actionable right for someone who has suffered loss or injury to bring a claim for a breach of statutory duty. I will try to explain why I think that is the case in due course. I may or may not convince the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, but I will attempt to do so.

Clause 31(1) puts this principle beyond doubt and provides valuable reassurance for responsible persons who, fearing they may face civil proceedings, could otherwise feel pressured to overcomply with the Bill’s requirements. These points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. They might, as the Liberal Democrats have previously spoken about, drive people who have those statutory responsibilities to start to engage expensive consultants to overworry about the provisions or to make alterations to their premises that are disproportionate to the risks they face.

Throughout the Bill, the Government have tried to make the provisions as simple and clear as possible and to not put concerns that would lead to potential costly litigation on the face of the Bill. Clause 31(2) makes it clear that it does not affect any right of action which exists, apart from the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill. I know the noble Lord is aware of this because we have discussed it but, for example, a claim for negligence could still be made under the provisions of Clause 31(2). That provision is precisely in line with existing legislation, such as the health and safety legislation in 2013, which ensured that no civil right of action was available for breach of statutory duty unless provided for specifically under the Bill.

It is right that the Bill makes it clear that existing rights of action, such as negligence claims, are not affected, while providing what I hope—again, this is for noble Lords to assess—is clear reassurance to all that a civil claim for breach of statutory duty may not be brought. Therefore, I hope it helps the true purpose of the Bill: to require reasonable, simple and effective steps to mitigate the harm that could be caused by an act of terrorism, for which the terrorist is solely responsible. It should be achieved appropriately, proportionately and without overcompliance flowing from a fear of costly litigation.

I may not have succeeded, but I hope I am finding the balance point between the concerns expressed by Members of the Opposition, and the genuine concerns put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I hope that balance point is achieved by what the Government say. I will listen again if the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, wishes to make any further points based on what I have said. That is —not with my legal training but the legal mind of the Home Office lawyers behind me—the position I put before the Committee in response to the amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate. I do not know whether noble Lords listening are any clearer as to where we are going on this. I make it clear to the Committee that my first objective is to achieve something that is readily understandable to anybody reading this legislation. The Member’s explanatory statement refers to clarity. I was seeking to address this to, first, get clarity and then debate the substance.

I was also concerned that it is important to get discussions on the record. This is not an accusation, but I was not involved in any discussions outside this House. It occurs to me listening to the discussion that it will also be important that guidance or explanations about how this new regime is to work are written in kindergarten language and available to the public.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Perhaps I might again reassure the noble Baroness. What I have said, from this Dispatch Box, is that guidance from both the Home Office and downstream will be put out once the Security Industry Authority is established, and that it will be subject to discussion in this House. I hope that will achieve the noble Baroness’s objective.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I hope that anything that is put out does not need that much discussion in terms of clarity and whether the plain English campaign is satisfied and so on. I am not going to seek to take this further today, but I come back to it as one of the central political points about legislation being clear to those who have to operate it and who are affected by it. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and other contributors to this debate that I have been on a few demos myself. I have quite enjoyed them; they are part of the democratic right to oppose certain things. Although my demo days have gone for the moment, because, as a Government Minister, I support government policy, there may be occasions in the future when I want to go on further demonstrations. I do not anticipate this Bill or any other legislation—apart, perhaps, from the legislation put in place by the previous Government—curtailing that democratic right to protest.

I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that none of the Bill’s provisions are intended to interfere with people’s rights, which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, as set out in Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act, including the right to protest. To be clear, the Bill aims to protect the public, not to infringe their rights. The noble Lord will note that something that I never expected to happen to me again happened with this Bill. On the front of it are the words:

“Lord Hanson of Flint has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998”,


and, for the benefit of the House, I will repeat what it says:

“In my view the provisions of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”,


of which the right to protest is at the heart.

The noble Lord referred to a number of points around the undergrowth of the legislation and some of the clauses and schedules that he has concerns about. However, the front of the Bill says—and I put my name to it—that it is compatible with the convention of human rights. In my view, the measures are carefully developed to ensure it appropriately and proportionately captures the places and requirements of qualifying premises and events. In the development of the Bill, we have been mindful of its application to protests and demonstrations.

The expectation is that most demonstrations and protests will not fall within the Bill’s scope at all. They will not constitute “qualifying premises” under Clause 2, as they are not qualifying activities under Schedule 1. Even if they were, it would be unlikely that the premises would be wholly or mainly used for those purposes.

Some large demonstrations and protests may be qualifying events. However, many will not have to put in place the specific measure to check entry and, as a result, will not satisfy the criteria to be a qualifying event under Clause 3. An open access event, which is how I would term some of the demonstrations that I have been on, might have more than 800 attendees at a time—that number would be a good demonstration—and will not be within the scope of the Bill. Where demonstrations or events are within the scope of the Bill, it is right that the relevant provisions will apply. In some cases, large numbers of people will be gathered in a location where the organiser must have adequate control to consider and take forward appropriate security measures and procedures, so far as is reasonably practical.

I hope to reassure the noble Lord, His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that, within the Bill’s scope, we are required to act compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. I can say from this Dispatch Box that nothing in the legislation interferes with that.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for teasing out the discussion. I look forward to perhaps joining him on a demonstration, if we ever find shared common ground. But, for the moment, his pressing is valuable as it gives me the opportunity to say that he can undertake protests without worry about the Bill’s provisions—unless, of course, his protest falls within the scope of the Bill, in which case it is treated no differently from any other aspect of life that falls within the scope. I hope he will reflect on that and withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the Minister. Obviously, the Section 19 declaration on the front of the Bill is a statement that, in the Minister’s view, it is compatible with the Act. As one of the very small number of Ministers who has signed a Section 19(1)(b) statement, which is to be signed in different circumstances, where you are not so confident, I can assure the Minister that such a statement of opinion is not conclusive. The courts regularly find that measures in Acts of Parliament—for example, in the recent litigation about the Northern Ireland legacy Act—are in fact incompatible, notwithstanding statements or declarations of compatibility on the front of the Bill.

Be that as it may, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I obviously agree with much of it, but I still wonder whether he might go back to the department and consider whether it is appropriate to put in just a short clause along the lines I suggested, to make crystal clear that the right to protest is not to be interfered with indirectly and unintentionally by the measures in the Bill. For now, of course, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 40, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. This amendment proposes the insertion of a new clause after Clause 34 to establish tax relief incentives for security investments by businesses covered under this Act. The purpose of this amendment is to encourage businesses to strengthen their security infrastructure voluntarily by offering tax deductions of up to 25% for qualifying security expenditures. These investments would include, but are not limited to,

“surveillance and monitoring equipment, … physical barriers and access control systems, … staff training on counter-terrorism measures, and … cyber-security infrastructure for venue security”.

The security landscape we face today is increasingly complex. The threat of terrorism has evolved, targeting not only traditional public spaces but also a wide variety of venues where people gather for work, entertainment, and everyday life. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly places obligations on certain premises to implement security measures to protect the public. However, it is essential that we consider the financial burden this may place on businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, which form the backbone of our economy.

This amendment offers a constructive and forward-thinking solution by incentivising security investments through tax relief. Such an approach would have several key benefits. First, by offering financial incentives, we encourage businesses to take proactive steps to enhance their security infrastructure. Many businesses want to do the right thing but are constrained by budgetary limitations. Tax relief would help alleviate these financial pressures and empower them to invest in modern, effective security measures that reduce the vulnerability of their premises to acts of terrorism.

Secondly, the amendment recognises the importance of innovation in counterterrorism technologies. By incentivising investments in advanced surveillance systems, access control solutions and cybersecurity infrastructure, we create a market environment that encourages the development and adoption of cutting-edge security technologies. This not only benefits individual businesses but strengthens the broader security landscape of our nation.

Thirdly, security is a shared responsibility. While the Government have a duty to protect its citizens, the private sector also plays a critical role in safeguarding public spaces. By incentivising private investment, this amendment helps reduce reliance on public funding for security infrastructure, ensuring that taxpayer resources can be allocated more efficiently. Fourthly, providing a financial incentive makes it more likely that businesses will not only comply with the requirements of this Bill but go above and beyond to implement comprehensive security measures. This contributes to a safer environment for the public and demonstrates a collaborative approach to counterterrorism efforts.

Critics may argue that offering tax relief for security investments could reduce government revenue. However, this must be weighed against the potential costs of a terrorist attack, including the loss of lives, economic disruption and the subsequent expenditure on emergency response and recovery. Investments in security are not merely costs; they are investments in resilience and stability. Additionally, by incentivising security investments, we send a strong signal that the Government recognise the challenges businesses face and are willing to support them in meeting their obligations under this Bill. This builds good will and fosters a sense of partnership between the public and private sectors in the collective effort to protect our society from terrorism. Furthermore, the scope of this amendment is deliberately broad, allowing the scheme to cover various types of security investments. This flexibility ensures that businesses can tailor their security measures to their specific needs and circumstances, rather than being forced into a one-size-fits-all approach.

The amendment strikes the right balance between enhancing security and supporting economic growth. It encourages businesses to invest in vital security measures while reducing the financial burden they face. By incentivising innovation and collaboration, we create a more secure and resilient society, so I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment. It is a pragmatic, forward-thinking proposal that strengthens the Bill, promotes public safety and supports businesses in playing their part in counterterrorism efforts. Security and prosperity are not mutually exclusive; they can and must go hand in hand. This amendment embodies that principle and deserves the full support of this Committee.

I now speak in support of Amendment 41, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. This amendment proposes the insertion of a new clause after Clause 34 to ensure that local authorities are adequately supported and properly co-ordinated in their role under the Bill. The amendment has two key components. First, it calls on the Secretary of State to provide funding and resources to local authorities to support their expanded role in overseeing compliance with the security requirements outlined in this legislation. Secondly, it requires the Government to issue clear guidelines for local authority co-ordination with the Security Industry Authority. The importance of this amendment cannot be overstated. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly seeks to enhance security measures at public venues and premises across the country. However, it is clear that local authorities will play a critical role in ensuring the effective implementation and enforcement of these measures. If we are to succeed in making public spaces safer, local authorities must be properly equipped to carry out their responsibilities.

Local councils are already under significant financial and operational strain. Many are grappling with stretched budgets, increased service demands and a shortage of skilled personnel. Adding the responsibility of overseeing complex security compliance requirements without additional support would place an unsustainable burden on them. This amendment recognises that reality and ensures that councils are provided with the funding and resources necessary to carry out their new duties effectively. By investing in local authorities, we not only empower them to fulfil their role under the Bill but enhance the overall security infrastructure of our communities.

The Security Industry Authority has a vital role in regulating private security services and ensuring high standards across the sector. However, effective security co-ordination requires seamless co-operation between local authorities and the SIA. This amendment addresses the need for clear and consistent guidelines on how such co-ordination should be conducted.

Providing clarity on roles and responsibilities will prevent a duplication of effort and reduce the risk of confusion or gaps in enforcement. It will foster stronger partnerships between local authorities, the SIA and other stakeholders, creating a more cohesive and effective security framework.

Terrorist threats are complex and multifaceted, requiring a co-ordinated and collaborative response at all levels of government. Local authorities are often best placed to understand the specific security challenges within their communities and to engage with businesses, venue operators and the public in implementing tailored security measures. However, this localised approach can be effective only if councils have the necessary resources and clear guidance from central government; without this, we risk creating a fragmented and inconsistent security landscape that leaves communities vulnerable.

Some may argue that councils already have extensive responsibilities, and that security should remain the domain of specialised agencies. However, the evolving nature of security threats requires a whole-of-society approach. Local authorities are on the front lines of public service delivery and community engagement; they are uniquely positioned to play a key role in implementing the security measures under this Bill, provided they are given the tools and support to do so. It is worth noting that investment in local authority capacity will have broader benefits beyond security: strengthening council capabilities can enhance their ability to deliver other services more effectively, creating more resilient and well-managed communities.

This amendment represents a practical and necessary step to ensure the successful implementation of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. It acknowledges the vital role of local authorities and provides the support they need to fulfil that role effectively. By ensuring proper funding, resources and clear co-ordination with the SIA, we can create a security framework that is both robust and locally responsive. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment; it strengthens the Bill, supports our councils and, ultimately, contributes to a safer and more secure United Kingdom.

Amendment 42 calls on the Secretary of State to establish a financial support scheme to assist businesses with the cost of implementing the security measures required under this legislation. The proposed scheme would include low-interest loans, grants or tax relief for businesses facing costs ranging between £3,000 and £52,000. While we all recognise the necessity of strengthening security measures to protect the public from the ever-present threat of terrorism, we must acknowledge the financial burden these requirements may place on businesses—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—many of which are already grappling with rising costs, from energy bills to supply chain disruptions.

For a small business, an unexpected £3,000 security expenditure can be a significant financial strain, let alone costs in the tens of thousands. Without support, some may face difficult decisions, including delaying essential security upgrades or, in extreme cases, closing their operations altogether. This would not only harm local economies but could inadvertently weaken the overall security framework that the Bill seeks to strengthen. A financial support scheme, as outlined in this amendment, offers a practical solution. By providing low-interest loans, grants and tax relief, we can alleviate the financial pressures on businesses, while encouraging compliance with those security requirements. This is a prudent investment in the safety and resilience of our commercial sector and the communities it serves.

Finally, Amendment 45 addresses the equally important issue of financial support for voluntary and community organisations, including village halls, which are often at the heart of rural and suburban communities. It calls on the Secretary of State to provide grants or funding schemes to cover the costs associated with compliance under the future Act. Voluntary and community organisations face unique challenges; they often operate on shoestring budgets, relying heavily on donations, grants and volunteer support. These organisations provide essential services and spaces for social engagement, education and cultural activities. Village halls, in particular, are vital hubs for community life, hosting everything from children’s playgroups to senior citizen gatherings.

The imposition of costly security measures, while understandable from a public safety perspective, could deter community engagement and even lead to the closure of some of these cherished institutions. That is a price that we cannot afford to pay. By providing targeted financial support, we ensure that voluntary and community organisations can continue to thrive while meeting their security obligations. This amendment is not just about compliance; it is about preserving the social fabric of our communities and recognising the invaluable role that these organisations play in society.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the amendments, and I hope that I will be able to respond to them fully.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for her plug for the service she mentioned; I take it in good heart. She will know that the purpose of the Bill is to give the Security Industry Authority the power to give advice and for the Home Office to enable that. I will take away her suggestion and feed it to officials. If it can be done, we will look at how it can be examined by the Security Industry Authority to be a helpful contribution to resilience for local groups and organisations. I thank her for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 43, tabled by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. This has been a very interesting debate. The amendment seeks to introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to

“consult with local authorities on integrating counter-terrorism measures into the planning and design of new buildings which are likely to be designated ‘qualifying premises’ for the purposes of this Act”.

It further calls for the introduction of measures to ensure that anti-terrorism design principles are incorporated into building projects, particularly those in high-risk areas.

The importance of designing safer urban environments from the outset cannot be overstated. In an era where the threat of terrorism continues to evolve, our approach to public safety must also adapt. The integration of counterterrorism measures into the planning and design of buildings offers a forward-thinking solution that enhances security while reducing the need for costly and disruptive retrofits. By embedding security principles into architectural design, we can create spaces that are both functional and secure. Measures such as blast-resistant materials, secure perimeters, control access points and natural surveillance through open and well-lit layouts can significantly reduce the vulnerability of public spaces.

Many countries have already embraced the concept of designing out terrorism. For example, in the United States and parts of Europe, urban planners and architects routinely incorporate security features into the design of transport hubs, commercial centres and public venues. The United Kingdom should not lag behind in adopting similar best practices. This amendment encourages a collaborative approach between the Government, local authorities and the construction industry to ensure that new developments are designed with security in mind. Local authorities are uniquely positioned to provide insights into the specific risks and needs of their areas, making their involvement in this process essential.

Incorporating counterterrorism measures at the planning stage is not only more effective but more cost-efficient. Retrofitting existing buildings to meet new security requirements can be expensive and disruptive, often requiring extensive modifications that compromise the original design and functionality. By contrast, proactive design reduces long-term costs and creates environments that seamlessly balance aesthetics, functionality and security.

I must stress that this amendment does not seek to turn our urban landscapes into fortresses. Good design can enhance both security and public experience without compromising the openness and accessibility that define vibrant communities. By working closely with architects, planners and local authorities, we can ensure that security features are thoughtfully integrated and do not detract from the usability and beauty of public spaces. I fully associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on this issue.

The amendment rightly prioritises high-risk areas where the likelihood of terrorism incidents is higher due to factors such as foot traffic, symbolic importance or previous threats. By taking a proactive approach in these areas, we would not only protect lives but bolster public confidence in the safety of shared spaces. In conclusion, the amendment would strengthen the Bill by embedding security into the very fabric of our built environment. It demonstrates a pragmatic and forward-looking approach to counterterrorism that balances safety, efficiency and community needs. I urge the Government and noble Lords to support this amendment as it represents a vital step forward, creating a safer, more resilient United Kingdom.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, for raising the important issue of how new buildings—his amendment mentions “new buildings”—and development should consider security in their design where it is appropriate to do so.

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Lords, Lord Elliott and Lord Empey, for bringing to the Committee their experience of Northern Ireland—with which I have a small element of familiarity but not as much experience as they do.

I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and particularly his invitation for CT advisers to be incorporated into an advice mechanism, whatever that might be. I will give him the same answer I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. I reassure him that we want to have this simple advice, focused via the Security Industry Association, and I hope that I can at least refer his helpful suggestion and see how it can be incorporated into the advice given. I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for his contribution, and the Liberal Democrat and Opposition Front Benches for their comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I speak to Amendments 46 to 49. I adopt everything that my noble friend Lord Davies has already said, so I can be short.

Amendment 46, which is a probing amendment, is very simple. We all know we cannot let the terrorist indulge in preventable acts of terror. I emphasise “preventable”. Equally, we cannot allow the threat of terror to close down society and normal life as we now understand it to be. Also, it must be plain that once the Act has been enforced for 18 months, people will have a better idea of what may and may not work, so a review at that stage will be helpful to everyone. It is a shakedown period and it will cut both ways.

As to Amendment 47 and the six-month delay of commencement, that is simply to impose a minimum period—it can be longer if appropriate—before regulations and other actions can be taken by requiring draft guidance to have been issued and consulted on first. This will simply ensure that businesses and other bodies are properly consulted before guidance is finalised. It will ensure that the consultation on the guidance has preceded the laying of regulations. We are moving into new territory. A wide range of powers is being exercised over disparate bodies and a wide range of organisations in respect of matters which have not previously been subject to such detailed supervision. It is obviously right that those affected should be consulted. That will apply to the potential enforcers—the SIA and local authorities—as well as to those on the receiving end who are running the establishments and organisations where these regulations will apply.

Finally, Amendments 48 and 49 are simply probing amendments on the timescale. We have heard that it may take two years to come into force. We tabled these amendments, as my noble friend has said, to test how that period will work.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling the amendments today. I hope I can respond to them in a positive and reassuring manner.

First, I will look at Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst. All through this debate, at Second Reading, in Committee, and in discussions that we have had outside of this Chamber, we have been keen to reassure noble Lords that we are trying to strike the right balance between public protection and burdens on premises and events. In fact, I prefer the word “standards” to “burdens”; a burden is something that is difficult. What we are trying to put in place is a number of basic standards which it is important for businesses and organisations to meet.

I have said throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee and at Second Reading that, following Royal Assent, we expect that there will be a period of at least 24 months to give us the time to ensure that those responsible for premises and the events in scope understand the new obligations, that they have time to plan and prepare, and—to go back to previous discussions —any training required of volunteers or staff is undertaken.

The proposed timetable in Amendment 46 of 18 months would, with respect, be before any detailed action has been taken under the provisions of the Act. It would assess the preparations generally, as opposed to the actual impact and implementation downstream. Ministers, including myself and my right honourable friend Dan Jarvis will keep legislation under review, including its effectiveness, impact and implementation. Should unintended consequences be identified, the Bill provides powers, which have been subject to debate, to adjust the regime as appropriate. I hope the noble Lord will reflect on Amendment 46 and, when the time comes, withdraw the amendment.

On Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, there will be a 24-month implementation period before the Act is commenced. The Government intend to issue guidance under Clause 27, published before commencement. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord seeks to put some timeframes on that. I think it is best to leave that to judgment, both in the guidance and in the consultation on that guidance with key partners.

Again, the 24-month period covers Amendments 48 and 49, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Sandhurst. The implementation period will allow those in scope to prepare for and comply with the new obligations. It is important that the SIA, particularly, is operating as soon as is practical. The Government must be certain that it is ready for its new role. We anticipate that this will take at least 24 months—it might take slightly longer—in the light of previous timeframes for other regulators introduced under previous legislation.

I do not anticipate any delays in commencement, but I want to keep the flexibility and appropriate ability for the Government to pick an appropriate commencement date when the Government assess that the SIA has fulfilled its duties, as we anticipate them under the Act, and that the organisations impacted by the Act at that stage are fully prepared and cognisant and are able to implement. Again, I gently suggest to the noble Lord that it would not be sensible for the Secretary of State to be driven by a tied provision in the Act, as opposed to the judgment that, as I have said to the Committee, will look in due course at whether or not we put those provisions in place.

Generally, in relation to Amendments 48 and 49, the 24-month period is what I would hope to be a realistic time to establish the set-up of the regulator and for those in scope of the Bill to prepare. If the Bill achieves Royal Assent, which I hope it will, the noble Lord, this House, the House of Commons and the court of public opinion—that is, the people in businesses and pubs and others who will be impacted by this legislation—have the opportunity to feed into both the Government for their guidance and the SIA for its guidance, as well as into the debate generally about implementation, about how they think the Act is going and what measures are being put in place. A formal consultation or review, as outlined and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, would inhibit that process and set formal timescales that would not be helpful. This House remains the first port of call for any concern or points that noble Lords may want to raise about the implementation downstream. I hope that reassurance means that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken, including the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—who talked about the unintended consequences of the Bill, which are a worry—and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I thank the Minister for his response, particularly about striking the right balance. I am pleased to hear that he will keep its effectiveness under review and revisit it. On the issue of 24 months, the Minister assures me that he does not anticipate delays, and I will keep his words in mind. For the time being, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.