Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Committee (3rd Day)

16:24:00

Clause 5: Public protection procedures

Amendment 21

Moved by

21: Clause 5, page 4, line 19, leave out subsections (4) to (6) Member’s explanatory statement This would remove a Henry VIII Clause which will otherwise give the Minister power by regulation to alter (including by making more onerous) the range of public protection procedures in subsection (3) which were decided upon after full consultation and will after passage of the Bill have been endorsed by Parliament.

My Lords, I will speak to the four amendments in this group, with thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who have variously signed them. I thank also the Minister, not only for being generous with his time but for his indication in Committee on Wednesday that he had some sympathy with these amendments. What form that sympathy will take we look forward to finding out. Standing back, the Bill has two principal elements: it stipulates the capacity of events and premises that are subject to its provisions, and it stipulates the types of procedures and measures which must be followed by those responsible for such premises and events. Those things are not matters of detail—they define the policy that underlies Martyn’s law. We are asked, quite properly, to sign off on those provisions by giving our approval to Clauses 2 and 3 on capacity, and to Clauses 5 and 6 on procedures and measures. The amendments in this group all relate to Henry VIII clauses: provisions in the Bill that allow the Minister, by the affirmative procedure, to amend provisions of statute. It is not just any statute: this statute, the one we are being asked to pass into law; and not just any provisions—the provisions in Clauses 2, 3, 5 and 6 that lie right at its heart. Delegated powers are a fact of life and, although some of us may regret it, we are even seeing the normalisation of Henry VIII powers, which allow statutes to be amended in points of detail by regulation. But I suggest that these Henry VIII clauses simply go too far in giving Ministers the power to retake policy decisions that have been taken after much debate by Parliament. The first pair of amendments in my name, Amendments 21 and 23, would remove the Henry VIII clauses in Clauses 5 and 6. These were singled out for concern by the Constitution Committee in the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, to the Minister of 14 January. As a member of that committee, fortunate to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, I will briefly explain why. The lists at Clauses 5(3) and 6(3) dictate what may lawfully be required of those responsible for premises falling within scope. Clause 5(3) specifies the “Public protection procedures” to be followed if there is reason to suspect that an act of terrorism is occurring or about to occur. They are of limited scope: little more than procedures for evacuation and invacuation, barring entrances and providing information. Clause 6(3) lists the public protection measures that must additionally be in place in enhanced duty premises or in qualifying events. These are potentially much more extensive: measures relating to monitoring, movement, the physical safety and security of the premises, and security of information. Unlike the public protection procedures that are the subject of Clause 5, they must be in place at all times and may have as their objective to reduce the vulnerability of the premises as well as risk to individuals. Clauses 5(4) to (6), and 6(4) to (6), which these amendments would remove, allow both lists—the list of procedures and the list of measures—to be amended, not only by regulation but without meaningful precondition and without even the safeguard of consultation. What could that mean in practice? Take Clause 6, where the range of public protection measures is already almost limitlessly broad: anything relating to monitoring of a premises or event; anything relating to the physical safety or security of the premises; anything relating to the movement of individuals or the security of information. Clause 6(4) would allow yet further measures, not relating to the safety and security of the premises, monitoring, movement, and so on, to be introduced by regulations. What regulations could the Government have in mind? They sound as though they are well outside the normal range of protections that we might think useful and acceptable. If any such categories can be thought of, why can they not be brought forward and debated in the Bill? If they cannot be thought of, how can this power be justified? The range of procedures in Clause 5 is much more limited, and understandably so, because these procedures are to be activated only once a terrorist attack is immediately anticipated or already under way, and because some of the venues to which they apply are relatively small. But, because the range is so limited, the potential for its expansion is commensurately large. What new and more onerous categories of procedure might be in prospect, what will be their additional cost and why are they not already in the Bill so that we can debate and decide on them now?

16:30:00

The Minister, in his response to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, of 24 January, defended these Henry VIII powers on the grounds of expediency: ensuring that the regime can be adjusted, if necessary, and recalibrated so as to ensure that it continues to strike the correct balance. But, if that were a sufficient explanation for this Henry VIII power, it could justify a Henry VIII power in almost any circumstance. “Parliament has struck a balance in this Bill after the most careful consultation”, the Government seem to be saying, “but we reserve the right to change it whenever we like”.

As the Constitution Committee put it in our letter:

“We have long held the constitutional standard that delegated powers are not an appropriate route for policy change and would appreciate further explanation of how the clauses safeguard against the excessive dilution and/or expansion of the bill’s aims by regulation”.

There is no apparent limitation on the policy changes which these regulations could introduce, other than the self-evident one that further procedures or measures must reduce, or not increase, the risk of physical harm to individuals. Even Amendment 21A from the last group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, would introduce only a test of proportionality, and only in Clause 6. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of why these powers are necessary and why, if he can show that they are necessary, it was thought appropriate or necessary to take them without precondition or even the most rudimentary consultation.

The second pair of amendments, Amendments 38 and 39, relate to the later Henry VIII powers in Clause 32, and specifically to the thresholds of 200 individuals for premises to fall within scope of the Bill and 800 individuals for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. These amendments are modest indeed. They would not remove the Henry VIII powers, despite the central importance of these thresholds to the Bill, but simply place reasonable conditions on their use. Amendment 38 provides that the minimum thresholds may be reduced only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the reduction is justified by a change in the threat from terrorism. One would hope that reductions would not be contemplated in other circumstances but, to be properly reassured, we need to see that in the Bill.

Amendment 39 requires the Secretary of State, before making regulations under Section 32, to

“consult anyone that appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate”.

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.

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.

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.

My Lords, this group of amendments on delegated powers and the Henry VIII clauses is a key area of contention in the Bill. On behalf of these Benches, I have added my name to Amendments 21 and 38 in this group. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, they were beautifully and comprehensively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, so I shall keep my remarks fairly brief. It is true to say that the amendments in this group are now truly cross-party. I suspect that there are several noble Lords on the Government Benches who would rather agree with them too. I note in passing, as an observation of more than 11 years in your Lordships’ House, that parties tend to oppose Henry VIII clauses when they are sitting on the Opposition Benches, whereas they tend to introduce them once they are in government. If the previous draft Bill under the previous Government was perhaps too prescriptive, many of the concerns about this Bill now stem from the fact that it lacks clarity and leaves too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State, without parliamentary oversight. Like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I very much agree with the Constitution Committee’s letter in that regard, in particular the sentence that says that “delegated powers are not an appropriate route for policy change”. I think that is a truism, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. As the Bill currently stands, we are concerned that there is too much power left in the hands of the Home Secretary. In particular, there is a risk that if at some point in the future, God forbid, there is a horrendous terrorist attack, the Government may feel under huge pressure to react and, indeed, sometimes potentially to overreact. In such circumstances, there is always a tremendous amount of pressure to respond to events. In those circumstances, it is all the more important that Parliament can debate such measures and that there is proper and full consultation with the sector. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, Amendment 38 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that any change to the threshold would have to be justified by a change to the terrorist threat. We touched on this in earlier debates in Committee and it strikes me as a reasonable and common-sense approach. I hope that the Minister responds positively to these comments and concerns and that, if the Government feel unable to accept the amendments as currently drafted, they bring forward their own amendments before Report.

16:45:00

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has put forward an important group of amendments. When I think about this, I am guided by two principles. The first is that anything the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, says about terrorism is probably worth listening to extremely carefully. Secondly, I strive to be consistent in your Lordships’ House. I appreciate that that is not something that all noble Lords, particularly some who were recently in government, have necessarily embraced, but I cannot forget the number of occasions in the last 14 years when I have trooped through the Lobbies against Henry VIII clauses—for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, highlighted. I look forward to my noble friend’s response on precisely that point of why Henry VIII clauses might be needed in this case. If he is not so minded, perhaps he might give us an indication of the alternative. The other point—again, I hope it is consistent with what I have already said—is that I am aware that the Bill has been through a large amount of consultation in reaching this House. That consultation has led to a series of compromises. I said earlier that my preference would have been for the limits to be set at lower levels and for the provisions to kick in at venues of 100. It is the Government’s judgment, from listening to that consultation, that 200 is a better figure to go for. I would be uneasy if we were saying that these major provisions, having been through such extensive consultations, could be changed without a consultation process and certainly without a proper process of parliamentary endorsement.

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 21 and 23 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. These amendments propose the removal of Clauses 5(4) to 5(6) and 6(4) to 6(6), which currently contain Henry VIII provisions granting Ministers the power to amend by regulation primary legislation relating to public protection procedures, including the ability to make them more onerous. These are important amendments and I support them for several key reasons. First, they uphold parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. The inclusion of Henry VIII clauses in the Bill would, in effect, bypass the scrutiny of Parliament by allowing Ministers to unilaterally change key aspects of public protection procedures. Such powers should be granted in only the most exceptional circumstances, where there is a clear and pressing need for flexibility. In this case, however, the procedures in Clauses 5(3) and 6(3) have already been carefully considered and subject to full scrutiny, and will be endorsed by Parliament upon the Bill’s passage. It is therefore difficult to justify granting Ministers the ability to unpick these provisions without returning to Parliament for proper debate and approval. Secondly, granting such sweeping powers undermines legal certainty. The security landscape is undoubtedly complex and may evolve over time, but that is precisely why legislation must provide a stable and predictable framework. If Ministers can alter public protection procedures by regulation, it will create uncertainty for the businesses, public authorities and other stakeholders that will implement these security measures. This uncertainty could hinder the very objective that the Bill seeks to achieve in enhancing public protection. Furthermore, the inclusion of Henry VIII clauses risks undermining public trust. Effective public protection measures require the co-operation and confidence of the public and stakeholders alike. If these measures can be altered without consultation or parliamentary oversight through the proper primary legislation process, it may lead to perceptions of arbitrary governance and erode confidence in the fairness and transparency of security regulations. I am not blind to the Government’s need for flexibility in responding to emerging security threats. However, existing mechanisms allow for swift and proportionate responses without the need for unchecked ministerial power. Maintaining proper parliamentary scrutiny is essential to preserving the legitimacy of any regulatory framework. The amendment strikes a necessary balance between security and democratic accountability. It ensures that any future changes to public protection procedures remain, as they should, subject to the robust oversight of Parliament. I urge the Government to accept this amendment and demonstrate their commitment to parliamentary sovereignty, legal certainty and public trust. I will now speak to the important amendments to Clause 32 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. They address the regulatory powers granted to the Secretary of State regarding the thresholds for qualifying premises and events under the Bill. Amendment 38 seeks to require that any reduction in the thresholds for qualifying premises and events be justified by a change in the threat level from terrorism. While I appreciate and respect the intention behind this amendment, I must approach it with some caution. The need to ensure that security regulations are proportionate to the prevailing threat level is, of course, essential. However, linking regulatory changes exclusively to a shift in the formal threat assessment may create unnecessary rigidity. Security risks are often multifaceted and not always captured by changes in official threat levels. Local intelligence, emerging patterns of behaviour or other factors may necessitate adjustments to security requirements even when the formal threat level remains static. For this reason, although I appreciate the noble Lord’s desire for transparency and justification, I am somewhat hesitant to fully support his amendment. None the less, I commend the focus it places on ensuring that regulatory changes are evidence based and justified. I am more supportive of his approach in Amendment 39, which would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders before making regulations under this section. This is a measured and sensible proposal that aligns with the principles of good governance. The wording, adapted from the Fire Safety Act 2021, provides a strong precedent for such consultation requirements. Consultation is essential not only for ensuring that regulatory changes are practical and effective but for fostering buy-in from those directly affected by these measures. Venues, event organisers, local authorities and security experts are on the front lines of implementing public protection measures. Their insights and experiences are invaluable in shaping regulations that are both proportionate and workable. Moreover, consultation promotes transparency and accountability, helping to build public trust in the regulatory framework. In a democracy, it is only right that those affected by significant changes to security requirements have the opportunity to contribute their views and understand the rationale behind decisions. In conclusion, while I take a cautious approach to Amendment 38, Amendment 39 takes a better approach. I urge the Government to look at this proposal as a possible safeguard for ensuring that regulations are both effective and democratically accountable.

My Lords, the Dispatch Box can sometimes be a lonely place, but such is life. I hope I can give some comfort to noble Lords who have contributed on the points that they have raised, while also explaining where the Government are coming from. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for his amendments and his constructive approach to the Bill’s proposals. It was good to talk to him outside the Chamber as well as having this debate. He has had support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey also made strong comments on the use of Henry VIII powers. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, from His Majesty’s Opposition Front Benches broadly speaking supported the bulk of the noble Lord’s amendments, with some concerns over Amendment 38. Ironically, it is on Amendment 38 that I can potentially offer the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, most warmth today. I shall try to give the House some comfort on these points and, hopefully, some explanation. I welcomed the scrutiny of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and of the Constitution Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is a member. The Government carefully assessed each of the delegated powers in the Bill so as to draw them as narrowly as possible and to find alternative mechanisms which remove the need for secondary legislation where possible. Our view, and this is consistent with what we said in opposition, is that Henry VIII powers should be included only where they are necessary to ensure that the legislation continues to operate as intended and where there is a justification for those changes. I believe that is reflected in the scrutiny of the two committees, as the only concern raised was about the linked powers in Clauses 5(4) and 6(4). For the reasons I will set out, the Government still consider the powers covered by these amendments to be necessary. On Amendments 21 and 23 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I take everything he says to the Committee—and to the Government outside the House—as important and serious. His amendments seek to remove powers that would enable the Secretary of State to add, remove or otherwise amend the public protection measures listed in Clauses 5(3) and 6(3). Members of the Committee will remember that Clause 5 covers a number of measures, such as evacuation, invacuation, preventing individuals leaving premises or providing information to individuals on premises or at an event. They are reasonable measures that can be taken, but the changing nature of terrorism means that over time methodologies may change. As the ways in which acts of terrorism are carried out change, so too may the many ways in which we need to respond to them. The Government want to keep the legislation under review to ensure that it effectively deals with the terrorist threat while being—this goes to the heart of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said—appropriate, proportionate and done in a reasonable way. These powers better enable the Government to respond to changes appropriately and maintain this balance. The measures in Clause 5(3) are already constrained. They can be used only to achieve the public protection outcomes of the future Act. The Secretary of State may add further procedures only if it is considered that they would reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals. Similarly, the power to remove or amend the existing public protection measures may be exercised only where it is considered that such changes would not increase the risk of physical harm to individuals. The powers in Clause 6(3) are similarly restricted. The Secretary of State may add further measures only if it is considered that they would reduce the vulnerability of premises or events or reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals. Similarly, the power to remove or amend the existing public protection measures may be exercised only where it is considered that such changes would not increase the vulnerability of premises or events. There are limited, straightforward proposals in Clauses 5 and 6, which set down a number of potential measures that are in place. Any change under those Henry VIII powers would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Before any regulations under these provisions are made, both Houses of Parliament would have the opportunity to debate and scrutinise changes to the public protection procedures and measures through these powers. Those limitations will help safeguard against unnecessary use of those powers by any future Secretary of State, in line with making sure that the public protection measures in Clauses 5 and 6 are met. I believe, although I may be in a minority of one among today’s speakers, that the proposals in the Bill are sufficient for any Henry VIII power used in this circumstance to be brought back to the House for affirmative resolution and for the House of Commons to have a similar potential vote in due course. I do not have sympathy with those amendments, although I understand where they are coming from. However, I will be honest; when I first saw Amendment 38, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I said to colleagues that I thought he has a point—and, if the Committee will bear with me, I think he does. Amendment 38 proposes to look at how we can reduce the qualifying threshold figures, saying that regulations can be made “only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the reduction is justified by a change in the threat from terrorism”. There is potentially room there for discussion with the noble Lord outside this Chamber before Report, which is not too far hence, to look at whether we can reach an accommodation to agree that broad principle.

17:00:00

Any reduction in the thresholds would not be taken lightly by the Government, to go back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, but there might be circumstances where there was an increase in the number of plots or attacks in the UK, or in the size of premises of events targeted—we do not know how things are going to move in the field of terrorism over time.

It is intended currently that the power would be exercised only in exceptional circumstances: a change in the nature of the terrorist threat, or a change in the type of attacks that may have taken place. Again, I say to the Committee that regulations made under the clause that the noble Lord is seeking to amend in Amendment 38 are subject to the affirmative procedure, but I understand where he is coming from on that. I am happy, if he is willing to do so, to discuss that further with him to consider what safeguards could be provided to ensure that the Bill’s effectiveness was not undermined while, at the same time, the basic core principles of that threshold were not diluted.

Amendment 39 would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultation with anyone who appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate before making regulations under Clause 32, as well as providing for powers to reduce the thresholds for qualifying premises. Clause 32 contains other powers to make amendments to Schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill, and the requirement to consult that this amendment seeks to impose would apply to those powers too.

The changes enabled by Clause 32 vary in their nature. There may be significant changes—for example, the power to specify a new use in Schedule 1 by virtue of which premises may be brought into scope. Other changes could be made under Clause 32 that could be minor or clarificatory in nature. For example, it may be the case that small technical changes to the descriptions of types of premises in Schedule 1 are recommended to provide clarity. However, I give the Committee the assurance that, in all cases, the Government would engage with any stakeholders identified as relevant to the proposal in question. For minor and clarificatory changes to Schedule 1, that might not even be outside government; it might be within government. Where the proposal is more significant, the Government might need to consult more widely as appropriate, but that would be done in a way appropriate to how it could be potentially delivered downstream.

Although the amendment establishes a legal requirement for this process, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to say that that is largely unnecessary in this case. However, I recognise the sentiment behind it, and I give him the assurance that consultation would take place.

In conclusion, to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I offer a sort of half-concession discussion and further examination in due course on Amendment 38. With regard to the other powers that have been included in the Bill, I hope that noble Lords, having listened today and potentially having read Hansard, will not pursue the amendments that are listed and will allow me to discuss Amendment 38 further with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I shall not try to summarise the excellent speeches that were made—they will come much more clearly in the form that they were made than they would from any summary of mine—but I will pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, who emphasised consultation. As I said at Second Reading, this Bill has in many ways been a model of careful consideration. Look at the work that the Home Affairs Select Committee did on it, the work that was done in another place, the way that this Government have listened, and the way that people right around the country were consulted before these measures, procedures and thresholds were reached. In previous groups, the Minister, quite rightly, has sought credit for the depth of that consultation and the care with which those crucial figures, procedures and measures were arrived at. So although I might not have used exactly the same words as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—she said that to introduce Henry VIII clauses and apply them to these central elements of the Bill when it has already been consulted on makes a mockery of it—I entirely understand where she is coming from. I am very grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I think he described it as a half concession—and one must take what one can get—on Amendment 38 and the idea that changes to the thresholds should be motivated by a change to the terrorist threat. However, I urge him, while he is in that generous mood, to heed the very strong terms in which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, expressed himself on Amendment 39. If you were seeking a Henry VIII clause in these circumstances, and claiming as your model the Fire Safety Act 2021 which has a duty to consult—I might say a very weak duty to consult only such people as seem to the Secretary of State appropriate—why can that not be followed through into the text of this Bill? The Minister gave an assurance from the Dispatch Box that there would be appropriate consultation—I think he said that; I do not want to put words into his mouth—although he did say that, on some minor issues, it might be internal consultation only. If the Minister is prepared to say that from the Dispatch Box, let us hope that all his successors are as well inclined to the idea of consultation. But is it really a great stretch to put those words into the Bill as well? I hope that, just as we reflect before Report, the Minister will reflect as well. If the consultation power is too wide—and I think the Minister took the point that perhaps Amendment 39 applies to a whole range of changes—it could of course be narrowed. Amendment 38 is restricted to specific aspects of the Bill and it would be quite possible to redraft a consultation power that was equally narrow. While I am on my feet and we are all beginning the process of reflection before Report, might the Minister consider applying the logic that he has brought to Amendment 38 to the lists in Clauses 5 and 6? After all, if reductions in the threshold, as the Minister seems minded to accept, require a change in the terrorist threat—or that there could at least be debate as to whether that is an appropriate precondition—why should not an expansion of the lists similarly require a change in the threat?

The reason I would put is that a change in the threshold would involve bringing a large number of other potential businesses and outlets into the scope of the provisions of the Bill. The changes in Clauses 5 and 6 may tweak or look at the protections available or what other support and training should be given, but they do not bring into scope further premises.

I am grateful for that clarification and answer, but Amendments 38 and 39 are not just about a changing of the threat; they are also about consultation. While the Minister is thinking about consultation in relation to the thresholds, I wonder whether he might think about something similar in relation to changing the lists. The Minister has offered me half a concession. What I was offering him just now was perhaps half an olive branch. It was a way of possibly coming back on Report with something slightly different from my amendments to Clauses 5 and 6. I think we all have reflecting to do. I am extremely grateful for what I think has been a most useful debate. For the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

Amendment 21A not moved.

Clause 5 agreed.

Amendment 22 not moved.

Clause 6: Public protection measures for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events

Amendment 23 not moved.

Clause 6 agreed.

Clause 7: Enhanced duty premises and qualifying events: documenting compliance

Amendment 23A not moved.

Clause 7 agreed.

Clause 8: Requirements to co-ordinate and co-operate

Amendment 24

Moved by

24: Clause 8, page 6, line 14, leave out subsections (5) and (6) Member's explanatory statement This amendment is intended to probe the impact of Clause 8 in relation to commercial agreements, as highlighted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s Note on the Bill, published on 9th December 2024.

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.

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.

17:15:00

As for the tribunal, I should begin straightaway by saying in response to the noble Baroness that I do not know—I have not done a search as to whether there is such a power or obligation elsewhere. It may be that the Minister with all the powers of the Civil Service behind him can do such a search. However, I do not think that that really matters. What matters is whether these regulations, which engage the public at large, are to be effective and fair. That is particularly the case with regard to instructions given by the SIA, for example, in respect of a particular, forthcoming event, and the body concerned says, “Oh, my goodness me, we can’t possibly do that in the time available”, and it appeals, or “We simply can’t manage that”—and unless it complies, it cannot go ahead with an event. It is important if it appeals that the matter is dealt with promptly—and it will have power to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. An appeal hearing may otherwise, in the ordinary run of events, be six months down the road, which might be reasonable in ordinary circumstances, but it may not be reasonable if the SIA has perhaps come along rather late. That is perfectly possible; we do not live in a perfect world. There are delays in court and delays in supervisory bodies such as the SIA, not because of ill will or ill management—but they do occur, and it is important therefore that, where appropriate, the tribunal is under an obligation not just to leave matters in a queue.

The second part of Amendment 24B would ensure that the Secretary of State, who will be aware as time goes by what sort of times are in practice necessary, spells it out. The Secretary of State can list the factors to be taken account of—because, otherwise, “reasonable time” is going to be meaningless. It does not have to be too definitive, but it is common in the courts to give examples and factors in legislation of what will be a reasonable time or reasonable practice, and so on. What is reasonable for the tribunal, when looking at all the other pressures, may be hopelessly too long for a body with premises that it cannot use. I ask the Minister in all seriousness to consider the practical aspects of this and how it might be made to work.

My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 24B to Clause 11, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. Clause 11 requires determinations by a tribunal to be made on a perfectly reasonable list of subjects; I hope and expect that the tribunals would respond proportionately to the urgency of the questions asked. However, Clause 11 raises the responsibilities of the Security Industry Authority—SIA. As those of us who are interested in the Bill know, it gives the SIA very new functions to which it is not yet accustomed—unlike anything it has done before. With that in mind, I have met and corresponded with Heather Baily QPM, who is the chair of the SIA. Although she has been very helpful, I remain unsatisfied at this stage with what we know about what the SIA is going to be doing. We know it is being given two years to learn the skills and measures it has to comply with and deal with, but we need something more than that before the Bill reaches Report. I wrote to the SIA and suggested a list of issues it should inform your Lordships’ House about before we debated these amendments. At the very least, I urge the Minister to ensure, by Report, that the SIA—which I know has done a lot of work on the Bill already—sets out a proposed, not definitive, timetable for what it is going to do over the next two years to ensure that it carries out its responsibilities under the Bill. That would include giving information about the sorts of issues and how they would be raised by the SIA under Clause 11. We are not going to have a complete picture of what will happen under the Bill, unless the SIA informs us in some detail. We need to know, as soon as possible, about what affected organisations and we, as the public and Parliament, are expected to accept from it as its responsibility under the Bill.

My Lords, I will say a word about Amendment 24B. It is quite unusual for a tribunal or a court to be required by statute to deliver its judgment within a “reasonable time”. I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, realises that a proposition of that kind—which is so general—requires definition. That brings me to the second point, which is the power given to the Secretary of State to define the length of a “reasonable time”. The problem the Secretary of State faces is that if he gives a definition, it will have to last, presumably, until some further exercise of the power is resorted to. Looking ahead, it is very difficult to know what exactly the reasonable time would be. At the very least, I would expect that if the Minister were attracted by that amendment, it would be qualified by “after consultation with the tribunal”. To do this without consultation with a tribunal would be really dangerous because it might set out a time which, realistically, given its resources, the tribunal cannot meet. I see what the noble Lord is trying to achieve, but it has difficulties. To try to define “reasonable time”, even with the assistance of a tribunal, is a task that would not be easily achieved.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and to Amendments 24A and 24B in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. Amendment 24 seeks to remove subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 8, probing the implications of this clause for commercial agreements, as highlighted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s note on the Bill. The amendment rightly seeks to probe how these provisions will affect contractual relationships between private sector actors. There is a genuine concern that the current wording could place undue financial and legal burdens on businesses by interfering with existing agreements. This could lead to significant commercial disputes and unnecessary litigation, ultimately hindering the smooth operation of commercial partnerships. While public safety is undoubtedly a priority, we must ensure that our approach to security does not inadvertently create a minefield of legal uncertainty for businesses. Subsections (5) and (6) appear to grant broad and potentially disruptive powers that may override established contractual terms. In doing so, they risk undermining commercial stability and discouraging investment in venues and events that play an important role in our social and economic life. Furthermore, these provisions may disproportionately impact small and medium-sized enterprises that lack the legal and financial resources to navigate complex contractual adjustments. Removing subsections (5) and (6) would encourage a more co-operative and practical approach, allowing businesses to work with public authorities to achieve security objectives without unnecessary interference in their commercial arrangements. The independent reviewer’s concerns highlight the need for clarity and a balanced approach. Instead of imposing rigid requirements that disrupt commercial agreements, we should be looking to develop guidance that promotes collaboration between duty holders and security authorities. With this amendment, this House can signal our intention to maintain security measures that are both effective and commercially workable. Amendment 24A in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst is a simple amendment which seeks to establish the Government’s reasons for requiring one senior individual to be responsible for the duties under the Bill for those premises and events with an enhanced duty. This should be something that the Minister can resolve with a clear answer today, and I hope he will be able to give that answer today. Amendment 24B, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, seeks to establish the timeframe in which decisions by the tribunal have to be made. Clearly, events will need swift decisions from the tribunal if the decisions are to be made before the events themselves are held, and it is surely right that all organisations deserve timely determinations from the tribunal. Can the Minister tell us what his expectations are in this regard? Can he confirm that the Government have assessed the impact of this new duty on the tribunal on waiting times for determinations? I urge the Government to reconsider the necessity of these subsections and to work toward a more proportionate and practical solution.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for their amendments. I will try to deal with both in due course. First, Clause 8(5) and (6) introduce a co-operation requirement between persons responsible for those premises under the Bill and those with any other form of control of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. I make it clear to the Committee that this clause relates to the enhanced tier of premises, not the standard tier, so this would be responsible for the very top end of the arena-type premises. The responsibility for implementing the Bill’s requirements will always remain with a responsible person. Nevertheless, for reasons that have been outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, there may be areas where they require permission, support or co-operative steps from other parties to have some level of control of the premises or the event, in order to comply with the requirements of the Bill. The noble Baroness gave an example which I can repeat back to her, in essence, where the person is a leaseholder who might identify that in order to put in place public protection measures, some changes are required to the building, such as replacing glass or providing alternative exit routes. In order to do that, the lease agreement may specify that permission must be obtained from the freeholder before any alterations are made. The purpose of this would be that if the freeholder were to refuse, or fail to respond to, such a request, this would compromise the responsible person’s ability to take forward reasonably practicable measures and frustrate the potential protection afforded to the premises. Clause 8(5) and (6) have been designed to require in such circumstances the freeholder “so far as is reasonably practicable”— the key phrase in the legislation—to co-operate with the leaseholder for the purposes of allowing the Bill’s requirements to be met. I re-emphasise “so far as is reasonably practicable”. The clause does not require those subject to Clause 8(5) and (6) to habitually co-operate; they must co-operate so far as is reasonably practicable. What is reasonably practicable are the very issues that the Committee has already referred to, such as costs, benefits and the difficulties in making the respective relevant change, including considering the longer-term use of the premises. I should also emphasise that Clause 8 does not automatically override commercial contracts or agreements. There is the co-operative principle that where there are parties with control of premises or events, there will be parties who will work readily with those responsible to take forward appropriate requirements. However, where that is not the case and where there is a dispute, Clause 11—which we will come to in a moment—gives the persons the right to apply for determination at a tribunal. The tribunal may be asked to determine “whether a person is required to co-operate with the person responsible” for the duty. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will recognise that there is a reasonable test in the clause as determined, and that the safeguard of the tribunal is there for where there are disagreements in due course.

17:30:00

I now turn to Amendment 24A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. If I may, I want to give the noble Lord one clear message; it is not my message, but one from the lessons of the Manchester Arena attack. One of the key findings of the Manchester Arena inquiry was that there was an unclear division of responsibility between those in authority for ensuring the safety of those present at the site. To that end, the whole purpose of this legislation is to put in place a number of measures that are required, and to ensure that there is clarity within the scope of the legislation for determining the persons responsible at each and every premises and event.

To further deliver that clarity and drive forward compliance, where those responsible for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events are not individuals—for example, if the responsible person is a company—they are required to designate a senior individual. The principal objective of this role is to ensure that organisations have a nominated individual who is responsible. That senior individual must be someone concerned with the management and control of the company or organisation, not somebody who is a lower-level employee. It needs to be somebody who is a director or a partner at that level. Senior individuals may of course delegate actions down, but they cannot delegate responsibility for the overall concepts of the Bill.

The senior individual may also be a point of contact with the Security Industry Authority, which can be important to avoid administrative errors and miscommunication that could have adverse consequences. That is why, in respect of the noble Lord’s amendment, the Government believe that the current approach is correct. We do allow more than one designated individual, but there is still a responsible person at the end. Therefore, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment.

Amendment 24B would establish a “reasonable” timeframe. In addition to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the debate widened into the Security Industry Authority as a whole. I hope that we will return to this in later groups. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on the points he made about the preparation of the authority, the work and the guidance that it is going to undertake and the oversight by Home Office Ministers of that development. If he looks—as I know he will have done—at the impact assessment, he will see that the regulator’s projected costs include giving an additional 83 staff and £4.5 million per annum to the authority to exercise its duties.

As I have said from this Dispatch Box that is likely to be the case, we have set out a minimum two-year gestation period for the SIA to get itself into a position whereby it issues guidance to, consults with and involves those 154,000 businesses and 24,000 organisations that will be impacted by the Bill, and that period will happen. That will add to the current £34 million cost of the SIA and the 416 staff it currently employs. So there will be additional staff, additional resources and a gestation period of potentially two years for the SIA to lay down the concerns and issues that the noble Lord wishes to examine. We will return to that in later amendments, but I hope for the moment I can assure him that this will be looked at, and that development of the SIA as the regulator for this potential legislation is well in hand and will be well in hand downstream once Royal Assent has been achieved.

I am grateful to the Minister, and for his assurance. Of course, I was aware of the substantial sum of money that is being given to the SIA to enable it to carry out these activities. However, if it is well in hand, surely we have reached the point at which at least an outline plan could be given by the SIA as to what it is proposing to do with that money? This relates to a number of amendments that we are going to be considering later, and I thought I would get my blow in on this early. I suspect that there are going to be real concerns about a regulatory authority that has never regulated anything like this. Surely it would be right for us to be given at least a two- or three-page outline of what its proposals are, because it must have at least reached that point.

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.

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

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.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. I gave the words “reasonable” and “practical”; they are the tenors on which the legislation would be interpreted.

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed.

Clause 9 agreed.

Clause 10: Designating a senior individual

Amendment 24A not moved.

Clause 10 agreed.

Clause 11: Determinations by the tribunal

Amendment 24B not moved.

Clause 11 agreed.

Amendment 25

Moved by

25: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause— “TrainingThe Secretary of State may provide resources to support the provision of initial training and advice to support persons with control of relevant premises to establish the skills required to implement the provisions of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would permit the Secretary of State to make provision for training and advice to support relevant person meet their obligations under the Act.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for adding their names to Amendment 25; I am delighted to see the noble Lord in his place. I remind the Committee of my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association, with which I spent the weekend at its award ceremony in Newcastle. Our Amendment 25 deals with training and public awareness. It has been grouped with Amendments 26, 27 and 29 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, from the Liberal Democrat Benches. All these amendments are designed to ensure that those responsible for premises where public access is provided are aware of their responsibilities and are properly trained to fulfil their obligations under the Act. They are necessary because the somewhat neutral statement of requirements in the Bill masks the huge effort that will be required across the country by those who have to implement its provisions. This is particularly true of the great number of venues that will be run or staffed by volunteers. I have two important points to make here. First, volunteers give their services freely, and this legislation imposes further obligations on them, which they may not be prepared to undertake in a voluntary capacity. The concern is that some of these volunteers may simply walk away from the need to undertake further obligations if they are perceived to be too onerous, leaving organisers with a choice of either employing more paid staff or, if that proves not to be possible, simply closing the venue or limiting the scope of events. Secondly, in cases where volunteers are prepared to undertake additional responsibilities, they will need to be trained to fulfil the obligations imposed by the Bill. At least initially, such training will require the services of professional trainers, and there will be a cost to this. There is no indication in the Bill of how these additional costs are to be met. Your Lordships will readily appreciate that the costs of training will be hugely increased where volunteers are used, compared with paid staff. Where paid staff are used, and one security officer will be required, four or five volunteers may be needed as, in the voluntary sector, these tasks are shared between several people, commensurate with their age and stamina relative to the duties required of them.

17:45:00

In heritage railways, volunteers may work once a week, once a month or devote a holiday to helping out. Their services will be free, but their training costs will be much higher than for a single member of paid staff. Amendment 25 has been drafted specifically with heritage railways in mind. They have a predominance of volunteer support and many volunteers tend to travel some way to take up the duties that they love to perform, whether it is driving a steam locomotive or pulling levers in a signal box.

The amendment gives powers to the Secretary of State to make some modest payment for the training of the 22,000 or so volunteers who will be needed to implement the Bill’s provisions. It also reflects the fact that the railways have to observe many current regulations that are increasing their costs. Their volunteers are now being asked to prepare professionally to undertake the additional obligations imposed by law. The amendments in this group—I support those from the noble Baronesses opposite—are important to raise awareness of the new and onerous obligations being imposed on the voluntary sector, and it seems reasonable that some acknowledgement of this should be made to assist it to fulfil its obligations. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 26, 27 and 29 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. This is an absolutely key group of amendments. The many organisations which contacted us about the Bill always raised, without exception, training and information campaigns. Last week, I spoke to a friend who manages a theatre in east London. She told me that she has already put in place most of the measures contained in the Bill and already done the training. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, in reality that applies to the larger venues; these amendments are particularly targeted to the smaller venues, which have not yet put in place, or even thought about, many of the provisions in the Bill. Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that the proper provisions are in place, so that staff at venues—especially smaller venues—are adequately equipped and trained to respond to threats. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, many smaller venues are run by volunteers or communities with little or no formal training in event management or public protection procedures. Amendment 26 would address this by ensuring that all venue staff and volunteers—whether in a pub, a church hall or another venue—would be equipped with the right training to prepare them to keep the public safe or to minimise casualties if there were to be an attack. Many organisations have expressed their concern to us about the lack of clarity in the Bill and said that, while the Bill would be helpful, training would be absolutely essential to make it work properly. Amendment 26 would cover evacuation procedures, the monitoring of premises, physical safety and security, and the overall provision of protecting lives. It would also establish a full training implementation plan, with the Secretary of State regularly updating Parliament to ensure that the right progress was being made. Crucially, it would also ensure that our businesses are fully supported and given the clarity that they need to plan. The public deserve to know that, wherever they are, staff are properly trained to respond to any such emergencies or attacks. They should have confidence that venues are held to a consistent standard of preparation and readiness. For the venues themselves, it would be helpful to provide clarity and consistency on the standards that they have to meet under this law. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, there are concerns from many of the smaller venues and businesses about the financial impact and additional bureaucracy that these requirements may bring, which is why the new clause that we have tabled proposes a practical training plan to minimise the financial burden with scalable and specific training. Amendment 29 is connected to this. As there is currently no specific requirement for training in this Bill—unlike the draft Bill presented by the previous Government—there is nothing to ensure that any training that could be provided is of a sufficiently high standard, quality or value for money. There were many speeches at Second Reading about the flourishing number of consultants offering their training services. More tailored training will increase protection and raise awareness of the threat of terrorism for not only staff but volunteers. It is important to ensure that venues, staff and volunteers not only know what to do in the event of a terrorist attack but are confident that such training is delivered by competent and well-qualified professionals. In Amendment 29, we therefore suggest that an approval scheme is established for training—something that my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to as a sort of kitemark for training. Amendment 27 requires the Secretary of State or the SIA to provide information and material to assist in the understanding of, and compliance with, the requirements under the Bill, including by way of an information awareness campaign. It also requires the Secretary of State to provide resources to implement this. Although advice is available online at ProtectUK, many businesses are unaware of this or find the information difficult to understand. This could lead to difficulties in implementing or complying with this legislation. A similar concern applies to parish and town councils, which typically own a range of premises—both indoor and outdoor spaces. They are also responsible for a large number of public events. It is therefore vital for the local council sector to have ongoing support and funding to assist with compliance with the new legislation. Will the Government undertake a significant communications campaign to raise awareness of the new duties in this Bill? Will they provide a dedicated programme of tailored support and guidance? Will they undertake to provide clear, relevant and accessible information as well as online resources and tools on implementing and complying with this legislation?

My Lords, my experience of smaller venues is that they are significantly more adept, knowledgeable and willing to explain security and safety procedures in advance of any event. I cannot recall this ever happening in a larger venue. This morning, I was at a once-Jewish theatre where, a very long time ago, a false alarm was called. There was some panic and 19 people were trampled to death while leaving the venue. In some of the large venues across the world—including in this country, specifically sports venues such as football venues—many major tragedies have taken place when there has been a chaotic leaving of a venue. This Bill is highly appropriate and worthy. One can see the rationale and the urgency with which the Government—with cross-party support—brought it forward. However, it strikes me that there is a danger that we miss one key aspect. The risk of terrorist attacks is the risk of the attack, but it is also the risk of panic and chaos at any perception of one, however falsely or maliciously the panic or evacuation is created. Judging from how things have been developing since this Bill was announced, I have noted that, for example, elderly, somewhat disabled football fans—those with walking sticks—have been told that they cannot sit in certain seats because their ability to evacuate in an emergency may not meet the time criteria. So, people who have willingly sat very safely and require—sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently—assistance have in recent months been told: “You may not sit in this seat because you will be a risk”. I would put that as one of the unforeseen consequences. Let me turn that round into the positive, in the context of Amendment 24 on training. If we take a football stadium of any team in the top two divisions in England, we find a set of stewards whose turnover—not always, but usually—is very high. I have met stewards who were not aware of the layout of the stadium at all and could not solve basic problems, because they were new and did not have that knowledge. Usually this is in attempting to get into stadiums, where one interacts with the stewards. At the football stadium I go to most regularly, like most other major stadiums, two-thirds of the people who attend go every single week. They sit in the same seat in the same part of the stadium. I know where my seat is. I know the people alongside me. I know people in the row behind and the row in front. In any emergency, we know what the flow is at any one time when leaving the stadium. We know where to go because we are there on every single occasion. The average will be 20 to 25 times a year in the same seats and the same venue. Therefore, if one wants to maximise safety in the context of terrorism—an actual attack or anything thought to be one which could create an emergency evacuation—should one train up 300 to 500 regular attenders in the basics of what to be looking out for and to do in any eventuality, I put it to the Minister that the chances of success would be significantly higher. That does not fit all venues: not all venues will have a majority of people who know the venue better than anybody because they go to the same seat regularly, but that is a strength that should be capitalised on. I would like to see customers who regularly sit in the same location in the same venue trained up; I have proposed it to one major football club, in this case suggesting 500 supporters. This would be a free resource, not instead of but additional. On the objective of this Bill, that would not just bring some buy-in but make major venues significantly safer for all of us. Training by the venue of those who attend on a regular basis ought to be part of the mix in taking this forward.

18:00:00

My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 25, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and to which, as he set out in opening the debate on this group of amendments, I added my name. I did so because this amendment sits very well alongside the other amendments that he has brought forward on behalf of the heritage rail sector and which we debated earlier in Committee. As with those amendments, it applies to a huge range of organisations, well beyond heritage rail or indeed heritage alone. It follows the thoughts that we expressed previously in Committee, and as many noble Lords did at Second Reading, about the importance of volunteers to so much of the cultural, sporting and heritage voluntary sector that we are championing and have very much in mind as we look at the Bill. I am very glad that noble Lords have had smaller venues in mind as they have looked at this amendment. They are particularly reliant on volunteers—some of them all the more so since the changes in the Budget to national insurance contributions, which have made organisations that are run on a very tight margin more reliant on people who give their time freely. There are so many barriers to people being volunteers. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned briefly the cost of transport: if you are travelling to a heritage railway, you often travel many miles at your own expense, filling the car with petrol in order to get there. There are many barriers that put people off volunteering and enriching our lives, and we must make sure that this does not become another of them. The people who volunteer and look after the public in these venues are no less diligent, professional and concerned about the safety of those who come to enjoy those venues, but they certainly need the help, assistance and training that the noble Lord envisages through his amendment. It must be provided in a different way from the way in which is mandated and applied to full-time employees. As the noble Lord says, many volunteers are seasonal and sporadic, so it is important that they are able to refresh their training—for example, students who have volunteered, gone away to university and come back, will need a way of being trained up again and refreshed in these responsibilities. It is important to note that, because of the serious nature of these new duties on people who look after our cultural venues, they might appear scary. It is important that the training disabuses volunteers of such notions. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, rightly says, we want to avoid the sort of panic and chaos that come if people are not prepared mentally and practically for how they will deal with the sorts of scenarios that we envisage as we look at the Bill but hope do not come to pass. As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, says, the alternative, if there is not the provision that the noble Lord sets out in his Amendment 25, is the snake-oil salesmen that we heard about at Second Reading. They are already offering their views on how to implement the provisions in the Bill before it is an Act of Parliament, and charging small venues huge amounts of money to do it. They are leaving them worse prepared and more frightened about the scenarios that they have to think about. The noble Lord, Lord Falconer, has been very modest in his amendment: it is a “may” and not a “must” duty. There is much to commend the amendments in this group from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, but those are “must” amendments while that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, is a “may”. It would make the voluntary job of people who look after these venues a lot easier, and I hope that the Government will look favourably on it.

My Lords, I will speak in favour of the amendments in this group, particularly that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I have an interest to declare, in that I have 250 or 300 church buildings in my diocese that will come under the terms of the Bill when it is enacted. I turn first to the provision of training. When, about 20 years ago, I first became a trustee of a large defined benefit pension scheme, it was quite scary, but I found that the Pensions Regulator provided me with training, which, as far I could work out, was free for me at the point of access. The principle that training should be provided and not just left to the private sector—to the snake-oil sales men or women, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, just referred to—is important, so that the state can provide good training or enable it to be provided. Similarly, back in 2000, I was involved with a group of friends when the asylum seeker dispersal scheme first began. I set up and won the contract for Yorkshire and the Humber to prove that this could be done morally and effectively, and not simply as a rent-seeking exercise at the expense of the asylum seeker. State provision, ideally of a good standard that would drive up the quality of standards provided by alternative providers—the amendment does not say it all has to be done through the state—is much to be welcomed. I recall the difference between volunteers and paid staff. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, said, for something that might be covered by one full-time staff member, it takes quite a number of volunteers, each giving small amounts of their time, to make happen. In my churches I have many volunteers—probably several thousand in the diocese of Manchester—who require DBS clearance for their work with children or vulnerable adults. The law is that those who are volunteers get the DBS clearance process for free; I have to pay for clergy and other paid staff of the diocese, but for volunteers it is provided free of charge. It is a good idea to find ways to help the many volunteers who enable small organisations, whether they are churches, heritage railways or small football clubs. My football club, Salford City, is in a rather lower league than the top two, but, again, there are many volunteers on duty to make sure that things are carried out properly. I support the amendments in this group and hope that we can find some way of ensuring that good-quality training is provided that will avoid voluntary organisations in particular falling into the hands of those who will either charge them so much that they give up or exploit them for their own ends.

My Lords, I am genuinely torn and confused by this group of amendments. As this is Committee, I want to try to probe it a little because I do not know which way to go. I was pleased that the Government listened to the consultations about training and, it seemed to me at least, dropped the notion of a one-size-fits-all approach. I thought that was commendable and still do. I know from my experience of organising events that at the same venue you can, for example, have different kinds of events that will have different requirements and need different types of training. I absolutely do not want to go against the idea of listening and thinking to ensure that training is not a source of problems for venues. I also have a certain dread of training. Noble Lords have already noted that there are a lot of rackets about. When I looked into the original Martyn’s law provisions when they were proposed under the other Government, I saw how many adverts there were from consultants offering to prepare organisations for the legislative change. I got very anxious about that, because they were expensive and no one knew whether they were of the right calibre and so on. There was a worry that security firms in particular would make a packet. Having said that, it is the case that, inevitably, smaller organisations will not necessarily know how to do the training themselves and will turn to third parties. I am not sure what I think about the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, but I think there is something in this. On the one hand, the thing which has worried most voluntary organisations is what they will do about training. I know from my work in the voluntary sector that a lot of volunteers are put off by the notion that they will all be sent off on safety training courses. It is the dread of your life: you are giving up your time for a good cause to help people, and you think, “Oh God, am I going to be jumping through those hoops?” On the other hand, it is understandable that smaller organisations are not going to have expert trainers on hand and so will need to bring in third parties. That is where one becomes unsure about what they are going to get, and there have been some suggestions in the amendments. The other thing is that there has been quite a move to reassure venues that there will be signposting of suitable free training offers online. Those kinds of box-ticking exercises are really not worth even being free. There is a danger that training, if it is treated as a box-ticking exercise, will lack quality control and give a false sense of security that the measures are being followed. Obviously, what I have just said is contradictory, because I do not actually know quite how one should tackle this, but the Government cannot just brush aside the concerns; these are genuine dilemmas that I do not think the Bill addresses at present. There will be real on-the-ground issues that venues face if this legislation is passed.

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?

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.

18:15:00

First, I want to highlight the amendments relating to training. Amendment 25, which allows the Secretary of State to provide resources for initial training and advice, makes an important point to note. Without proper training, even the most well-intentioned operators of qualifying premises will struggle to implement the Bill’s provisions effectively. Building on this, Amendment 26 proposes a detailed training framework that covers vital aspects such as monitoring premises, evacuation procedures, physical security and the dissemination of security information. This amendment mandates the development of a training implementation plan to encourage widespread adoption.

It is not enough to simply impose obligations on those responsible for premises and events. We must ensure they have the knowledge and skills required to act decisively in moments of crisis. These amendments recognise that security is not just a regulatory box-ticking exercise; it is a matter of life and death.

Amendment 27 addresses another critical aspect: public awareness. Terrorism thrives on uncertainty and confusion, and one of the most powerful tools in countering it is an informed and vigilant public. By requiring the Secretary of State or the Security Industry Authority to provide information and launch public awareness campaigns, this amendment would ensure that the public, as well as those managing premises, are better prepared. We have seen time and again how public awareness campaigns can save lives. Whether it is the “Run, hide, tell” campaign or public health messaging during the pandemic, clear and accessible information empowers individuals to respond effectively in emergencies.

I also commend the sensible provision in the amendments that would allow the Secretary of State to delegate functions to authorised organisations or persons. This flexibility is crucial in ensuring that expert bodies can deliver training and awareness initiatives in a timely and effective manner.

Finally, the requirement for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within six months on the steps taken to implement these measures is a welcome move towards transparency and accountability. It would ensure that this House can scrutinise the progress made and hold the Government to account for their commitment to public safety.

The objective of Amendment 29 is clear: to ensure that individuals providing training to premises operators meet a high and competent standard. This is of course a laudable aim. Effective training delivered by qualified professionals is essential if we are to ensure that the provisions of this legislation are implemented successfully and that public safety is enhanced.

However, there are considerations that warrant careful reflection. On the one hand, setting up an approval scheme could provide much-needed assurances about the quality and consistency of training delivered across the country. It would also help prevent the proliferation of unregulated and potentially inadequate training providers. A recognised approval scheme could serve as a benchmark for excellence, giving confidence to businesses and institutions that they are receiving expert guidance tailored to the security challenges that they face.

On the other hand, we must consider the administrative and financial implications of such a scheme. Establishing and maintaining a formal approval process could introduce additional bureaucracy and costs for both training providers and the Government. In a sector where responsiveness and adaptability are crucial, we must be cautious about imposing requirements that could stifle innovation or create bottlenecks.

It may be worth exploring whether existing regulatory bodies could take on this function rather than creating an entirely new scheme. This would minimise duplication and ensure that approval processes are integrated within existing frameworks.

While I see merit in the intention behind this amendment, its implementation requires careful thought and consultation. We must strike the right balance between ensuring quality and avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens. I look forward to hearing the Government’s position on whether this approach is the most effective way to achieve our shared goal of enhancing public protection.

The only word of caution I have is that these amendments should not create unnecessary bureaucracy. It is important that training is provided and that people are given the tools they need to protect lives. It is important that we make sure that the intent behind the Bill translates into real-world action. But I urge those with amendments in this group to be mindful of the impact of excessive regulation on business and, given that the Bill will already create a new regulatory landscape, that people are not so bogged down in regulation that we miss the purpose of the Bill.

That said, this group of amendments is largely sensible—particularly Amendment 25 in the name of my noble friend. By considering them, we will send a clear message that we take the security of our public places seriously and that we stand united in our determination to protect the British people from those who seek to do us harm.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner for tabling the first of this group of amendments and to the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Udny-Lister, the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Suttie, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Mann for their contributions. I would like to just stand back for a moment. All the amendments and comments are about making sure that somebody in a responsible position understands what the provisions of the Bill are so they can make sure that the people who are with them, on a voluntary or professional basis, are seen to understand and are able to implement the legislation in the event, which we hope will never happen, of a further terrorist attack. The specific question of training is an important one, but I remind noble Lords that there is no requirement in the Bill currently. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned, that was a step back that the Government took to ensure that we carry out specific training on any particular issue. It is essential that we have those public protection measures in place and that people understand them, but is it essential for all the issues that have been raised today to be fully put down and for those “burdens” to be put on to voluntary organisations and organisations in the higher tier? In Clause 5(3) we are asking for public protection measures, which include invacuation, assessing windows and a whole range of issues about a particular site; and in Clause 6 there are some more detailed observations for the larger premises. What my honourable friend Dan Jarvis in the House of Commons and I are trying to do with the Bill is establish good practice. Accordingly, as has been mentioned in the Chamber tonight, training and instruction will vary according to the types of premises and workers—whether it is a professional building or a small village hall with amateur individuals being trustees and responsible for those areas. The Government consider that the focus should be on how to ensure that people can carry out their roles effectively, rather than requiring the completion of generic or, indeed, one-size-fits-all modules or courses. If no one working at a qualified premises has been informed how to carry out an evacuation procedure, the procedure is, self-evidently, not properly in place and the requirements under this legislation have not been met. The Government recognise the vital importance of proper instruction, and, as such, the Bill will require some form of guidance and strategy, but I would suggest it does not require prescriptive training along the lines that have been discussed in the range of amendments brought before the Committee today. Under this legislation, the Secretary of State, the right honourable Yvette Cooper, and any future Secretary of State, must provide guidance under Clause 27 and lay it before this House and the House of Commons so that there is public scrutiny of what that guidance will be in the event of this Bill becoming an Act and Clause 27 passing into law. That guidance will be produced with the specific purpose of helping those in scope in the standard or enhanced tiers to understand the requirements that are required of them and to understand how to comply with them. Moreover, in Clause 12, one of the functions of the Security Industry Association will be to provide the appropriate advice to those in scope of the requirements. Where provided, such advice cannot replace, but may be complementary to, the statutory guidance produced by the Secretary of State. It is intended that the Security Industry Association will support and guide those who are responsible for the premises and events and will seek to educate rather than enforce in the first instance. Through the process of implementation, the Home Office is intending—I hope I have given reassurance previously on this—to support the SIA, to ensure that the advice it provides and the guidance it produces assists those who fall within scope, drawing appropriately on relevant stakeholders. The Home Office is committed to ensuring that the SIA brings in the right people with suitable qualifications and expertise to ensure effective performance. I hope that that reassures the Committee. It does not set down a template for training because training is not required, but it will set down guidance for organisations in the standard or enhanced tiers to ensure that they know what is required of them, and the legislation is clear in Clauses 5 and 6 as to what that is.

I thank the Minister for giving way. Has he given more thought to the sector-specific guidance, as we have touched on previously in Committee? He relies on the guidance that the Secretary of State for the Home Department will have to bring forward but, as this debate has shown, the application for a heritage railway association or a small football club varies hugely. If he and his department were willing to look at sector-specific guidance that would take in all the specific situations that volunteers and staff in those organisations face, that would go some way to helping.

The noble Lord makes a valuable point. But consider, for example, that the provisions were for a standard-tier building. The standard-tier building under Clause 5(3) requires “public protection procedures”: evacuating individuals; moving individuals; preventing individuals from entering or leaving; and providing information to individuals on the premises. Those requirements in Clause 5(3)(a) to (d) apply to a heritage railway, a village hall, a small football club, or a small church—they apply to any particular premises. What that clause and therefore what the training/understanding is about is making sure that, be it a railway, church, village hall or football club, those provisions are understood by the people who, in the event of an attack, would be in the building and would be directed by the responsible person, or their delegated named person, to understand—if this building were a village hall—which entrances they need to lock or open, which windows to shut or not, and what the evacuation procedure for the building is. There is a training element in that, but it is really in the understanding. The guidance that the SIA and the Home Office will produce downstream—it is downstream because this is not yet an Act and there is a two-year implementation period—will be designed to make sure that whatever the circumstances, individuals who are responsible people under the legislation understand what their responsibilities are. I am acutely aware that there are, as there are now, a number of individuals offering types of training before this Bill is even legislation and has Royal Assent. Do we, as the noble Baroness says, produce a Home Office list of “supported individuals”? Our aim is to try to simplify and de-bureaucratise this, as far as possible, so that it is easily understood by those who are “responsible individuals”, and the costs are not excessive. The requirements in the legislative amendments being discussed today would add potential layers of bureaucracy and would not achieve the fundamental objective, which is, “What do I have to do in the event of a terrorist attack in the premises that I am responsible for, whatever size those premises are?”

18:30:00

In larger, enhanced tier premises, there will already be professional training undertaken by individuals. In the case of a major music or football arena, a new member of staff employed by that organisation would be involved in a centrally provided training package covering a whole range of things, one element of which would be the requirements under Clause 6 for enhanced premises. For a small village hall, the provisions under Clause 5(1), (2) and (3) and the specific public protection procedures are things that individuals need to understand, but to have a training package prepared would perhaps be overwork on what is potentially a simple responsibility for what happens in the event of an attack.

So, to all the noble Lords who have produced amendments, I would say that the legislation itself does not require training. It is designed to ensure that simple measures are understood by the responsible person. In order to do that, as has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the Home Office is currently producing materials based on the potential for this legislation. A bespoke Martyn’s law landing page on ProtectUK is in place now—

The Minister is giving a good explanation on bureaucracy and cost, which I think is rational, but I fear I am hearing too much of the Home Office mentality of an “authorised person”. When it comes to dealing with major risk, including dealing with terrorism, the message on the railways, on the London Underground and in airports is that everyone should be vigilant. A huge amount of resource has gone into that messaging. With the example of parish councils, I do not think anyone is suggesting that parish councils should be required by law to have carried out a training session. Not that long ago, however, I represented about 60 parish councils, and I would expect somebody to be organising a training session for all 60 of those councils to make sure they are all clear about what they should and should not be doing in relation to this. That is a small but crucial event. Is there not a danger that the Home Office thought process of the “responsible person” leaves out the responsibilities of the rest of us and the key role for us to be playing in this?

The purpose of this legislation is to provide guidance for the responsible person where buildings and premises are impacted at the time of a terrorist attack to ensure that the responsible person knows what to do. It is not designed to be worrying about the downstream elements of potential terrorism—although we all worry about these things. We all need to be vigilant on trains and in the street; we all need to understand what is happening; we all need to support the police and the security services. As professional forces, they are doing what they can to prevent an attack occurring in the first place—but, in the event of terrorists choosing to attack a village hall in my noble friend’s former parliamentary constituency, or another railway heritage site, what happens when that attack takes place? That is the nub of what this Bill is about. The provisions under Clause 5, for smaller premises, and Clause 6, for larger premises, and the provisions on having a nominated person are linked to an understanding of what we do in that circumstance. The amendments today are about whether we need to ramp up training to do that. What I am saying to the House is that the Security Industry Authority and the Home Office will provide guidance on how to understand and implement that legislation, but the specific training and vetting and supporting specific training providers is not one of those obligations. Certainly, however, there will be guidance from the Secretary of State and the Security Industry Authority. Indeed, as I was saying before my noble friend asked to intervene, there are government fact sheets currently. There is social media promotion of the leaflets and there is stakeholder engagement. We have had a massive consultation, in several incarnations, through different Governments and through various rounds of scrutiny by the public and parliamentarians. What we are trying to get to is an understanding of certain responsibilities that individuals have to have to make sure that there are protective measures in place in the event of an attack, which remains unlikely but could happen anywhere, at any time. When it happens, how do people understand their responsibilities and responses? The two-year implementation period that we are likely to have before the Bill becomes implemented law, as opposed to Royal Assent law, will allow for wider discussion of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned around whether we need to tailor specific advice or not and will include widespread dissemination of the type of information that the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, have brought forward today. This is a valuable discussion to have, but the aim of the Government is to try to make this as simple as possible; to give guidance to ensure that it is as simple as possible; and not to overcomplicate things by making everyone think, “I have to have training to do this”. It is not about training, it is about responsibilities. Those responsibilities are set down in the Act and guidance will be given in due course.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply at the end of the debate. If I may, I will come back to that in a second. I first want to thank all noble Lords who have spoken, many of them on the other side of the Chamber from me, and one on my side, on the Back Bench here, because there is clearly great public support for the Bill. We are determined that it should pass and that it should work, but we believe that, for it to work effectively, there must be a commitment by the Home Office, the Security Industry Authority and other interested bodies to make certain that there are people in place in the organisations affected who are properly informed and trained in what their duties and responsibilities are going to be. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, spotted the fact that I had the word “may” in my amendment, and not “must”, which does, I hope, leave the Government with some discretion as to how it wants to implement the two-year consultation and implementation period. I hope that there was enough in my noble friend’s speech to indicate that, if it is going to be necessary for some form of structure to be established, it will be necessary not only for guidance to be available; the implementation of that guidance will need to be properly organised, either with public funds or through some other means of providing trainers who are able to do that. I hope that that opportunity is not ruled out and that there is going to be determination to ensure that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be implemented effectively and that the organisations that are required to implement it feel comfortable and are not affected financially by having to take on these responsibilities. For the moment, I will of course ask the Committee to allow me to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that my noble friend is clear: there is a lot of support for the propositions that all of us have been making in this debate and I hope that we can come back to this at a later stage to see how we can implement them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendments 26 and 27 not moved.

Amendment 28

Moved by

28: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause— “Private sector engagement in counter-terrorism measures(1) The responsible person for any qualifying premises may fulfil their duties under sections 5 or 6 by contracting with an accredited private security provider to conduct risk assessments and provide ongoing security services.(2) The Secretary of State must maintain a list of certified private security firms authorised to provide such services.(3) Security providers must comply with the national guidelines for counter-terrorism risk assessments and be subject to regular audits by the Security Industry Authority.”Member's explanatory statement This is a probing amendment which seeks to explore reducing the burden on public sector resources by encouraging the engagement of qualified private security companies. It leverages private expertise to enhance the resilience of high-risk premises against terrorism threats while maintaining government oversight to ensure quality and compliance.

My Lords, I turn to the amendment in my name, the sole amendment in this group, which concerns private sector engagement in counterterrorism measures. The Committee will be aware that this amendment, as part of my approach in other amendments proposed to the Bill, seeks to soften the effect of the measures in the Bill on small businesses and community ventures. As the Committee is aware, on page 2 of the Government’s impact assessment prepared by the Home Office, in the “Summary: Analysis & Evidence” section of the policy options signed off by the Minister, is a box giving the range of costs to business of implementing Martyn’s law. The high estimate is £4.87 billion; the low estimate is £563 million, and the Home Office’s best estimate is £1.785 billion. These figures, which are to be carefully borne in mind by the Committee and House in considering the Bill, are the subject of considerable concern on these Benches, particularly given how they must chime with the other problems presently faced by businesses and in light of the Government’s growth agenda. That disquiet is amplified, particularly in light of the debate we have just had, by the detailed analysis provided by officials on how they reached those figures. On page 27 of the impact assessment, at paragraph 119, we are told that, in drawing up these figures: “The cost of training is assumed to not be financial, there is no prescribed format requiring the use of particular resource and some training material will be provided for free”. Then we are told: “It is assumed that all sites will take up the offer of free training material. This means the only applicable cost”, taken into account in reaching those startling appraisals of the cost, “is the loss of employee time when doing the training”. We are further told: “Some large businesses may use a commercial provider, which would increase the costs to business. This has not been estimated within the impact assessment due to the absence of specific data on the number of sites who will use a commercial provider for training and a lack of understanding of the costs charged by commercial providers for this training”. This amendment attempts to address, in some part, the problems that arise from having an imposition on small businesses. It seems most unlikely that small businesses will take up solely free training offerings. Given the level of penalties imposed by the Bill and the criminal liability, they will look to private contractors to advise them on the implementation of measures to meet their new duties under the scheme. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, some of these may be snake-oil salesmen or racketeers. The amendment is designed to allow a business faced with an obligation to take steps under the Bill to contract out, to a degree, their duties under Clauses 5 or 6 by using an accredited private security provider to conduct risk assessments and to provide ongoing security services to the firm. This would have two effects. The first would be to allow businesses to use the private security sector to help them meet their security objectives. This would result in a better set of security plans. Through the operation of the free market in the provision of such advice, it would also allow a company or community venture seeking such assistance to choose a package that they could afford.

18:45:00

Accuracy and non-snake oil salesman status would be guaranteed in two ways. The first, as your Lordships can see from my proposed new subsection (2), is that:

“The Secretary of State must maintain a list of certified private security firms authorised to provide such services”.

The ill-conceived actors would not be able to obtain such certification. The second method, by reason of the wording of proposed new subsection (1), is that they would also share any liability for advice or breaches of the code imposed by the measures in the Bill.

This is obviously a probing amendment; I appreciate that it has some rough edges and that it would require some further drafting. However, its general idea is to allow private sector innovation in the provision of the security responsibilities imposed by the Bill and to allow for practical collusion between the private security sector and those who have to meet requirements under it. It is about encouraging an ongoing and collaborative arrangement.

It is clear that the burdens imposed by the Bill may be considerable. Allowing companies and small community ventures the opportunity to obtain assistance and pass on some of the contingent liability would reduce the impact, particularly on volunteers in small businesses. If they had contracted with a security provider and there was a breach, it seems there would then be a strong case for that provider to answer to and remedy the breach when asked to by the accredited body. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to consider the amendment closely.

My Lords, as the noble Lord will have realised from the last debate, my noble friend and I are rather keen on accreditation of training—I will come back to that in a moment—but I should make it clear that we should not be using the term “kitemark”; I know I always do. Apparently, that is the term used by the British Standards Institution for products—as I discovered a while ago when I got this wrong in another context. Accreditation of training is not quite the same as accreditation of the trainer or the provider. I am a little confused about some of this amendment: the terms “accredited” and “certified” are both used, and I do not know whether it is intended that there is a difference between them. When the noble Lord winds up this debate, perhaps he could tell us—that may be something or nothing. I had written down, “Is this delegation of responsibility or liability?” The noble Lord just talked about sharing liability, but I do think that that is the direction that the Bill is going or should go in. I find quite a lot of difficulties with this amendment, although there are points where our thinking coincides. As it stands, I do not think we could wholly support it.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has been very careful in the drafting of this amendment and I respect the work he has done, although, like the noble Baroness, I do not agree with the amendment. It seems to undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to place responsibility on those people who control premises. To create a box-ticking exercise of this kind, which is what it would amount to, would simply facilitate the payment of an annual subscription and leave it to some other company to take that responsibility. The noble Lord will be aware, I am sure, that, when somebody employs an independent contractor to carry out part of the work they are contracted to do—for example, a floor layer to do part of a construction contract—the person who engages that independent contractor has at least a common-law responsibility to ensure that they take reasonable steps to ensure that the independent contractor is competent and does the work properly. This amendment would appear to remove that potential responsibility. All of us who have been involved in cases involving questioning the work of independent contractors will know that sometimes such claims can be successful because the employer has not carried out proper scrutiny of the independent contractor. I also draw to the House’s attention paragraph 8.106 of Manchester Arena Inquiry Volume 1: Security for the Arena. Sir John Saunders recommended that “consideration is given to amending the SIA legislation to require that companies which carry out security work which may include a counter terrorism element are required to be licensed”. He recommended, therefore, “that only fit and proper companies carry out this work”, under an amended SIA licensing procedure similar to the procedure that the SIA already operates for security companies carrying out door security work and similar activities. If the aim of the Bill is, as I believe, to place clear responsibility on those who operate property to take reasonable steps to secure the public against terrorist acts, that responsibility should not be shuffled aside by an amendment of this kind.

My Lords, I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I am slightly concerned about this amendment. We have had, in previous stages of the Bill and in previous debates in Committee, concerns about the number of private contractors—the snake oil salesmen whom the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, talked about—who will crawl out of the woodwork and offer advice to people that they do not need, because either it will be common sense or there will be perfectly clear guidance issued by the Home Office and the Security Industry Authority that will make clear the sorts of things they need to do. I am worried that, after all the discussion we have heard from His Majesty’s Opposition in Committee about the costs and burdens that will be placed on village halls, small enterprises and so on, they will now be encouraged by this amendment to go down the route of employing contractors who will seek to make a profit out of the arrangements, which will in fact add to the costs, when the reality is that they could do this themselves using the advice and guidance that we expect will be provided by the Security Industry Authority. I am reminded of those companies that used to advertise themselves as being able to secure you a European health insurance card. I am not trying to raise any issue about the EU, Brexit or remain. This was, as noble Lords know, a system whereby all you had to do was put into the Department of Health’s website your name, address and national insurance number and you then got your European health insurance card, which would help defray the costs of falling ill within the EU. There were companies that would charge £15, £20 or more, simply for filling in the details you would provide them. I wonder whether the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, might inadvertently create a market in which companies would recycle the guidance and advice issued by the Security Industry Authority and charge people for it.

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I have listened to this amendment with some interest, and I understand the noble Lord’s reasoning for tabling it—sometimes such things require expertise. But I do not accept taking it away from public finances into the private sector, because the private sector will probably be financially burdened enough by this legislation. My concern is that it might provide the opposite of the noble Lord’s intended idea. It might be very costly, as has been outlined, and you might not get the expert advice you need. But I do not disagree with the principle of allowing outside advice. That could be done through a training system for each individual company rather than being provided by an independent company. If there was a terrorist incident, one of the first things that might be asked is “What advice and what training did you take in respect of securing your premises and ensuring public safety?” So I understand the basis of the amendment, but I am not so sure that it is entirely there.

My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this group, but I will make a couple of points. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is not necessarily one I support, but the idea that snake oil salesmen are confined to the private sector means the fact that people are not aware of what is happening among NGOs, the voluntary sector and charities, particularly in terms of training. Goodness knows, there is a huge amount of guff being peddled and sold from that direction, so I want to at least acknowledge that it is not just private providers. Even if I am not particularly moved by the amendment, it is also not entirely fair to suggest that it is trying to sell training certificates that will falsely imply that people will feel safe because they have had some accredited training. If I am honest, my concern about the whole Bill is that the public are being told that if we pass the Bill, they will be kept safe from terrorism. That is mis-selling. I have raised these points throughout our discussions on the Bill. We face huge challenges when it comes to terrorism, extremism and keeping the public safe, and, of all the pieces of legislation we could bring in, this is the least effective and the most anodyne, and will have no impact at all on public safety. Yet it is heralded as being so important. So it is a bit rich to have a go at one amendment for doing that, when in fact it could be levelled at the legislation as a whole.

My Lords, I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. This amendment introduces a new clause on private sector engagement in counter-terrorism measures. It is designed to allow those responsible for managing high-risk or qualifying premises to contract with accredited private security providers for risk assessments and ongoing security services. It mandates that the Secretary of State maintains a list of certified private security firms and that these firms comply with national guidelines and be subject to regular audits by the Security Industry Authority. I commend this amendment for its forward-thinking approach in leveraging private sector expertise to enhance our national security posture. In an era when terrorism remains an ever-present threat, we must not limit ourselves to traditional, often overstretched, public sector resources. Instead, we should embrace innovative partnerships that can deliver rapid, expert responses to evolving threats, while ensuring accountability and the highest standards of practice.

19:00:00

At the heart of this amendment is the recognition that high-risk premises, whether they are large public venues, critical infrastructure sites or other locations that attract heightened threats, require specialised risk assessments and security services. Accredited private security providers are uniquely positioned to offer these services, drawing on years of experience, cutting-edge technology and specialised training that may not always be available within the public sector. By enabling a contractual relationship between the responsible persons for qualifying premises and these private providers, the amendment offers a practical solution to address complex and evolving security challenges.

The amendment stipulates that these accredited firms must operate under national guidelines for counterterrorism risk assessments and be subject to regular audits by the Security Industry Authority. This not only ensures that the private sector’s engagement is held to rigorous standards but establishes a framework of accountability and oversight. Such measures are essential to safeguard public confidence, ensuring that while we harness private enterprise we do not compromise on the quality or integrity of the security measures in place.

One of the most compelling aspects of this amendment is its potential to reduce the burden on public sector resources. Our public security agencies are tasked with myriad responsibilities and often operate under significant resource constraints. By enabling the responsible person for any qualifying premises to contract with private security providers, the amendment effectively creates a partnership that eases the load on public sector agencies. This allows those agencies to focus on broader strategic priorities, while ensuring that individual premises benefit from specialised, expert support tailored to their unique security needs.

This approach is not about abdicating responsibility or outsourcing core security functions; rather, it is about adopting a collaborative model that utilises the best available resources. It is a model that recognises the value of public/private partnerships in enhancing our collective security and ensuring that no single entity is overwhelmed by the demands of an ever-changing threat landscape.

The security challenges we face today are markedly different from those of the past. Terrorism is no longer a static threat; it evolves rapidly, often in ways that outpace traditional public sector response mechanisms. Accredited private security providers are frequently at the cutting edge of technological and procedural innovation. They can quickly adapt to new threats, deploying innovative solutions that may include advanced surveillance technologies, real-time threat intelligence and dynamic risk assessment methodologies.

This amendment, therefore, not only reinforces our current security measures but injects a degree of flexibility and innovation into our national counterterrorism strategy. The private sector’s inherent ability to adapt and innovate complements the more methodical, strategic approaches typical of public agencies. Together, these elements create a comprehensive security network that is resilient, responsive and capable of addressing the multifaceted challenges posed by modern terrorism.

While the amendment promotes the involvement of private security firms, it simultaneously reinforces the necessity for stringent oversight. The requirement for the Secretary of State to

“maintain a list of certified private security firms”

is an important tool for transparency and accountability. It guarantees that only those firms that meet high standards of competence and reliability are permitted to offer counterterrorism services under this legislation.

Furthermore, the mandate that these providers

“comply with the national guidelines … and be subject to regular audits by the Security Industry Authority”

is a critical safeguard. It ensures that while we benefit from private sector agility and expertise, we uphold the principles of accountability and consistency. Regular audits will help identify any lapses or shortcomings in service delivery, allowing for prompt corrective measures. This balance of flexibility and oversight is essential to maintain the integrity of our counterterrorism efforts and to safeguard public trust.

The essence of this amendment is its proactive and pragmatic approach. Terrorism is a complex and multifaceted threat that demands equally sophisticated and adaptable responses. By enabling the responsible persons for qualifying premises to engage with accredited private security providers, we are not only broadening our counterterrorism toolkit but adopting a forward-looking strategy that embraces innovation, efficiency and collaboration.

In today’s security environment, no single sector can be expected to handle all aspects of the threat on its own. The challenges we face are systemic and require a united effort across both public and private sectors. This amendment represents an important step in fostering that unity. It acknowledges that the expertise available within the private sector is a valuable complement to public resources, and it provides a clear, structured pathway for that expertise to be integrated into our national security framework.

I fully support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. It offers a balanced approach to enhancing our counterterrorism measures, one that leverages private sector expertise while maintaining the necessary oversight and accountability. By reducing the burden on public resources, fostering innovation and ensuring that high-risk premises are adequately protected, this amendment stands as a crucial component in our ongoing efforts to safeguard our nation.

In a time when the nature of terrorism is rapidly evolving, we must remain agile and open to new solutions. This amendment embodies that spirit of innovation and pragmatism, providing a framework that ensures both quality and accountability. I urge my noble colleagues to support this amendment, as it represents a sensible and effective means of strengthening our national security infrastructure for the challenges of today and the uncertainties of tomorrow.

My Lords, I start by re-emphasising the purpose of this legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that she is unconvinced of the need for it. This legislation will save lives. There are people who died because people did not know what to do when a terrorist attack occurred, and there are people whose lives were saved and who are walking the streets today because people took action when a terrorist attack occurred. The purpose of this legislation is to put in place a framework so that individuals know, if a terrorist attack occurs, what their responsibilities are in that moment; it is not to stop terrorism per se, or to worry about what happens afterwards to the perpetrators, but to stop terrorist activity damaging individuals’ lives in that moment. That is the purpose of this legislation. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has brought this amendment forward constructively, but I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Elliott, that it will dilute responsibility, because there is a named person and that named person is a named person whether or not they subcontract to a security consultant. It will increase the very cost that the noble Lord has been seeking to reduce during the passage of the Bill to date. It will add potential burdens, on small organisations in particular. It will create a market for the very snake-oil salesmen that this Committee is trying to avoid engaging with. It will set standards which are unrealistic when compared to the standards being set by the Home Office and/or the Security Industry Association. It will sow confusion, and it will put burdens on the very people who the noble Lord, deep down, wants to make sure do not have such burdens. The Home Office’s whole approach is to try to make sure that the provisions in Clause 5 for the smaller tier, and the provisions in Clause 6 for the enhanced tier, are in place and can be simply understood and embedded in good practice. That is certainly true for the enhanced tier, because, by and large, it is made up of professional organisations that will embed the requirements in their day-to-day activity. For smaller organisations, it is about a simple level of guidance and support, which has a legislative component in that someone is responsible. Someone needs to make sure that measures are in place, such as simple evacuation, invacuation, shutting windows or hiding under a desk—whatever is appropriate for that local provision—without the need to have expensive tailored security provision on top. The cost estimate we have put in the Bill is around £330 for the standard tier, and that is in time, not necessarily in cash. The noble Lord’s proposal would create confusion. Someone would undoubtedly say, “I have to have a consultant”, and someone would undoubtedly pay a consultant, and then the next village would say, “They’ve paid a consultant. We have to do the same”. The next village would say the same, and the costs and the burden would rise on those businesses, when the requirements of the Bill are actually simple and straightforward.

Does the Minister not think that, for example, a village hall that has developed a terrorism action plan along the lines of that required by Clause 5 will want to test that to ascertain whether it meets the requirement before the Security Industry Authority comes to inspect it? In the event that it is inspected and its plan is found wanting, it becomes liable for the heavy penalties that we see later in the Bill. It is surely a natural human reaction to want to test that, and they will do it by going to the private market. Is it not sensible to build into the Bill a measure that allows them to do that? It is simply going to happen. People are going to want to test their plans. Surely he must understand that.

I would argue that the way to test those plans is to test them against the Home Office guidance and the security industry guidance. It is not potentially to go out and say to Mr or Mrs security consultant, “Please come in at an exorbitant cost to check that the five exits that we’ve got in this village hall and the plan I’ve put down to work on them meet the requirements of the Act”. The Bill has been determined in such a way that the Home Office does not believe that the requirements are onerous for the standard tier organisations, and even for the enhanced tier the anticipated cost is around £5,000. That will be standard practice for a large arena or large organisation, without the requirement to have those further security consultants test it accordingly. In my view, though the House will determine this in due course, the amendment would dilute the responsibility on the responsible person for bringing forward those plans in the first place. I say to the noble Lord that I know why he has done this. All the way through the Bill, he has argued to reduce the burdens on small organisations, but this amendment would simply increase those burdens. It would create uncertainty, jealousy and cost, and it would not achieve the objectives that he said. I hope that he will not at any stage, either now or on Report, bring this amendment back for this House to determine.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate on the amendment, particularly the Minister. I might just address one or two of the points raised. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, yes, the accreditation referred to in my amendment is the same as the certification. I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Of course, I do not seek to replace the contingent liability on a contractor in contract law for faulty advice or workmanship in the floor example that he provided. I am suggesting more that the contractor would share the liability under the statute—the daily penalties and the financial penalties that can be imposed by the SIA and the criminal liability under the Act, which I think is separate from ordinary contractual liability, which would be recoverable under a civil action in the courts. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out and reminding me of the passage in the Saunders report saying that the advice provided needs to be clear and to assist the parties that receive that advice. That is exactly what my amendment seeks to achieve. The reality, as I sought to argue to the Minister a moment ago, is that bodies subject to duties under the Bill will look for advice because of the penalty regime, particularly the contingent criminal offence, which would fall upon the responsible person. One therefore expects that there will be a market for advice, and it is important that it is regulated to prevent the snake-oil salesmen that noble Lords across the Committee have expressed an intention to avoid. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies for his support for my amendment, and to all other noble Lords for contributing to the debate. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

19:15:00

Clause 12: Role of the Security Industry Authority

Amendment 29 not moved.

Amendment 30

Moved by

30: Clause 12, page 8, line 25, at end insert— “(2A) In preparing guidance and providing advice under subsections (2)(a) and (b), the Security Industry Authority must, in particular, take account of existing duties, controls or other legal requirements on qualifying premises, including existing licensing requirements.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment is intended to probe how the requirements of this Act will complement and enhance existing legal requirements on qualifying premises.

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.

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.

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.

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

My Lords, Amendment 32 in my name would require the Security Industry Authority to notify all local authorities when guidance under the Act has been published. This amendment is a sensible and practical addition that enhances the effectiveness of the guidance regime established by the Bill. Local authorities, as the key regulators of many of the premises affected by this legislation, must be fully informed and equipped to act on the guidance issued by the SIA. Without clear and timely notification, there is a real risk that local authorities may be unaware of updates or new requirements, leading to inconsistencies in enforcement and, ultimately, undermining the policy aims of the Bill. The Security Industry Authority will no doubt invest considerable resources in developing detailed guidance, taking into account the needs of various sectors and types of premises. However, guidance can be effective only if those responsible for its implementation are fully aware of it. Local authorities play a pivotal role in licensing, regulation and compliance, particularly in environments where security is a key concern. Whether dealing with entertainment venues, public spaces or other licensed premises, their ability to respond quickly and efficiently to new guidance is essential for maintaining public safety. Ensuring that local authorities are promptly notified will support the smooth implementation of the Act and strengthen co-operation between central guidance bodies and local enforcement agencies. It will reduce the risk of delays in adopting best practices and foster a stronger sense of collaboration between stakeholders at the national and local levels. Ultimately, this measure will help create a more coherent and streamlined regulatory environment, benefiting businesses and the public alike. Furthermore, this amendment underscores the importance of clarity and communication in regulatory frameworks. Given the increasing complexity of the legislative landscape for public safety and licensing, clear channels of communication between central bodies and local authorities are more critical than ever. We must not assume that guidance, once published, will automatically reach all relevant parties without a formal notification requirement. By adopting this amendment, we would take a simple yet effective step to close that potential gap. I respectfully suggest that the adoption of Amendment 32 would represent a constructive and pragmatic step toward strengthening communication between national and local regulatory bodies. It is a practical measure that will enhance the effectiveness of this legislation and support its successful implement- ation. I urge the Government to give it serious and favourable consideration.

My Lords, if there is not communication with local authorities on all the activities under this Bill, I would be horrified. They must have a major part to play. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, may be right in thinking that it needs to be put in black and white but, frankly, they are such central players that it had not occurred to me that that was required. The two amendments to which my noble friend has spoken are about differences in the physical structure of premises and in how and when they are used. The briefing we had from the Society of London Theatre was about the get-out at the end of a run, when there is activity right through the night which affects adjacent premises. This is different from how other businesses are run. A good part of what we are trying to say is that none of us can know how every business operates. It requires wide consultation. Now I look at Amendment 36A, as happens at this stage, it is not a very good amendment, but it enables me to ask how Clause 27(4) will operate. The subsection provides that, where there is an allegation that there has been a contravention of a requirement, “proof that the person acted in accordance with … guidance … may be relied on as tending to establish that there was no such contravention”. It uses the words “proof”, “relied” and “tending to establish”. The explanatory statement puts it better, but this probing amendment is to clarify the meaning of this and how it will operate in practice.

19:30:00

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and that in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. In the Manchester Arena Inquiry report by Sir John Saunders, the Security Industry Authority came in for considerable criticism. I refer particularly to paragraphs 3.25 to 3.38 of volume 1 of his report. In particular, the inquiry found that there was a lack of effective enforcement measures by the SIA, and this gives rise to considerable concerns about the readiness of the SIA to undertake this task. In previous groups, the Minister has said that one of the purposes of the two-year implementation period is to get the SIA ready for this much greater task. One of the points raised by the amendments in this group is that the SIA is compelled to consider other aspects of information which may be provided by local authorities. I suggest to the Committee that that is a useful and beneficial thing for the Bill to consider.

I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments and contributions to the Committee. I think I have said already that guidance will be produced by the Home Office and by the Security Industry Authority. I do not need to go into the detail of that, as I have already covered it. In relation to that, importantly, on Amendment 30, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, besides investigations and enforcement, a primary function of the Security Industry Authority will be to advise, educate and support those who fall within scope of the legislation. That is part of its role. As well as the general overarching role, the SIA’s guidance will look at how it can exercise those new functions. It already plays a significant role in safeguarding the public, through the regulation of the private security industry. We believe that it has a wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation which better protects the public. I accept that the regulator implementation programme, which is the nub of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, is in the early stages of development. However, the Government are clear that we expect the SIA to engage in work with existing public safety bodies—this goes to the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, endorsed—before this new regime comes into effect. It is important that the provisions under Clauses 5 and 6 are set down, but they have a crossover of responsibility in certain areas, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness indicated. Ultimately, the SIA has a responsibility to regulate the functions of this Bill. The guidance will ensure that that aligns with existing requirements, so far as is relevant to the SIA carrying out its regulatory functions. Therefore, while the amendment highlights this area, I hope it is one that is not developed further, because existing proposals in the Bill, and in the intention I have given, mean that the SIA has responsibilities which I hope are clear. Amendment 31 would place a statutory duty on the SIA to consult with stakeholders in different sectors. The amendment would require the SIA to consult in relation to requirements at contiguous premises, premises within other premises, and areas within the vicinity of buildings. I hope I have already set out that we recognise the importance of communication and that understanding the impact on affected sectors is pivotal to ensuring effective implementation. This includes the operational guidance to be issued under Clause 12 by the SIA and the statutory guidance I have referred to several times issued by the Home Office under Clause 27. The Government do not expect that the SIA’s operational guidance will address matters specifically set out in the amendment, such as premises within premises, as it will relate to its functions. Furthermore, it is already the Government’s clear expectation that the SIA should engage with relevant stakeholders on its guidance, where appropriate. “Relevant stakeholders” means a whole range of bodies, potentially including local authorities. Again, I hope that we do not need to place a statutory duty on the SIA, because that will be part of its core business, as directed by the Government under this legislation, in the event of it becoming law downstream. Amendment 32 has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. I hope I have given sufficient reassurance that the Home Office and the SIA recognise the value of engagement on the implementation of the important legislation before us. The department has already worked with local authorities as key stakeholders, and we expect that to continue. I know what the noble Lord’s intention is with this, but the question is whether we place a statutory duty on the SIA to notify local authorities of the guidance, as opposed to the SIA doing it as part of the general consultation. The guidance will be published and will be publicly available. I am hoping that the SIA will give appropriate communications to accompany publication. This publication should be no surprise to local authorities, because, two years downstream, when it is potentially implemented, there will be plenty of opportunity to have that discussion. Amendment 36A is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I understand that the intention is to clarify the purpose of Clause 27(4). As I have already set out, the Government are acutely aware of the need to provide help and support in complying with the requirements of the legislation through guidance under Clause 27. Clause 27(4) applies where it is alleged in proceedings that a person has contravened a requirement imposed by Part 1 of the Bill. In such a case, the clause provides that the person may rely on proof they acted in accordance with this guidance as tending to establish that there was no such contravention. The intention of the clause is to provide comfort and reassurance to those responsible for qualifying premises and events, as it allows the person to rely on proof that they acted in accordance with the guidelines as showing them to have likely met the relevant requirements. It will not provide absolute proof but will be given the appropriate weight in proceedings, as the circumstances and other evidence must be. All of those things will be taken into consideration. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 36A would put beyond doubt only that a person may adduce evidence to that end. The effect of this would be to provide a lesser level of protection to someone faced by allegations than is provided for by the current drafting. I do not believe that is the intention she had in tabling this amendment. Furthermore, the clause has precedent in other regulatory regimes, namely, the Building Safety Act 2022. Its inclusion recognises concern about the implementation of what would be a novel regime. I hope that, with those explanations, noble Lords will not press their amendments at this stage and accept the comments I have made from this Front Bench.

I thank the Minister for that reply. As I said at the outset, these are primarily probing amendments from the live events sector, which wanted clarity on the coherence and the crossover between various regulatory bodies. I will read Hansard and check what the Minister has said. What is clear is that there needs to be effective communication between the various bodies. There needs to be very clear guidelines and guidance for the organisations, so that they understand what is required of them. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage.

Amendment 30 withdrawn.

Amendments 31 and 32 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.23 pm.