Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, the very fact that we are discussing this topic today highlights that we are living in dangerous times and that we have a fundamental problem in this country when it comes to security.

Government’s first and foremost duty has always been to protect the public, and while the Bill laudably aspires to do just that, as with any draft legislation of this magnitude, there are a significant number of areas that require much greater clarity and careful scrutiny as the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House.

I fear that I am going to sound a little more negative than many speakers this evening. I fully acknowledge that the Minister has considerably improved the Bill from some of the early drafts I have read, and he has gone a long way to answering a lot of the questions, but there are still a number of very difficult issues.

I start by touching on the changes the Bill proposes to make to the Licensing Act 2003. I fear that the House needs better to understand from the Minister how the integration of security duties into licensing requirements could place additional responsibilities on local councils, or on the already pressured court and enforcement systems. While councils and councillors are more than accustomed to managing licensing regimes, the Bill could impose further burdens on already under-resourced councils, including the need to oversee compliance with enhanced security measures. I therefore ask the Minister to outline how the Government intend to support local authorities with these changes, and what will be expected of the courts or existing local authority licensing regimes in implementing the proposed changes.

Furthermore, we need to better understand how the Security Industry Authority and the Licensing Act will work together to ensure there is no duplication or conflict. Co-ordination between these frameworks, and their practical implementation, will be critical. If the Government intend to use the SIA, there is a real risk of overlapping responsibilities with other bodies, and the Bill as drafted does little to explain how these responsibilities will be allocated. Will the Government provide clearer guidance on how the organisations involved in the implementation of the Bill will work together, rather than hinder one another, and how will the Government ensure that they support the bodies that will have new powers or responsibilities under the legislation?

If the SIA is to become the regulator for this new duty, we must consider the practical implications. How will venues and event organisers differentiate between inspections for compliance with this duty and standard SIA inspections? I am particularly concerned about the powers of entry. If my understanding is correct, SIA inspectors do not currently operate under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, so the Government will need to clarify whether they or another body will be granted additional powers for the purposes of the Bill, or whether these inspections will rely on existing frameworks.

If the power of entry or RIPA will not be used, who will be the authority responsible for ensuring that building owners comply? Surely the courts and councils will not have these responsibilities, unless more funding and resources—particularly for training provision—are provided by the Government. The House would benefit from the Minister’s clarification of these points, as the need for security measures must always be balanced with the need to ensure that the rights and liberties of both businesses and individuals are protected and maintained.

I also worry about the cost of the Bill and the financial burden that the draft legislation could place on businesses across the UK, which are already working to balance the books under extreme rising costs. To implement these requirements, businesses face costs of between £3,000 and £52,000. As a result, some businesses could be unable to afford to adapt. I am therefore seeking today from the Government an understanding of any finance that may be available to support businesses with initial adaptations to the legislation.

Additionally, I would like to hear from the Government about the possibility of improving planning law—either through this Bill or through additional means—to ensure that the design of new buildings both complies with this legislation and ensures that we can design out terrorism, as we have been trying to do over the past decade or so in designing out crime.

I would be interested to know whether, on the back of this Bill, councils will therefore be encouraged to consider such measures in assessing planning applications, and whether the Government are minded to bring in new legislation or statutory provisions on the incorporation of counterterrorism measures into the design and construction of new buildings. While this is not directly related to the Bill, the House needs better to understand how the Government plan to move forward in this area.

Some measures in the Bill may be necessary; they are a sad acknowledgment of the reality we face in Britian today. However, when it comes to anti-terrorism measures, or indeed measures to protect the public from terrorism, I cannot help but feel that we are firefighting an industrial blaze with a water pistol. It is deeply disheartening that we must legislate for protections against acts of terror in spaces that should be open, safe and welcoming to all. We have seen horrific acts committed in recent weeks and the fabric of our cities and venues changing in the face of the onslaught of people who seek to exterminate the existence of our values and destroy our way of life.

Today we are discussing how venues will have to share the burden of responsibility when it comes to countering terrorism. The additional burden in both time and expense that this will place on them prompts an important question: what steps are the Government taking to address the root cause of terrorism in this country? We cannot go on adapting our way of life to constantly counter those who wish to cause us harm. The Government should urgently update this House on what is being done on a society-wide basis to root out terrorism and the cause of terrorism in these islands.

We know from past and recent cases here in the UK that terrorism is not born in a vacuum. Terrorism in Britian today is fuelled by ideological extremism, social dislocation, weakness in our immigration and asylum systems, and a lack of trust in and respect for authority. Local authorities across the UK have a vital role to play in countering these root causes, yet many have faced significant challenges, particularly when it comes to resources. I am therefore keen to understand, in the wake of the reorganisation and creation of combined authorities, who will be responsible for countering terrorism at community level and how they will do it. I therefore seek clarity today from the Minister on what powers and resources government will hand over to reformed or devolved local authorities—particularly elected mayors—to ensure that they can effectively address the underlying factors that allow terrorism and ideological extremism to breed as an undercurrent in many communities across the UK. As we all know, it is far better to cure and we must grasp this problem before it is too late.

I welcome some of the intentions of the Bill. However, as it progresses, it is essential that these key areas are addressed to ensure that the legislation is both workable and proportionate, and that we balance protections with freedoms. We owe it to those whom we seek to protect, and to the venues and organisations tasked with implementing these measures, to provide them with a clear, fair and effective framework. I fear that we have a lot of work to do when it comes to clarity on what is being asked of whom, and the indirect consequences of this legislation. We must therefore provide businesses with support and certainty, and I urge the Government to listen to the concerns raised by industry in this regard.

In finishing, I say that I do believe that the legislation is significantly better than where it was before; I just feel that this House needs to do a lot more scrutiny.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, without making this a Second Reading debate, as we have discussed, I want to repeat the degree of scepticism that I expressed at Second Reading about the value of this Bill. Of course, the threat of terrorism is real; of course, it is important to deal with it by every possible means, but it is equally possible that this Bill will end up with a lot of bureaucracy, paperwork and assessment without doing anything to deal with the threat of terrorism whatever. However, it is the Bill that we have, and we need to do all that we can to make it workable and get the detail right. That is why I have tabled Amendment 5.

I can be quite brief, because this is a fairly simple concept and a core provision in the Bill—as to where premises are caught and affected by the standard duty. This threshold will determine the success or failure of the Bill; it is this threshold that will capture popular opinion about the Bill when it eventually comes into force, and it is this threshold that determines whether, if you are a volunteer or run a business of any kind, you can carry on as you did before, being prudent about the terrorist threat, or whether you have a new set of formal legal duties that you must pay attention to. As I said at Second Reading, when you make something law, you are telling people that they must pay attention to that above the purpose of their organisation. That is what making it law means.

This is where the Bill is going to bite. This is the area where volunteers may decide that they no longer want to continue in what they are doing. It may be the area where they give up. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, it may be the area where it takes away the fun, the point, the raison d’être of the activity from those who do it. Therefore, it is important to get the threshold right.

As I said at Second Reading, I accept that the Government have taken a step, raising the threshold from 100 to 200, which has significantly improved the Bill. However, my Amendment 5 would raise that threshold to 300. I have two points to explain why that higher threshold is worth considering.

First, I do not think that we have had a proper explanation yet of why 200 is the right number. The shadow Minister raised this question in Committee in the Commons. The responding Minister’s only explanation was that

“300 would significantly impact the outcomes of the Bill, and particularly what the standard tier seeks to achieve”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill Committee, 31/10/24; col. 68.]

That is obvious, but why? We need a little more understanding of why it is 200 rather than 300 and why it is any particular figure other than the arbitrary seeking of a number. One Minister said something like that in the Commons: “We’ve got to decide a number, and this is that number”. However, it is such an important number that it deserves some proper thought.

Secondly, lots of activities are still caught by this 200 threshold. The impact assessment says that it is 154,000. That is down by nearly half from what it would have been at 100, but it is still a lot—that is one premise for one activity for every 450 people in the country. For a threshold of 200, that is quite a significant figure. An occasional capacity of 200 people is quite a small number of people. One in eight village halls are still caught by this threshold. The Music Venue Trust says that a sixth of its premises are caught between the 200 and 300 thresholds. These are not small numbers, but they are still relatively small activities. That is the point. We must try to set the threshold at a point where we are not capturing those who do not need to be caught by it.

Is the Minister confident that the threshold really must be so low? Can he give a clear explanation for why it has to be set at that level? Can he go beyond explaining that it is simply arbitrary, that it has to be set somewhere and that 200 is the right number—end of discussion? We need a little bit more debate than that and I hope that we might get it now.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 6 and 7, in my name, follow a similar line to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost. His request is that the threshold moves to 300; mine is that it moves to 400 or 500. The truth is that I do not think there is a magic number. I think the number was first 100, and I am grateful to the Minister for moving it to 200, but as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, there is no particular reason for this number. It can be almost any number; it is just that you capture more and more businesses, village halls and voluntary organisations by going for the lower number. I want to push for this to be debated fully this evening, because this is one of the core issues within the Bill and something that needs a lot of time.

The amendments seek to increase the threshold and exempt smaller venues. That would be so important for so many of them. It is about viability and costs, as many businesses are struggling with all the costs that face them. The Government should be trying to protect them and these premises from further resource pressures. Therefore, it is the damage that is going to be done that I ask the Government to think about. By raising the threshold, these amendments would alleviate the administrative and financial responsibilities involved and associated with implementation, while concentrating resources and efforts on larger premises, which will always be higher-value targets for terrorist activities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made a very important point in an earlier group. Every time we do anything like this, we say to the terrorists that they have had another victory and done something more, by making us start to change our lives—that is what is happening here. I feel very strongly that we need to minimise the effect on the people of this country, as much as we possibly can, and go for the largest number that can possibly be considered. I cannot believe that there is not an argument we could have which would enable the Government to accept a number of 400 to 500; they may wish to consider the 800 number, but that is another issue. I am less concerned about that; I am concerned about smaller organisations—the voluntary organisations and smaller business—and the chilling effect that this will have.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, when I heard about this Bill originally, one could see and understand that it made sense for Wembley Stadium or somewhere of that nature. But when under the last Government, not this one, I saw that the figure of 100 was being used, I realised how many small businesses and small organisations such as church halls would be affected. It made me ask a question, which the Government have rightly answered. All the consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny, and all the trade organisations that were asked, have said there is very little evidence that, for the safety of small venues, this legislative regulatory framework will keep people safe. What it is guaranteed to do is stymie entrepreneurship and volunteering in local areas, and make people think that it is just not worth organising events or staying open.

I congratulate the Government on having listened to that and for raising the standard tier from 100 to 200 people. Having done that, the question is why they stopped at 200—why not 300 or 400? These numbers are not rocket science, and this is not a glib or silly point or playing games. That is why I raised—rather badly, a moment ago—that, on the numbers game, education settings and places of worship are classified as standard duty premises, regardless of their capacity, because they are different kinds of premises.

We know that it does not have to be this number or that number otherwise people will be killed in terrorist offences. The Government are prepared to be subtle and flexible, and this Bill can be the same. It is worth us probing why the Government stopped at 200. I would go higher, because I am very worried that it will stymie community organisations and small businesses, which will just fall apart.

The Government have a mission of growth and keep saying that they believe in it. They do not want to be saying to new companies or to the hospitality industry that they are going to have to fulfil overregulatory bureaucracy to survive. It is not that such organisations do not care about their clientele or staff; it is that this Bill does not just demand that they think about that but that they must fulfil, under threat of law, a particular set of regulatory mandates. It is difficult; that is what they have all said.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Udny-Lister Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, in this group. As the Bishop of Manchester, I have got something like 400 churches and church halls in my diocese, but these amendments go rather wider than that. For places of worship, there are already some grant schemes for protecting against terrorism, given the particular threat that places of worship, especially Muslim and Jewish places of worship, have traditionally faced.

Back in my days as a vicar—25 years or more ago now—I seem to recall that, when I was trying to do good things to improve disabled access in my church, it was possible to do the work and then reclaim the VAT, which would not have been possible on other works. The principle that the Government fund by way of tax relief works that are important to the well-being of the community, to enable people to participate safely in events and activities, is well established in law. If small venues, particularly village halls, have to do physical work to premises, I urge that we find ways to defray not all but part of the cost, recognising that that shows this is something that is strongly supported by the state.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 41, as I believe it is very important that we get some clarity. This amendment seeks to make sure that there can be no ambiguity in what is to be expected of local authorities, the SIA and other relevant bodies if the Bill becomes law.

We know that licensing and enforcement teams in most local authorities are already overstretched and underresourced. Through this amendment, I seek some reassurance that councils will be supported and financially compensated for the work they will have to do to provide oversight and enforcement, and around their ability to co-ordinate with the SIA effectively. The provision of advice and guidance that businesses will seek from councils will be significant, and it will be a cost. We cannot place additional burdens on our councils at this time unless they are funded fully. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government have a duty and a mechanism by which they can fund and resource councils in overseeing compliance with the Bill’s security requirements.

I should also add that, as this is new legislation, the Government have already committed that they will finance local authorities for any additional costs that they incur, although that is not clear from this Bill.

While I am on my feet, I will also speak to Amendment 42. I have already spoken, as other noble Lords have, about the worry this Bill is causing venues, particularly smaller premises. If left unamended, I have no doubt at all that the financial burden of implementing these requirements would force a number of our smaller venues, and perhaps even a few larger ones, to close. While we must do everything we can to protect the public from terrorism, we cannot allow the threat of terrorism and associated countermeasures to be a causation for permanent business closure as, if this is to be the case, then we are allowing terror to alter our way of life and, of course, providing a victory for the terrorists.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Udny-Lister]

43: After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
“Counter-terrorism measures in planning law(1) The Secretary of State must consult with local authorities on integrating counter-terrorism measures into the planning and design of new buildings which are likely to be designated “qualifying premises” for the purposes of this Act.(2) Following that consultation, the Secretary of State must introduce measures to ensure the incorporation of anti-terrorism design principles in new building projects, particularly those in high-risk areas, where the buildings in question are likely to be designated “qualifying premises” for the purposes of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment encourages the integration of counter-terrorism measures into architectural design, promoting safer urban environments from the outset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief in moving this amendment. As I said at Second Reading, there is a clear opportunity within this legislation to design out terrorism by ensuring that anti-terrorism design principles are incorporated into new building projects that fall within the definition and scope of the qualifying premises. It is important that we take every opportunity to do this as we proceed with various bits of legislation that do have an effect on security.

Legislation, where possible, should always be forward-looking and include provisions that seek to prevent, rather than just address. I am therefore hopeful that noble Lords will see the benefits of mandating the need for the Secretary of State to work with local authorities on integrating the counterterrorism measures into planning and design policies, so that we can promote safer premises from the outset of their design. It is a sad reality that the threat of terrorism will not go away in the short term. We therefore have a duty to ensure that the venues of tomorrow are designed in ways that protect the public and prevent terrorism. I am confident that this amendment will achieve that, while further alleviating the financial burden of altering premises at a later date to ensure compliance with the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, and although it is towards the end of the Bill and it is a small addition, I think that, without this change, the Bill becomes less effective, because the thing we know works best in preventing crime—or terrorism, in this case—is design. The problem we have at the moment with car theft is that the thieves know how to steal them and are pretty effective at it. Car stealing has gone through the roof over the last few years. For 20 years, it went down. So we can design things better to make the terrorists less likely to be effective, or so that, if they do get through, they do less damage.

Prevention is critical to the Bill. At Second Reading, the Minister said that they could not consider it in this Bill, and that it had to be considered elsewhere. As much as I love and respect him, I am not sure that I agree. The danger is that the Home Office forgets, and it gets buried somewhere else. This is the best place to do it. There is an equivalent: the Section 104 agreements on new buildings, which are about crime—keeping new buildings safe by being designed to prevent crime. Car parks are designed in order to make it less likely that cars are stolen.

--- Later in debate ---

I respectfully say to the noble Lord that I hope that, with those assurances, he will withdraw his amendment, but not withdraw the principle that we need to future-proof and future plan for the security of buildings. One of the best ways, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, is to ensure that in that future-proofing and future planning, we take account of the lessons that we learn from attacks that, sadly, have taken place and, wherever possible, future-proof new buildings by building in design to ensure that we do that. However, I reaffirm that the best place to do that is in planning guidance rather than in the Bill.

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

I thank everybody who supported this amendment and took part in this short but important debate. I think it would be a missed opportunity if this Bill is not used as a mechanism to remind local authorities and the Home Office to get the message out again and for the SIA to use it to get new buildings designed with security and terrorism in mind. I think that that would be beneficial, but having heard the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 43 withdrawn.