Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to address the House at the outset of this important debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill represents a critical step forward in our collective efforts to safeguard the public from the ever-evolving threat of terrorism. As we did when we first introduced this Bill, we on these Benches recognise our solemn duty to protect the security of our citizens while preserving the freedoms and liberties that underpin our society. The Bill seeks to strike a balance between these imperatives, and I welcome the Government’s decision to bring it forward.

I wish to speak to the work done by Figen Murray, the mother of Martyn Hett, who, among others, tragically lost his life in the Manchester Arena terrorist attack. Figen’s advocacy for this law, alongside that of Detective Chief Inspector Nick Aldworth and Brendan Cox, is a testament to how, from great tragedy and hurt, some good can come. It is fitting that the Bill is more commonly known as Martyn’s law, and I join once again in offering sincere condolences to the relatives of the deceased.

The horrific events of recent years, both at home and abroad, have underscored the need for robust measures to prevent attacks and mitigate their impact. The Bill places the onus on those responsible for high-risk premises to take practical steps to ensure public safety. The introduction of a Protect duty to ensure that venues assess risks and take proportionate actions to mitigate them is a principle that I wholeheartedly support. We live in an age when threats to our national security are diverse and very dynamic. The ability to respond swiftly and effectively, whether to physical threats or those emanating from cyber domains, is paramount. This legislation reinforces the message that we are serious about countering terrorism and protecting our citizens in public places.

We Conservatives believe in the principles of responsibility and accountability. The Bill reflects those values by requiring venue operators to play their part in safeguarding the public. It encourages businesses and organisations to take ownership of their security arrangements and supports a culture of preparedness that will undoubtedly save lives. Furthermore, by focusing on proportionality and risk-based assessments, the Bill will ensure that smaller businesses and community venues are not unduly burdened—a welcome consideration that reflects the realities that local enterprises face across the country.

However, while we broadly support the Bill, it is our duty as legislators to scrutinise it carefully to ensure that its implementation is both effective and fair. There are issues that require clarification, and I therefore have a few questions for the Minister. First, on cost and resource implications, many businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, are still recovering from the economic challenges of recent years. What financial and logistical support will be made available to ensure compliance, particularly for venues that lack the expertise or resources to implement these measures?

On the practicality of enforcement, how will the Government ensure that the Protect duty is enforced consistently across the country? Will there be a clear framework to avoid a patchwork approach that might leave gaps in our national security network? On co-ordination with local authorities, local councils will inevitably play a role in supporting the implementation of the Bill, so has sufficient thought been given to the capacity of local authorities to provide guidance and oversight, particularly in areas where resources are already stretched?

On cybersecurity considerations, in an increasingly interconnected world, how does the Bill address the intersection of physical and cyber threats to premises? Are venue operators equipped with the knowledge to protect themselves against both forms of attack? While the principle of proportionality is embedded in the Bill, how will it be applied in practice to ensure that smaller community venues are not inadvertently discouraged from hosting public events due to perceived administrative or financial burdens?

The Bill is a vital step forward in our efforts to protect the public from the scourge of terrorism. It embodies Conservative values by emphasising responsibility, proportionality, and a collaborative approach to security. However, as always, the devil is in the detail. It is incumbent on us to ensure that this legislation is implemented in a way that is practical, fair and effective. By addressing the questions I have raised, we can strengthen the Bill and ensure that it delivers on its promise to enhance the safety of our citizens without placing undue burdens on those tasked with its implementation. This side of the House looks forward to engaging constructively with the Government and noble Lords across the House to refine this important legislation. Together, we can ensure that our country remains secure and free, a balance that lies at the heart of our Conservative values.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose: protection of premises from terrorism(1) The purpose of this Act is to protect premises from terrorism.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely to protect premises from terrorism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to insert a new clause before Clause 1 that aims to clearly establish the purpose of this important Bill: namely, the protection of premises from terrorism. Before I begin, I was very sorry to hear that there has been a stabbing and subsequent death at a school in Sheffield this afternoon. I know I speak for the whole House when I say our hearts go out to the victim, their family and the people of Sheffield at this difficult time.

The events of recent years have made it tragically clear that terrorism remains one of the gravest threats facing our nation. The horrifying attacks at the Manchester Arena, London Bridge and Borough Market are seared into our national consciousness. These atrocities were targeted not just at individuals but at our entire way of life. They were aimed at places where people come together to live, work and celebrate life. It is the duty of government to protect our citizens and public spaces from such evil, and that is precisely what this Bill seeks to achieve.

I again pay tribute to Figen Murray. Without her work in campaigning for this Bill, it is unlikely that it would have come before your Lordships’ House. We owe a duty to the victims, survivors and families to get this Bill right. Legislation must always be crafted with clarity of purpose. A Bill without a clearly articulated objective risks confusion during implementation and unintended consequences.

That is why this amendment is so essential. It explicitly states:

“The purpose of this Act is to protect premises from terrorism”,


and requires the Secretary of State to have regard to that purpose when

“taking any actions under the … Act”.

The Bill is of the highest importance, and the Official Opposition will take a constructive approach to scrutinising it to ensure that we can deliver these urgently needed security measures in the best way possible. We have already tabled a number of priority amendments to the Bill.

During a meeting with me and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst last week, the Minister indicated that the measures under the Bill may not be implemented for at least two years. I am sure the Minister will confirm that today. I must express my concern about that timeline. Two years is a considerable length of time between the passing of a Bill and its measures taking effect. As we have seen all too often, terrorism does not wait. Therefore, we will be tabling additional amendments to ensure that the Bill comes into effect as soon as possible, to ensure the Government deliver on their promises promptly and effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

We have said that we think that that will take a two-year period. That is for Ministers to determine later on if the Bill becomes an Act, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will understand why we said roughly two years: it is because of those factors. That goes, again, to the heart of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, about the concerns for organisations generally. That two-year period will give an opportunity to put them in place. At the end of that two-year period—or, indeed, when we do commence the legislation, the measures in Clauses 5 and 6, and the responsibilities that we are putting on organisations in those two clauses, will not stop a terrorist attack, but will potentially put mitigating training measures in place in the event of an attack such as Manchester, Borough Market or London Bridge. So I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on what I have said, withdraw his amendment in due course and not return to it at a later date, because I think we have covered those points to his satisfaction.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the participation of noble Lords in relation to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about it being tautological, but it is not intended that it should be a repeat of something. As I said, the idea is to make it a Bill that has clarity, with an articulated objective. That is the purpose of the amendment and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that it ensured the point of the Bill. Clearly, there is a disparity of opinion in the House, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out from ““building”” to end of line 8 and insert “means “building” as defined in section 121 of the Building Act 1984”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment brings the definition of a “building” in line with other areas of legislation.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to bring the definition of “building” in this Bill into alignment with the definition provided in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984. At first glance, this may appear to be a purely technical adjustment, but it is one that holds practical significance and improves the coherence of our legislative framework. Consistency in legal definitions is essential for ensuring that legislation is clear, workable and enforceable. By adopting a well-established definition already enshrined in the Building Act 1984, this amendment offers several distinct advantages.

First, it ensures legal certainty. The term “building” appears across numerous pieces of legislation that deal with construction, planning, safety and environmental concerns. Diverging definitions introduce the risk of ambiguity and could result in unintended consequences or legal disputes.

Secondly, it supports efficiency and clarity for all stakeholders—whether they are local authorities, developers, legal practitioners or enforcement bodies. A single, consistent definition avoids the need for unnecessary cross-referencing and interpretation, reducing administrative complexity and the scope for conflicting judgments.

Thirdly, this amendment aligns with wider efforts to create a streamlined and harmonised regulatory environment. With the increasing need for integrated approaches to construction and building safety, clarity in our definitions becomes all the more vital. Moreover, this amendment ensures continuity. The definition under Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 has stood the test of time and has been tested in practice. It is familiar to professionals across the construction and legal sectors and therefore provides a trusted and robust foundation for any regulatory measures contained in the Bill.

In conclusion, this amendment may seem modest, but its impact on the clarity, coherence and efficiency of the legal framework is significant. I urge your Lordships to support this sensible and pragmatic change, which would uphold the principles of legal certainty and good governance. If the Minister is unable to agree with my proposed definition, I hope that he will at least take on board our concerns about the definition of premises and look to bring forward an improved definition on behalf of the Government so that we can get the Bill right.

I will now speak to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. This amendment proposes to include in the definition of building any permanent or temporary structure. This amendment draws inspiration from Section 30 of the Building Safety Act 2022. It seeks to clarify that the public protection requirements should apply not only to permit edifices but also to temporary structures, such as those erected for events such as Christmas markets or other seasonal activities.

I commend the intention behind this amendment. The safety and protection of the public must be at the heart of any legislation concerning the built environment. Temporary structures often serve as focal points for large gatherings, where the potential risks associated with terrorism can be just as significant, if not more acute than in permanent buildings. When saying this, I have in mind the horrific terrorist act on 20 December 2024, in which a large 4x4 was driven into a crowd at a Christmas market in Magdeburg in Germany, killing six people and injuring at least 299 others. Equally, we saw over the Christmas period a vehicle attack in New Orleans. I can fully understand why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has tabled his amendment, which is similar to mine, and aims to probe whether the scope of this Bill will apply to temporary structures.

I will also speak to Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to Clause 5. This amendment seeks to leave out the words “immediate vicinity” and replace them with “or at the event”. This is a probing amendment, intended to clarify the scope and meaning of the term “immediate vicinity”. I commend the noble Baroness for bringing forward this important question, as the phrase “immediate vicinity” is inherently vague and open to interpretation.

When drafting legislation, particularly provisions that relate to events, gatherings or the use of premises, clarity is paramount. The lack of a clear definition raises several practical concerns. First, from an enforcement perspective, ambiguity around the term “immediate vicinity” may cause confusion for regulatory authorities and event organisers. How far does “immediate” extend—is it 10 metres, 100 metres or further? Does it take into account natural barriers, such as walls, fences or roads? Without clear guidance, there is a risk of inconsistent application and potential disputes.

Secondly, for those responsible for ensuring public safety or compliance with regulations, the lack of a defined perimeter could lead to uncertainty. Event organisers need to understand precisely which areas fall under their responsibilities for security, crowd control and other measures in this Bill. A clearer definition would also aid in drafting licensing conditions and emergency response plans.

Thirdly, we must also consider the practical realities of modern events, which are often sprawling and multifaceted. Many public events, such as festivals, markets and sporting events, naturally extend beyond a single well-defined boundary. In such cases, the concept of “immediate vicinity” may prove too narrow to cover all relevant areas where public safety measures are required. By replacing “immediate vicinity” with “or at the event”, this amendment seeks to broaden and clarify the scope, making it more effective for the diverse nature of events and gatherings.

In the context of this discussion, we need to be very clear about which premises will be affected by the Bill. I have used my amendment to probe this, alongside the other noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. There may be existing regulatory frameworks that adequately address the safety requirements for temporary structures, such as those enforced by local authorities or event-specific safety regulations. Care must be taken to avoid unnecessary duplication which could impose additional and potentially disproportionate administrative burdens on organisers of short-term events.

In conclusion, I wish to use my amendment to open a discussion on the nature of a premises. I commend the spirit of the amendments from other noble Lords, which also seek to address this issue. I look forward to hearing from them and would encourage ongoing dialogue with stakeholders to explore how best to address the safety concerns around temporary structures, without placing undue burdens on event organisers or enforcement bodies. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too shall be very brief. We believe that all three amendments would have the effect of watering down this draft Bill and reducing the number of premises that would be covered by it. These amendments are working on the assumption that smaller events and venues are less at risk. Can the Minister say whether the Home Office has done any analysis on whether it is indeed the case that smaller venues are less at risk from terror attacks? Is that not, in itself, an assessment of the unknown? It seems to be the case that terrorism and extremist-related attacks are increasingly unpredictable and random in nature.

Noble Lords have talked about the compliance burden. Again, I would like to know a little more about how the Minister would see that in reality. Am I right in assuming that, in the 24-month rollout period before the Bill is implemented, the Government will continue to carry out extensive consultation with the sector and adopt a pragmatic, realistic and common-sense approach, following their consultation with the industry?

As I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I feel that this is about striking a balance between not discouraging creativity and not causing a considerable financial burden to small venues and small events, while maintaining a sense of security in the public. Public confidence and a sense of security play a huge role in people’s minds when they consider whether they will go to an event or venue. People feeling unsafe is not good for business.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

My Lords, the amendment leading the group was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, so he should have replied and he must formally withdraw it.

--- 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.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I was very glad to add my name to the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has tabled and has set out very clearly in his contribution. I was glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, has added her name to them too.

This issue was touched on at Second Reading. The noble Lord was vigilant in seeking assurances from his noble friend the Minister, and I am grateful for his tenacity in ensuring that we have this tested properly in the way that these amendments seek. He is right to be tenacious on behalf of a sector which is still in many ways bouncing back from the pandemic and which brings a great deal of pleasure to people across the country and is in many areas a linchpin of the local visitor economy, which is so important for restaurants, hotels and so much more.

This year, the sector is marking an important anniversary, Railway 200, which is the 200th anniversary of the first passenger rail journey between Stockton and Darlington. I have said before in your Lordships’ House that the railways were a gift from the north-east of England which have transformed the whole world. This important bicentenary is an opportunity to inspire new generations to learn about our railway heritage and to see how they can contribute to the future of the sector and the innovation that it needs.

As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has said, the heritage railway sector, like so many heritage and cultural organisations, is reliant on what he described as an army of volunteers. That is an important reminder, as we look at this Bill and the duties that it imposes, for us to consider how those duties, including the training of staff, will be applied in organisations which are reliant on a higher number of volunteers. We do not want the new duties, important though they are, inadvertently to deter people from volunteering in the heritage sector. There are already too many barriers, including, as I know from discussions with the Heritage Railway Association and others, the cost of petrol for volunteers who drive many miles to give generously of their time to ensure that these organisations are run—and run well.

It is important that we look at the implications for volunteers—not just in the Heritage Railways Association but across the whole heritage and cultural sphere—of the powers in Clauses 5 and 6 which are granted to the Secretary of State to specify further procedures or measures required for a premises or event to be compliant with this new law. There is also the provision in Clause 32 for the Secretary of State to amend the qualifying attendance number at a premises or event. These are things that businesses and organisations will have to grapple with and could be a particular burden to those that are heavily reliant on the army of volunteers that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has rightly mentioned.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 12 relates to Schedule 1 to the Bill, specifically paragraph 11, which deals with the railway. We should be equally mindful of paragraph 5 in Schedule 1, which relates to libraries, museums and galleries et cetera. In that paragraph, it says a museum or gallery includes

“a site where a collection of objects or works … considered to be of scientific, historic, artistic or cultural interest is exhibited outdoors or partly outdoors”.

That certainly applies to much of the heritage railway sector.

Earlier, I noticed in his place the Minister’s new friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos—it was a pleasure to see him introduced to your Lordships’ House today. He is the chairman of English Heritage; I had the pleasure of working with him when I was a Minister at DCMS, and I know he will be a valuable addition to discussions on heritage in your Lordships’ House. I am sure that that definition of “outdoor or partly outdoors” cultural and heritage sites will be of interest to him and many other heritage organisations.

Others have raised the question of whether a ruined building, which of course relates to an awful lot of heritage in the care of English Heritage and others, would count. I do not know whether the Minister would, tonight or subsequently, be able to give a bit more clarification about what the implications would be for something that was a building and is now a ruin but attracts a great deal of visitors. Of course, that sheds light on the fact that heritage buildings, by their very nature, have unique physical characteristics and in many cases have special protections under existing legislation, so it is worth considering the definitions that we are seeing in this Bill and the schedules to it to see what implications that would have for buildings which enjoy protections under, for instance, the planning Act 1990 and the listing regime for scheduled monuments. These are important questions to bear in mind.

The amendments in this group relate to mobile heritage, and while I was very glad to add my voice to the cross-party interest in that and hope the Minister can say a bit more to set our minds at rest in relation to railway heritage, I would be grateful if he could also, tonight or subsequently, provide some reassurances about our static and built heritage. Many of the issues which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has drawn attention to through these amendments apply to much more. I know the Minister has a great interest in history as well, and I hope that he can provide some of those reassurances. I was very glad to support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to Clause 2. These amendments seek to clarify that, in determining the number of individuals reasonably expected to be in the premises of a railway station, the capacity of railway vehicles used for the conveyance of passengers should not be included in that calculation. These are sensible and necessary amendments that will help ensure the effective and proportionate application of this legislation. Railway stations are fundamentally distinct from other types of qualifying premises covered by the Bill and, like entertainment venues, shopping centres or other high-traffic locations, railway stations are dynamic environments where the number of people present fluctuates significantly throughout the day based on train schedules, peak travel times and unfore- seen delays.

As I have mentioned in some of my remarks already today, there is a need for flexibility in this Bill if we are to get the right balance with appropriate protection of premises without prohibitive and overburdensome measures that actually make it difficult for businesses, charities, sports clubs and events to operate effectively. Flexibility is something we will be exploring in Committee, and I hope the Minister will engage with us constructively to deliver a Bill that gets this balance right.

I support Amendment 10. Including the capacity of railway vehicles in the threshold calculation would be both impractical and potentially misleading. Railway vehicles operate as transient spaces that are distinct from the physical station premises. The fact that a station services trains with a large capacity does not necessarily correlate with a high concentration of individuals on the station premises at any given time. This distinction is critical for ensuring that security measures are proportionate and targeted to actual on-the-ground risks.

Moreover, including railway vehicle capacity would create undue complexity for station operators. They would be required to factor in varying train schedules and seating configurations, which could lead to fluctuating security obligations that are difficult to predict and manage. Such an approach risks creating administrative burdens without delivering meaningful improvements in public safety. Of course, our new publicly owned passenger railway operators will be able to bear the burdens of additional protective requirements but, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has rightly pointed out, the Bill may hit smaller organisations that will be much less able to implement these measures.

It is also worth noting that security requirements for railway vehicles are already subject to separate regulatory frameworks. The focus of this Bill should remain on the physical station premises, where crowd management, access control and other security measures can be more effectively implemented. By clarifying that railway vehicle capacity is excluded from the threshold calculation, this amendment would ensure that resources were directed where they were most needed—on the station premises where passengers congregate and interact.

Finally, the amendment would provide much-needed clarity to station operators and regulators alike. It would remove the ambiguity around how thresholds are calculated and help ensure a consistent and practical approach to security across the rail network.

I will also speak to Amendments 16, 17 and 18. These clarify important aspects of the Bill concerning railway premises, particularly heritage railways, the rail network in Northern Ireland, and open-air or partially roofed railway stations.

Amendment 16 addresses the position of joint stations shared by heritage railways and the national rail network. Heritage railways are an invaluable part of our nation’s industrial and cultural heritage. They not only provide a vital link to our past but serve as tourism hubs that contribute significantly to local economies. These heritage stations often operate under light railway orders or orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and are distinct in their function and operations from the national rail network.

The amendment would ensure that these joint stations were not inadvertently caught up in burdensome security requirements that may be inappropriate for their specific operational contexts. Many heritage railway stations are small, community-focused operations run by volunteers who simply do not have the resources or capacity to implement the same security measures as major national rail hubs. The amendment provides much-needed clarity, helping heritage rail operators focus on maintaining their services without undue regulatory burdens.

Amendment 17 seeks to avoid the inclusion of Translink, Northern Ireland Railways, within the scope of the Bill. As noble Lords will appreciate, the railway system in Northern Ireland operates under a different legislative framework; namely, the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. Including it within the provisions of this Bill risks creating confusion and inconsistency between jurisdictions. By making it clear that Translink is excluded, the amendment helps to respect the distinct legislative and operational framework in Northern Ireland while allowing for a more coherent and targeted application of the Bill.

Finally, Amendment 18 addresses the scope of the Bill concerning railway stations and premises. It rightly clarifies that the Bill applies to buildings and not to open platforms or those covered by canopies with open sides. This is a crucial distinction. Open platforms and partially roofed stations present different security challenges compared to enclosed buildings. They are inherently more accessible and often lack the physical infrastructure required to implement comprehensive access control and security measures. Attempting to impose building-specific requirements on such premises would not only be impractical but be unlikely to yield meaningful security benefits.

In conclusion, these amendments demonstrate a thoughtful and nuanced approach to the complex and varied nature of railway premises in the United Kingdom. They strike an important balance between enhancing security and recognising the operational realities of heritage railways, the Northern Ireland rail network and open-air railway stations. I urge the Government to accept the amendments and commend the noble Lords who have tabled them for their diligence and foresight. The amendments offer a pragmatic and proportionate solution that enhances the clarity and effectiveness of the Bill without compromising security. I urge the Government to accept them and recognise their importance in supporting the safe and efficient operation of our railway stations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, given the hour, I shall be extremely brief. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made some very convincing points, but I am afraid we still basically disagree with most of these amendments, because we disagree with the premise that rural sports grounds are less likely to be attacked. I do not think that there is evidence for that—at least, I remain unconvinced that there is evidence.

My second point echoes that of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about requesting sector-specific guidance. I think that that would be a very useful thing for the Minister to pursue. Having sector-specific guidance for sports grounds would perhaps help with some of the concerns that noble Lords on the Conservative Benches have raised this evening.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I too will be as brief as I possibly can. I support the amendments to Schedule 2 tabled by my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord De Mauley. The amendments seek to clarify and refine the scope of the Bill by excluding certain venues used for open-air sporting and cultural activities in rural areas, as well as sports grounds that are not designated under current regulations. Amendments such as these are vital for ensuring that the Bill remains proportionate and practical, while safeguarding essential aspects of our national life, including grass-roots sports, rural cultural activities and events that are deeply woven into the fabric of local communities.

I will briefly address the amendment from my noble friend Lord De Mauley, who I understand will return to it later. Rural venues face a unique set of challenges. They are typically more remote, less densely populated and often lack the infrastructure and resources available to larger urban or suburban venues. Their security needs and operational realities differ significantly from those of stadiums, arenas and other major event locations. So it is essential that we do not impose disproportionate burdens on these rural venues, which are often run by volunteers or small organisations with limited budgets. They bring significant social and economic value to rural communities, fostering local identity and social cohesion. Requiring them to adopt extensive and costly security measures risks driving many of them out of operation, depriving rural areas of vital cultural and recreational opportunities.

Similarly, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan to exclude sports grounds that are not designated under current regulations is both reasonable and pragmatic. Designated sports grounds, by definition, already meet specific criteria regarding their capacity and usage, and they are often subject to existing safety and security frameworks. Non-designated sports grounds, on the other hand, are typically much smaller venues, hosting grass-roots and community-level events, so it would be disproportionate to require these smaller, non-designated grounds to implement the same level of security measures as large, professional sports facilities. Such a requirement would likely discourage participation in grass-roots sports and place unnecess- ary financial and administrative burdens on local clubs and organisations, many of which are already stretched thin.

These amendments are not about weakening security provisions, but rather about applying them sensibly and proportionately. By excluding rural cultural and sporting venues and non-designated sports grounds, we can ensure that the Bill targets resources and security measures where they are genuinely needed: at venues that present a higher risk of terrorism and where the scale and complexity of operations justify the investment.

Finally, I commend my noble friends for tabling these amendments and for highlighting the importance of maintaining a balance between security and practicality. I urge the Government to seriously consider these proposals and recognise the value of preserving the unique contributions that rural venues and grass-roots sports make to our society.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

20A: Clause 5, page 4, line 16, after first “or” insert “giving advice about”
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to understand the Government’s expectations of organisations under the new duty to implement procedures “for preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 21A, 22, 23A and 24A. Amendment 20A seeks to probe the Government’s expectations of organisations that will have the duty to put public protection procedures in place. The public protection procedures listed in Clause 5(3) include measures

“for preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event”.

We have no concerns about the prevention of entry to a premises or event, and we can conceive of circumstances where leaving a premises or event would not be the right thing for an individual to do in certain circumstances.

That said, there is a real question for organisations running premises and events. If they are required by the Act to put measures in place to prevent people leaving the premises, what will that look like in reality? Are we empowering people in, for example, a church hall to lock its doors with people inside in the case of a terror incident, or do we expect volunteers to stand in the way of people trying to leave to prevent them leaving? Can we really expect small community organisations to make these decisions for people? Would they not be at risk of prosecution if they got these decisions wrong? This is a specific query but one where clarity from Ministers is necessary.

As background to this amendment, I remind the House that there have been emergencies in the past where the official advice has been wrong, at great cost. After the tragic Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, we learned that the official advice had been wrong and that many of those who survived did so only by ignoring the official advice to stay in their rooms and close their front doors until the fire was over. So we look to the Minister to set out his expectations for how this duty will work in practice. Amendment 21A would add a second test to the Secretary of State’s powers to amend Clause 5. As drafted, the Bill permits the Secretary of State to amend Clause 5(3) if he is satisfied that further procedures will reduce the risk of terrorism.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has already spoken about regulatory mission creep, and my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth has pointed out the risk that procedures may be overburdensome for small organisations such as community centres and church halls. Our amendment seeks to add a proportionality test that the Secretary of State will have to meet before he can amend subsection (3). I am quite sure that the Government can add procedure after procedure to reduce risks under this section of the Bill as introduced, but we need them to consider whether these further procedures are reasonably proportionate before they introduce them. I hope that the Government will take this on board and look at how the Bill can be improved here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the hour is late, and I shall be as brief as I possibly can. This has been a useful debate, with most of these amendments seeking clarity from the Minister on the Government’s expectations for the practical implications of the Bill, as well as proposing a genuinely workable new mechanism to exempt premises or events where the Bill is not reasonably applicable, as under the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord De Mauley.

I thank my noble friends, particularly my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for speaking in support of the amendments and about assessment of risk and proportionality. My noble friend Lord De Mauley made a very good case in support of his amendment, which sought clarity as to the extent of searches. He is absolutely right that these small events are run on shoestrings in some cases, and they will be lost to rural communities if we are not careful about how we present the Bill. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support for Amendment 23A.

I will just say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that we are not worked up on the Benches on this side of the House. We merely seek clarity, which of course he will of course understand and respect. It is our place to probe, which is exactly what we have been doing this evening.

In finishing, I just thank the Minister for his response on this group. He has had a very constructive attitude to the amendments that we have proposed to the Committee and I thank him for his continued engagement. We need to get this Bill right but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 20A withdrawn.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has put forward an important group of amendments. When I think about this, I am guided by two principles. The first is that anything the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, says about terrorism is probably worth listening to extremely carefully.

Secondly, I strive to be consistent in your Lordships’ House. I appreciate that that is not something that all noble Lords, particularly some who were recently in government, have necessarily embraced, but I cannot forget the number of occasions in the last 14 years when I have trooped through the Lobbies against Henry VIII clauses—for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, highlighted. I look forward to my noble friend’s response on precisely that point of why Henry VIII clauses might be needed in this case. If he is not so minded, perhaps he might give us an indication of the alternative.

The other point—again, I hope it is consistent with what I have already said—is that I am aware that the Bill has been through a large amount of consultation in reaching this House. That consultation has led to a series of compromises. I said earlier that my preference would have been for the limits to be set at lower levels and for the provisions to kick in at venues of 100. It is the Government’s judgment, from listening to that consultation, that 200 is a better figure to go for. I would be uneasy if we were saying that these major provisions, having been through such extensive consultations, could be changed without a consultation process and certainly without a proper process of parliamentary endorsement.

[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 Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I will say a word about Amendment 24B. It is quite unusual for a tribunal or a court to be required by statute to deliver its judgment within a “reasonable time”. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, realises that a proposition of that kind—which is so general—requires definition.

That brings me to the second point, which is the power given to the Secretary of State to define the length of a “reasonable time”. The problem the Secretary of State faces is that if he gives a definition, it will have to last, presumably, until some further exercise of the power is resorted to. Looking ahead, it is very difficult to know what exactly the reasonable time would be. At the very least, I would expect that if the Minister were attracted by that amendment, it would be qualified by “after consultation with the tribunal”. To do this without consultation with a tribunal would be really dangerous because it might set out a time which, realistically, given its resources, the tribunal cannot meet.

I see what the noble Lord is trying to achieve, but it has difficulties. To try to define “reasonable time”, even with the assistance of a tribunal, is a task that would not be easily achieved.

[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 Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 25. We all know that if training is provided badly, it is actually better if there was no training given in the first instance, because it will do far more damage. When we are considering mandating training for public safety, it is imperative that only suitably qualified persons from legitimate organisations are permitted to offer that training. Only two or three weeks ago, those of us who are interested were reading about problems with fire legislation, where incorrect training was being provided and had caused major problems for a number of home owners, so this is essential. It is also worth bearing in mind that this training will require recognised people who will be able to train on threats, counterterrorism awareness, emergency trauma care and co-ordinating with the security services. All this will require people who know what they are doing. That is my first point.

While I am on my feet, I will also talk about Amendment 27 and support it. To achieve the end goal of enhancing public safety through the mitigation of risk, it is self-evident that public awareness is going to be key. I therefore encourage noble Lords to support the amendment. To achieve public awareness, government must be mandated to provide information and material to the SIA and relevant bodies such as local authorities—something we have not really talked about. Proposed new subsection (2) in that amendment is imperative, as the financial burden that could fall on local authorities is going to be significant—as it is on the SIA, but of course that is getting funding.

In its submission of evidence on this, back in July 2023, the council of local authorities said that this could run into millions of pounds. It would have to include familiarisation costs. Councils would have to fund risk assessments and do comprehensive training for staff and councillors. There would need to be tailored advice. All this is costly and time consuming, and it is important to reiterate that local authorities are already under pressure because of spiralling costs. Therefore, it is important that the Government clarify what funding will be available to local authorities. Will they be covered by the new burdens doctrine, which states that any additional costs incurred by local authorities by new legislation will be covered by government?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. These amendments address vital areas where the Bill can be further strengthened to enhance public safety and ensure that all relevant stakeholders are equipped to fulfil their duties under the legislation.

The horrific events have that blighted public spaces over recent decades remind us of the importance of constant vigilance and robust security measures. As policymakers, it is our duty to ensure that we not only legislate to protect the public but provide practical support to those responsible for implementing these protections. These amendments, focused on training, public protection procedures and public awareness, are an interesting approach to ensuring that this legislation is properly implemented.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, has hit on a good point, particularly when you consider that at least four bodies would have a view about evacuation—the Health and Safety Executive, licensing authorities, the SIA and the fire regulators. Each has its own inspection regime, which means that there could be four inspections in one year about the same event. They would all want to make sure that this does not cause more cost but does cause more effectiveness. Whether it is in the Bill or something to reassure the people operating these premises, I think it worth considering at this stage. Nobody is saying that it should not happen, but it is about how it works together. This would be one more body in a similar area if we considered evacuation only, but I suspect that there are other overlapping areas.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 32 in my name would require the Security Industry Authority to notify all local authorities when guidance under the Act has been published. This amendment is a sensible and practical addition that enhances the effectiveness of the guidance regime established by the Bill. Local authorities, as the key regulators of many of the premises affected by this legislation, must be fully informed and equipped to act on the guidance issued by the SIA. Without clear and timely notification, there is a real risk that local authorities may be unaware of updates or new requirements, leading to inconsistencies in enforcement and, ultimately, undermining the policy aims of the Bill.

The Security Industry Authority will no doubt invest considerable resources in developing detailed guidance, taking into account the needs of various sectors and types of premises. However, guidance can be effective only if those responsible for its implementation are fully aware of it. Local authorities play a pivotal role in licensing, regulation and compliance, particularly in environments where security is a key concern. Whether dealing with entertainment venues, public spaces or other licensed premises, their ability to respond quickly and efficiently to new guidance is essential for maintaining public safety.

Ensuring that local authorities are promptly notified will support the smooth implementation of the Act and strengthen co-operation between central guidance bodies and local enforcement agencies. It will reduce the risk of delays in adopting best practices and foster a stronger sense of collaboration between stakeholders at the national and local levels. Ultimately, this measure will help create a more coherent and streamlined regulatory environment, benefiting businesses and the public alike.

Furthermore, this amendment underscores the importance of clarity and communication in regulatory frameworks. Given the increasing complexity of the legislative landscape for public safety and licensing, clear channels of communication between central bodies and local authorities are more critical than ever. We must not assume that guidance, once published, will automatically reach all relevant parties without a formal notification requirement. By adopting this amendment, we would take a simple yet effective step to close that potential gap.

I respectfully suggest that the adoption of Amendment 32 would represent a constructive and pragmatic step toward strengthening communication between national and local regulatory bodies. It is a practical measure that will enhance the effectiveness of this legislation and support its successful implement- ation. I urge the Government to give it serious and favourable consideration.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

33: Clause 12, page 8, line 32, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must establish an advisory board for the Security Industry Authority, comprising experts from industry, local authorities, and civil society, to guide the implementation and enforcement of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to create an advisory board for the SIA with the intention of ensuring a more collaborative approach to regulation, promoting balanced and informed decision-making.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 33, tabled by me and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, seeks to create an advisory board for the Security Industry Authority comprising experts from industry, local authorities and civil society. The purpose of this board would be to guide the implementation and enforcement of the provisions in the Bill and ensure a more collaborative, transparent and effective approach to regulation.

The primary duty of this House is to scrutinise legislation to ensure that it is both effective and proportionate. In the case of this Bill, we are tasked with strengthening the security framework for public spaces and premises, without imposing unnecessary burdens on businesses or compromising civil liberties. An advisory board for the SIA would play a critical role in achieving that balance.

First, I wish to emphasise the importance of industry expertise. Those who operate within the security sector possess invaluable insights into the practical challenges of implementing counterterrorism measures. They understand better than anyone how regulatory changes will impact day-to-day operations and how innovations in technology can be leveraged to enhance security. Without their input, there is a risk that regulatory requirements may become detached from the realities of the sector, leading to inefficiencies and potential compliance issues.

Secondly, local authorities have a unique understanding of the communities they serve. They are on the front line when it comes to managing the relationship between security requirements and the public’s right to access and enjoy public spaces. Their inclusion on the advisory board would ensure that local concerns are heard and addressed, fostering a sense of public trust and co-operation.

Thirdly, civil society must have a voice in shaping the implementation of this Bill. The balance between security and civil liberties is delicate, and we must tread carefully to ensure that the measures we introduce do not erode the freedoms we seek to protect. Civil society organisations can provide a vital perspective on these matters, helping to ensure that security measures are proportionate and respectful of individual rights.

Moreover, the establishment of an advisory board would promote a culture of dialogue and shared responsibility. It would encourage collaborative problem-solving and help build trust between the regulator and those it oversees. In turn, this would foster better compliance and more innovative solutions to security challenges.

Some may argue that the SIA already consults stakeholders. While this is true, the creation of a formal advisory board would institutionalise that consultation and provide a clear structure for ongoing engagement. It would ensure that diverse perspectives are consistently and meaningfully included in the decision-making process.

In conclusion, this amendment is not adding unnecessary bureaucracy. It is about strengthening the regulatory framework by ensuring that it is guided by those who understand the challenges and opportunities on the ground. It is about promoting balance and informed decision-making that enhances public safety while respecting individual freedoms. I urge the Government to consider this amendment carefully and recognise the value that an advisory board could bring to the implementation and enforcement of this important piece of legislation.

Amendment 34 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. It seeks to insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the role of the Security Industry Authority as a regulator, including a comparative cost-benefit analysis of whether its regulatory functions might be more effectively carried out by local authority teams. This is a timely and sensible proposal. When we are dealing with matters of national security and public protection, it is essential that we continually assess whether our regulatory frameworks are fit for purpose, cost effective and well co-ordinated with other enforcement regimes. This amendment would provide the necessary mechanism to ensure that we are delivering the best outcomes for the public and the security sector alike.

The SIA has played a crucial role in regulating the private security industry since its establishment. However, with the evolving threat landscape and an increasing complexity of security requirements, it is essential to ask whether a centralised regulatory model remains the most effective approach.

A review, as proposed by this amendment, would allow us to assess whether local authority teams might be better positioned to handle certain regulatory functions. Local authorities have a deeper understanding of the specific challenges and risks within their communities. They are also well placed to co-ordinate with other locally based enforcement regimes such as environmental health and licensing teams. By comparing the effectiveness of the SIA’s functions with the potential of a localised regulatory approach, we can ensure that our regulatory framework remains agile, responsive and efficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I agree. I am surprised that the Opposition suggested more bureaucracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was right about the advisory board: if it is a good idea, and it could be, it is for the SIA to decide. Otherwise, if it were a separate body, there would be even more cost.

I have agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on many things about Europe, but I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was entirely right: you cannot say that it is bureaucracy in that context but not in this, because it is. It would confuse rather than clarify. Surely the purpose of the SIA board is to do the very thing that he described under the supervision of the Home Office. If it gets it wrong, I presume there would be a change in the legislation. He made a stronger argument for more clarity in the law and that it was the wrong solution for a problem that may materialise.

Finally, this reminded me that, post 9/11, the Americans concluded they had too many intelligence agencies. I think they had 19 at the time, and the result was that they were not communicating. Their solution was to put things called fusion centres outside the major cities—big warehouse buildings in which all these bodies would work together. Instead of reducing the number of intelligence agencies or finding a better solution, they built a place where they could meet better. I did not see the sense in that, so I cannot agree with either of these amendments.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate. As I say, my Amendment 33 seeks merely to create an advisory board for the SIA, so that we can have some form of independence—

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I think it is my turn now. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this group. As I said, this amendment seeks to create an advisory board for the SIA, mainly from industry experts, local authorities and civil society. It is a collaborative approach that we look for. As mentioned by my noble friend Lord Frost, it is about having a degree of independence as well. There is certainly food for thought in what the Minister said in his response. For the time being, I will withdraw my amendment while we go away and have a think about it.

Amendment 33 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

35: Clause 17, page 13, line 10, leave out “28” and insert “42”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the grace period, where a person who has received a penalty notice is given a short amount of time to pay, to avoid excessive penalisation.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 35 seeks to extend the grace period for the payment of a penalty notice from 28 days to 42 days. The intention behind this change is to ensure that individuals and businesses who receive a penalty notice are not unduly penalised by an unreasonably short payment window, allowing them more time to address the fine in a manner that is fair and manageable.

In many circumstances, particularly for small businesses and those already facing financial pressure, a 28-day period may not provide sufficient time to arrange payment, especially if the penalty notice is unexpected or substantial. Extending the grace period to 42 days would offer a more reasonable timeframe for individuals and businesses to manage their obligations without rushing into payment or incurring additional costs. A longer grace period would also account for the reality that certain individuals or businesses may face logistical challenges in arranging payment within a short window. This might include delays in receiving the penalty notice, awaiting advice or support on how to address the fine, or having to co-ordinate the payment within the wider operational needs of their business. Extending the period to 42 days would provide the flexibility needed to handle these situations responsibly.

The principle behind penalty notices is not to punish excessively but to deter non-compliance while giving those who have committed an infringement a chance to rectify their actions in a reasonable manner. By extending the payment period, we can help avoid situations where individuals or businesses are unable to pay within the initial 28-day period and, as a result, face additional penalties or other consequences that exacerbate their situation unnecessarily. This amendment would therefore ensure that the penalty system remains proportionate and that the focus remains on encouraging compliance rather than imposing punitive measures that may create further hardship.

Extending the grace period would also encourage greater compliance with the penalty system as a whole. When individuals and businesses are given adequate time to pay, they are more likely to do so in full, reducing the administrative burden on chasing unpaid fines. Furthermore, it would prevent the risk of penalties escalating due to an inability to pay on time, which could of course undermine the effectiveness of the penalty system.

It is also worth noting that longer grace periods are common practice in other areas of regulation and penalty enforcement. For example, when it comes to tax payments, local government fines and other civil penalties, 42 days is frequently viewed as an appropriate balance between giving adequate time to pay and maintaining the deterrent effect of the fine. The amendment would align the penalty notice grace period with that established precedent, ensuring consistency across regulatory frameworks.

Extending the grace period for the payment of a penalty notice from 28 to 42 days would strike a fair and reasonable balance between ensuring compliance with public protection requirements and avoiding undue financial hardship. The amendment would provide individuals and businesses with the time they need to manage their responsibilities without excessive penal- isation, fostering a system that is both effective and compassionate. I urge the Government to accept the amendment and support a more balanced and equitable approach to penalty notices.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 35A, 35B, 36ZA and 37ZA. When the Bill was considered in draft by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which reported in July 2023 under the then chairmanship of Dame Diana Johnson, she said of the Bill—which at that point had a threshold of 100 for the basic tier—with the endorsement of the committee, having heard evidence about the impact of these measures on volunteering:

“However, we are concerned that the capacity figure of 100 for standard tier premises, which will capture some small and micro-sized businesses, and community-run and voluntary groups, could be disproportionate and burdensome. This category is particularly troubling because it would include many smaller venues that may not have sufficient resources to cover costs of what is proposed. It would also cover village halls, places of worship and similar amenities that provide vital community support, often on low budgets. If such places are forced to close down, this represents a win for terrorism, rather than an effective means of combatting it”.


That is at paragraph 39 of the report, and I could not have put it better myself.

The committee made that cogent point and it was responded to; in my Second Reading speech, I praised the decision taken by the Home Office under the present Government to increase the threshold for the standard tier from 100 to 200. But I remain concerned that the effect of the measures in the Bill will be to greatly harm village halls and community centres up and down our country. In particular, the effect of the measures in the Bill will reduce the appetite for members of the public to step forward and volunteer in senior roles in village halls and community centres. In an era when public involvement in these sorts of institutions is waning, it is important that the Government do not make it harder and harder to be a volunteer or a trustee of these institutions. One of the unintended effects of the Bill might be that village halls are no longer the beacons of stability and assistance within the communities that they encourage. The amendments that I propose are directed to removing the worst of the disincentives for people to volunteer and to become trustees.

The way it works in my amendments—if the Committee were to look at the supplementary Marshalled List—is that Amendment 35A seeks to remove the risk that a volunteer or an unpaid trustee would be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed under Clause 17, provided that they were acting at all times in good faith and within the scope of their duties. I do not ask for a general exemption, whereby they can act in bad faith and still expect to be exempted.

Amendment 35B would exclude a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee from the daily penalties, which are described in the Bill as being up to £500 a day. I suggest that that is a powerful disincentive to volunteers due to the risk to their personal liability.

Amendment 36ZA would exempt from criminal liability those volunteers, unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees, provided again that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence. I hope the Committee will agree that it is a significant disincentive to volunteering to think that you face, on a cursory reading of the Bill, the risk of up to two years in prison for failing to adhere to the strictures in the Bill.

I appreciate that, as the Minister will tell me, this will be used only in very rare cases and is a maxima. I am sure all of that is right. However, the fact that it is in statute will be a disincentive. People will say that they are happy to volunteer but will not be the responsible person because they do not want to take the risk of having to go to prison. This amendment addresses that concern.

Finally, Amendment 37ZA simply clarifies what I think is probably already clear in the Bill: that there is no right of action generated by the Bill against a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee in the event that a dreadful incident occurs at their venue and that they might be personally liable. Again, that would be a significant disincentive to volunteering.

I hope it is clear why I seek these amendments to the Bill. I very much hope the Government will look carefully at creating the kind of exemptions sought by these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have been able to answer the points that noble Lords have brought forward. They are important points to raise, but, in summary, it is not the Government’s intention to discourage volunteers. We cherish volunteers, but somebody has to be accountable and that somebody has to be held to account downstream. That is the purpose of the Bill. The figure that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, gave is one which could occur, but equally it is one that could be different and it is down to the SIA to make that determination.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I wanted to speak in support of the amendments from my noble friend Lord Murray, but, as the Minister has summed up, it is putting the cart before the horse, in a way.

However, my noble friend Lord Murray’s amendments, which merely seek to protect voluntary, unpaid officeholders and trustees from undue financial, civil and criminal liabilities under the Bill, are noble ones. The amendments address a critical issue: the need to safeguard those who selflessly give their time and expertise to charitable, community and civic organisations. This is vital to the social fabric of our nation.

The amendments are not about weakening the Bill: it is an important security provision. Rather, they are about ensuring fairness and proportionality and we must not create an effect that discourages voluntary services or deters talented individuals from stepping forward to serve on charitable and community boards. It is often said that volunteers are the backbone of our society and they deserve our gratitude, not the threat of financial penalties or personal liability.

I hear what the Minister says about my Amendment 35, in regard to the not less than 28 days. I will go away and consider what he said but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

There have always been instances in which some Acts have given rise to immediate civil liability. In others, you had to plead that the breaches of regulations and so on were evidence of negligence. That was so under the old Factories Act and, I think, under the health and safety Act—I cannot remember, but it was a common pleading which I used to do 30 years ago.

It is for the Government to make it absolutely plain whether they want this to be a strict liability—in the sense that the moment that a breach occurs, however blameless, but nonetheless in breach, the party is, damages should follow. My understanding is that the Bill as drafted had that in mind, although it may be difficult. Think of a terrorist act: there may have been a relatively minor breach of regulations. Is that to give rise to millions of pounds-worth of damages, where it has no or very little causal connection, but just enough?

I understand where those moving the amendment are coming from, but this is a matter of policy for those behind it as to the parties likely to be affected and whether the change is necessary. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what the philosophy is behind the drafting.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, in an earlier day of Committee, the Committee heard an exchange between my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower and the Minister. It was pointed out that political gatherings of more than 200 people quite frequently happen in Members of Parliament’s constituencies. Quite often there is a local issue, or indeed a national issue, that encourages public engagement. One of the features of this Bill is that it is striking that there has been no discussion about the impact of the measures in the Bill on the right to protest. That is an ancient right under common law but it is now found also, in part, in Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act.

One of the Bill documents produced by the Home Office—quite rightly—when this Bill was produced was the human rights memorandum prepared for the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member. That document does not appear to engage with the question of whether this Bill will infringe or curtail any person’s Article 10 or 11 rights to protest. It is noticeable, given that omission from the human rights memorandum, that the Minister and his equivalent in the Commons certified on the front of the Bill that, in their view, it was compliant with the convention. I am afraid that I beg to differ with that analysis—at least to the extent of the amendment proposed on the Marshalled List today.

We will look at what the amendment does in a second. By way of background, it is important to point out that on 6 February this year, the Court of Appeal, presided over by the Lady Chief Justice, produced a judgment in the case of Sarti, Hall and Plummer against the Crown: 2025 EWCA Crim 61. The Court of Appeal considered, as part of the Just Stop Oil protests, appeals brought by individuals who had been protesting by closing Earl’s Court Road. The Court of Appeal, reversing or revising earlier decisions of the courts, determined that it was not necessary for a criminal court hearing a charge of this type to go through the elaborate proportionality tests required in the earlier Shvidler case, and therefore it was for the court to implement Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023.

Noble Lords will be asking, “Why is all this relevant?” It is relevant for this reason: Section 11 in Part 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 imposes an obligation to notify the police in advance of the date, time and proposed route of any public procession or protest which is intended

“to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person or body of persons”,

or to

“publicise a cause or campaign”.

That obligation to notify the police is not addressed in any way in the provisions of Clause 3 of our Bill, which defines “qualifying events”, and it is not inconceivable to see that there may well be a situation where a public protest falls within the definition of Clause 3.

The Bill is silent about who may be considered the responsible person and who may be liable to regulation by the SIA. In fact, the whole thing is simply inapposite. But it is not inconceivable that, unless an amendment of the type that I propose in the Marshalled List is inserted, there is a risk—albeit, as I am sure the Minister will tell me, it is a small risk—that these measures might be used to curtail protest, or have the unintentional consequence of curtailing the democratic right to protest.

For those reasons, I draw the attention of the Committee to the provisions of my amendment. Clearly, the first proposed new subsection simply ensures, as a matter of construction, that nothing in the Bill should be viewed as curtailing those Article 10 and 11 rights. Similarly, it makes clear, in proposed new subsections (2) and (3):

“The provisions of this Act shall not apply to protests or demonstrations, provided that such protests or demonstrations do not directly incite violence, threaten public safety”,


et cetera. The third provision is:

“This Act shall not be used to impede, restrict, or unlawfully interfere with the right of individuals to express dissent”


or to protest. So, in that way, this measure will simply ensure that the Bill could not be misread by any future Government, or indeed by anyone. I can see no reason why His Majesty’s Government would not accept this amendment or something similar. I look forward to hearing some good news from the Minister. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 37B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. The amendment seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 31 to safeguard the right to protest, as protected under Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998. The amendment makes it clear that nothing in the Bill should be construed as infringing on the right to protest, provided that such protests are conducted peacefully and lawfully, do not incite violence and do not threaten public safety or disrupt essential services. Furthermore, it proposes that any action taken under the Bill that impacts the ability to protest or assemble should be subject to review to ensure that fundamental freedoms are not unduly restricted.

The right to protest is a cornerstone of any democratic society and one of the primary means through which individuals and groups can express their views, voice grievances and influence public discourse. Throughout history, peaceful protests have played a transformative role in shaping our society, strengthening democratic governance and securing fundamental rights and freedoms. From the suffragette movement, which fought for women’s right to vote, to more recent demonstrations calling for climate action and social justice, the ability to gather, express dissent and campaign for change has been essential to our democratic values. Indeed, the richness and resilience of British democracy have often been reinforced by the willingness of citizens to stand up and speak out when they see injustice or seek reform.

However, the context in which we now consider this amendment is one of heightened security concerns. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill rightly seeks to enhance public safety by imposing new security obligations on certain premises to protect against the ever-evolving threat of terrorism. As noble Lords will agree, this is a pressing and legitimate concern, and our duty to protect citizens from harm is paramount.

Yet, as we pursue this noble objective, we must be vigilant in ensuring that necessary security measures do not inadvertently erode the civil liberties that define us as a free and democratic society. The fight against terrorism must never become an excuse to undermine the very freedoms we seek to protect. Ensuring compatibility with human rights principles is not merely a legal obligation—it is a moral imperative.

This amendment provides much-needed clarity. It recognises that, although security is of the utmost importance, it must be balanced with the protection of democratic rights. The conditions it outlines are both reasonable and proportionate. They would ensure that protests remain peaceful, lawful and respectful of public order while preventing unnecessary or heavy-handed restrictions that could stifle legitimate dissent. The provision for review is particularly important. It would ensure accountability and create a safeguard against potential overreach by authorities. This is essential in preserving public trust, especially in the sensitive area of counterterrorism measures. If people perceive that security measures are being used to suppress dissent rather than to protect them, we risk undermining the very co-operation and solidarity needed to combat threats effectively.

Critics may argue that the amendment is unnecessary because existing legal frameworks already protect the right to protest. However, clarity within the legislation is crucial to avoid legal ambiguities or unintended consequences. By explicitly affirming the compatibility of this Bill with the right to protest, we would send a strong message that we value security and civil liberties equally and make it clear that security and freedom are not mutually exclusive but must coexist in a healthy democracy.

In practical terms, this amendment would also support public co-operation with counterterrorism efforts. When people see that their rights are respected and protected, they are more likely to trust and engage with security measures. Public trust is a critical component of effective counterterrorism strategies. A society that respects the right to peaceful assembly is one where people are more inclined to work with, rather than against, the authorities.

To be clear, this amendment would not weaken the Bill’s security provisions, or shield unlawful, violent or disruptive activities. Rather, it reinforces the principle that peaceful and lawful protest should not be treated as a threat to public safety or security. It provides assurance that this important legislation will not inadvertently target the exercise of democratic freedoms.

Moreover, we must consider the international dimension. The United Kingdom has long been regarded as a bastion of democracy and human rights. By enshrining protections for the right to protest in this Bill, we would reaffirm our commitment to those values on the global stage and demonstrate that it is possible to confront terrorism without compromising the fundamental freedoms that are the hallmark of a democratic society.

This amendment would strengthen the Bill by ensuring that it aligns with the fundamental principles of democracy and human rights. It would send a clear and important message that we can protect our citizens from terrorism without sacrificing the freedoms that define our society. Security measures that respect civil liberties are not only more just but more effective in fostering a cohesive and resilient society. I therefore urge the Government and noble Lords to support it. Let us demonstrate that we are committed to both safeguarding our citizens and upholding the principles that make this nation great. By doing so, we can ensure that our response to terrorism remains not only strong but principled, just and democratic.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

If the Government believe that additional security measures are needed, then they should step in and provide financial support to business to implement them. In this amendment, I am therefore seeking measures that will ensure that venue holders are not placed under financial strain. I further believe that it is worth pointing out that some 116 theatres are owned and operated by local councils in England. Many of these are run on a shoestring as non-profit businesses or are managed by community trusts, and almost all of them would fall within the threshold of this Bill. With many councils in England facing huge financial challenges in their budget, cultural provision such as budgets for municipal theatres are being cut significantly up and down the country. With this in mind, I urge the Secretary of State to establish a financial support scheme to assist such venues, be it through grants, low-interest loans or tax relief, as many of these theatres and premises, much loved by their communities, could face closure. They are the cultural foundation of our country and Government should step in to prevent such a travesty from happening and this amendment seeks to achieve just that. I therefore commend both amendments to the Committee.

[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 Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, my two colleagues mentioned the situation in Northern Ireland. The Minister will be very familiar, from his service there, with a lot of this. A lot of the protections that were put in place were against blast. Terrorist tactics have changed and will continue to change. You cannot simply look at what the threat might have been 30 or 40 years ago: look at the threat that we face today, but in 10 years or 20 years, it may be very different.

The trick will be to have flexible thinking going into the actual design, so although the nature of the threat will change over time there will at least be a bit of future-proofing—that is the language we would need to use. All those lessons should be learned. I served on the Northern Ireland Police Authority, which had to deal with the threats to buildings in those circumstances and to other Civil Service facilities. The Minister will be very familiar with all that. The key is for those who design or adapt buildings—because more buildings are going to be adapted than built from scratch—to show a bit of flexibility in those processes and put a little thought into what might be coming down the road. Our buildings were largely protected against blast, which would not necessarily be the only thing that is at risk.

[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 ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

46: After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of the impact on the night-time economy(1) Within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report reviewing the impact of the provisions in this Act on the night-time economy, jobs and growth.(2) The report must include an assessment of the impact of this Act on—(a) public houses,(b) nightclubs,(c) bars,(d) restaurants,(e) cinemas, and(f) any other late-opening venues that the Secretary of State considers to be part of the night-time economy.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce a report reviewing the impact this Act on the night-time economy, jobs and growth.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

He said:

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


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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 46 withdrawn.