Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very keen on Amendment 33 although I have not put my name to it—it is in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Sandhurst. It suggests an advisory board for the SIA with the intention of ensuring a collaborative approach to regulation.

I am keen on the amendment because one of my fears about the Bill is that it could be one of those laws that, in effect, means the state abdicating responsibility for public protection and outsourcing it to businesses and community organisations with very much a “You’re responsible for that” attitude, and it is then policed by the regulator. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, I am worried about the damage that might do to civil society.

I really like the idea of addressing some of the issues raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about how we ensure that there is a more collaborative approach. I would like civil society not to feel that it is being done to, dumped on or put in charge of public protection on its own. This strikes me as a good way of approaching that.

I put my name down specifically on Amendment 34 because one of the important things about it is a review that considers all the implications of the Bill some way down the line. We need to be able to consider trade-offs all the time. It is wrong to suggest, as I think was suggested in a debate on an earlier group by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that those of us who were trying to consider cost-benefit analysis and trade-offs were being somehow glib about the possibility of people being killed in a terrorist bomb and that we somehow have a “higher-risk appetite”—the phrase used—or a higher threshold for risk-taking, whereas the important and responsible thing to do would be to ensure that we always considered safety first.

I think we have to acknowledge—

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness is misinterpreting what I said. I said that in making these judgments, you had to have a risk appetite and that you needed to do that explicitly. I was not saying that any particular risk appetite was right or wrong; I was saying it should be made explicit. I certainly was not suggesting that the noble Baroness was therefore glib about people being killed. I was merely saying that that is the trade-off, and anyone making those decisions has to be clear about the trade-off they are making.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification and I am relieved to hear it. I think it was the bit where somebody asked, “How would you answer the situation where 199 people were killed if the limit was 200?” All I am saying is there is often a conversation like this when we talk about safety, risk and responsibility.

I like this amendment because it introduces into the debate about the Bill the opportunity—some months down the line—to have a cost-benefit analysis of whether it has worked. I first came into this House at the height of the lockdown period. On a number of occasions—rather tentatively at the time, because I was new—I, along with others, called for a cost-benefit analysis. I kept asking, with lockdown and all those measures in the name of safety, whether we could just assess whether they were the only way that we should proceed. I was told that we had to be very careful because old people were going to die, and so on and so forth—you are familiar with the arguments.

The reason I mention that is that we can now look back and say that many of those old people were locked up in care homes and greatly suffered. We can say about young people—when some of us argued that we should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of closing schools—that we now have a crisis of worrying about pupils and the impact that lockdown had on them. There is a discussion that the Government are initiating about the cost and impact of lockdown on employment people’s habits as we speak.

It is sensible with a Bill such as this to introduce a review that will give us the opportunity to do a cost-benefit analysis. This is particularly important because a regulator is introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, explained that we need to be able to see whether the regulator is the appropriate way of getting what we would like, which is more public protection, or whether, in fact, it undermines some of the important aspects of local regulatory interventions.

We debated a very interesting group just before the break, when the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, raised the point about the number of regulatory regimes that each venue already apparently has to adhere to in terms of licensing, and so on. This amendment gives us an opportunity to see whether the central regulator is the appropriate way of ensuring that we keep people safe with respect to premises and terrorism.

--- Later in debate ---

On Amendment 36, on taking into account the views of the local authority in determining the amount of a penalty, I am unclear what the local authority would add: the history of an organisation’s compliance with licensing, perhaps? The clause in the Bill allows matters that are considered relevant to be considered. So I am not sure where Amendment 36, with its proposed new paragraph (d) in Clause 20(2), is heading. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, if I have should have heard that from him: I am afraid that I did not.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who, on the first day of Committee, suggested that we ought to have subheadings for groups of amendments to tell us what they were generally about. This may or may not be an issue worth pursuing. If we had a subheading for this particular group of amendments, it would be “The quango-fication of Martyn’s law”, because we are talking about two not-quite-superfluous extra bodies that would be created as a result of these amendments.

Normally, the position of His Majesty’s Opposition would be to say that we had too many quangos and public bodies being set up, rather than to suggest some entirely gratuitous ones. For example, Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talks about an advisory board which shall “guide” the implementation and enforcement of the Act. Now it is a strange advisory board that “guides”. This again raises questions about the organisational structure of the Security Industry Authority, its governance structure and its relationship with the Home Office. It seems an unnecessary requirement. If it wants to take advice or consult widely with different sections of communities or organisations affected, that is something it can do. The same applies to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, which talks about setting up a review panel to monitor the Security Industry Authority. What, then, is the purpose of the Home Office?

[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.