Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Sir Edward Leigh, Dame Siobhain McDonagh

Bishop, Matt (Forest of Dean) (Lab)

† Entwistle, Kirith (Bolton North East) (Lab)

† Farnsworth, Linsey (Amber Valley) (Lab)

† Jarvis, Dan (Minister for Security)

† Jones, Louise (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)

† Kumar, Sonia (Dudley) (Lab)

Lam, Katie (Weald of Kent) (Con)

Maguire, Ben (North Cornwall) (LD)

† Mather, Keir (Selby) (Lab)

† Mohindra, Mr Gagan (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)

† Murray, Chris (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)

† Rand, Mr Connor (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)

† Roca, Tim (Macclesfield) (Lab)

Smart, Lisa (Hazel Grove) (LD)

Snowden, Mr Andrew (Fylde) (Con)

† Tugendhat, Tom (Tonbridge) (Con)

Waugh, Paul (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)

Kevin Candy, Chris Watson, Sanjana Balakrishnan, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Clause 11

Determinations by the tribunal

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

14:00:00

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Clause 11 will enable an interested person to apply to the tribunal for an independent determination on matters where disagreements may arise. An “interested person” can mean either the Security Industry Authority or a person who has—or, for an event, will have at some point—control of the premises or event to any extent. Interested parties may apply to the tribunal where there are disagreements or a need for clarity on whether a premises or an event are in scope and in which tier they fall, who is responsible for them, and whether a person is required to co-operate with the person responsible for them. A determination by the tribunal will be legally binding. Question put and agreed to. Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 Role of the Security Industry Authority Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Review of the role of the regulator in oversight of public protection requirements— “(1) Within 18 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report reviewing the role of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator. (2) The report must include a cost-benefit analysis comparing the respective situation for each of the matters listed in subsection (3) on how— (a) these have been carried out by the Security Industry Authority, and (b) they might be carried by local authority teams if the regulatory duties were transferred to them. (3) The issues which must be included in the analysis contained in the report laid under subsection (1) are— (a) effectiveness in performing investigation and enforcement functions; (b) relationship and synergies with other locally-based enforcement regimes; (c) relationship and interaction with existing statutory licensing regimes; and (d) effectiveness of provision of guidance as part of oversight, adherence and awareness of the new public protection requirements.” This new clause would require a report reviewing the role of the Security Industry Authority, including a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the regulatory functions being carried out by the Security Industry Authority with those functions being provided alternatively at a local authority level. Schedule 3.

Clause 12 will allow the SIA to effectively operate as the regulator for the Bill by setting out its responsibilities, powers and role. The primary role of the SIA will be to provide support and guidance. However, it is also important that it has the powers necessary to investigate and monitor compliance, so that the legislation can be enforced effectively. Schedule 3 therefore grants powers to authorised inspectors to investigate whether persons responsible for premises or events are contravening or have contravened requirements of the Bill. The schedule outlines their powers to gather information, the use of warrants, their ability to enter premises without a warrant, and supporting offences. Under the schedule, inspectors will be able to serve information notices to gather relevant information for inspection purposes. The notice could require a person to provide written detail relating to an investigation or to attend an interview. Inspectors may enter premises without a warrant, subject to certain conditions in paragraph 4. However, schedule 3 also provides for inspectors to apply for warrants to enter premises, with paragraph 6 setting out the powers afforded to inspectors once a warrant is issued. The schedule also creates criminal offences for failing to comply with information notices, obstructing authorised inspectors and impersonating inspectors. Under clause 12, the SIA must prepare guidance about how it will exercise its functions, which must be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. Approved guidance must then be published and kept subject to review, and revised accordingly as needed. The SIA must also provide advice about the requirements of the Bill, as well as reviewing the effectiveness of the requirements in reducing the risk of harm and the vulnerability of premises and events in scope. The clause also requires the SIA to comply with requests from the Secretary of State and provide an annual report, which is to be laid before Parliament. The SIA is the appropriate body to undertake this role, due to its years of experience in increasing security standards and ensuring public protection. I hope that the Committee will support clause 12 and schedule 3. I turn now to new clause 2, tabled by the shadow Minister, the right Member for Tonbridge. Establishing the SIA as the new regulator for this legislation, which is the first of its kind, will take at least 24 months. That is in line with the timeframes taken to establish new regulatory functions in existing bodies over recent years. I am sure he will agree that it would not be possible or fair to judge a new regulator’s performance before the regime has been established. Once the SIA has taken on its new role, it will take time before there is robust data against which to evaluate its performance. The legislation already establishes several checks and balances on the performance of the SIA, as is standard with arm’s length bodies. They include the production of an annual report on performance, enabling the Secretary of State to issue directions to the SIA, and ensuring that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint board members and approve statutory guidance for publication. Further to this, I have confidence that the SIA is the right home for the regulator because it already plays an important role in safeguarding the public through its statutory and non-statutory work. With a wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation, it better protects the public. With the addition of its new function, the SIA will be able to raise security standards for both people and places. The Home Office will maintain appropriate levels of oversight and accountability to ensure that the regulator is delivered as intended. Once operational, the Secretary of State will closely monitor the performance of the regulator to ensure that it carries out its functions under the Bill effectively. For the reasons that I have set out, the Government do not support the amendment.

I tabled the new clause on the SIA for the simple reason that its reputation goes before it. Work that was done in the Department under a previous regime demonstrated that there were alternatives, which we felt would offer not only better value for money but greater ministerial oversight and better accountability to those who are forced to use its services. But clearly, with the Government’s majority, it is for the Minister to decide. Question put and agreed to. Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 3 agreed to. Clause 13 Compliance notices Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 14 to 16 stand part.

A successful terrorist attack can have devastating consequences. It is vital to the effective operation of this legislation that the SIA can take action if it believes there is or has been a failure to fulfil the Bill’s requirements. Clauses 13 to 16 will enable it to do so. Clause 13 therefore gives the SIA the ability to issue a compliance notice. A compliance notice requires the recipient to remedy non-compliance within a certain period and could require specific actions to be taken. For example, a notice could require the recipient to put in place an evacuation procedure within four weeks where no such procedure is already in place. The SIA must allow a reasonable period for specified steps to be taken, and, before issuing the notice, must give an opportunity for representations to be made. Failure to comply with a compliance notice could lead to the SIA issuing a monetary penalty and, in relation to enhanced duty premises and qualifying events, would be a criminal offence. A person may appeal a compliance notice under clause 16. Due to the risk posed by terrorism, it is important that the SIA has the tools to address non- compliance where guidance and engagement fall short. Clause 14 provides that the SIA may issue a restriction notice where it believes that appropriate public protection procedures or measures are not in place at an enhanced duty premises or event. The SIA may issue such a notice if it believes that the restrictions specified within it are necessary to protect people from the risk of harm if an attack occurred at or near a premises or event. To reiterate, a restriction notice cannot be issued for standard duty premises. For that reason, it is anticipated that it will be used in exceptional circumstances where immediate action is needed to mitigate the risk. The notice can require the temporary closure of premises, prohibit an event from taking place, or impose certain restrictions on the premises or event. For example, it could limit the number of people who may attend an event at any one time. The restrictions would apply until appropriate measures are in place, or the notice expires or is withdrawn. A notice cannot last more than six months initially, but is subject to being extended for three months at a time. I do not wish to pre-empt our debate on later clauses, but it is important to note that the SIA will be able to issue both non-compliance and daily penalties where a restriction notice has not been complied with. Where it is in the public interest, a person may ultimately be prosecuted for breach of a restriction notice, which is an offence under clause 24. I turn now to clause 15. Once a compliance notice or restriction notice has been issued, it is important that the SIA has the flexibility to vary and withdraw it if needed to reflect positive steps taken by the recipients or to deal with their continuing non-compliance. The clause also contains several safeguards. First, it specifies that a compliance notice or restriction notice cannot be made more onerous, in order to protect the recipient from changes that are more burdensome. It could therefore be used, for instance, to vary a notice to reduce the requirements in it or to extend the period for complying with it to allow the recipient more time to satisfy it. The clause also includes the further safeguard that a restriction notice may be varied to extend the period for which it has effect by no more than three months at a time. That must happen before it expires, and only so long as there are reasonable grounds to believe that the reasons for the original notice still apply. The SIA may also withdraw a compliance or restriction notice where it considers that the notice is no longer required. For example, a restriction notice may not be needed to protect the public from the risk of harm because non-compliance has been rectified or sufficiently reduced. That is what the clause seeks to achieve. Finally, clause 16 provides a right of appeal against a compliance or restriction notice, or the variation of either notice. An appeal can be brought within 28 days of the notice being given, on the grounds that the decision to give or vary the notice was wholly or partly based on an error of fact, wrong in law, unfair or unreasonable, or for any other reason. Pending the outcome of an appeal, a compliance notice will have no effect unless the tribunal orders otherwise, but given the reasons for issuing a restriction notice, a restriction notice will ordinarily continue to apply. The clause ensures that enforcement decisions of the SIA are subject to review by an independent judicial body. The tribunal may consider evidence that was not before the SIA at the time of its decision and, where it does not dismiss an appeal, the tribunal will vary or cancel a notice. Question put and agreed to. Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17 Penalty notices Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 5 to 7. Amendment 28, in clause 18, page 13, line 17, leave out “18” and insert “10”. See explanatory statement to Amendment 30. Amendment 29, in clause 18, page 13, line 18, leave out from after first “is” to “5%” in line 20. See explanatory statement to Amendment 30. Amendment 30, in clause 18, page 13, line 21, at end insert “up to a maximum amount of £10 million”. This amendment sets a maximum non-compliance penalty for enhanced duty premises at £10 million. Government amendment 8. Clause 18 stand part. Amendment 27, in clause 19, page 14, line 24, leave out “different” and insert “lower”. The amendment restricts the Secretary of State to lowering the daily penalties rate for non-compliance by regulation. Clauses 19 to 23 stand part.

This group of clauses sets out the means by which the SIA will be able to issue civil penalties for non-compliance. Although it is intended that the SIA will rely mainly on advice and guidance in the first instance, a credible sanctions regime with suitable monetary penalties is necessary to ensure that the regulator can secure compliance where it identifies serious or persistent non-compliance. Where a person fails to fulfil a requirement, it is important that the SIA has the ability to issue financial penalties that can reduce the financial benefit of non-compliance. Where a person fails to comply with a compliance notice, restriction notice or information notice, they may be prosecuted for a criminal offence if it is in the public interest. In most cases, however, penalties will likely be the appropriate way of dealing with non-compliance. Clause 17 enables the SIA to issue a penalty notice if it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a person is contravening or has contravened a relevant requirement—for example, if the responsible person for an enhanced duty premises has failed to put in place appropriate public protection measures. A penalty notice will always specify a non-compliance penalty to be paid by the recipient. The maximum amount of a non-compliance penalty to be imposed by way of a penalty notice is set out in clause 18, which sets the penalty amounts at a level to counter financial gain from non-compliance. The maximum penalty is higher for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events because of the potentially more impactful consequences of non-compliance in the event of an attack. In most cases, it is anticipated that penalty notices will be used in the event of breach of a compliance or restriction notice, but the Bill allows for a penalty notice to be issued regardless of whether a compliance or restriction notice has been issued. That will provide a powerful deterrent to those who would seek to evade the requirements. Clause 17 also includes particular provision to ensure that penalty notices are issued fairly. A penalty notice cannot be issued more than once for the same contravention, and payment cannot be required less than 28 days from the issue date. Government amendments 5 to 8 update the clause in respect of the maximum penalty for failing to attend an interview. Paragraph 3(1)(b) of schedule 3 gives the SIA the power to issue notices to require a person to attend an interview. Notices can be issued to a broad range of individuals, including employees, who the SIA considers may hold relevant information.

14:15:00

The maximum penalty for failing to attend an interview should be tailored to reflect the fact that the penalty will always be imposed on an individual and the broad cohort of individuals who may receive one. Although the individual may sometimes be the responsible person, it is anticipated that the proposed interviewee will likely be working for the responsible person in most cases. These Government amendments therefore provide for a specific maximum amount of non-compliance penalty for failures relating to attending an interview. The maximum will be £5,000 across both the standard and enhanced tiers.

Clause 19 enables the SIA to impose daily penalties in addition to a non-compliance penalty. They may be included in a penalty notice where it is issued for the contravention of a compliance or restriction notice. Daily penalties will start to accrue from the day after the date on which the non-compliance penalty is due. They will cease to be payable when the contravention ends or the penalty notice is withdrawn or varied to such effect.

The maximum daily penalty for standard duty premises is £500, but for enhanced duty premises or qualifying events, the maximum amount is £50,000 per day. The maximum amounts are intended to further disincentivise continuing non-compliance, recognising the breadth of organisations in scope, the differing requirements of each tier, and the potentially more serious consequences at larger premises and events.

Clause 20 sets out how the SIA will determine the appropriate amount of a non-compliance or daily penalty. Importantly, it specifies that the amount must be not only “appropriate” but

“proportionate to the contravention in respect of which it is imposed.”

That means that it must reflect the seriousness of the matter. Specifically, the clause sets out that the SIA must take into account the effects of the contravention, the action taken to fix the contravention or mitigate its impact, and the recipient’s ability to pay. The list is not exhaustive, and the SIA will take into account any other relevant matters when making its determination.

Clause 21 sets out procedural requirements for the issuance of penalty notices. It sets out that prior to issuing a notice, the SIA must notify the potential recipient of its intention to issue a notice and provide them with the opportunity to make representations. It sets out the information that must be included within the notice: the amount of any non-compliance and daily penalty and when they must be paid; the reason the person is receiving the notice; the consequences of non-payment; and how they can appeal. It enables the SIA to vary a notice, but a notice cannot be varied to increase the level of penalty, add daily penalties or shorten the payment period. That will protect the recipient of the notice, and give them the certainty that they will not be subsequently issued with a more onerous penalty.

Clause 22 provides a right to appeal against a penalty notice, or the variation of a notice. An appeal can be brought within 28 days of the notice being given or varied on the grounds that the decision was wholly or partly based on an error of fact, wrong in law, unfair or unreasonable, or for any other reason. Pending the outcome of an appeal, a penalty notice will have no effect unless the tribunal orders otherwise. The clause ensures that decisions to issue penalty notices are subject to review by an independent judicial body. The tribunal may consider evidence that was not before the SIA at the time of its decision, and where it does not dismiss an appeal, the tribunal will vary or cancel a notice.

Finally, clause 23 enables the SIA to take action to recover amounts due under a penalty notice as if the debts were payable by an order of the High Court or, in Scotland, as decreed by a sheriff court. To address non-compliance with penalty notices, there needs to be mechanism for the SIA to recover unpaid penalties. In order to incentivise the timely payment of penalties, interest will accrue on penalties that are not paid by the date specified in a penalty notice, at the rate specified in section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838. The SIA will pay any penalties, including interest, on the consolidated fund.

Mr Tugendhat, do you wish to comment?

Simply to say that, although there needs to be a maximum sum to levy as a penalty, £18 million strikes any reasonable person as extremely high. Although we completely agree with compliance, the fines strike me as a little out of proportion. Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Amendments made: 5, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, at end insert— “(za) in the case of a contravention of a requirement imposed by a notice under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3 (requirement to attend and answer questions), £5,000; paragraph 3(1)(b)” This amendment sets at £5,000 the maximum monetary penalty that an individual may be given for failure to comply with a requirement imposed under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3. Amendment 6, in clause 18, page 13, line 11, after “if” insert “, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,” This amendment is consequential on amendment 5. Amendment 7, in clause 18, page 13, line 13, after “if” insert “, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,” This amendment is consequential on amendment 5. Amendment 8, in clause 18, page 14, line 1, at end insert— “(za) subsection (1)(za),”—(Dan Jarvis.) This amendment is consequential on amendment 5. Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 19 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 24 Offences of failing to comply with compliance notice or restriction notice Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 25 and 26 stand part.

As I have already said, the Bill gives the SIA powers to take a range of enforcement action, including issuing monetary penalties, to enable it to deal with non-compliance. Such action is anticipated to be the primary method of enforcement, allowing swifter resolution without resorting to criminalisation. However, where civil enforcement is not enough, the public will expect criminal consequences for cases of non-compliance, such as persistent and egregious failures. Clause 24 makes it a criminal offence to fail to comply with a compliance or restriction notice that has been given in relation to enhanced duty premises or a qualifying event. It will be a defence for the accused in subsequent criminal proceedings to show that they took all reasonable steps to comply with the relevant compliance or restriction notice. The offences are triable either way and, if convicted on indictment, a person will be liable to a sentence of up to 2 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine. Turning to clause 25, receipt of accurate information will be vital to the effective functioning of the SIA and to ensure that any public safety risks arising from non-compliance can be addressed. Although we expect information to be provided in good faith in the majority of cases, clause 25 makes it a criminal offence to provide false or misleading information where the person either knows that the information they are providing is false or misleading, or is reckless as to whether it is. That might happen where the responsible person notifies the SIA that they are responsible for qualifying premises but knowingly misleads the SIA as to whether their premises are in the standard or enhanced tier. A person in receipt of an information notice might also give false information to the SIA in responding to that notice. The offence does not criminalise genuine or honest mistakes, such as where a person provides information that proves to be inaccurate but did so in good faith. The offence is triable either way and, if convicted, a person may be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for no more than 2 years and/or a fine. The offence will provide a deterrent and an appropriate punishment for those who purposely provide false or misleading information to the SIA to avoid complying with the requirements or to evade enforcement action. Clause 26 provides that a person other than the body may also be liable in some cases for a criminal offence committed by the body. The person must be a relevant person in the body or a person purporting to act in that capacity for the body. A relevant person is involved in the management or control of the entity, such as a company director or partner. That ensures that those involved in senior management can be liable for offences committed by the body. Those offences relate to serious misconduct and persistent, egregious non-compliance by the body. Specifically, a relevant person may be liable alongside the body for the offences of failing to comply with a compliance, restriction or information notice if the body committed the offence with their consent or connivance or as a result of their neglect. They may also be liable where they have consented to, or connived in, the body committing the offences of providing false or misleading information, obstructing an authorised inspector or pretending to be an inspector. The provision is necessary to deter serious non-compliance by ensuring managerial responsibility within bodies. Members of the Committee will no doubt have seen the importance of similar measures in other legislation.

I want to make a few points on offences, following our evidence sessions on Tuesday. Obviously, the situation in the aftermath of a terrorist attack can be very febrile: emotions run high, and media attention can be high. It is human psychology, sadly, to look for someone to blame, and we might have imagined, before we scrutinised the Bill, someone guilty of this offence finding themselves in the eye of that storm. When we questioned Shropshire council representatives on Tuesday, they spoke about the obligations that would be on them if they were the people affected. I was reassured to hear them say that they already felt that burden of responsibility and that this legislation did not impose any further such burden on them. The legislation refers to non-compliance in general, not non-compliance in the aftermath—that is really important. I thought it would be good to put on record the reassurances we heard on Tuesday on these measures. Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 27 Guidance Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 will place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish dedicated guidance to assist those in scope of the Bill in understanding how best to fulfil the requirements placed on them. The guidance will be easy to follow, requiring no particular expertise. It will help in determining how many persons may be reasonably expected to be present on the premises, and whether premises or an event are in scope and, if so, in which tier. It will provide guidance around the requirements to be followed, such as what an appropriate evacuation procedure should include or understanding what public protection measures it might be reasonably practicable to have in place at enhanced duty premises. The published guidance must be laid before Parliament. It must be kept under review and may be revised accordingly. The revised guidance must also be published and laid before Parliament. The guidance may be used by the SIA in providing advice to duty holders and, where the SIA has taken enforcement action, a person will, in proceedings such as an appeal, be able to rely on proof that they have acted in line with the guidance to show that they have not failed to comply with a requirement in the Bill. I should be crystal clear at this point that the Government do not endorse guidance or advice issued by third-party providers. We continue to refer people to the ProtectUK platform and we have factsheets on gov.uk for all guidance and Bill updates. Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 28 Disclosure of information

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 28, page 20, line 1, at end insert— “(A1) Any person may disclose information to the Security Industry Authority for the purposes of the exercise by the Security Industry Authority of any of its functions under this Part. (A2) The Security Industry Authority may disclose information held in connection with the exercise of any of its functions under this Part to— (a) any person for the purposes of the exercise by the Security Industry Authority of any of its functions under this Part; (b) any person with functions of a public nature for the purposes of the exercise by that person of any of those functions.” This amendment makes provision about the disclosure of information to, and by, the Security Industry Authority.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Clause 28 provides that any necessary disclosure of information under the Bill will not constitute a breach of obligations of confidence owed by the individual or body making the disclosure. At the same time, the Bill ensures that the disclosure of information under the Bill is in accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation and any relevant prohibitions in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The clause provides assurance that disclosures required by the Bill should not contravene data protection and other relevant obligations. Government amendment 9 ensures that the clause achieves the aims of the Bill. For the SIA to effectively carry out investigation and enforcement, it is vital that it can receive and use relevant information, especially that held by other regulatory and public bodies. Government amendment 9 therefore seeks to ensure that there is a clear and express information-sharing gateway for both the SIA and those who propose to share relevant information with it. The gateway is appropriately limited to either the SIA exchanging information with any person so long as it is for the purposes of the SIA exercising its functions under the Bill, or the SIA sharing information with other public bodies to exercise that body’s existing public functions. In relation to the latter, many of those bodies will derive their relevant functions from statute, but in some limited cases, the public functions will not be statutory, such as for sharing with central Government. As clause 28 already provides, disclosures required or permitted by the Bill must be in accordance with the data protection legislation and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. That ensures that there will be compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. I hope the Committee will support the amendment.

14:30:00

I intend to speak only briefly on the clause. I welcome the data protection assurances given by the Minister. This is an important clause because it allows the SIA to receive and share information by way of disclosures to facilitate the exercising of its functions. This morning the Minister spoke about our security agencies having thwarted 43 late-stage plots. Integral to that would have been the sharing of intelligence. Sadly, that is not always the case, as we saw in Manchester—terror plots do happen. Time and time again in inquiries following tragic events, whether that is large-scale disasters or children being harmed in the family home, we hear people confirming that things could have been so different if only agencies had shared information and disclosures had been made. Clause 28, as amended, will allow important preventive work to be undertaken and information to be shared. It will only serve to strengthen the SIA’s ability to ensure our safety.

I very much thank my hon. Friend for her helpful contribution. I trust that hon. Members agree that these measures should stand part of the Bill. Amendment 9 agreed to. Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 29 Means of giving notices Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 30 stand part.

We have already debated clauses 12 to 14 and clause 17, and the compliance restriction penalty and information notices that the SIA will be able to issue to fulfil its investigative and enforcement functions. Clause 29 sets out the valid methods of service by which the SIA can give these notices and to whom. The methods specified are post, email, delivery by hand and leaving a notice at the person’s proper address. That will ensure that the SIA can reach people effectively. Clause 29 also provides that notices issued to a body corporate, limited partnership and unincorporated association can be validly served on specified persons within those entities. For example, where the notice is issued to a body corporate, it can be served on an officer or member of that body. Such a person could include, but is not limited to, the designated senior individual under clause 10. Issuing notices to such persons will ensure that they are made aware and will reduce opportunities for avoidance or non-compliance. Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to make further provision about notices issued under part 1 of the Bill. That includes, in particular, their form and content, and the variation and withdrawal of notices. The relevant notices are compliance notices, restriction notices, penalty notices and information notices. The main provisions for these notices, which we have debated, set out the information that must be included in a valid notice, and how they may be varied or withdrawn. The power for the Secretary of State to make further provisions under clause 30 is considered necessary for adjustments to be made once the legislation is implemented. Question put and agreed to. Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 31 Civil liability Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The clause prevents a person from bringing a claim in private law against a person responsible for qualifying premises or events for a breach of statutory duty where they have failed to comply with requirements in the Bill. The Government consider it appropriate that means of redress for non-compliance with the new regime should be limited to enforcement by the SIA. The SIA will have a range of enforcement actions, which are underpinned by some criminal offences, as has already been debated. It is not considered necessary to allow persons to bring private claims for simple non-compliance, such as seeking compensation for the responsible person failing to put in place public protection procedures. However, the inclusion of the clause does not preclude or otherwise affect any right of action that a person may have independently of the bail. Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 32 Powers to amend this Part

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 32, page 22, line 20, leave out from “for” to “in” in line 21 and insert “enhanced duty premises to be standard duty premises.” This amendment prevents standard duty premises from becoming enhanced duty premises at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

This is a simple repetition of the amendments we have made throughout the Bill to alleviate the burden on small businesses and ensure that the balance is appropriate.

I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendment. He seeks to remove the provision in the clause that would allow the Secretary of State, via regulations, to make standard duty premises be treated as enhanced duty premises. It would have the effect of limiting the Secretary of State to only being able to provide that premises that would ordinarily be in the enhanced tier be treated as if standard duty premises. That is already the case in the Bill for certain premises, such as places of worship. As I have explained, the nature and level of the threat from terrorism can evolve and change rapidly, with different behaviours, methods and tactics emerging. It is therefore important that the Government can respond quickly to protect the public if it becomes evident that there is a particular threat to certain types of premises and that the public protection measures in the enhanced tier should be in place there to reduce vulnerability and the risk of harm. I again reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that regulations to make amendments to schedule 1 under this power would be subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring the express approval of both Houses of Parliament. For those reasons, the Government cannot support the amendment.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 Interpretation of this Part Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The clause is technical in nature, defining certain terms used throughout the Bill. For example, the clause provides that the meaning of “terrorism” in the Bill is the same as in the Terrorism Act 2000. The clause is necessary to provide the meaning of these terms for the purposes of the Bill. Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 34 Licensing: disclosure of plans of premises Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 4 stand part.

Current licensing legislation in England, Wales and Scotland requires that detailed plans for all licensed premises are kept on a register and made available for inspection by the public. These plans include sensitive information, such as CCTV and emergency exit locations, and we know that this information could potentially be utilised for hostile reconnaissance. To minimise the accessibility of such information to hostile actors, we are amending the Licensing Act 2003, which covers England and Wales, and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to enable the UK Government to make regulations on the form and content of plans that will be kept on a public licensing register. The regulations will restrict the public disclosure of sensitive information that is likely to be useful to persons committing or preparing acts of terrorism. Specifically, the regulations will set out that new licence applicants will be required to supply—in addition to the standard detailed plan—a new high-level plan, which will be available for public inspection. This second plan will not include any sensitive information, but will still enable members of the public to see information about licensing applications that might affect them. The standard detailed plan will still be available to licensing authorities and other responsible authorities, including the police and fire authorities, to enable them to make informed licensing decisions. Schedule 4 provides that plans compliant with clause 34 must accompany premises licence and club premises certificate applications, which will include any variations or amendments. In practice, once the regulations are in effect, this will mean that the two-plan approach will need to be adopted by businesses applying for these licences. The schedule further sets out that businesses with pre-existing licences may, if they wish to, seek to replace the existing non-compliant plan with a compliant one. The compliant plan would then be placed on the register and thus be available to the public. For the avoidance of doubt, this will not be mandatory for businesses that already have a licence—we are clear that that would not be proportionate. Taken together, these provisions will better protect licensed premises across England, Wales and Scotland. Question put and agreed to. Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 4 agreed to. Clause 35 Regulations Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss clause 36 stand part.

Briefly, clauses 35 and 36 are general provisions required for the operation of the Bill. Clause 35 sets out the parliamentary procedure accompanying the regulations. Clause 36 details the territorial extent of the Bill: parts 1 and 3 of the Bill extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; part 2 of the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, with part 1 of schedule 4 extending to England and Wales and part 2 of schedule 4 extending to Scotland. Question put and agreed to. Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 37 Commencement

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 37, page 25, line 5, after “force” insert “for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements”. See explanatory statement to NC1.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 19, in clause 37, page 25, line 10, at end insert— “(2A) Parts 1 and 2 come into force for standard duty premises requirements on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint in line with section [Independent review of operation of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements].”. See explanatory statement to NC1. New clause 1—Independent review of operation of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements— “(1) Within 18 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the operation of the enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements, including any recommendations for the implementation of the standard duty. (2) The review in subsection (1) must— (a) assess the level of costs and liability transferred to businesses and individuals arising as a consequence of the statutory provisions in this Act; (b) consider any wider implications for businesses and individuals in meeting the new public protection measures and any potential need for additional statutory safeguards, support or guidance for businesses and individuals as result of the passing of this Act; and (c) be led by an independent chair and comprise a panel comprising representatives from the hospitality, live music, performing arts, cultural and retail sectors, grassroots sports venues, small businesses and local government. (3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the Government’s formal response to the review specified in subsection (1). (4) The Secretary of State may not make a regulation under section 37(2A) until— (a) the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and (b) the report specified in subsection (3) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”. This new clause, together with Amendments 18 and 19, would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of the enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements before commencing the standard duty requirements.

I am afraid that amendment 18 is on the same point we have made throughout, which is about overburdening.

Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for these amendments. While I completely understand the sentiment underpinning them, the Government do not support them. I would, however, like to assure the Committee that the Government are committed to learning the lessons from implementation, which is why a robust monitoring and evaluation plan to monitor the Bill’s effectiveness is in place. What is more, the Government have already committed to undertaking a thorough post-implementation review, which will assess whether the legislation is meeting its policy objectives, including analysing the costs and impacts on businesses and other premises in scope. The Government have been clear that, following Royal Assent, we expect there to be an implementation period of at least 24 months, which will allow for the set-up of the regulator, while ensuring sufficient time for those responsible for premises and events in scope to understand their new obligations and to plan and prepare. Detailed guidance will be provided to assist those in scope to prepare for the requirements, as well as extensive communications and engagement with business and organisations. Furthermore, as I have already set out, the Bill’s requirements in the standard tier are focused on straightforward procedures designed to increase preparedness and reduce the physical risk to the public from acts of terrorism. The procedures are intended to be simple and have no cost, other than staff time, to develop and implement, with no requirement to purchase or install any additional equipment beyond what they already have in place.

14:45:00

For this combination of factors, we believe that the Government’s approach will provide those in scope with sufficient time and information to prepare for the Bill’s requirements. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge, and other hon. Members, also heard in this week’s evidence sessions from several witnesses who raised the importance of the standard tier, and the crucial public-protection outcomes that it can achieve. I share that sentiment; the standard-tier requirements are important provisions that will help to mitigate the risk of physical harm from acts of terrorism. We therefore do not consider that mandating a staggered approach to implementation in the way proposed is currently required. We will keep the Bill’s measures under review and have powers to adjust the regime if necessary. For those reasons, we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be content to withdraw his amendment.

We are nearly there, Sir Edward.

It’s going very well—not what I am used to.

It’s your chairmanship! I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 38 stand part.

I turn finally to clauses 37 and 38, which are further general provisions. Clause 37 provides that the Bill’s provisions will be commenced via regulations made by the Secretary of State, save for the provisions contained within part 3 and the regulation-making powers in parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, which come into force on the day that the Bill is passed. Clause 38 details how the Bill should be referred to once it has become an Act. Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 1 has already been debated and is not being moved. New clause 2 has been debated already, but do you wish to comment on it, Mr Tugendhat?

On a point of order, Sir Edward. I will comment on it very happily, and merely repeat that the SIA is a regulator that has faced significant challenges over recent years and, again, I raise the question as to whether it is the appropriate regulator. As usual, however, the Minister would have the numbers in a vote.

Thank you. Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

With your leave, Sir Edward, I will take this opportunity to thank you for chairing this Committee and to thank all Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, not just today but in proceedings on Tuesday. I will also take the opportunity to say a particular thank you to all those members of my Department who have worked incredibly hard to draw this legislation together, in conjunction with the staff of this House. Their efforts have been very much appreciated. I am grateful for the cross-party nature of what we have achieved as we have progressed the Bill through the House.

It would be churlish of me not to thank you, Sir Edward, for the speed and efficiency with which you have guided us through this. This is also an opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the Minister, who has been a friend for many years—nearly 20 years, actually. It is a wonderful symmetry that, on my last day on the Front Bench for my party, I am doing what I did when we first met, which is scrutinising him.

It has been a pleasure to serve you all, and it has been so easy—no controversy. Thank you very much. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

14:50:00

Committee rose.

Written evidence reported to the House

TPPB06 Chartered Institute of Environmental Health

TPPB07 Community Matters