Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, this Bill has been forged in reaction to a despicable terrorist attack, dignified by the name of one of its victims, promoted by his courageous mother and subject to a high degree of cross-party consensus. Those are all admirable things, but they also underline the need for serious and dispassionate parliamentary scrutiny.

It is sometimes said that the meaningful scrutiny of Bills is nowadays the province of this House only, and examples of that are not unknown. However, having followed the progress of this Bill through the Commons, with particular reference to the work of the Public Bill Committee and the Home Affairs Select Committee—the independence of which on this matter was notable— I have a lot of respect for the evidence they have taken and the work they have done. That is now reflected in the reformulated and, I must say, improved Bill. I particularly welcome the test of reasonable practicability, so familiar from health and safety legislation, and the changes to the lower threshold for qualifying premises, which is strongly supported by the National Association of Local Councils. It will take out of the scope of the Bill over 100,000 premises—including small parish churches, village halls and town centre cafes—that cannot reasonably be expected to host as many as 200 people.

I remember discussing with Tom Tugendhat, when he was the Security Minister responsible for the Bill, whether it was necessary to put the limit as low as a capacity of 100. He of course held the line at the time, but it was interesting to see that, once released from his responsibilities, he tabled an amendment in Committee that sought to raise the revised lower limit from 200 to 300.

I am grateful to the Minister for meeting with me on this issue. I hope he will forgive me if I remain slightly sceptical about the likely value of the obligations placed on the smallest standard duty premises. A £3,313 average cost over 10 years is not a trivial amount for a financially marginal business or a village hall struggling to raise funds. Yet compliance with the standard duty, as can be seen in Clause 1(1), is intended not to reduce the vulnerability of such premises to acts of terrorism, but to reduce only the risk of physical harm once an act of terrorism is imminent or has started. As the Minister covered in his opening speech, Clause 5(3) demonstrates what that will mean: guarding and locking doors, ensuring that people know where the exits are, and so on.

Bearing in mind the modest extent of the standard duty, I wonder how much the centrally available guidance, which operators are supposed to download, will add to the common sense of those who operate small venues and know them inside out, particularly when, as is thankfully the case in most places, the risk of a terrorist attack is almost vanishingly small. The Minister probably feels that by shifting the minimum threshold to 200 he has reached a widely acceptable compromise, and he may well be right.

However, I remain concerned by the ease by which, by affirmative regulation, 100,000 extra premises could be brought within the scope of the Bill, and many more made subject to the enhanced duties. After a terrorist attack, it can be tempting for any Government to be seen to take immediate action to tighten up the law. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady May, to whom it was my great privilege to report as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, was made of stronger stuff, and so, I suspect, is the Minister. But others do succumb to temptation of this kind, and activating such a power would be an obvious and tempting response.

I make two suggestions. Just to concentrate minds a little, could the operation of Clause 32 not be made conditional on the Secretary of State being satisfied that changing the threshold is justified on the basis of the terrorist threat? That is in the Delegated Powers Committee memorandum; why not put it in the Bill? This would not prevent it being done, but it would make it more likely that it will be done for the right reasons. Secondly, the Delegated Powers Committee memorandum claims as a precedent for this power Section 2 of the Fire Safety Act 2021, which indeed provides for a similar affirmative power to change premises to which the fire safety order applies, but that section contains a statutory obligation to consult. Bearing in mind the extensive consultation that arrived at the figures of 200 and 800, surely at least some consultation would be appropriate before Ministers intervene to change them by regulation.

I have a couple of other points. Noble Lords will have seen a submission from LIVE, which describes itself as the live music industry body in the UK. LIVE makes the point that music festivals, venues and events are already regulated under the Licensing Act 2003, with, where appropriate, highly developed counter- terrorism measures secured by licence conditions. This is overseen, it says, by safety advisory groups which take advice from local police forces and local counterterrorism security co-ordinators. Is that a picture the Minister recognises and, if so, can he give us some more detail on what the regime in the Bill will add to what is described? I do not doubt it will add something. Will the mechanisms described by LIVE persist after Martyn’s law has entered into force? How will any overlap be dealt with, and how will the existing mechanisms be integrated into the approach of the SIA? It would be good to hear more about this since, as the Regulatory Policy Committee points out, the Bill’s impact assessment provides no evidence that a new regulator with national inspectors would be efficient compared with local authority compliance, and the new regulator is of course given very strong enforcement powers.

Finally, I noticed from Schedule 2 that certain premises are excluded from the Bill. Premises occupied by the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are excluded, but those occupied by the United Kingdom Civil Service are not. I wonder if the Minister can tell us why. Also excluded from the Bill are premises occupied for the purposes of the devolved legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I assume that these premises, or some of them, are considered to fall within Schedule 1; otherwise, no exclusion from the Bill would be necessary. No doubt other precautions are in place, but although we are frequently urged to do our fire safety training, I do not recall hearing anything about the threat of terrorism, which is perhaps rather greater here than it is in my village hall. I should be grateful if the Minister told us what difficulties there are in applying the standard and enhanced duties to Westminster as they are applied to Whitehall, and explained why parliamentary buildings are exempt.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

21: Clause 5, page 4, line 19, leave out subsections (4) to (6)
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove a Henry VIII Clause which will otherwise give the Minister power by regulation to alter (including by making more onerous) the range of public protection procedures in subsection (3) which were decided upon after full consultation and will after passage of the Bill have been endorsed by Parliament.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to the four amendments in this group, with thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who have variously signed them. I thank also the Minister, not only for being generous with his time but for his indication in Committee on Wednesday that he had some sympathy with these amendments. What form that sympathy will take we look forward to finding out.

Standing back, the Bill has two principal elements: it stipulates the capacity of events and premises that are subject to its provisions, and it stipulates the types of procedures and measures which must be followed by those responsible for such premises and events. Those things are not matters of detail—they define the policy that underlies Martyn’s law. We are asked, quite properly, to sign off on those provisions by giving our approval to Clauses 2 and 3 on capacity, and to Clauses 5 and 6 on procedures and measures.

The amendments in this group all relate to Henry VIII clauses: provisions in the Bill that allow the Minister, by the affirmative procedure, to amend provisions of statute. It is not just any statute: this statute, the one we are being asked to pass into law; and not just any provisions—the provisions in Clauses 2, 3, 5 and 6 that lie right at its heart.

Delegated powers are a fact of life and, although some of us may regret it, we are even seeing the normalisation of Henry VIII powers, which allow statutes to be amended in points of detail by regulation. But I suggest that these Henry VIII clauses simply go too far in giving Ministers the power to retake policy decisions that have been taken after much debate by Parliament.

The first pair of amendments in my name, Amendments 21 and 23, would remove the Henry VIII clauses in Clauses 5 and 6. These were singled out for concern by the Constitution Committee in the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, to the Minister of 14 January. As a member of that committee, fortunate to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, I will briefly explain why.

The lists at Clauses 5(3) and 6(3) dictate what may lawfully be required of those responsible for premises falling within scope. Clause 5(3) specifies the “Public protection procedures” to be followed if there is reason to suspect that an act of terrorism is occurring or about to occur. They are of limited scope: little more than procedures for evacuation and invacuation, barring entrances and providing information.

Clause 6(3) lists the public protection measures that must additionally be in place in enhanced duty premises or in qualifying events. These are potentially much more extensive: measures relating to monitoring, movement, the physical safety and security of the premises, and security of information. Unlike the public protection procedures that are the subject of Clause 5, they must be in place at all times and may have as their objective to reduce the vulnerability of the premises as well as risk to individuals.

Clauses 5(4) to (6), and 6(4) to (6), which these amendments would remove, allow both lists—the list of procedures and the list of measures—to be amended, not only by regulation but without meaningful precondition and without even the safeguard of consultation. What could that mean in practice? Take Clause 6, where the range of public protection measures is already almost limitlessly broad: anything relating to monitoring of a premises or event; anything relating to the physical safety or security of the premises; anything relating to the movement of individuals or the security of information. Clause 6(4) would allow yet further measures, not relating to the safety and security of the premises, monitoring, movement, and so on, to be introduced by regulations. What regulations could the Government have in mind? They sound as though they are well outside the normal range of protections that we might think useful and acceptable. If any such categories can be thought of, why can they not be brought forward and debated in the Bill? If they cannot be thought of, how can this power be justified?

The range of procedures in Clause 5 is much more limited, and understandably so, because these procedures are to be activated only once a terrorist attack is immediately anticipated or already under way, and because some of the venues to which they apply are relatively small. But, because the range is so limited, the potential for its expansion is commensurately large. What new and more onerous categories of procedure might be in prospect, what will be their additional cost and why are they not already in the Bill so that we can debate and decide on them now?

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I offer a sort of half-concession discussion and further examination in due course on Amendment 38. With regard to the other powers that have been included in the Bill, I hope that noble Lords, having listened today and potentially having read Hansard, will not pursue the amendments that are listed and will allow me to discuss Amendment 38 further with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.

[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.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.