Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, my amendment seeks to raise the qualifying premises threshold in this Bill from 200 to 500. This is a necessary and proportionate adjustment to ensure that the legislation is both effective and enforceable. At its core, this Bill is about ensuring that public venues take reasonable steps to protect the public from the ever-present threat of terrorism. This is a goal that we all share, but it is also our duty as legislators to ensure that any obligations that we impose are realistic, achievable and properly targeted. The current threshold of 200 is, in my view, too low. It captures far too many small businesses, community venues and organisations that simply do not have the resources to comply effectively with the security measures required under this legislation.

We must therefore ask ourselves what we are truly trying to achieve. If the Bill is about protecting high footfall venues that are most likely to be targeted, a threshold of 500 is much more appropriate. A venue that regularly accommodates 500 people is a significantly different proposition from one with just over 200. The former will have the infrastructure, resources and operational capacity to manage the enhanced security obligations that the Bill requires, whereas the latter will often struggle under the weight of compliance, detracting from the effectiveness of the legislation as a whole.

Moreover, this is a question of enforcement. By setting the threshold too low, we risk overburdening the enforcement agencies tasked with ensuring compliance. We should be concentrating our efforts where they will make the most difference: on larger, more high-risk venues, where the potential impact of an attack would be greatest. A threshold of 500 strikes that balance.

I also want to address the issue of fairness. Many small and medium-sized businesses are still recovering from the financial strain of recent years. The hospitality, entertainment and cultural sectors in particular have been hit hard. If we impose overly stringent requirements on smaller venues, we risk pushing them into further difficulties, leading to unintended consequences such as venue closures or reduced community engagement. This is not, therefore, about opposing security measures—far from it. It is about ensuring that these measures are appropriate for the size and nature of the premises they apply to.

I do not bring this amendment forward lightly. I support the principles of the Bill and I recognise the importance of making public spaces safer. However, legislation must be both proportionate and practical. The Government have not, in my view, provided sufficient justification for the 200-person threshold, and nor have they demonstrated that raising it to 500 would compromise security in any way.

On the contrary, I believe this amendment enhances the Bill by making it much more targeted and therefore effective. For these reasons, unless I hear a clear commitment from the Government today that they will reconsider their position, I will be dividing the House on this amendment. I urge noble Lords to join me in supporting a measured, proportionate and practical approach to this issue.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 3 in my name, which seeks to raise the threshold for a qualifying premises from 200 to 300, with an exception to allow the Secretary of State to set a lower threshold if any particular premises are at a heightened risk of terrorist threat.

While I agree with many of the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister in relation to 500, it is important that the House has the option to consider other variable thresholds. I suggest that this amendment, in setting the threshold at 300 with the flexibility to include other venues between 200 and 300, is a pragmatic, measured and proportionate adjustment that balances the need for public safety with the realities of implementation of this expensive and burdensome set of regulations on small businesses and community venues.

While we should do as much as possible to reduce the impact of an attack, should one occur, we must ensure that pubs, village halls, community spaces and other, similar venues are not subject to undue regulatory burdens where the risk does not justify them. By raising the threshold to 300, we are ensuring that those venues most at risk are prioritised. Almost all venues under 300 will now be excluded by reason of this amendment, while providing a degree of flexibility for exceptional cases where a lower threshold may be warranted.

The logic behind this adjustment is clear: a threshold of 200 captures too wide a range of premises, including many small business and community venues that may not have the capacity or resources to implement the complex security measures required by the Bill. Many of these venues operate on tight budgets and rely on volunteer or part-time staff. I worry greatly that one of the unintended consequences of the Bill will be to drive such small business and community facilities—which are presently just about managing and just about balancing their books—out of business, with the consequent massive impact on our communities and high streets. If this happens, the terrorists will have won.

I do not need to remind the House that the Home Office’s own impact assessment estimates that the costs to business of the measures in the Bill, at present values, are likely to be between £4.871 billion and £563.4 million, with the Government’s best estimate at £1.785 billion. This additional burden will land just at the time when small businesses and community ventures are reeling from additional regulatory burdens and rising taxes.

Increasing the threshold to 300 would ensure that the primary focus remained on larger venues with higher footfall and, therefore, greater potential risk. As I observed in Committee when debating these amendments, one need look only at the Home Office’s own impact assessment to see the considerable level of concern about the viability of small businesses and community ventures. At page 9, the authors note:

“Among respondents to the survey of premises with a capacity of 100 to 299”—


the respondents being the owners of smaller premises, places of worship, village halls and community centres—only

“four in ten … agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack … Around half ... reported that the revised requirements would be difficult to take forwards ... Six in ten ... were at least somewhat concerned that the cost of meeting the standard tier requirements will affect their organisation’s financial ability to continue operating”.

However, in my amendment I recognise that security concerns are not always dictated by capacity alone. This is why it would allow for the Secretary of State to include particular premises that are at heightened risk of terrorist attack. This provides flexibility.

Commendably, prior to the introduction of the Bill, the Government raised the proposed threshold from 100 to 200 following the outcome of the consultation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister that there has been nothing in the debates on the Bill which really justifies the figure of 200, when set against the potential impact on the large number of premises now caught by the present threshold. The proposal in the amendment is a cautious—and, I suggest, proportionate and sensible—step, and I invite noble Lords to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

The figure of 300 would have a similar effect. The noble Lord raises a sceptical eyebrow at me. We have hit on a figure. His Government wanted 100; the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, and others have argued for 500; we are arguing for 200. That is a reasonable balance, I think, between the two. I have given him assurances in Committee and at other stages that that is an appropriate figure.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he give us the percentage figure? If it is 4% for the 500 threshold, what is the figure for 300?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can give the noble Lord the figure, if he allows me a moment to find it. I have the figure in this pile somewhere and I will await some dissection of the file to arrive shortly to give him a definitive figure on that, if he will allow me. If not, I will come back to that in a moment. From my perspective, the figures of 800 and 200 are correct. I have that figure to hand somewhere—here we go. See: I knew at the end of the day, with a little bit of diligence, no ambush and advance notice, I could find the figure. Raising the threshold to 300 would mean that only 92,288 premises—or 10%, down from 17%, of eligible premises—would be captured. The figure that we have currently is significantly higher than that.

Again, 92,288 is a significant number of premises covered by the Bill, but if I go back to Clause 5(3), those requirements are not what I would term onerous. They are good practice. There are things that a good employer should do. They are things that good volunteers should do. There are things that are applicable not to stopping terrorism but to providing security in the event of a terrorist attack being undertaken. Again, if this House were a premises covered by the legislation, which it is not, and an attack were happening now, the responsible person here would have to decide which exit we went from, whether we stayed under the table, whether we shut the door and who should we contact. Those are the requirements in Schedule 5 to the Bill. They are not onerous, and I think that, on balance, as wide a group of premises as can be included is the desired amount, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister, wishes to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

3: Clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(ca) the premises have a capacity of more than 300 people or, if smaller, the Secretary of State determines that the premises are at heightened risk of a terrorist threat, and”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment aims to protect small businesses from disproportionately burdensome security requirements while maintaining adequate protection against terrorism threats.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

In the light of the opinion expressed in the Division, I will not be moving Amendment 3.

Amendments 3 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. I will make a connected but slightly separate point. After Committee, the Minister very kindly wrote to me on the reviews, particularly the post-implementation reviews. A copy of the letter is in the House of Lords Library. For the benefit of noble Lords, he said:

“I would like to reassure you that a post-implementation review will be undertaken”—


which is what we sought—

“and this will assess whether the legislation delivers the Government’s policy objectives … this will include analysis of the costs and impacts on qualifying premises and events … this will naturally include smaller businesses and community-run premises where they fall in scope. The Government’s intention is that the review will be conducted, at most, within five years of commencement … This will incorporate … microbusinesses and small community premises”.

I am very grateful to the Minister for the indication in his letter. Can he let us know, from the Dispatch Box, whether the Government intend to publish the outcome of those reviews?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 19, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, I will speak also to Amendments 20 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 19 would require the tribunal to consider whether a notice should be ordered to be of no effect in circumstances where the tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time. That is the context for the amendment.

The fundamental background behind this amendment is that the SIA will issue notices; we do not know how many, at this stage, but there is a strong likelihood that they will be appealed in significant numbers. This will likely be a major additional burden on the First-tier Tribunal, raising questions on capacity and speed of response. It is also right to say that many of the regulated persons are responsible for events with a hard deadline, which carries with it financial and operational consequences. How will events deal with a situation where their appeal is lodged with a tribunal but no determination has been made in a reasonable time?

Amendment 19 seeks to prevent people being left in limbo. It would follow Clause 16(7), which allows the tribunal to decide that an order is of no effect until the appeal concludes, and it should be read in that context. In that sense, Amendment 19 is simply an additional protection for those organising events if, for whatever reason, the tribunal has simply not been able to determine the appeal within a reasonable timeframe. I hope the Minister understands the reasons behind this amendment, and I am keen to hear his response.

I will speak more briefly on Amendments 20 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 20 seeks to extend the grace period from 28 to 42 days. This is a practical adjustment: compliance with new regulations takes time and, while security must remain a priority, we must recognise the operational realities faced by businesses, charities and community groups. A slightly longer grace period provides a fairer timeframe for implementing necessary measures without imposing undue pressure. An additional 14 days is a reasonable and fair addition of extra time.

Finally, Amendment 23, again tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, calls for local authorities to be consulted. Local authorities are on the front line of implementing security measures under the Bill, and their insight and expertise should be taken into account. Consultation will ensure that security policies are practical, properly resourced and, critically, aligned with local needs. Effective counter- terrorism measures require co-operation at all levels and this amendment strengthens that collaborative approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister in reply.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26. I am sure we all know how important volunteers are in the way our society works. Across the country, many vital community venues are run on our behalf by volunteers who give up hours and hours of their time to help run community enterprises—for example, village halls and community centres. I am also sure that noble Lords will have found that it is getting more and more difficult to persuade people to take on voluntary roles and responsibilities. It is very much harder to persuade people into senior voluntary roles, particularly if those roles carry with them personal risk to that volunteer, either of financial liability or criminal liability.

As I have made clear in previous debates on this legislation, I am very concerned that this Bill will unintentionally have a significant negative impact on members of our community volunteering. By Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26, I seek to ensure that voluntary unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees are exempt from the personal and criminal liability under Clauses 24, 25 and 26 of the Bill, provided, of course, that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence.

As I observed in Committee, when this Bill was considered in draft by the Home Affairs Select Committee, it heard evidence about the impact of these proposed measures on community volunteering. The committee, under the then chairmanship of Dame Diana Johnson, reported in July 2023 and said this in paragraph 39:

“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”.


I could not have put it better myself.

In light of this and other representations, the present Government increased the threshold from 100 to 200, and I commend them for doing that, but that increase is no sufficient answer to the problems that have been raised. I remain concerned that, with the effect of the measures in the Bill—on top of the other measures facing volunteers across our community, which we heard so ably outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in an earlier group—there is a risk that we will have fewer volunteers and volunteer leaders, which may mean wide- scale closures of village halls and community centres up and down our country.

It is clear to me that the effect of the measures in the Bill as it presently stands runs the serious risk that the new liabilities in the Bill will reduce the appetite for members of the public to step forward and volunteer. This is, in any event, 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.

The amendments that I propose here are directed to removing the worst of the disincentives for people to volunteer. The way Amendment 21 works, as the House will have seen, is to remove the risk that a volunteer or 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.

Amendment 22 would exclude a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee from the daily penalties, described in the Bill as being up to £500 a day. I suggest that that sort of measure is a powerful disincentive to people to volunteer, due to the risk of their own personal liability for these sums.

Amendment 24 would exempt volunteers, unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees from criminal liability, provided again that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence. I hope the House 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 of the regulations made under the Bill.

I appreciate that, as the Minister will no doubt tell the House, these criminal powers will be used only rarely and are a maxima, and I am sure all that is right. However, the fact is, if it is in the statute, it will act as a disincentive to volunteers. People will not want to be the responsible person, because they will not want to take the risk of going to prison.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

21: Clause 17, page 13, line 16, at end insert—
“(7A) A voluntary unpaid office holder or unpaid trustee must not be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed under this section, provided that they acted in good faith and within the scope of their duties.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that financial penalties do not apply to volunteers serving in good faith.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Although I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, I at least take some heart from the fact that a review will be conducted and I am very grateful for the support expressed for these amendments by the right reverend Prelate. I have also been, frankly, disappointed by the approach from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who could have chosen this moment to make a real mark on this legislation to help volunteering. But with that, and the fact that there would appear to be little prospect of this amendment succeeding, I will not move Amendment 21.

Amendment 21 not moved.