Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am minded to support the amendment, but maybe that is because I am a little uncertain about how we are going to ensure that what we all want, which is to protect the public, is guaranteed by the Bill. I worry about a certain mission creep. At Second Reading, a lot of people quoted Sir John Saunders saying:

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


but I also quoted Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, who quoted him as saying:

“Equally, the Protect Duty must not be so prescriptive as to prevent people enjoying a normal life”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/24; col. 625.]


As I understand the aim of the amendment, it is simply to ensure that we do not forget what the point of the Bill is. Whether we like it or not, regulatory powers have a tendency of leaving their original aim and growing or going elsewhere. In that sense, I want to ensure that we do not forget what the Bill is about, and that means this amendment. It might seem silly to say that, and tempting to say, “We won’t forget what this Bill is about”, but a lot of the evidence in relation to the Bill does not indicate that the specific measures in it will actually keep people safe from terrorism. I do not doubt that it puts a huge amount of responsibility on individuals, but I do not know that the end result is going to be what we intend it to be. I was of a mind to think that the amendment might help to keep focus; that is one of the things that I was attracted to.

One of the things that is nagging me—and I am going to raise it here because it seems an appropriate place—is that, if we are going to say that the aim is to protect people from terrorism, we also need to know what we mean by terrorism. I am not being glib. The Government themselves have noted that the Bill is partly in response to the changing nature of terrorism—we now have lone-wolf terrorists; it is not straightforward, so we cannot just rely on the secret services and so on—so the changing nature of those terror threats requires this regulation. However, I do not know that we are closer to knowing what that definition of terrorism is. We can all say, as we all will, that we want to pass a piece of legislation that will keep people safe from terrorism, yet we have decided that we do not know how to define terrorism.

Let us think of the official confusion in relation to Axel Rudakubana. As one journalist pointed out last week, saying that he was known to the authorities is an understatement. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out that this is about putting responsibility on individuals but, in that instance, it is hard to name an authority or individual who did not know the threat embodied by that young man, including the police, social services, mental health services, counter-extremism services, education establishments and Childline. He actually said, “I am going to be a mass murderer”, and we know about the ricin, the al-Qaeda manual, and so on. Yet he was not labelled a terrorist. I worry that, if we are confused about our definitions, in relation to this Bill as well, there could be problems.

I have a final point on this. I also worry precisely because we have decided, or declared, that terrorism is changing—I do not challenge the idea that there is something in this—such that somebody who created ricin and had an al-Qaeda manual was not labelled a terrorist. He did not fall through the net—he was caught in the net—yet, none the less, as has been pointed out, nothing was done.

At the same time, we have an expansive slippage between the notions of extremism and terrorism. It has become very unclear what we mean. It might be a joke, but it was revealed over the weekend that the report commissioned, albeit rejected, by the Government, featured a reading list indicating dangerous, far-right extremism that could lead to terrorism. A viewing and watch list was included, featuring Michael Portillo’s “Great British Railways” programme and “Yes Minister” as potentially indicating a problem.

You know, that is, like, “What? How mad”. The reason I am mentioning it is that I do not want mission creep in relation to definitions, or in relation to the regulatory aspects of this Bill. I am terrified of the unintended consequences for community organising, civil society, venues and so on. I just think there is nothing wrong with a very specific reminder of what we want this Bill to do. That is what attracted me, at least, to this amendment.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I of course approve of the Government’s overall intention behind the Bill. However, I have serious concerns about how it will be implemented and whether it is necessary to have this wide range of powers on quite small organisations, events and places that will have events coming within the scope of the Act—when it is an Act—only once or twice a year. We could have real problems there.

My concerns are similar to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, from whom we just heard. There is a real need for focus, and for the Secretary of State, when making regulations, to get them sharply on the point. This is especially so in relation to the likely impact on smaller businesses as well as voluntary and community-run organisations in the standard tier premises. There is a lack of evidence that the Bill will adequately reduce the threat of terrorism to smaller organisations, if indeed they are likely to be at risk.

There will be problems too for one-off and occasional events, which may attract quite large numbers, but in informal surroundings. There will be a big burden on them. How will it really work? So, the purpose is necessary. Just because there are going to be 850 people at an event, do we really need the whole panoply of this Bill?

In 2023, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee produced a report, which, for those who have not looked at it recently, is well worth looking at. It was a careful and well-evidenced report that addressed the then draft Bill. I know that things have moved on since then, but the conclusions reached by that committee on the evidence to which the report referred highlight areas that need to be addressed in the approach to be adopted today.

The committee pointed out that in the 2010s—a slightly different period from the one that my noble friend Lord Davies opened on—there were 14 terror attacks. A lot of those involved knives; there were also vehicle attacks, bombs and one firearm. This was in the 2010s. The majority were out of scope of what is in the Bill: they were on the streets, on Crown premises such as barracks, or on transport. Those would not be covered by the Bill, yet they were the bulk of the attacks. This Bill is irrelevant to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am slightly wary, because I want to probe what we mean by the definition of buildings. I find these issues interesting. but I am less interested in them technically and will probably be accused of steering into Second Reading territory.

I genuinely think that trying to clarify what we mean by “building” is important. It speaks to my fear that the Bill might unintentionally dampen down civil society, have an impact on grass-roots activity and lead to a hyper-regulation of public spaces. I do not think that is what it intends to do, so I urge the Government not to expand beyond a narrow view of what a building is.

I was struck when a village in Lincolnshire was forced to cancel its Christmas fair, after it had been told to block off roads due to the risk of a potential terrorist attack. In a discussion on this, somebody noted that it was because there were worries about the impact of Martyn’s law, when it becomes law. I did a little digging and discovered a number of organisations that said that councils and other organisations were citing Martyn’s law guidelines—as we know, it is not a law—in a risk-averse way, pushing back against large gatherings such as bonfires and so forth.

My nervousness is that this law will be used to push a precautionary principle when it comes to civil society. I get anxious about that, so the last thing I want to do is to interpret any gathering, temporary or otherwise, where there are a lot of people, as a building or structure. Somebody just made a point in relation to markets and Christmas markets. One organiser said, “If this carries on, I doubt we will continue, as it takes all the joy out of it”. I just remind the Committee, to go back to the Home Secretary’s point, that the aim of the Bill is not to destroy the capacity of ordinary people to gather, because that would be to let the terrorists win. So, whatever way we come down on our definition of buildings, let us not forget that there is a cost to pay if we overinterpret this to say that, “There is a large group of people; terrorists can attack them; close everything down”. In which case, the terrorists will have won, and what is the point of that?

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, whichever way we look at this, I suggest that it is absolutely plain that we need a clear definition of “building”. A number of good points have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, made a good suggestion. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is also a good one. There is merit also in taking at least part of the Building Act, but “building” needs to be defined. Thus, I think it must be clear, when one considers it, that Section 121(2) of the Building Act is not completely apposite, because it does include the words,

“a vehicle, vessel, hovercraft, aircraft”.

One could include the definition there but exclude expressly those words or any other bits. One could do it by reference to the Building Safety Act, or it may be that the best route is to go to the definitions section at the back, look at the two existing statutes that are in place and take a good definition combining those where appropriate. I suggest that we certainly need a proper definition of “building” at the back, which must include demountable, collapsible buildings—things that very often look almost like a tent. Are large tents to be included, or a circus site event which could hold 500 people? If we are going to protect people, let us get it right.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has put his finger on it. It seems to me that, if it is a large tent and 500 people are gathered within it, then somebody ought to be making arrangements to ensure that people are protected. That is what the Bill is about. I have listened with great fascination to the discussion about where we draw the definition of “building”. I always tend, because I am prejudiced that way, that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, gives us a view on definitions, we should take serious note of that, because in my experience he is usually right. I leave it to the Government to come forward with what they think is a satisfactory definition that embraces what we need.

Ultimately, what we are trying to say with this legislation is that people who organise public events, whether they are formal events, community events, concerts or whatever else, should be thinking in advance, “Is this going to be secure?” That also means thinking about what I will do if somebody over there commits a terrorist act that has an implication for the people who are gathered in my event. I hope that my noble friend, when he replies, will say that the Government will look again, will gather together all those with strong views on the definition of “building”, temporary or otherwise, tents or not, and work out what works best. I think that our objective here is quite clear: that people should have a responsibility for the protection of people when they have gathered them together for whatever purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sandhurst]

4: Clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “from time to time” and insert “not less than once a month”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the other in the name of Lord Sandhurst to Clause 2 seek to remove the reference to “from time to time” and provide a benchmark by which the attendance at a premises may be measured.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I can be quite short on this. The purpose of this amendment is to address the use of the words “from time to time” in the context of defining the premises to which the obligations will apply—whether from time to time 200 or more individuals may be present or, in the case of the enhanced duty, 800. It is a probing amendment. I acknowledge straight away that “not less than once a month” may not be the right definition, but there had to be something, and “from time to time”, I suggest, is simply too vague.

Is it to be once a year? If you have an event every year, that is “from time to time”. As is presently defined, the premises are caught if

“it is reasonable to expect that”

a given number of individuals may be present “from time to time”. An annual event might be caught, but what happens if it is just someone who does something from time to time? As a lawyer, I am very uncomfortable with this, and I can see the arguments that lawyers much cleverer than me will produce.

The premises are ordinarily qualifying premises only in the sense that they have a capacity of 200 or 250, but they may have an annual day to which 750 come one year and 900 come another. Will that come into this category? They may even have an annual day to which a bit over 800 might be expected. If that is so, the full panoply of the Act will fall: not just to the qualifying premises events but to the enhanced premises events. It is important to be clear about what you want to catch, who will be subject to enhanced obligations, and what is proportionate and necessary to keep people as safe as we reasonably can without creating unnecessary barriers and boundaries. I ask the Government simply to look very carefully at the words, “from time to time”, and to consider whether a better definition could be employed.

Amendment 11 suggests a provision that, where premises are

“assessed as low risk by an independent safety assessor”,

they are to be

“exempt from the duties imposed under this Act”—

in other words, you can have an opt-out. It might be that that would be applicable only to lower categories of events, but it is certainly worth looking at. If you have a good record, you would not do it tomorrow. However, in a year or two, everyone will have experience of how this works—the regulator will have that experience—and, if they see that a given place is well regulated and well run, it will not need to be within the full panoply of the Act.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, despite supporting the Bill in general, I strongly support Amendment 11, which I will speak to. An assessment of risk, which is generally agreed to be appropriate in all aspects of modern life, seems to be absent from the Bill. Any premises or event, regardless of the real risk of it being attacked, must take a series of potentially very costly precautions.

It is worth noting that of the 15 terrorist attacks to which the impact assessment seems to refer as the main basis for the Bill, six were in London, two in Manchester and one in Liverpool, and all were in urban areas. In fact, all of them were in areas that had tarmac underneath them; not a single one was in a rural area. Does that suggest that it is right to treat events in rural settings as being as high risk as those in urban areas? It is like applying 20 miles per hour speed limits throughout the entire country: it might marginally improve safety, but at a cost of bringing the economy to its knees. In their search for economic growth, is this really what the Government want? I urge them to introduce a little good sense and allow there to be an assessment of risk in these situations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I formally withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I also support my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I wish to ask the Minister two questions that arise on this topic that I have found in the impact assessment.

At paragraph 68, there is a description of the enforcement regime in relation to the provisions in the Bill:

“Enforcement will be delivered via a mainly civil sanctions regime”.


In respect of a standard duty premises, we can see that there is a fixed penalty and an ability for the regulator to impose a fixed penalty of £500 per day from the date on which the

“penalty is due until the date the contravention is rectified or the notice is withdrawn by the Regulator”.

There is furthermore a power, in the most “egregious cases” according to the impact assessment, of a criminal prosecution of the relevant person. My first question picks up on a theme in an earlier group. To what extent does the Minister think this will have an impact on volunteering and the willingness of people to take on roles where they would be responsible for facing such enforcement?

My second question is in relation to the funding estimates in the impact assessment. One can see, in paragraph 98 on page 23 of the impact assessment, there is a description of how it is that the civil servants have reached their valuation of what the Bill is going to cost. In the previous paragraph, they discuss the impact of outdoor festivals, but in paragraph 98 they say that outdoor events other than festivals

“have not been included in the analysis. These events are not included due to the absence of specific and accurate data about the number of events and their respective capacities. This lack of a comprehensive list of these events means that a reliable estimate of the number of events could not be made. Therefore, outdoor events other than festivals have been excluded from the appraisal analysis”.

I suggest to the Committee that this is simply not good enough. This is an impact assessment which tells us on its first page that the possible financial impact of these measures is somewhere between £1.8 billion, which is the best case, and £4.9 billion. To simply exclude the valuation from outdoor events because no attempt can be made to assess how many people may attend is simply not good enough. We can see this is a policy that has been developed without the needs of the kinds of small sports grounds that my noble friend has identified. Would the Minister agree that the common-sense position would be to consider excluding completely these kinds of small sporting venues from the operation of the Bill?

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will try to be as short as possible at this time of night. Schedule 2 excludes from the scope of the Bill sports grounds that are not designated sports grounds. So far, so good—but it is not straightforward. The exclusion for recreation and leisure in part 1 of Schedule 2 applies only where those attending are not members or customers who paid. If it is a members’ club, you are not excluded.

Furthermore, a sports ground is defined as being a sports ground within Section 17 of the sports grounds Act, or whatever it is called. The definition in that Act says that it means

“any place where sports or other competitive activities take place in the open air and where accommodation has been provided for spectators consisting of artificial structures or of natural structures artificially modified for the purpose”.

The reference to accommodation for spectators could well include a pavilion or some other fairly relaxed accommodation, with perhaps a bar attached and changing facilities, and so on. It does not have to be a pavilion as I understand it, which would include accommodation for 800 people. It is just a sports ground which has accommodation, because you are looking at the sports grounds Act.

So a question arises where there are quite large playing fields, a pavilion and a members’ club, and 200 people come from time to time to watch the match on Saturday against other clubs. It is not a lot of people, and children come, and everyone else. From time to time—because that is the wording in the Bill—there is a match against their local rivals, and they bring 400 friends along, and the home team have got 600, so you have 1,000. Are they going to have to search everyone who comes, and every car, and so on?

I am not saying that this is entirely wrong, but I do suggest that thought has to be given to how it will bite. What is the definition of an outdoor event or a sporting event of the sort I have in mind, such as football matches between local villages and towns? Cricket matches sometimes attract quite a lot of people. I am not talking about county grounds but just matches between two clubs that are old rivals on a bank holiday or something like that. This is all in the open air, in a completely unconfined space and, one hesitates to say, not on the highest level of the risk register. I am not going to tempt fate by saying anything else. I ask the Minister to consider this, certainly before Report.

[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.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

This amendment is not about weakening security standards but about ensuring that they are applied in a way that is fair, proportionate and effective. It reflects a mature understanding that security is not a “one size fits all” solution. I commend my noble friend Lord De Mauley for tabling this proposal and urge the Government to give it very serious consideration.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 20A, 21A and 23A.

As we have heard, Amendment 20A is a probing amendment to do with advice. Always leaving persons where there is reason to suspect an act of terrorism is occurring or about to occur is not necessarily the right course. You need to have procedures in place which not only prevent leaving but give advice about what to do—it might be to leave or not to leave. If we are going to have specific terms in the Act, it should be clear that the broader picture is encompassed. It could be construed as being simply advice about leaving. At present, on one reading at least, it is too inflexible.

I move on to Amendment 21A. To reduce the risk of reasonable harm is, I suggest, too bold and too bald. Is any risk, however small, to be encompassed by this, to make it even smaller? You will never make any risk negligible. Is any harm, however modest, to be encompassed? What is being guarded against? There is nothing to detract from the purpose here. It is simply to make it workable in real life. We must be sensible about imposing what is, in effect, strict liability for unforeseen circumstances. That is why we suggest that there should be an assessment of the risk, cost and outcome, and proportionality.

Amendment 23A is simply to give a clear time. Currently, I suggest, the words “reasonably practicable” are too vague. They could lead to arguments. It would be better to set an end date. Is it once the document is prepared that it should be provided or is it the time in which to prepare it? To me, reading this, it was not clear. There has to be reasonable time to prepare it and there has to be a time limit after that for providing it. Really, there should be an end date in any event for providing it, which should be clear; in other words, you have a reasonable time to do things but it must be done within three months, six months or whatever is the right time. That is the purpose of this.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 22 is in my name. I am sure we all recognise the threat that the Bill seeks to address and do not underestimate its importance. The attack on the Manchester Arena was, frankly, awful and we must do everything we can to prevent such things happening in future. However, in doing so, we surely must not inadvertently stamp out important local and cultural community-enhancing opportunities for people to enjoy themselves in times when, frankly, there is not much joy to be had.

At Second Reading, the Minister said, I think at column 646, two things which particularly concerned me. First, he referred to “public protection” even in the case of an event attended by as few as 200 people. He referred to “evacuation”, “invacuation”—apparently a word in the Bill drafters’ lexicon, if no one else’s—“lockdown” and “communication”. I will examine “lockdown” in a moment.

Secondly, the Minister expanded on the wording in Clause 6(3)(b), which refers to

“measures relating to … the movement of individuals into, out of and within the premises or event”,

and he added the words,

“such as search and screening processes”.

Let me illustrate my concerns by reference to two different types of event.

First, I help run one of hundreds, probably thousands, of annual parish and village charity fundraising events around the country. Ours, like countless others, is knocking on the door of becoming a qualifying event. We have assessed the risk of attack carefully, and already we have in place sensible precautions. The area is surrounded by walls, so a vehicle could not get near the crowd. A bomb or gun attack, although of course awful, would be highly unlikely, as the target is low value and, furthermore, the event is conducted in the open air, so a bomb would be vastly less effective than in a building with a roof and walls. When I spoke on Amendment 11, I referred to the fact that all 15 attacks listed in the impact assessment took place in urban areas.

I turn now to lockdown. Incidentally, it appeared from PMQs today that the Prime Minister himself does not fully understand the concept of lockdown. But the noble Lord the Minister said in the context of this Bill that it is

“the process of securing premises to restrict or prevent entry by an attacker by, for example, locking doors or closing shutters”.—[Official Report, 7/1/25; col. 646.]

How does he recommend that we in our village event would exercise lockdown? The event is outdoors, not in a building. There are no doors to lock or shutters to put down. Yes, the area is surrounded by walls, but they would not keep out a determined attacker if there was such a hypothetical person. So we will be required to have in place the ability to lock ourselves down but we are, in practical terms, unable to. There is genuinely very little likelihood of an attack but, when the Bill comes into effect, we will be obliged to do something that I cannot yet understand how to achieve.

Similarly, I have grave concerns about the implications of the Minister’s reference to “search and screening processes”. It is important that he explains what he means by “search and screening”. Does it mean full-body scanning, for which each unit costs several hundred thousand pounds and daily rental costs are several thousand pounds? Does he mean having a hand-held metal detector passed over attendees’ bodies? Even those, to be effective and not the knock-off ones of the kind one can buy on the internet, cost thousands of pounds. Does he mean that bags are to be searched? Exactly what does he mean?

At the event I am contemplating, the imposition of the requirement to search or scan guests, as referred to by the Minister at col. 646, could be so costly that it would be an additional reason that we could no longer hold our event, which last year—admittedly an exceptional year—will have given more than £5,000 to local charities and village schools. Is closing us down really what the Government want to do?

The impact assessment estimates the 10-year cost to enhanced duty premises at £52,093. It is not clear whether that would be the same for a qualifying event, but it does not look far off to me. That is just over £5,000 a year, which would kill off very many such events. In the debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, referred to his concerns that costs should not unduly constrain events such as those I am concerned about, and I hope that His Majesty’s Government think the same.

Secondly, I am involved with a major annual rural open-air sporting event. There are many similar events around the United Kingdom through the year, including agricultural shows, Eisteddfods, game fairs, horse trials and shows, music and literary festivals, Guy Fawkes Night events, Green Man—the list is long. These are not small affairs, yet many are run on a shoestring and, in recent years, several have already been lost.

In the case of the event I am involved with, the main issues are the same as those I referred to earlier: lockdown, and scanning and searching. The viewing public arrive in cars along narrow country roads with already very long queues. In practical terms, it would be impossible to search all the cars as they arrive. Depending on the direction from which they approach, traffic control decrees that they are directed to a number of car parks that surround the event on all sides. There being no suitable natural barriers, it would also be impracticable to funnel the crowds, once on their feet, so that they can be searched individually as they move into the event area.

Many of these events run at little more than break even, so the cost of barriers to funnel the crowds, combined with that of searching and scanning equipment and manpower, is likely to mean that they would not survive.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

As related in the explanatory statement to Amendment 39, this amendment takes as its model the Fire Safety Act 2021. We took that course because the Fire Safety Act is the precedent expressly advanced in the delegated powers memorandum as the model for this regulation-making power. But it is not a very exact precedent, because the Fire Safety Act contains a duty to consult and this clause does not. If we are to delegate such an important power to the Minister, an obligation to consult before acting is surely the minimum safeguard that we should require—so let us put it in. I beg to move.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. In particular, I shall speak to Amendments 21, 23 and 39, but I support the other one too. We have to remember that we have to uphold parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, explained, these are Henry VIII clauses. They will effectively bypass the scrutiny of Parliament. They will allow Ministers to change key aspects of public protection measures and to do so by means that should be employed only in exceptional circumstances.

This is particularly ironic in the light of two recent statements by this Government’s Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer. In his maiden speech in July last year, he said that the Government would

“seek to promote the highest standards in how we legislate”

and seek

“to increase … accessibility and certainty”.—[Official Report, 23/7/24; col. 372.]

in how we make law, including not abusing the use of secondary legislation—I remind the House of that. On 22 November, in the Attorney-General’s 2024 Bingham Lecture, he addressed the erosion of the separation of powers and the usurpation—his word—of parliamentary sovereignty and judicial authority. He stressed the importance of the separation of powers and public confidence in democratic institutions.

In the present instance, we have procedures in the Bill that have been carefully considered and subject to full scrutiny. They will have been endorsed by both Houses of Parliament upon the Bill’s passage; that will be put to one side if they are then changed by regulation. Such sweeping powers undermine legal certainty; they are simply not appropriate in this instance. If we are to have effective measures—we have looked at the detail and found that these measures must have everyone working together to be effective: members of the public, the police, the emergency services and the SIA—it is important that everyone feels bound in and supportive.

If, having been through a long and tough series of debates in these Houses, the primary legislation is then just put to one side by successive Secretaries of State, we have all wasted our time. The public will perceive that and there will be a serious loss of democratic accountability and confidence.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was glad to add my name to Amendment 21, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and Amendments 23 and 38.

I am very concerned about what I consider to be the introduction of an anti-democratic part to this Bill, which is worrying and unnecessary in terms of delegated powers and secondary legislation. It opens up the potential for an overreach of powers in relation to the use of Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, explained brilliantly how the regulations can be amended in terms of the list of public protection procedures and measures that qualifying events and premises will be obliged to put in place. It feels as though that makes a mockery of the hours that we are spending here. I do not know why we are examining every line to ensure proportionality and those of us who raise concerns about overreach and so on are reassured that this will proceed carefully and not get out of hand, when all that could be wiped away with a pen stroke. Allowing this particular policy to be, potentially, reshaped to create further obligations on premises, venues and businesses and so on, fuels my fear of an excessive expansion of this policy and the aims of the Bill through regulation, without any of us having any oversight.

Those of us who worry about mission creep—or, what is more, who know the way in which the fear of terrorism and the call for safety have been used over many years as a potential restriction on freedom and civil liberties—will therefore at least want to pause and receive an adequate explanation of why on earth these Henry VIII powers are necessary if, as the Government assure us, this will not be a disproportionate Bill.

The regulator created by the Bill will already have immense powers to issue fines for non-compliance, restriction notices and so on. Many venues fear that this will kill them off financially; we have heard much testimony on that. There is already a sort of fear of God among many organisations associated with civil society and the public square, let alone the already decimated hospitality industry, about how they are to cope with the requirements of the Bill and to plan to deal with its requirements. It might well be argued that this is the price we pay for protecting the public, but that would be if they knew exactly what they had to do to plan for the Bill. These Henry VIII powers give the Secretary of State the power to make those threats to venues far more onerous. They cannot possibly plan for them.

This is all in a context in which a whole range of committees and consultations that have looked at this legislation have noted that there is no evidence that the measures listed in the Bill will have any effect on reducing the threat of terrorism, particularly in relation to smaller venues. One does not want to feel that we are in a situation of introducing legislation that could destroy businesses and aspects of civil society without evidence and that would allow the state to have ever-greater power in relation to surveillance—what those venues do and so on—just so that you can say to the public that you are protecting them, when in fact you might not be protecting them at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will not feel beleaguered or besieged by this amendment, which is a probing amendment prompted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s note on the Bill published on his website.

Clause 8 is about co-ordination and co-operation. I have always found it a bit difficult to get my head around the notion of a statutory requirement to co-operate, although co-ordination might be a bit different. The amendment addresses subsections (5) and (6), which place a duty on someone who is not responsible for the premises but who has

“control to any other extent of the premises”.

The duty is subject to enforcement by the regulator. The amendment is to ask what “control to any other extent” means. The Explanatory Notes say that it is intended to apply to the freehold owner of the premises or the superior landlord who leases to the person who is primarily responsible under the Bill.

The independent reviewer gives a particular example. The owner of a premises rents them out to the responsible person, who uses them, in this example, as a bingo hall with a capacity of more than 800. The lease has 12 months to run and provides that no alteration may be made to the structure of the premises without the owner’s consent. There are no plans to renew the lease—indeed, the owner of the premises wants to sell them to a developer. The responsible person decides that, to comply with his duty under the legislation, he must make a structural change, putting in a new exit where there are currently windows. The owner would be entitled to refuse the alterations, particularly because they would adversely affect the value of the premises. There are conflicting considerations. Does Clause 8(6) mean that the owner has a duty to give consent? It is practicable for him to do so, but is it reasonable? What is the policy intention? Does it matter that the lease gives the ultimate say to the owner over building alterations, or is the lease now overwritten?

All this amounts to a question whether Clause 8 is intended to overwrite commercial considerations. The clause has the capacity to impose new terrorism-related duties on many building owners and landowners, not only in the property investment sector. Its effect, the independent reviewer writes, is “uncertain”. He suggests that

“since the Bill imposes unprecedented terrorism-related duties on members of the public, and has the capacity to interfere with commercial relationships, the intended impact … should be clearer”.

In this group, Amendments 24A and 24B are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I will leave it to him to introduce those. However, on Amendment 24B, in which he proposes that the tribunal must issue its determinations within a reasonable time—that being defined in regulations by the Secretary of State—I wonder whether he can tell the Committee whether this is entirely novel. He will know far better than I do, given his background and experience, whether the tribunal is required to meet a timeframe in other equivalent contexts. That is my question on his amendment. I beg to move my Amendment 24.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, in this group, I have Amendments 24A and 24B. Amendment 24A to Clause 10 is very simple. It gives the option in the case of non-enhanced duty—that is, standard duty—premises for the responsible body to delegate responsibility to more than one person. That will not dilute responsibility but, if we suppose that two people were given responsibility where it was a small and informal group, it would allow for a degree of flexibility. That is important in small, informal organisations which normally have fewer than 200 people but, in any case, fewer than 800 at an event. This is for smaller events—I do not mean that they are unimportant—and those in charge are likely to be smaller and much less formal organisations than for big places. If such organisations are to engage with all this, very often, if there are volunteers, person A may not be available because they may be on holiday, so we say let us have person B. It is not a big, structured organisation that we are talking about, necessarily.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 30 and 31, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, are probing amendments that aim to clarify how the provisions in the Bill will complement or enhance existing legal requirements on qualifying premises.

In speaking ahead of the Bill to a number of organisations with an interest in it, we heard from the live events industry that it is already heavily regulated and subject to a number of legal requirements under existing licensing laws. Music venues, festivals and events are regulated under the Licensing Act 2003 with, where appropriate, highly developed counterterrorism measures secured by licence conditions and overseen by the safety advisory groups, in accordance with long established and authoritative guidance such as the Purple Guide. This is an important local dimension for a number of events. There will already be local regulatory and partnership structures for counterterrorism resilience. LIVE, the live music industry body in the UK, which has spoken to us about the Bill, has told us that for larger festivals measures have already been taken to protect visitors and workers from terrorist attacks. That is because every venue and festival that comes under LIVE has a premises licence, which means they are already considering counterterrorism, safety and security in the running of the premises or events. As part of that, venues and festivals already work closely with safety advisory groups, which take advice from local police forces and counterterrorism security co-ordinators. Amendment 30 therefore asks for reassurance from the Minister that account will be taken of that in preparing guidance and advice under the Bill. I am sure he will agree that it is important to try, wherever possible, to avoid duplication between this Bill and existing requirements under the Licensing Act, and to promote coherence between the two regimes as far as is practicable to do so.

We heard similar concerns from the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre, which has resulted in our tabling of Amendment 31. To be effective, it is crucial that the SIA understands the industries that it is overseeing, including theatre. In particular, it must be familiar with their operations and existing security arrangements. I ask the Minister whether it is the Government’s intention that the SIA will undertake engagement work with sectors, such as theatre, that will be affected by this new legislation to understand their individual complexities and how they currently work.

Paragraph (ii) of our amendment would require the SIA to take account of particular considerations relating to adjacent premises, premises within other premises and areas in the vicinity of buildings. The Bill defines “premise operator” as the freeholder or leaseholder and “event organiser” as the entity overseeing event delivery. However, some theatres operate within multipurpose venues, such as university complexes. Similarly, many venues hold multiple events concurrently and the security stance changes from time to time. Is the intent that the venue will be required to submit its plans for each change of activity or change of resource? It is important for the guidance to reflect how various duty holders in a multipurpose setting can co-ordinate procedural measures. We urge the Minister in his response to give as much clarity for that industry as possible.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

Having heard the opening speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the one thing that seems clear to me is that there will be different bodies out there with different responsibilities and we will have the SIA coming in. It is important that, before Report, it is clear who will sit at the top and have the last word, because there may be competing interests from different authorities. I do not know what all the details are, but the noble Baroness has set this out. If it is to be the SIA, so be it, but there may be other bodies which know much more about important matters. There needs to be thought within government about how that is to be addressed with specialist knowledge and so on.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, there is enormous advantage in the various regulatory frameworks being consistent. That is a very basic principle. If you are looking for a holistic approach to protective security—which is what this Bill is about—there is the element of personal responsibility involved in making sure that sensible precautions are taken at a local level, but there will also be responsibilities on licensing authorities. It is my view that the various licensing authorities should proactively put in proportionate requirements for the various organisations concerned. In many cases they do that already, but I am not sure that it is a consistent process because each licensing authority is technically separate. While I am not sure that it is in the scope of this Bill to try to regularise the position of different licensing authorities, a holistic approach to protective security would ensure that licensing authorities behave in a consistent fashion.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I understand the concern that those in charge of organising events must act responsibly, and I hope the Committee will accept that all decent people—the sort of people who organise a voluntary event—will want to do so. If things go wrong and there is a disaster in the form of a terrorist event, in particular one that could and should have been prevented, the person responsible—the chairman of the committee or whatever—will not want to be found responsible in the court of public opinion for an outrage occurring at something that they have organised. Quite simply, no decent person who has thought about it for a moment would want that on their conscience. That is the starting point. I cannot deal with rogues and vagabonds, because they are to one side; I am talking about the vast majority of people who get involved in smaller events, not commercial organisations.

Small organisations, if properly advised, will insure against financial penalties. That may be the cost of putting on an event. At a local jubilee event a few years ago in south-west London, in Putney, on a little green we have in our street, we were going to have a bouncy castle. I said that we must get substantial personal injury liability insurance in case a child falls off and breaks their neck and suffers brain damage. It was vast damages then—not as much as it is now but certainly into millions of pounds. We were able to get it fairly cheaply.

However, that was for personal injury damages. What you cannot do is ensure against going to prison. You could certainly get insurance against criminal penalties up to a certain level. If it is known that the fine is not going to be more than £2,000 or something, it will not be terrible, but the insurers will not insure you next year if you are fined this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

I shall make three quick points. First, I hope the noble Lord can in summing up this debate reassure the Committee about proportionality and that it is not the intention of this Bill to attack or penalise volunteers—it is to encourage volunteers to play their role fully in the understanding of what this Bill is about and the need to prepare for the eventuality of a terrorist attack.

Secondly, I have listened very carefully and I have a lot of sympathy on the issue of volunteers. I am a volunteer trustee on several boards and I know about the liability that you have as a trustee on a board. You do have personal liability—but that does not put me off, and I hope that it will not put lots of other people off. I cannot support these amendments, because I think they water down the core element of individual responsibility in the Bill.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

For what criminal liability is the noble Baroness as a trustee going to be liable, other than the criminal offence of fraud?

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

That is a fair point—but you are financially liable as a trustee.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

You can insure against that, and I am sure the noble Baroness is insured as a trustee.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

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

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

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Sandhurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to act as junior counsel to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I listened carefully to some comments that the Minister made on Monday, which alluded to this clause, and I thought about them carefully, but they were brief and I, too, wish to test what is really intended by the Government. My feeling is that the Government have made an inadvertent mistake in Clause 31 which they can easily rectify.

This Bill is designed to protect citizens by imposing clear statutory duties. When clear statutory duties are imposed and there is a breach of those duties, it is very common for a citizen who is a victim of that breach to be able to bring a civil action. The purpose of the civil action is often to recover damages, though it may involve other declaratory judgments too.

I want to give a few examples, because I think we are going to have one substantive debate on this clause and then a decision will be reached. I am going to mention a number of instances in which breach of statutory duty gives rise to a civil action to obtain judgments of the kind I mentioned. First, driving a vehicle in an unsafe condition gives rise to a statutory duty which can result in a judgment for damages. In this Bill we are talking about something much bigger in scale than driving a vehicle in an unsafe condition, but it may have exactly the same consequences.

There are other examples. If there are unsafe systems or means of work in any workspace, there can be an action for breach of statutory duty without it being necessary to prove negligence, nuisance or any other tort —civil wrong—that requires specific proof of certain aspects. Allowing a vehicle to be driven by an uninsured person allows a claim for breach of statutory duty. The failure to arrange compulsory insurance for employees allows such a claim. If a landlord fails to provide habitable standards, equally, there can be such a claim. If a company fails to disclose required financial information to investors, there can be such a claim for breach of statutory duty.

If a shop sells faulty electrical equipment whereby a fire is caused in the home for which it has been bought, for example, one does not have to prove negligence. One may have an action under the Sale of Goods Acts or their equivalent, but there is an opportunity to obtain damages for breach of statutory duty. At a construction site, the failure to provide safety barriers gives rise to such an action. If we go to a restaurant and suffer food poisoning because it has failed to reach the statutory hygiene standards, we can make a claim for damages for breach of statutory duty. If one fails as an employer to provide proper training to employees on handling hazardous chemicals, that too gives rise to a potential claim for breach of statutory duty. I have chosen just a few examples—and there are others—where one does not have to prove negligence and the components of negligence.

Such provisions are all designed to secure protection for individuals without the need to prove those other elements of common-law civil wrongs. I do not understand why those rights are removed by Clause 31(1). I invite the Government to reflect on what is, as I have suggested, probably an inadvertent failure.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to differ with the noble Lord, but not because I do not want deserving people to recover compensation. My reading of the Bill as it stands is to the effect that, as drafted, Clause 31 achieves two things. First, it puts beyond doubt any question whether the breaches of requirements under the Bill can of themselves be a ground for a civil claim. It says plainly that such breaches will not in themselves be a ground. However, it is important to be aware that the fact that a breach of duty under the Bill or regulations has occurred will still be evidence that will be admissible in a civil claim which alleges negligence or other breach of common-law duty. The important point is that there may have been a breach that was without negligence.

If there has been a breach then it will be strong evidence that something has gone wrong that should be compensated for, but it may be capable of explanation and justification in the civil courts, which does not excuse criminal liability. Put simply, the Bill as drafted makes plain that a breach of statutory duty will not of itself alone give rise to an actionable breach of duty sounding in damages.

Secondly, as it stands, the Bill makes it clear that what is said in Clause 31(1) does not affect—that is, detract from—any right of action that exists in common law. In other words, a claim of negligence, in particular, or any other common-law right will remain; so this provision takes nothing away. Where, in a civil action, the claim establishes that as a matter of fact there has been a breach of such statutory duty, that will be evidence in the case and it is likely to be strong evidence. It will be a matter for the court to determine whether it is evidence of negligence or other evidence that might give rise to a justifiable claim for damages, and what weight to give it. I hope that is clear.

The amendment proffered to us would delete the whole of the existing clause, and would simply say:

“Nothing … affects any right of action”.


With respect, I suggest that that would be less clear and less helpful to the courts, because it will leave open a possible argument that breaches of statutory duty are themselves grounds for action, even where no want of care has been established. That would be getting closer, in effect, to strict liability for civil damages, however blameless the body or person concerned. That is why it is a step too far. It is unnecessary and potentially damaging, when we look at the vast range of bodies and people who will be affected.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

I refer back to what the Minister said when he was explaining the Henry VIII powers in the Bill, which I disagree with. He said we need to be able to respond with flexibility for different circumstances. I understand that. One of the things that appeals to me about this review is that if the Government see, after 18 months, that the Bill is not actually leading to more public safety but is killing off a very important industry for a free society then we can adapt accordingly. If we do not have the review, we will never know.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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