Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Report

16:31:00

Clause 2: Qualifying premises

Amendment 1

Moved by

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

My Lords, I rise to open this first group of amendments to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, who, unfortunately, is not in a position to be here today. Although we do not wish to divide on Amendments 1 and 4, we have tabled them to seek further clarity and precision from the Government on this crucial area of the legislation. These amendments, proposed by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, replace the vague phrase “from time to time” with the more precise “not less than once a month”. This change is more specific and tightens up some of the language in the Bill. If, say, a venue has 200 people once a year for a Christmas party but has fewer than 200 at every other point in the year, under this amendment that venue would not be covered. The logic of this amendment is to ensure that the SIA is given a clear benchmark by which it can measure venue capacity. This avoids ambiguity, and I hope the Minister will agree that it improves the quality of the legislation. I eagerly await his response and hope to see some movement from the Government on this issue. I look forward to hearing from my noble friends Lord De Mauley and Lord Udny-Lister. I am sure that this will be a constructive and positive debate.

My Lords, my amendment seeks to raise the qualifying premises threshold in this Bill from 200 to 500. This is a necessary and proportionate adjustment to ensure that the legislation is both effective and enforceable. At its core, this Bill is about ensuring that public venues take reasonable steps to protect the public from the ever-present threat of terrorism. This is a goal that we all share, but it is also our duty as legislators to ensure that any obligations that we impose are realistic, achievable and properly targeted. The current threshold of 200 is, in my view, too low. It captures far too many small businesses, community venues and organisations that simply do not have the resources to comply effectively with the security measures required under this legislation. We must therefore ask ourselves what we are truly trying to achieve. If the Bill is about protecting high footfall venues that are most likely to be targeted, a threshold of 500 is much more appropriate. A venue that regularly accommodates 500 people is a significantly different proposition from one with just over 200. The former will have the infrastructure, resources and operational capacity to manage the enhanced security obligations that the Bill requires, whereas the latter will often struggle under the weight of compliance, detracting from the effectiveness of the legislation as a whole. Moreover, this is a question of enforcement. By setting the threshold too low, we risk overburdening the enforcement agencies tasked with ensuring compliance. We should be concentrating our efforts where they will make the most difference: on larger, more high-risk venues, where the potential impact of an attack would be greatest. A threshold of 500 strikes that balance. I also want to address the issue of fairness. Many small and medium-sized businesses are still recovering from the financial strain of recent years. The hospitality, entertainment and cultural sectors in particular have been hit hard. If we impose overly stringent requirements on smaller venues, we risk pushing them into further difficulties, leading to unintended consequences such as venue closures or reduced community engagement. This is not, therefore, about opposing security measures—far from it. It is about ensuring that these measures are appropriate for the size and nature of the premises they apply to. I do not bring this amendment forward lightly. I support the principles of the Bill and I recognise the importance of making public spaces safer. However, legislation must be both proportionate and practical. The Government have not, in my view, provided sufficient justification for the 200-person threshold, and nor have they demonstrated that raising it to 500 would compromise security in any way. On the contrary, I believe this amendment enhances the Bill by making it much more targeted and therefore effective. For these reasons, unless I hear a clear commitment from the Government today that they will reconsider their position, I will be dividing the House on this amendment. I urge noble Lords to join me in supporting a measured, proportionate and practical approach to this issue.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 3 in my name, which seeks to raise the threshold for a qualifying premises from 200 to 300, with an exception to allow the Secretary of State to set a lower threshold if any particular premises are at a heightened risk of terrorist threat. While I agree with many of the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister in relation to 500, it is important that the House has the option to consider other variable thresholds. I suggest that this amendment, in setting the threshold at 300 with the flexibility to include other venues between 200 and 300, is a pragmatic, measured and proportionate adjustment that balances the need for public safety with the realities of implementation of this expensive and burdensome set of regulations on small businesses and community venues. While we should do as much as possible to reduce the impact of an attack, should one occur, we must ensure that pubs, village halls, community spaces and other, similar venues are not subject to undue regulatory burdens where the risk does not justify them. By raising the threshold to 300, we are ensuring that those venues most at risk are prioritised. Almost all venues under 300 will now be excluded by reason of this amendment, while providing a degree of flexibility for exceptional cases where a lower threshold may be warranted. The logic behind this adjustment is clear: a threshold of 200 captures too wide a range of premises, including many small business and community venues that may not have the capacity or resources to implement the complex security measures required by the Bill. Many of these venues operate on tight budgets and rely on volunteer or part-time staff. I worry greatly that one of the unintended consequences of the Bill will be to drive such small business and community facilities—which are presently just about managing and just about balancing their books—out of business, with the consequent massive impact on our communities and high streets. If this happens, the terrorists will have won. I do not need to remind the House that the Home Office’s own impact assessment estimates that the costs to business of the measures in the Bill, at present values, are likely to be between £4.871 billion and £563.4 million, with the Government’s best estimate at £1.785 billion. This additional burden will land just at the time when small businesses and community ventures are reeling from additional regulatory burdens and rising taxes. Increasing the threshold to 300 would ensure that the primary focus remained on larger venues with higher footfall and, therefore, greater potential risk. As I observed in Committee when debating these amendments, one need look only at the Home Office’s own impact assessment to see the considerable level of concern about the viability of small businesses and community ventures. At page 9, the authors note: “Among respondents to the survey of premises with a capacity of 100 to 299”— the respondents being the owners of smaller premises, places of worship, village halls and community centres—only “four in ten … agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack … Around half ... reported that the revised requirements would be difficult to take forwards ... Six in ten ... were at least somewhat concerned that the cost of meeting the standard tier requirements will affect their organisation’s financial ability to continue operating”. However, in my amendment I recognise that security concerns are not always dictated by capacity alone. This is why it would allow for the Secretary of State to include particular premises that are at heightened risk of terrorist attack. This provides flexibility. Commendably, prior to the introduction of the Bill, the Government raised the proposed threshold from 100 to 200 following the outcome of the consultation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister that there has been nothing in the debates on the Bill which really justifies the figure of 200, when set against the potential impact on the large number of premises now caught by the present threshold. The proposal in the amendment is a cautious—and, I suggest, proportionate and sensible—step, and I invite noble Lords to support it.

My Lords, I rise to ask for a clarification, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, said that he proposes to divide the House unless he gets a satisfactory response from the Minister. What would be the combined effect of Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister? If the premises have 500 people in them at least once a month, would that mean that this is otiose and they do not need a security assessment? Or does the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister, accept that, if there were 500, which is the limit, at any one time during the year—not at least once a month—mean that the security provisions would be required?

My Lords, I am grateful that we are debating the amendments in this group. I declare my interest, having lots of churches in Manchester that fall under the terms of the Bill. I am drawn to the important reminder from the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, that we must not let the terrorists change the way we live our lives —I have said that myself on past occasions—so this is all about proportionality. I am drawn to his more subtle balance between 200 and 300 people, but I fear that, if we were to raise the threshold as high as some of the amendments in this group propose, it would take out many premises. We know that terrorists do not go for only very large events; they go for medium-sized events and buildings, as we have seen, sadly, with mosques and churches, not necessarily in this country but around the world. On the whole, the Bill as it has arrived to us is in the right shape, but there is considerable merit in the noble Lord’s proposal to have some flexibility in that 200 to 300 people range, and I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on that matter.

My Lords, it is extremely welcome that the House is now in the mood of trying to build consensus on the Bill. Despite the occasionally scratchy discussions we had in Committee, it is clear that people are accepting the main principles of the Bill. What we are now talking about is the quantum and the number of visitors who will trigger the threshold. I am very conscious that the Bill is not just about the legal requirements being placed on premises; it is about setting the tone with which all premises will respond and consider the threats they face.

16:45:00

I am also conscious that, despite the numbers that have been bandied about, on the first tier of the premises concerned, most of the recommendations are simply good-practice, sensible things to do. Indeed, in an earlier debate, we heard accounts of people who already did this. Those people do not need to fear the Bill because they are doing this already; it is those who do not do it who need to take the measures on board.

I am also aware that the Bill as drafted under the previous Administration would have set the threshold at 100 people rather than 200. However, this Government, having engaged in a very full consultation process—one that some of us thought was going on for far too long—have come up with the figure of 200 people. Of course, there is no absolute magic rationale that would pick a number out of the air. Whether it is 200, 251 or 188 people does not really matter; it is a fact that the basis was reached following consultation with a full range of organisations, including religious premises, small businesses and more substantial venue owners. Therefore, we have to accept that there is an element of judgment—and that judgment was reached following consultation.

For that reason, although I have absolutely no questions about the motivations of those who put these amendments forward, I hope we can stick to what is in the Bill, rather than making the changes they propose. I say that because I hope that most venues in the band between 200 and 300 people—or 200 and 500; whichever of the preferred Conservative amendments they choose—will be doing this anyway, or they will recognise the sense of doing it. This Bill is about proportionality: it recognises that more intense measures will be necessary for some premises or events rather than others.

If the House is called on to vote, I hope that we will recognise that this is just about asking those responsible for premises who are not being responsible to take the fairly simple sets of measures that are expected in the lower tier. As for the higher tier, I am not sure whether we will debate the amendment that would move the higher-tier threshold from 800 people to 1,000, but, again, it is a case of asking, “What is the appetite for risk?” We want the people who organise events to be responsible. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, discussed all the arrangements that he personally was involved in to make sure that events were safe. That is what we want all people organising events to do; those are the considerations that we want to make sure happen.

This Bill is not only about sending a signal to all people who organise public events to carry out sensible measures, but about providing a degree of compulsion and expectation on those who do not do that already. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

My Lords, I slightly query the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that a change of tone and consensus has broken out. We are at a stage where there is no point fighting until the last man standing. There are some fundamental philosophical disagreements about what we are doing in relation to this Bill, and I raise those because they relate to the amendments we have heard about. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that, for smaller venues with a capacity of, say, 50 or 100, we are establishing the notion that everybody should be sensible and take precautions. My argument is simply that we do not need new legislation at any level to encourage that, and that this could have been done through present legislation. For example, we have oodles of health and safety legislation. Councils are for ever issuing guidance on how events should be organised. This is a hammer to crack a nut, and it might have unintended consequences. That is what all of us have argued. When I explain to people what I am doing in the House of Lords at the moment and what Bills I am following, and I explain this one, they are totally bemused that, in tackling terrorism, we are having a conversation about premises and regulators. They are more than aware that we need to tackle the problem and the threat of terrorism, and this just does not feel as though it is the most important way of dealing with that. The right reverend Prelate made a good point: it is not as though terrorists sit around and say, “That is a 500-seater”. As we know, whether it is a dance class in Southport or, in the case of Sir David Amess, an MP holding a surgery, it can be small places; or it can be the use of a vehicle as a weapon at a Christmas market. We have been through these different examples. The question before us is whether the Bill will keep the public safe. My contention is that I am not convinced it will, but it will do a lot of damage to the public realm, and it could undermine civil society. Some of these amendments would at least help to remove the threat of legislative intervention from the smaller venues that are likely to be at the heart of community and civil society events. Of course there is a difference when there is a law. Even if you are a small venue, you might think “We do take precautions. We have 200 people. It is not as though we wander around oblivious to the protection of anyone who comes into our premises”. Once you have the threat of a regulator and a law, it is coercive and there are threats and things you need to do—I do not mean reports that have to be written—and you are answerable. As we have seen in every aspect of the evidence that has been given in consultation, people are put off; they say it is not worth running the venue or the event, and volunteers are standing down, as a number of later amendments will indicate. We may have to make the best of what I consider to be an unnecessary and distracting law. I want to fight terrorism, but not this way; none the less, we should at least make the best of a bad job.

My Lords, this has been a useful if very short debate, and many of the issues raised in Committee have been repeated. Most of these amendments would greatly increase the number of premises and events exempt from the provisions of the Bill. In particular, I want to speak against Amendments 2, 3 and 5 from the Conservative Benches. As has been described, they would increase the threshold to 500, or 300 for standard premises, or, in the case of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, from 800 to 1,000 for enhanced premises. I will make two brief points, which are very much in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. First, it is worth recalling that the Bill, to quote from the Long Title, is “to reduce the vulnerability of the premises or event to, and the risk of physical harm to individuals arising from, acts of terrorism”. It is not a Bill that will prevent terrorism per se; it is about protecting individuals. It is about having a plan in place for what to do in the horrific eventuality of an attack and having someone responsible for ensuring that lives can be saved, so that people can be evacuated or invacuated as quickly and as safely as possible. Having such a plan, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others have said, is surely just common sense and good practice for any event or premises, no matter what its size. Increasing the thresholds to such a degree as these amendments propose would, in our view, risk negating the very purpose and value of the Bill, as it would exempt so many additional premises or events. We cannot and should not necessarily make assumptions about the size of the venue or event that a terrorist or terrorist organisation would choose to attack. Being prepared, and having thought through an escape plan and what to do to save lives in the event of an attack, gives reassurances to the public and has to be good practice. I would even argue that it makes good business sense, if people, including potential customers, feel reassured. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the figure of 200 is already a compromise. The previous draft Bill produced by the former Conservative Government had a threshold of 100. My party and others, including the Home Affairs Select Committee, expressed concern that this would impact too many businesses and their premises, so the figure was raised to 200. As I said in Committee, I would have preferred 100, but I understand the reasons for the compromise. For both these reasons, these Benches will not support any amendments this afternoon if they are pushed to a vote.

I am grateful to noble Lords for speaking to these amendments and I look forward to seeing the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, back in his place at an early opportunity to continue these debates in future. There are, in essence, three sets of amendments before us in this first group. Amendments 1 and 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, look at stipulating that the threshold is met monthly rather than “from time to time”. There are other amendments, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Murray, relating to the threshold and, at the end of the group, there are some small, technical government amendments that I will move in due course. I will speak to each in turn. First, I will address the main point that was very well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in relation to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned. The Bill is not about preventing terrorism. There are mechanisms for the Government to look at policing, intelligence-led activity and legislation in the Crime and Policing Bill—a whole range of measures to prevent terrorism. This Bill, as has been mentioned, looks at the vulnerability of premises and making sure that we do all that we can to put public protection measures in place. I said this in Committee, but it is important to refer noble Lords again to the measures in Clause 5 on public protection. For the areas that we are looking at, they include “evacuating individuals from the premises or event … moving individuals to a place on the premises … where there is less risk of physical harm … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”. All of those are good practice and potentially have no or limited cost. Amendments 1 and 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seek to change how attendance is measured at premises by stipulating that the threshold must be met monthly, not from time to time. The case was made that there is a need for a revised basis to assess the number of individuals in attendance at premises at once within a fixed, regular time period. As I set out in Committee, the Government disagree with that principle—although I know and understand why it has been brought forward—because we want to make sure that, if we do that, the benchmark we are examining for the premises is consistent. Changing “from time to time” to a standard of the number of individuals expected at a premises at least once a month, or any other form of benchmark, would alter the scope of the Bill. It would exclude many of the premises from qualifying, whether due to seasonal or irregular attendance.

17:00:00

My benchmark is the figure of 200, or 800 for the higher tier. The proposals in Amendments 1 and 4 would frustrate the Bill’s objectives to create a consistent level of preparedness and protection across the United Kingdom, and the term “time to time” to assess the number of individuals expected to be present on the premises would ensure that the objectives of the Bill were not met, so I cannot support the amendments put before the House today by the noble Lord.

The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Udny-Lister, discuss the question of threshold. Two figures are suggested: 300 with a qualifying condition to it, and 500 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. Again, my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey indicated that we have reached a consensus. The original Bill proposed by the previous Government had a figure of 100; I think that my noble friend himself, if he were put in court on oath, would say that he wished to have a figure of 100; and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench has said that it would like a figure of 100.

This Bill has been through the mangle of a wide-ranging element of consensus. When the current Government came in, we consulted again. We have listened to the Home Affairs Select Committee and the consultations that have taken place, and we have settled on a figure of 200. That does not satisfy certain Members of this House, nor the last Government, which had a figure of 100 and of which the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, was a member in the Home Office team at the time of the genesis of the Bill. But we have had to settle on a figure, and it is one that I hope allows premises to be brought into scope to undertake the good practice present in Clause 5.

The Government have already increased the threshold for qualifying premises from 100 to 200 following the pre-legislative scrutiny and the public consultation focused on the standard tier. To address the point of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley—which he may still move but was not able to speak to—we consider that this strikes an important balance, and the right balance.

As I have set out to noble Lords in Committee and elsewhere, the requirements of that standard duty are relatively straightforward, are what I would term good practice, are to be put in place only in so far as is reasonably practical, and have an assessment. Although the noble Lord Murray put a very large five-year figure from the impact assessment before the House, the reasonable cost to standard duty premises is estimated to be £330 per year. That is not in cash up front: it could be even in opportunity time for volunteers to undertake training and other things, and it relates to staff development time and the implementation of procedures.

Within the standard tier, there are premises belonging to key sectors that are important to public protection objectives in the Bill. Retail, hospitality and visitor attractions are within that standard tier. To raise the figure would be very difficult. The retail and hospitality sectors, for example, were the target in the London Bridge attack, and visitor attractions are important, given their typically high-profile nature.

If we accepted the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, or, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, what would be the impact? Let us look at the figure of 500 from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. Only 4% of premises would now be within scope of the Bill, as specified in Schedule 1, across the UK, in that standard tier. Does the noble Lord believe that only 4% of premises should be covered by the Bill? I ask him this genuinely. Had he done the calculations when he put forward the figure of 500? Does he believe that 4% is a reasonable figure? I say to the House that I do not. I understand that his is an honest opinion and view, which he has put forward in a constructive way, but I cannot accept it, because I do not want to see 4% of premises in the retail, hospitality and community group sector covered by the Bill; I want to see a greater percentage.

Indeed, when we moved the premises threshold from 100 to 200, we took out a significant number of premises because we wanted to try to strike that fair and appropriate balance. I say to the noble Lord that his scope figure of 500 would be extremely damaging and would, in effect, wreck the purpose of the Bill.

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

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

I can give the noble Lord the figure, if he allows me a moment to find it. I have the figure in this pile somewhere and I will await some dissection of the file to arrive shortly to give him a definitive figure on that, if he will allow me. If not, I will come back to that in a moment. From my perspective, the figures of 800 and 200 are correct. I have that figure to hand somewhere—here we go. See: I knew at the end of the day, with a little bit of diligence, no ambush and advance notice, I could find the figure. Raising the threshold to 300 would mean that only 92,288 premises—or 10%, down from 17%, of eligible premises—would be captured. The figure that we have currently is significantly higher than that. Again, 92,288 is a significant number of premises covered by the Bill, but if I go back to Clause 5(3), those requirements are not what I would term onerous. They are good practice. There are things that a good employer should do. They are things that good volunteers should do. There are things that are applicable not to stopping terrorism but to providing security in the event of a terrorist attack being undertaken. Again, if this House were a premises covered by the legislation, which it is not, and an attack were happening now, the responsible person here would have to decide which exit we went from, whether we stayed under the table, whether we shut the door and who should we contact. Those are the requirements in Schedule 5 to the Bill. They are not onerous, and I think that, on balance, as wide a group of premises as can be included is the desired amount, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister, wishes to intervene.

Does the Minister accept that the percentage of premises is not the same as the percentage of audiences, and it is the audiences that we should really be concerned about?

Again, I say to the noble Lord that the Government have made a judgment on the 800 figure, which we have estimated is just over £5,000 in cost, but this figure of 800, which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, would change to 1,000, is a figure that probably impacts the Wembley Stadiums, the big theatres, the big venues. A £5,000 cost for that, which is what we have estimated in the impact assessment, would be a reasonable cost and would probably be consumed in normal training for staff, because most of those arenas hold full-time staffed events. For the 200 to 800 threshold, again, we have been looking at the whole question of what is reasonable. I think that 200 is a reasonable figure to assess on that. However, we are going to disagree and, if we disagree and if the noble Lord wants to move his amendment, we will test the will of the House. That is what this place is about. I will see him in the Lobbies—reluctantly —if need be but I hope that he will understand why we have settled on the 200 figure to date. Before I sit down, I must speak to government amendments 6 to 11, which make small technical amendments to the Bill and which follow reflection we have had at official level and ministerial level. The amendments further clarify how the Bill is intended to apply to premises and events. They do not change anything in the scope of the Bill but simply increase certainty about the premises in scope of the Bill. For example, private events such as weddings attended by relations and friends, or office parties attended by employees or customers, are deemed private events that are not attended by the public. The amendments make it clear, even more so than they did previously, that they should be out of scope. I hope the noble Lord will not test the will of the House. But if he does, I urge my noble friends and anybody else who wishes to join us to vote him down.

My Lords, this has been a relatively short but very good debate, and I thank my noble friends for their amendments in this group. Amendments 2 and 3 address the threshold for qualifying premises. My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s amendment proposes raising the threshold from 200 to 500, while my noble friend Lord Murray’s amendment strikes a balance by setting it at 300, with flexibility for the Secretary of State to make determinations in exceptional cases. These amendments recognise the practical implications of compliance while ensuring that the duty to protect the public is both proportionate and effective. It is essential that this legislation targets venues most at risk while avoiding undue burdens on smaller establishments, and if my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister is minded to test the opinion of the House, we will support him. Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord De Mauley, would adjust the threshold for enhanced duty premises from 800 to 1,000. This refinement aligns with the broader effort to ensure that security obligations are applied appropriately. Larger venues naturally pose greater security challenges. Amendment 5A, which similarly adjusts the threshold for qualifying events from 800 to 1,000, also makes sense to me. The cost of compliance for events will be large and thus slightly raising the threshold will allow for greater focus and precision in what the Bill intends to remedy. If my noble friend Lord De Mauley intends to test the opinion of the House, we will support him. On Amendments 6 to 11, tabled by the Minister, I acknowledge the suggested improvements, replacing “invitations” with “tickets”, and substituting “other” with “similar”. These amendments means that the public protection procedures will apply only when members of the public are in attendance and not at private events such as weddings. I am supportive of these amendments and thank the Minister for tabling them. In conclusion, the amendments I have spoken in favour of today enhance the clarity, proportionality and practical application of the Bill. In the face of ever- present security threats, our legislation must be both robust and precise.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2

Moved by

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “200” and insert “500” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would raise the minimum threshold for a premises to be a “qualifying premises” to 500.

I have not heard anything that makes me believe I should do anything other than divide the House on this matter.

1|17:14|214|248|Division on Amendment 2|Amendment 2 disagreed.||0|0

17:27:00

Amendment 3

Tabled by

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

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

Amendments 3 not moved.

Amendment 4 not moved.

Amendment 5

Moved by

5: Clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out “800” and insert “1000” Member's explanatory statement This amendment would raise the minimum threshold for a premises to be an “enhanced duty premises” from 800 to 1000.

My Lords, I prevail upon the patience of your Lordships, if I may, in speaking to my Amendments 5 and 5A. These seek to increase the threshold for enhanced duty premises for qualifying events from 800 people to 1,000 people. The matter of thresholds was discussed at some length in Committee, but discussion focused, as it did a moment ago, on the lower threshold for qualifying premises in Clause 2—that is, 200 people. My concern, which is similar to that which was expressed in Committee and earlier today by those proposing the relevant amendments, is analogous. However, the consequences for those organising small, ticketed, charitable events, with attendees exceeding 800 people, are considerably greater, because the costs of implementing the necessary measures to comply with the Bill’s requirements are that much larger. The Minister gave a suggestion as to what those would be in the debate earlier. It became clear from the Minister’s response to amendments in Committee proposing to increase the lower threshold that there was little science behind the Government’s choice of 800 for the upper threshold. In fact, he admitted that the numbers are arbitrary, saying: “Ultimately, we have to land on a figure, and the Government have determined that that figure should be 200”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 545.] This is, of course, in the case of the lower threshold, but it seems reasonable to assume that the Government’s approach to the higher threshold is the same, and I have heard nothing today to change that view.

17:30:00

An increase to 1,000 for the higher threshold is even easier to justify in the light of the fact that all the public protection procedures required for events and premises with over 200 people specified in Clause 5(3) will, of course, still apply. These public protection procedures are

“for evacuating individuals from the premises or event … for moving individuals to a place on the premises or at the event where there is less risk of physical harm being caused to them … for preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event … for providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.

In other words, a comprehensive array of public protection procedures will still apply.

I also point out that although the Bill does not allow Ministers to increase the thresholds, it specifically does allow them to reduce them, so if a rationale suddenly appears that justifies a threshold of 700, 800 or 900 they can adopt it, but this amendment will give them flexibility which the Bill does not currently contain. Given that there seems to be very little science behind the decision to set the higher threshold at 800, with the Government’s approach seeming to be “because I say so”, I respectfully request that they think again. I beg to move.

I will respond very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. With due respect, it is not because I say so; it is because we have had a consultation. We had consultations in 2021 and 2023, when his party was in government, we have had discussions with the Home Affairs Select Committee and public discussions on this issue generally, and a revised figure was part of the consultation to determine the lower figure. So the 800 figure is not because I say so: it was determined by the previous Government—his Government—and endorsed by this Government coming in. Your Lordships’ House should remember that that figure came out of discussion we had following the Manchester inquiry and inquiries into other similar recent events. I do not want to test the patience of the House. We had a long discussion in Committee and on the amendments we discussed earlier. Following engagement with stakeholders, the security industry and the public at large, and with the recommendations of several sets of officials dealing with several sets of Ministers, we have come to the conclusion that there is no right number —I accept that—but that the number of 800 will ensure that we bring into scope a large number of premises that have a higher level of security but should be doing those things on the basis of good practice and as part of normal training and induction for members of staff. The 800 figure applies to the Wembley Stadiums—large football stadiums and the larger venues. I believe they can accommodate the restrictions and requirements in the Bill. The cost that we have estimated for the higher tier is only just over £5,000 per establishment. A £5,000 opportunity cost that might not even be a physical cost is not a burden on that establishment, but it may help to save a life. In the event of a terrorist attack, which we will try to prevent downstream, the measures in this Bill may help to save a life. Had they been in place at the Manchester Arena when the attack took place, lives may have been saved. That is an important consideration. I commend the 800 figure to the House and I hope it will reject the noble Lord’s amendment if he presses it.

I am grateful to the Minister for what he said, but I respectfully point out that a threshold of 1,000 would catch events at the Wembley arena. His position on 800 will catch the event we discussed in Committee and that I talked to him about, which cannot possibly afford a figure of £5,000. It does not make £5,000.

Again, the figure of £5,000 is an opportunity cost. It may well be that it is in time given by volunteers. There is no cash payment up front by any organisation to any outside organisation to provide that level of assurance.

It is impossible to know the answer. I think the Minister knows that and I do. Let us not waste any more time. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

2|17:34|213|249|Division on Amendment 5|Amendment 5 disagreed.||0|0

17:46:00

Clause 3: Qualifying events

Amendment 5A not moved.

Amendments 6 and 7

Moved by

6: Clause 3, page 3, line 8, leave out “invitations” and insert “tickets” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment clarifies the meaning of “qualifying event”.

7: Clause 3, page 3, line 9, leave out “other” and insert “similar” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment clarifies the meaning of “qualifying event”.

Amendments 6 and 7 agreed.

Schedule 1: Specified use of premises

Amendments 8 and 9

Moved by

8: Schedule 1, page 35, line 30, leave out “invitations” and insert “tickets” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment clarifies references in the Bill to “visiting members of the public”.

9: Schedule 1, page 35, line 31, leave out “other” and insert “similar” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment clarifies references in the Bill to “visiting members of the public”.

Amendments 8 and 9 agreed.

Schedule 2: Excluded premises and events

Amendments 10 and 11

Moved by

10: Schedule 2, page 36, line 26, leave out “invitations” and insert “tickets” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment clarifies the definition of certain premises to which Part 1 of the Bill does not apply.

11: Schedule 2, page 36, line 27, leave out “other” and insert “similar” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment clarifies the definition of certain premises to which Part 1 of the Bill does not apply.

Amendments 10 and 11 agreed.

Clause 5: Public protection procedures

Amendment 12

Moved by

12: Clause 5, page 4, line 19, leave out subsections (4) to (6) Member’s explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 32.

My Lords, I hope that, in this case, the Government have listened to the arguments made in Committee calling for further constraints on the powers in Clauses 5, 6 and 32. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for pressing the Government in Committee on these matters. This issue was also raised by a number of other noble Lords, and I have certainly reflected upon it. As we know—particularly on this Bill—collaboration and cross-party consensus have underpinned much of the Bill’s development and progress, for which I have been grateful. In this spirit, having reflected on the points raised in Committee, the Government have tabled amendments to further strengthen the safeguards on the use of certain Henry VIII powers in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has done me the great honour of signing the amendments, post my tabling those. He cannot be with us today for other reasons, but I know that the House will note that he has added his name to these amendments and has taken a constructive approach accordingly. The government amendments are very clear. First, they consolidate in Clause 32 the powers previously found in Clauses 5 and 6, which would allow the Secretary of State to add, omit or amend public protection measures or procedures in the Bill. Secondly, and more significantly, the amendments place conditions on these powers that the Secretary of State must satisfy, as well as the powers in Clause 32 to change the qualifying thresholds for the standard and enhanced tiers. These government amendments limit the use of the powers to lower the thresholds, or to add new procedures or measures, to where the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so for public protection—I put that phraseology before the House. Conversely, the thresholds can be raised—or procedures or measures omitted, or have their descriptions amended —only if the Secretary of State considers that their retention is not “necessary for public protection”. Necessity sets a higher bar than the previous drafting did, and how the regime is functioning and the nature of the threat from terrorism at the time will be among the factors most relevant to the Secretary of State’s consideration, as will the availability of other means of public protection. The House will know that the nature of terrorism is very often unpredictable, and methodologies may change over time. In tandem, so will the ways in which society can effectively respond. How certain businesses operate may also evolve over time, such as in the way that customers engage with them. The Government consider that this approach now strikes the right balance between ensuring that the Bill can be kept up to date, and providing in the Bill an important set of further safeguards to ensure that these powers, if used, are used appropriately and with proper consideration. Furthermore, government Amendment 28 will require the Secretary of State to formally consult such persons as they consider appropriate before exercising any of the powers specified in Clause 32. This includes the powers previously contained in Clauses 5 and 6, which are now consolidated under Clause 32. One of the main demands of a number of colleagues in the House was that we undertook further consultation. Consulting relevant stakeholders is now integral to the development of the Bill, and it has been the Government’s clear intention that this will continue. In the light of the points made in Committee when we debated these clauses, the Government are content to put that wider consultation in the Bill, which I hope assists noble Lords in their deliberation on these issues. So the Government have listened, and I hope that helps. I hope to have the support of the House for the amendments we have tabled. I will obviously respond later, if the House will allow me, to any points made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, in respect of their amendments. In the meantime, I beg to move government Amendment 12.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 13 and 25 in this group. Amendment 13 seeks to introduce a provision for exemptions to public protection procedures under the Bill. While I fully support the legislation’s intent to enhance security and preparedness in the face of the ongoing terrorist threat, I believe that a blanket one-size-fits-all approach is neither practical nor proportionate. This amendment introduces flexibility to ensure that obligations under the Bill are applied where they are truly necessary, without imposing undue burdens on venues where the risk is demonstrably low. We must remember that security measures come at a cost, not only in financial terms but in administrative burden, operational complexity and resource allocation. Many smaller premises, community organisations and low-risk venues will struggle to comply with requirements that may be disproportionate to their actual risk profile. For example, a village hall hosting occasional gatherings, a small charity-run space or a low-footfall museum in a rural area does not face the same level of threat as a major city-centre venue yet, as the Bill stands, they may all be subject to the same requirements. This amendment does not seek to weaken security; rather, it ensures that security measures are appropriately targeted. It would allow exemptions to be granted where a venue could clearly demonstrate that it does not meet a reasonable threshold of risk; that could be assessed based on factors such as size, location, historical risk data and the nature of the events that it hosts. The Government must consider whether it is justifiable to place the same regulatory demands on all premises, regardless of their individual circumstances. The Bill must be robust, but it also must be fair. An exemption mechanism would ensure that security resources, both financial and operational, are directed where they will have the greatest impact rather than being spread thinly across venues that pose little to no realistic security concern. I urge the Government to consider the practical implications of this legislation and accept this amendment in the spirit of ensuring a proportionate, risk-based approach to public protection. In Committee, the Minister helpfully said on 5 February that the responsible person would “consider the appropriate procedures in the light of the cost and resources … Accordingly, no procedure is required to be put in place at unreasonable cost to the responsible person”. His assurance is welcome, but the problem is that the Bill does not appear to allow the responsible person to consider appropriate procedures in the light of their cost. The Minister also said: “What we are asking for in the Bill … is that he thinks … about the consequences and about whether there is a threat”.—[Official Report, 5/2/25; col. 794.] Yet the Bill makes no allowance for the responsible person to think about the consequences and whether there is a threat—that is, assess the risk—as the Minister suggests. Instead it demands that, without consideration of the risks, the responsible person puts in place the costly rules that I am concerned about. I am deeply concerned that, if we allow these rules to stop harmless, peaceful community events around our country like the ones that I referred to in Committee, as my noble friend Lord Murray so aptly said earlier, the terrorists will have won. The Minister’s encouragement to rely on the “so far as is reasonably practicable” wording is helpful—but the problem is that the term is subjective. Those enforcing the law are not the same people as those who make it, so phrases such as this are open to variations in interpretation. Furthermore, one of the really important problems that the Bill creates is that it is, as Bills often are, very broad-brush in its drafting, especially in the public protection procedures and measures. It leaves the detailed requirements to be fleshed out in guidance and advice, so at this stage we have no way of knowing how difficult they are going to be to comply with. On Amendment 25 and returning to the subject of thresholds, which we debated a moment or two ago, when the subject was raised in Committee there was much discussion of the level of the lower threshold—that at which premises became qualifying premises or an event becomes a qualifying event, as the case may be. This amendment approaches thresholds in another way, still seeking to address the concern that the selection of the level of the thresholds is based on very little science and, once the Bill is passed, they are set in stone effectively for ever—and they certainly cannot go up. The Bill would benefit from having an understandable framework under which the Secretary of State could vary thresholds upwards or downwards from time to time, which would also remove an element of doubt from the Bill as its stands, in that there is currently no clarity over how and when the Secretary of State may exercise his or her power to reduce thresholds. The thing that is missing from the Government’s approach is a lack of any science to the question as to how the level of risk—for example, of a terrorist attack—changes from time to time. In Committee, the Minister mentioned the fact that the national threat level was then, as it is now, at substantial. As he knows, there are four other national threat levels—low, moderate, severe and critical. The setting of the national threat level is based on the assessment of risk by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. This amendment therefore seeks to allow the Secretary of State to vary the thresholds with the national threat level.

First, it is really gratifying to hear from the Minister at the start that the Government are listening, have listened and have acted accordingly. I really do welcome the reining in of Henry VIII powers and the remarks that the Minister made. On listening, do feel free to carry on. Some of the arguments that have already been made and which will be made in this group and others are about whether the Government are still considering the points about ensuring that the Bill does not have the unintended consequences that some of us dread. Throughout Committee, I was struck that the Government stressed that the Bill was not a one-size-fits-all measure, and they did not feel that that was appropriate. Earlier, the Minister made the point that there are exemptions for this Bill and that this House itself is not under the same requirements as other venues—and I have referenced again that there is a different approach to places of worship. That is appropriate, because we do not want it to be one size fits all. I have put my name to Amendments 13 and 25, which respond positively to the ministerial commitment to flexibility and agility. As we have already heard, there is a constant theme and genuine worry about the unintended consequences of the Bill harming civil society and the social fabric of communities by taking an unnecessary regulatory toll on events. As I have said, it can feel as though the discussions we have here are far removed from the material threats that society faces from terrorism. I appreciate what was said earlier: if the Bill passes, nobody is claiming that it will stop terrorism. None the less, we are constantly told that lives will be saved if we pass the Bill so there is a moral onus on us to pass it. However, we need to take a broader approach.

18:00:00

Amendments 13 and 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, offer the Government an opportunity to apply something which has been lacking in some of our discussions—that is, an evidence-based approach to a threat of terrorism or how we respond to the possibility of a venue or an event being attacked by terrorists. Such an approach is very important, because Amendment 13 would allow someone responsible for premises or events to apply for an exemption, but they would have to show why their event should be exempt. Amendment 25 allows for variable thresholds based on a national threat level; surely as the threat level is different at any given time, whatever the size of the venue, it must have an impact on how we view what is a threat. These things are important.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said that the Bill should reassure the public that they will be safe. My concern is that venues and those who organise events might well feel that they are safe if they follow procedures but that can mean, ironically, that a procedural, technocratic approach to safety is deployed. Very large venues could simply go through the motions—watch their back, jump through hoops and tick boxes—while smaller venues would need to prove they were doing the right thing, but, ironically, the Bill puts in place a system where people do not need to think but simply follow the rules. Key to any approach to dealing with danger or safety issues is not simply to follow but to think about the rules. Taking an evidence-based approach, in which people would call for an exemption to show that their event would be detrimentally impacted or they could consider the evidence provided by the various threat levels, would at least ensure that the system was not being used in a technocratic and unhelpful way.

Finally, I will mention the kind of events I am worried about. Buckley is a small town which has a jubilee every year. I am not suggesting that noble Lords will have heard of it, but it has been going on for 150 years; it is quite famous in its own locality. It is organised by all the local churches, the Scouts and the Guides. There is a march through Buckley, led by the Royal Buckley Town Band. It is quite an occasion—everyone goes out, children have a day off school, et cetera. Recently, there has been something of a to-do because Flintshire’s chief officer for streetscene and transportation has said that from now on the Buckley jubilee organisers will have to pay for road closures and traffic management that the council previously paid for. It has sent a panic through Buckley because it will be too expensive.

In the coverage in the local newspapers, people said that this event is already under enormous pressure that it was not under a few years ago. The event organisers of Buckley jubilee now need to complete a full risk assessment, including and with reference to a traffic programme of works; to produce a method statement; to have a consultation with Flintshire’s road space manager; to provide public liability to the value of millions of pounds; and, in addition, there is a regulator coming round the corner who will tell them they also have to watch out for terrorism in Buckley. I am not saying that nobody will go to Buckley and plant a bomb, but it is not that likely.

There is already a huge amount of financial and regulatory pressure on local community events that are part and parcel of what makes a town a town and brings people together. Being able to call for an exemption is appropriate. If there is a very low level of terrorist risk at any given time, we should be able to say that the Bill’s requirements are no longer necessary.

I am not saying that risk is never a feature; the national threat level could be very high, in which case even smaller venues would need to take precautions that they would not have to under the Bill’s present wording. I am calling for flexibility and agility so that we do not have a thoughtless one-size-fits-all approach that will not keep anybody safer.

My Lords, I am grateful for another chance to address these amendments and support those brought forward by the Government. I am struggling a little with Amendments 13 and 25. I do not wish to deprive the good citizens of Buckley of the joy of their annual jubilee. Some of us thought that jubilees came round rather less frequently, but it is good that Buckley has them so often. I am not quite sure of the premises that would be covered by this legislation. On Amendment 13, it would cost more in time, energy and effort to get an exemption for small premises than the fairly modest requirements for such premises would entail. It would not be much use for a small church hall to appeal for an exemption under Amendment 13. The risk for a large and wealthy organisation might be that they spend years in litigation and judicial review as to whether their premises should be exempt. I am not convinced. As for Amendment 25, I yearn for the day when the terrorism threat is low or moderate, but I do not see that happening any time in the foreseeable future. We have to work on the basis that we will suffer significant threats of terrorism for quite some time. Given that the level is substantial one day and might be severe another, I would rather have the certainty of knowing what my premises had to do today and tomorrow and when planning an event in six weeks or 12 months, if it is a large event with a long lead-up time, rather than the rules changing depending on the terrorist threat having gone up or down a notch. Amendment 25 would create potential confusion, and I would rather that we kept things as simple as possible.

My Lords, these Benches welcome the government amendments to Clause 32, in particular Amendment 28 on consultation, which we were very keen to see written into the Bill when we debated it at previous stages. Amendment 13 starts from the point of view that the measures in the Bill are inappropriately burdensome, as we discussed in the previous group. In fact, proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 13 would be burdensome on applicants and the Secretary of State. It uses the words “demonstrated” and “materially”; these things all require some judgment and work. In particular, the Bill does not seek to “materially reduce the threat of terrorism”, as we have discussed. The public protection procedures in Clause 5 are more than a single measure. As I understand the way that the Bill will work, with premises being different there is bound to be some dialogue between the owner or operator and the SIA in assessing whether they are compliant. That is the time to make these assessments. I do not think it will be a box-ticking exercise, at any rate to the extent that has been suggested. The process will get people to think—a word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox —when they are planning the procedures. I hope she will invite noble Lords to come and see the Buckley procession, but the problem there sounds to me more like a problem with local authority funding than anything which arises from this Bill. The words “flexibility” and “agility” really worry me; this will create a lot of work for people. So our main objection to Amendment 13 is that it is neither appropriate nor, frankly, workable and we cannot support it if the noble Lord decides to divide. Amendment 25 is on the national threat level. I do not want to say that it goes up and down like a yo-yo, because clearly it does not, but it does go up and down and so, again, I think it would be unworkable given the criterion. The right reverend Prelate used the word “confusion”, which was the first word I wrote down against this amendment. We know that owners and operators want clarity and certainty, so, again, we cannot support this amendment. I really cannot see how it could work because, when the national threat level changes, it happens quite immediately, so to change arrangements as the amendment proposes would take time. I just cannot see how it could operate.

I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester have said about Amendment 25. This needs consistency. The danger, as well as the fact that these things can change quite quickly, is that the SIA would struggle to respond to a potential wave of applications, when the certainty that people require is probably on whether they are safe in a venue and whether there is an invacuation plan or an evacuation plan. These things can be predictable and consistent, so it would not be helpful to tie them to the thresholds. These thresholds move predictably in the sense that we can see the threat rising and events happening, but sometimes they are based on intelligence that is not always open to the public, and therefore a rapid change could lead to quite a lot of uncertainty in the operation of premises. That is not wise, either, so I cannot support Amendment 25.

My Lords, I support Amendments 13 and 25, both tabled by my noble friend Lord De Mauley, which introduce much-needed flexibility and proportionality into the Bill. They recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach is neither practical nor desirable when it comes to public protection measures.

18:15:00

Amendment 13 seeks to establish exemptions from public protection procedures in certain circumstances. While the core purpose of the Bill is to enhance security and preparedness, it is vital that we do not impose unnecessary or disproportionate burdens on venues where the measures being imposed would not demonstrably make a difference. There are many premises—whether small community spaces, charitable organisations or certain low-footfall establishments—where the practical application of these procedures may not have any real impact on the security challenges that these venues face. An exemption mechanism would allow for a more nuanced and common-sense approach, ensuring that resources are focused where they are most needed. If my noble friend Lord De Mauley intends to test the opinion of the House, he will have our support.

Similarly, Amendment 25 introduces the concept of variable thresholds based on the national threat level. This is a highly pragmatic proposal. The terrorism threat landscape is not static; it fluctuates based on intelligence, emerging risks and global events. A rigid, fixed threshold does not account for these realities. By allowing thresholds to be adjusted in response to the national threat level, we can ensure that security measures are proportionate to the actual risk at any given time. This approach avoids placing undue restrictions on businesses and public venues during periods of lower threat, while ensuring a swift and appropriate response when the risk escalates.

Taken together, these amendments introduce an element of flexibility that is sorely needed in this Bill. Security is, of course, paramount, but so too is ensuring that measures are targeted, proportionate and adaptable to real-world conditions. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to these amendments and to recognise the benefits of a more tailored and responsive approach to public protection procedures.

I am always grateful for amendments because they generate debate, which is what this House is about, and because they create an opportunity to test the provisions in the Bill. I have tried to listen and I have moved on the government amendments in this group, but I cannot support Amendments 13 and 25 from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Let me explain why. Amendment 13 proposes to allow those responsible for qualifying premises and events to apply for an exemption. All the way through the Bill, noble Lords on the Opposition Benches have talked about reducing both bureaucracy and the ability to put pressure on. Applying for exemptions and setting up the bureaucracy to manage those exemptions would be a major task. I remind the House that the potential exemptions are from the issues in Clause 5, and I am not sure which of them the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, wishes to remove. Is it the evacuating individuals from premises and events guidance? Is it the guidance on moving individuals to a place on the premises or at an event where there is less risk of physical harm? Is it preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises of an event and giving guidance on that? Is it providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event so that they can manage, in the event of a terrorist attack, the evacuation, invacuation or activity around that? I am not quite sure which of the public protection procedures in Clause 5 the noble Lord feels it is not appropriate to put in place. I remind the House that, as set out in Clause 5, the sole objective of public protection procedures is to reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals present at premises or an event if an attack occurs. It is not about reducing the risk of an attack occurring; we will do that through many other means. Even with the public protection measures in Clause 6, the objectives are not to stop an attack or the threat that terrorism poses but to reduce vulnerability in the event of an attack. Of those specific procedures—invacuation, lockdown, communication—which ones does the noble Lord think we should put to one side? I am genuinely interested, because I do not see the benefit of that. If premises number one in a high street applied for an exemption and premises number two—exactly the same type of premises—did not, this would create confusion and a patchwork. This does not achieve the objectives of the Bill, which are to provide immediate responses in the event of an attack and to ensure that volunteers or paid staff understand what to do when that attack is occurring, as at London Bridge and the Manchester Arena. That is the important thing. We will issue and put in place guidance, and the SIA will be there to provide support and advice, but Clause 5 meets the objectives, and I therefore cannot support the amendment. I cannot support Amendment 25 either, for the very sound reasons given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I may be the only other person in this Chamber who has visited Buckley recently—it is five or six miles from where I live and is next door to my former constituency. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned the problems with the Buckley jubilee parade. None of those problems relates to the legislation before the House. If there are challenges being put down by the local authority about the range of issues she mentioned, they are not because of this Bill; nor would the measures in Clause 5 incur additional expense of a significant nature to examine variations in the threat level and the provision of evacuating, invacuating, moving or information. I respect both the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, but the revision of the threat level would add another tier to the things we are trying to encourage, which in Clauses 5 and 6 are good practice and information about what to do in the moment of an attack. The national threat levels may change, but the acts of terrorists remain unpredictable. Attacks may happen any time, anywhere. We have seen attacks at a number of smaller locations in recent years. Changes to the national threat level are not directly aligned with the objectives of the Bill. As for the premises and events that will be in scope, as we have seen from the recent past, those threat levels may change quickly but the level of a potential attack is still present for any of the areas in scope of the Bill. To have the threat level determined by whether something is in scope would make it a very blunt instrument, which would potentially create the very confusion and bureaucracy that many noble Lords have been keen to avoid with the Bill. The Government have listened on this group of amendments, including to the serious points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, by those on the Liberal Democrat Benches and by His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, and we have made changes to the Henry VIII powers which I hope—and know—are welcome in this House. However, I cannot continue to listen to all representations. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the provisions in Clauses 5 and 6 are that line for the Government—as was the case, dare I say, for the previous Government. In that case, I urge the noble Lord and the noble Baroness not to press their amendments.

Amendment 12 agreed.

Amendment 13

Moved by

13: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause— “Exemption from public protection procedures(1) The person responsible for qualifying premises or events may apply to the Secretary of State, or the Security Industry Authority, for exemption from one or all of the public protection procedures.(2) Exemption from the public protection procedures must be granted if the Secretary of State, or the Security Industry Authority, is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the public protection procedures in question would not materially reduce the threat of terrorism or the risk of harm in the case of a terrorist attack.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would oblige the Secretary of State or the Security Industry Authority to alleviate rules if the applicant can prove that the implementation of such procedures would not materially reduce the threat of terrorism or the risk of harm in the case of a terrorist attack.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I am grateful to the Minister for his patience, but I go back to what I said earlier, which is to quote him, actually. He exhorted us to rely on the “so far as is reasonably practicable” wording. The problem with that is that the wording is subjective. Those enforcing the law are not the same people as those who make it, so there are wide variations in the possible interpretation of it. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

3|18:24|200|236|Division on Amendment 13|Amendment 13 disagreed.||0|0

18:37:00

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

Amendment 14

Moved by

14: Clause 6, page 5, line 12, leave out subsections (4) to (6) Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 32.

Amendment 14 agreed.

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

Amendment 15

Moved by

15: Clause 7, page 5, line 41, leave out from beginning to “prepared” and insert “within six months of it being” Member's explanatory statement This amendment would require the document prepared under this clause to be provided to the Security Industry Authority within six months of it being prepared.

Amendment 15 seeks to enhance the efficiency of providing documents to the SIA. It was debated in Committee and offers a small but practical improvement to the Bill. I hope that I can be brief. The amendment would introduce a clear requirement for the document to be provided to the SIA within six months of it being prepared, rather than “as soon as is reasonably practicable”. It would help to ensure timely and structured reporting and to prevent unnecessary delays in the implementation of security measures. A six-month time limit would simply provide a definitive timescale and an end date, which would bring clarity and certainty and be a helpful addition. I will also briefly introduce Amendments 18 and 32, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower—without, of course, stealing his thunder. These important amendments address the need for greater oversight of the SIA. Amendment 18 seeks to establish an advisory board to support and guide its work, and Amendment 32 proposes an independent review panel to assess its performance. Both measures would help to ensure that the SIA remains accountable and thus responsive to emerging threats. More broadly, I hope that the Minister accepts that all the amendments in this group seek to improve the quality of the legislation, and I look forward to hearing his response in due course.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for moving his amendment, and I welcome him to the Front Bench. This is the first time we have had a debate with him as the shadow Home Affairs Minister, and I welcome him to his post and wish him as much success as I possibly can, given the Government’s position and his own position on these issues. Amendment 15 is important, as it looks at the question of the timeframe by which the compliance document must be submitted to the Security Industry Authority. As we have had previous debates on this issue, there are a number of points for me to make to the noble Lord. The document being provided to the Security Industry Authority will detail, among other things, the procedures and measures in place, under the provisions of the Bill, to comply with the Bill’s requirements. It is an important document, as it will enable the SIA to make any initial evaluation of the security approach at the premises or event in question, to engage with the person responsible and to assess compliance with the Bill’s requirements. As such, the document should be sent to the regulator at an early stage, as the noble Lord mentioned. However, we have not stipulated in the Bill a single deadline for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events in scope, because the Bill applies to a wide variety of such premises and events, from long-established department stores to potential pop-up events. Some will require little change to their security approach, whereas others might need to make a substantive change, or, in the case of certain events, may have long or short lead-in times. The Government therefore determined that the document should be provided as soon as is reasonably practical. If we accept the noble Lord’s amendment and have an imposed blanket deadline of six months, following completion across enhanced duty premises and qualifying events, this could hinder the SIA’s ability to monitor compliance and provide advice. It may result in out-of-date or inaccurate documents being provided. Depending on the circumstances, the SIA submission may be delayed until very close to the deadline, which is not necessarily the best way to do business. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from—he wants to give that certainty—but I cannot accept the amendment today. We had an extensive discussion about Amendment 18 in Committee. I refer back to the two public consultations on this legislation, the engagement that both the previous Government and the current Government have had with hundreds of trade organisations and industry bodies, and the work with relevant stakeholders, existing regulators, security partners and local government. That was all about how we can put this legislation in place effectively. In its current role, the SIA already works with industry, local authorities and civil society. Those working relationships will not end with Royal Assent; the Home Office will build on its existing work to ensure that the SIA is fit for purpose. As I have said before, Royal Assent is the start of a process, of potentially two years or more, of implementation. The amendment would place the burden of a statutory duty on the Secretary of State and, for that reason, I cannot support it, although I again understand where the noble Lord is coming from. On Amendment 32, I hope that I can assure noble Lords that Clause 12 has been drafted to ensure appropriate oversight by the Secretary of State, with checks and balances on the SIA to ensure that regulation is being delivered as the Home Office intends. The SIA produces annual reports, which will, following Royal Assent, both encompass its regulatory function and provide transparency. The Secretary of State will continue to appoint board members when required and will be held accountable, in this House and the other place, for those board members. The Secretary of State will make sure that there is significant expertise in the SIA to ensure effective regulation and organisational change, and that it will work closely with business. The Secretary of State will have the power to give directions to the SIA when necessary if they so wish. The Government will therefore be able to ensure that the legislation is being implemented as intended. I know that both the noble Lord and shadow Ministers in the House of Commons will question the SIA and hold it to account, and potentially have debates about the progress of this legislation. If we were to have, as is proposed, an independent review panel, it would add an extra level of bureaucracy. As I have set out, the Secretary of State has robust powers and oversight to ensure that the SIA manages its responsibilities accordingly. Therefore, I am ashamed to say that, yet again, I reject the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and ask the House, if he presses them, to reject them accordingly. If the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, wishes me to give way, I certainly will.

18:45:00

I am very grateful to the Minister. I will make a connected but slightly separate point. After Committee, the Minister very kindly wrote to me on the reviews, particularly the post-implementation reviews. A copy of the letter is in the House of Lords Library. For the benefit of noble Lords, he said: “I would like to reassure you that a post-implementation review will be undertaken”— which is what we sought— “and this will assess whether the legislation delivers the Government’s policy objectives … this will include analysis of the costs and impacts on qualifying premises and events … this will naturally include smaller businesses and community-run premises where they fall in scope. The Government’s intention is that the review will be conducted, at most, within five years of commencement … This will incorporate … microbusinesses and small community premises”. I am very grateful to the Minister for the indication in his letter. Can he let us know, from the Dispatch Box, whether the Government intend to publish the outcome of those reviews?

I fully expect to publish the outcome of those reviews. I give the noble Lord an assurance that this Government will continue that practice and will publish those reviews in the event of them taking place in the timescale he mentioned for the SIA. With that, I hope that he can respond positively and that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, can withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very generous words of welcome. I look forward to working with him—and, occasionally, against him—in future. I listened very carefully to what he said, and I do not intend to take Amendment 15 further. However, it remains my view that accountability and oversight should not be seen as bureaucratic hurdles; they are fundamental to ensuring that security measures are properly implemented and continuously improved. I make it clear that I do not plan to press Amendment 15, so I respectfully beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Amendment 16

Moved by

16: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause— “Developing and implementing training on public protection procedures(1) The Secretary of State must take such steps as they consider appropriate to ensure that—(a) adequate accredited training provision is made available for persons responsible for qualifying premises or qualifying events in respect of public protection procedures that includes—(i) the monitoring of premises or events and the immediate vicinity of premises or events,(ii) evacuation procedures and the movement of individuals into, out of and within a premises or event,(iii) physical safety and security of occupants in a premises,(iv) provision of security information to individuals on a premises or at an event, and(v) other measures related to terrorism protection training;(b) a training implementation plan is put in place to ensure all organisations and persons to which the provisions of this Act apply are encouraged to undertake training related to public protection procedures.(2) Functions of the Secretary of State under this section may be exercised by any organisation or persons authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.(3) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report setting out the steps they have taken in relation to subsection (1).”Member's explanatory statement This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a training plan in respect of qualifying premises and events.

My Lords, in moving Amendment 16, I will also speak to Amendments 17 and 24A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Amendments 16 and 17 are, as we debated in Committee, about the importance of training and guidance and ensuring the quality of that training. It is worth repeating that all the organisations we have spoken to about this Bill have stressed the importance of ensuring good-quality training; it was the one issue they all raised with us. This is perhaps particularly true for smaller events and premises, which have not necessarily previously had experience of drawing up plans for what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. As we discussed previously during the passage of the Bill, many larger venues have already put such training in place. In Committee, the Minister gave some reassurances about training, but we have retabled the amendments to push him a little further on these matters. The previous draft Bill from the previous Conservative Government had a much more prescriptive approach to training. This has been removed, but it is vital that guidance on training is produced as soon as is practically possible, following consultation with the sector. In Committee there was much discussion about the risks of expensive consultants—“snake oil salesmen”, as noble Lords referred to them. The sooner guidance is published, the less able such consultants will be to promote unnecessary or “gold-plated” training. Consultation with the industry affected by the provisions of the Bill will be key. This brings me on to Amendment 24A. Consultation with those to be impacted will be the very best way to ensure that training is user-friendly, of a high standard and comprehensive, but not unnecessarily complex, and that guidance is written in plain, easy-to-understand English. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us further reassurances—he has already given some this evening—on full consultation with the sector to be impacted, including with small rural village halls, and the voluntary sector, as well as with big venues and the night-time and creative industries. Will he also commit, following that consultation exercise, to publishing guidance on training as soon as possible, and certainly well before the end of the rollout period of the Bill, which I believe is going to be two years? I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise to address this group of amendments, which touches on critical aspects of training, funding, economic impact and consultation within the framework of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. Although I cannot support Amendments 16 and 17, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, I express my strong support for Amendments 30 and 34 and will speak to Amendment 31. Amendments 16 and 17 propose requirements for training in public protection procedures and would ensure that training providers meet high and competent standards. The importance of proper training in counterterrorism preparedness is self-evident. However, there are practical considerations regarding how such training is implemented, who bears the cost and how providers are accredited. Although these amendments highlight an important issue, further clarity may be needed to ensure that they are applied in a way that is both effective and feasible for those affected. I fully support Amendments 30, 31 and 34 as they introduce essential provisions to ensure that implementation of the Bill is both fair and practical. Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, calls for additional funding for local authorities. This is absolutely necessary. Local authorities will play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the new security measures, yet they are already under considerable financial pressure. Without adequate funding, we risk imposing responsibilities on local government without the means to fulfil them effectively. Security cannot be done on a shoestring budget. If we are serious about protecting the public, we must ensure that local authorities have the resources to do so. Amendment 31, in my name, seeks to review the impact of the Bill on the night-time economy. This is a crucial safeguard: bars, clubs and entertainment venues are vital to the economic and cultural life of our towns and cities. Although security is of course paramount, we must ensure that the measures imposed by this legislation do not have unintended negative consequences, leading to excessive costs, closures and job losses. A structured review would allow us to monitor these effects and make adjustments if necessary. Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, proposes that businesses be properly consulted. This is a matter of both practicality and fairness. Businesses, particularly those in hospitality and events, will be directly affected by the Bill, and it is only right that they have a voice in shaping how its provisions are implemented. Engaging with businesses will not only improve compliance but will ensure that security measures are designed in a way that works for all stake- holders. In conclusion, I urge the House to support Amendments 30, 31 and 34, which would provide essential financial support, ensure careful economic consideration and guarantee meaningful engagement for those most affected. A well-crafted security framework must not only protect the public but be practical, proportionate and sustainable.

I am grateful for the amendments before us today. I hope I can give some comfort on at least one of the amendments during the course of our discussion. Training is extremely important. I have been supportive of the need to make sure that those who have to have a role in the legislation—and the premises and events within scope of the legislation—are given sufficient training and guidance, so they understand how to follow the procedures and measures in the event of an attack. Such training will be imperative to ensure that procedures and measures are adequately implemented and that the Bill’s public protection objectives are met. However, the Government assesses that a one-size-fits-all approach to training would be inappropriate, due to the different types and wide variety of premises and events that fall within scope. The most important factor is that the public protection procedures are effective and that they will be able to be carried out at any particular event. We have tried to ensure that the public protection procedures are suitably in place and that the responsible person ensures that relevant workers, or volunteers, are adequately instructed as to how to carry out a procedure. The procedures in Clauses 5 and 6 are relatively straightforward. We have been through them in a number of stages, in Committee and on Report. I do not wish to repeat them today. They are designed to be simple and low cost. It is about putting in place appropriate procedures that could help protect people from harm and ensuring that staff or volunteers are properly trained in those procedures and how to follow them. For the overwhelming majority of venues, this should not require specialist training. As I mentioned previously, free guidance will be available. Given that the procedures and measures will need to be tailored to the relevant premises, the content of any staff training will also be very much venue-specific. A generalised scheme for certifying training providers, as proposed in Amendment 17, is unlikely to be helpful in the circumstances. Premises and events should not have to pay for any specific training and the relevant legislation should be easily understood and put in place without detailed training. The Government will ensure that free, digestible guidance, advice and training will be provided. I hope that helps with the first set of amendments. On Amendment 24A, in the name of the Liberal Democrat Front-Bencher, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, much of the debate throughout the Bill has rightly focused on ensuring that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have both the time and information needed to ensure that they can plan and prepare for, and ultimately implement, what is reasonably appropriate for them under the Bill. I put on the record today that the Government will publish guidance well in advance of commencement the new regime. The Government will determine the exact timescale for this in due course, ensuring that we strike the right balance between publication and making the guidance as robust as it can be through a period of proper consideration and engagement. I would expect that to last for a few months prior to implementation. The Government are therefore happy—I hope this helps the noble Baroness—to support Amendment 24A, from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, which will place a statutory duty to consult as appropriate before publication of the guidance under Clause 27. I hope that demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we get the guidance right, by having a consultation, which will be well in advance of the implementation date and give an opportunity for colleagues across the sector to comment on the guidance that, potentially, is being published. I hope that is of further reassurance to the House. Further amendments have been tabled. Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, was spoken to by the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench. I know that we are mindful of cost. We have discussed the cost issue on several occasions. Because of the Bill, there will be pressures on local authorities. It is not the Government’s intention for the Bill to frustrate the vital work they undertake. Our intention is to keep the public safe. I would like to reassure the House that the requirements for appropriate procedures and measures to be in place, as far as is reasonably practical, are designed to ensure that the relevant factors, including costs, are considered. Throughout our debates, “reasonable”, “practical”, “relevant” and “considered” are words I have used from this Dispatch Box and wish to re-emphasise today. As we have discussed on a number of amendments today, it is envisaged that the requirements will be simple and low cost. Those in the enhanced tier will tailor the procedures and measures they implement to their particular circumstances. This includes consideration of the resources available to them. As a result, I do not believe that the Government should be looking at financial assistance.

19:00:00

However, importantly, as I mentioned in Committee and say again on Report, the Security Industry Authority may, where appropriate, engage with local authorities as part of its regulatory activities. They may share information relevant to each other’s functions. However, I reassure the House that this is not anticipated to result in a burden requiring financial support. As I assured the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, in Committee, the Government will be undertaking a new burdens assessment. We will consider the findings of this and any cost implications for local authorities once it has been produced. Again, that will be open to discussion in this House and in the House of Commons.

On Amendment 31, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I again reassure him and other noble Lords that careful consideration has gone into how this legislation will affect all sectors, including the night-time economy. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that there will be a significant implementation period following Royal Assent; it is likely to be 24 months or more. That will ensure that there is time for the guidance to be examined and looked at. The acceptance of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, will ensure that there is consultation on that guidance. That, in turn, will help relevant parties to plan and prepare in advance of the Bill coming into force.

I also reassure noble Lords that the Government will keep both the impact and the effectiveness of the legislation under review. I have given that assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on post-implementation, as well. Should unintended consequences be identified, the Bill provides powers for Ministers to adjust the scope of the regime as appropriate. These powers have been debated in the House and I have put in additional safeguards for them, as well.

The proposed timescale for a report to be laid before Parliament—18 months after Royal Assent—given what I have told the House tonight, would in effect entail the review being conducted prior to the Bill coming into force. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will not press his amendment, but that remains a matter for him.

Amendment 34 has also been discussed by the House before. I hope I can provide further reassurance about the commencement and implementation period. I am in danger of repeating myself, but with a focus on this amendment. I confirm that there will be an implementation period of 24 months after Royal Assent, prior to commencement. The implementation period is there because we want to make sure that the SIA is set up and ready to enforce the requirements of the Bill at commencement. It also allows time for those in scope to prepare ahead of the requirements. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to put the minimum period in the amendment in the Bill because, again, I am trying to ensure that we give plenty of time to undertake activity on implementation, guidance, scope and making it fit for purpose. Ministers and officials are extremely engaged in making sure that the SIA is in the right place when the Bill goes live, which is effectively after Royal Assent and the implementation and preparation period.

Having accepted Amendment 24A, in name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and having given the advice that I have on the other amendments, I say that the consultation will take place ahead of publication of the guidance, in good time before commencement. The engagement will take time; it will be a proper engagement to produce proper guidance and assessment. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord does not press his amendments and that the noble Baroness will withdraw hers, but allow me graciously to accept Amendment 24A.

I thank the Minister for accepting Amendment 24A on consultation, as well as for putting on the record his clarifications and reassurances on training. We have all come a long way on these matters since we started debating the Bill in your Lordships’ House. I think we all agree that training and guidance are key elements of the Bill and that it is extremely important to avoid smaller organisations paying out unnecessary sums of money to receive training that is above and beyond what is helpful or necessary. I accept the Minister’s reassurances in good faith, particularly on the timescale and his assurance that he will publish the guidance well in advance of implementation. As a consequence, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Clause 12: Role of the Security Industry Authority

Amendments 17 and 18 not moved.

Clause 16: Appeals against notices

Amendment 19

Moved by

19: Clause 16, page 12, line 32, at end insert— “(8) Where the Tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time the Tribunal must—(a) consider ordering that the notice or variation (as the case may be) is of no effect until the appeal is determined or withdrawn, and(b) notify the applicant of the outcome of the Tribunal’s consideration under this subsection.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment would require the Tribunal to consider whether a notice should be ordered to be of no effect in circumstances where the Tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time.

My Lords, in moving Amendment 19, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, I will speak also to Amendments 20 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 19 would require the tribunal to consider whether a notice should be ordered to be of no effect in circumstances where the tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time. That is the context for the amendment. The fundamental background behind this amendment is that the SIA will issue notices; we do not know how many, at this stage, but there is a strong likelihood that they will be appealed in significant numbers. This will likely be a major additional burden on the First-tier Tribunal, raising questions on capacity and speed of response. It is also right to say that many of the regulated persons are responsible for events with a hard deadline, which carries with it financial and operational consequences. How will events deal with a situation where their appeal is lodged with a tribunal but no determination has been made in a reasonable time? Amendment 19 seeks to prevent people being left in limbo. It would follow Clause 16(7), which allows the tribunal to decide that an order is of no effect until the appeal concludes, and it should be read in that context. In that sense, Amendment 19 is simply an additional protection for those organising events if, for whatever reason, the tribunal has simply not been able to determine the appeal within a reasonable timeframe. I hope the Minister understands the reasons behind this amendment, and I am keen to hear his response. I will speak more briefly on Amendments 20 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 20 seeks to extend the grace period from 28 to 42 days. This is a practical adjustment: compliance with new regulations takes time and, while security must remain a priority, we must recognise the operational realities faced by businesses, charities and community groups. A slightly longer grace period provides a fairer timeframe for implementing necessary measures without imposing undue pressure. An additional 14 days is a reasonable and fair addition of extra time. Finally, Amendment 23, again tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, calls for local authorities to be consulted. Local authorities are on the front line of implementing security measures under the Bill, and their insight and expertise should be taken into account. Consultation will ensure that security policies are practical, properly resourced and, critically, aligned with local needs. Effective counter- terrorism measures require co-operation at all levels and this amendment strengthens that collaborative approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister in reply.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26. I am sure we all know how important volunteers are in the way our society works. Across the country, many vital community venues are run on our behalf by volunteers who give up hours and hours of their time to help run community enterprises—for example, village halls and community centres. I am also sure that noble Lords will have found that it is getting more and more difficult to persuade people to take on voluntary roles and responsibilities. It is very much harder to persuade people into senior voluntary roles, particularly if those roles carry with them personal risk to that volunteer, either of financial liability or criminal liability. As I have made clear in previous debates on this legislation, I am very concerned that this Bill will unintentionally have a significant negative impact on members of our community volunteering. By Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26, I seek to ensure that voluntary unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees are exempt from the personal and criminal liability under Clauses 24, 25 and 26 of the Bill, provided, of course, that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence. As I observed in Committee, when this Bill was considered in draft by the Home Affairs Select Committee, it heard evidence about the impact of these proposed measures on community volunteering. The committee, under the then chairmanship of Dame Diana Johnson, reported in July 2023 and said this in paragraph 39: “However, we are concerned that the capacity figure of 100 for standard tier premises, which will capture some small and micro-sized businesses, and community-run and voluntary groups, could be disproportionate and burdensome. This category is particularly troubling because it would include many smaller venues that may not have sufficient resources to cover costs of what is proposed. It would also cover village halls, places of worship and similar amenities that provide vital community support, often on low budgets. If such places are forced to close down, this represents a win for terrorism, rather than an effective means of combatting it”. I could not have put it better myself. In light of this and other representations, the present Government increased the threshold from 100 to 200, and I commend them for doing that, but that increase is no sufficient answer to the problems that have been raised. I remain concerned that, with the effect of the measures in the Bill—on top of the other measures facing volunteers across our community, which we heard so ably outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in an earlier group—there is a risk that we will have fewer volunteers and volunteer leaders, which may mean wide- scale closures of village halls and community centres up and down our country. It is clear to me that the effect of the measures in the Bill as it presently stands runs the serious risk that the new liabilities in the Bill will reduce the appetite for members of the public to step forward and volunteer. This is, in any event, in an era when public involvement in these sorts of institutions is waning. It is important that the Government do not make it harder and harder to be a volunteer or a trustee of these institutions. The amendments that I propose here are directed to removing the worst of the disincentives for people to volunteer. The way Amendment 21 works, as the House will have seen, is to remove the risk that a volunteer or unpaid trustee would be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed under Clause 17, provided that they were acting at all times in good faith and within the scope of their duties. Amendment 22 would exclude a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee from the daily penalties, described in the Bill as being up to £500 a day. I suggest that that sort of measure is a powerful disincentive to people to volunteer, due to the risk of their own personal liability for these sums. Amendment 24 would exempt volunteers, unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees from criminal liability, provided again that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence. I hope the House will agree that it is a significant disincentive to volunteering to think that you face, on a cursory reading of the Bill, the risk of up to two years in prison for failing to adhere to the strictures of the regulations made under the Bill. I appreciate that, as the Minister will no doubt tell the House, these criminal powers will be used only rarely and are a maxima, and I am sure all that is right. However, the fact is, if it is in the statute, it will act as a disincentive to volunteers. People will not want to be the responsible person, because they will not want to take the risk of going to prison.

19:15:00

Finally, Amendment 26 would confirm that there is nothing in the Bill that would make an unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee liable in their personal capacity to be sued for breach of duty under the Bill. Volunteers in this context should not be subject to the same criminal liability as paid professionals when they are acting in good faith and without negligence. These proposals are clearly proportionate and in keeping with the objective.

Let us be clear: this amendment does not propose a blanket exemption for all trustees and officeholders. Those who act with wilful misconduct or gross negligence will rightly remain accountable. However, for those who genuinely seek to comply with the law and act responsibly, the threat of personal, financial or indeed criminal liability should not hang over them like a sword of Damocles. If we fail to provide this protection, we risk discouraging precisely the people we need to step forward.

It is, of course, a balancing act that the counterterrorism measures in the Bill remain robust while preventing an unintended chilling effect on volunteering and community leadership. These amendments achieve a balance, and I hope they become part of the legislation. Therefore, I hope that the Government accept these four amendments.

My Lords, I support the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has just spoken to, for largely the same reasons that he does: we have many volunteers running church buildings and church halls around the country. In addition to what he says, I know in practice that it is very unusual for a charity trustee, for example, to be held personally liable for something unless they have behaved egregiously. In many cases, organisations have a structure that allows them to take out insurance against some kinds of risks. But perception really matters here: the perception that one might end up going to prison, or be made personally liable, as a church warden or parish clerk, for excessively heavy fines compared with your own personal income. Given the deterrent effect of that—when we find it so hard, and in an age when there are fewer volunteers, to keep the voluntary structures of this country running —if the noble Lord wishes to bring these matters to a Division, he will certainly have my support and, I hope, that of other Members of your Lordships’ House.

My Lords, I was surprised at the last stage by the amendment requiring the tribunal to issue a determination within a reasonable time, as defined by the Secretary of State, because it seemed to me that that was an inappropriate combination or eliding of the roles of the judiciary and the Executive. That was not pressed, but this amendment seems to me to be on the same page. Others will have experience of the courts staying an order—I mean professional experience—but I understand that to be part of proceedings in a lower court. As I read Amendment 19, it would require an extra stage in the proceedings, presumably a hearing on an application that the time before determining an appeal is unreasonable, and so a further addition to the tribunal’s load and further delay. We cannot support that amendment. On Amendment 20, having to pay within 28 days does not seem to me to be excessive penalisation, which is the wording used in the Member’s explanatory statement. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talked of a grace period being aligned with similar penalties. The Minister disagreed and made the point that 28 days is a minimum. The penalty will not come out of the blue in most cases, as I understand it. The SIA has to be satisfied that there has been, or will be, a contravention. Unless the responsible person has refused, or completely failed, to engage with the SIA, there will have been a dialogue. With regard to volunteers, of course we are with the noble Lord on not disincentivising volunteers, but I do not think this is the first or only time that volunteers have been faced with or have had to think about the responsibilities laid on them as volunteers, particularly if they are trustees of charities. There are a lot of rules that have to be observed by them. The Bill, in any event, is about taking precautions appropriate to the premises or to the event. The distinction between the operators—volunteers or paid—is surely irrelevant. I doubt terrorists would make that distinction. As we have been reminded today, the Conservative Government were proposing 100 as a threshold. That would have meant a greater problem, as the noble Lord defines it. We are, I am afraid, not able to support those amendments. With regard to Amendment 23, Clause 20(2) allows for the SIA to consider “matters it considers relevant”, which presumably will include the local authority’s view. Having specifically to obtain the local authority’s view seems to be another bit of bureaucracy in certain cases. If it is relevant, it will be considered, and provision is made for that.

I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Murray. I turn briefly to the amendments. My noble friend Lord Murray dealt with the treatment of volunteers and spoke eloquently about the principle that volunteers acting in good faith should not be subject to financial penalties, criminal liability or civil liability. He made the point that volunteers play a vital role in many public and community settings, often stepping forward to help in times of crisis. To penalise those who act voluntarily and in good faith would be both unfair and counterproductive. If the Bill is to encourage a culture of shared responsibility for public protection, it must also offer reasonable protections to those who contribute to that effort, and volunteers should not be deterred from assisting by fear of punitive measures. Those amendments strike the right balance by ensuring that only those who act negligently or with ill intent are held responsible. On Amendment 19, respectfully, I do not accept the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that this creates an additional court process. The Bill already contains a mechanism in Clause 16(6) and (7) for rendering a notice as having no effect, and Amendment 19 would simply add another scenario to that. Taken together, I suggest these amendments improve the Bill and I urge the Government to accept them.

I am grateful for the amendments. I will try to run through them and do them justice in as short order as I can. On Amendment 19, first, I do not consider it necessary to require in the Bill that the tribunal consider suspending a notice where it has been unable to determine an appeal within a reasonable time. The tribunal is already subject to relevant tribunal procedures. The Bill makes provision for the tribunal to consider whether a notice of variation should, in effect, be put in place pending the outcome of an appeal. The Bill gives the right of appeal to such a notice, which, while not automatic, allows the tribunal to make an order to suspend its effect pending the appeal’s determination. I hope that addresses the issues in Amendment 19. Amendment 20 talks about the penalty period being within 28 days from the date of a penalty notice being issued. I reassure the House that the period of 28 days, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, a is minimum period that the SIA may specify, and it may therefore specify any number of days post that 28-day period. I hope, on that basis, that the flexibility for the SIA on the 28-day period is acceptable. I fully understand why we have had this debate on a number of occasions: we have been round this at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report. It is because it is a valid issue to raise. We want to ensure that we encourage volunteers to continue to meet their responsibilities, and I understand that there are concerns, which have been expressed today by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, about the liability of voluntary officeholders and unpaid trustees. The Government are mindful of the pressures that voluntary and community-run organisations face. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester endorsed those pressures, and I understand, having been voluntary trustee on a number of small bodies myself, where noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate are coming from. Again, I go back to the requirements of Clause 5. The requirements are there to achieve public protection outcomes; they are not there to put disproportionate burdens on trustees or, indeed, organisations. As to the consultation, the Government have increased the threshold from 100 to 200 to ensure that we take out a number of smaller bodies. An estimated 13% of village halls and 10,000 community centres have been taken out of scope by that change to the threshold. We are trying to ensure that these are voluntary, simple measures that will require no specific expertise. I understand and accept that in some cases, that could put people off, but would it do so more than any other legislation? Health and safety legislation, for example, could put people off. This is meant to be a simple measure in Clause 5 that allows individuals to undertake, and to do so in a way that meets the obligations but does not discourage volunteering. Turning to Amendments 21 and 22, under the Bill, penalties can only be issued for non-compliance with the requirement, and daily penalties can be issued only where a penalty notice for a contravention has been issued. Again, I would hope that, in the first instance, if there is any contravention, the SIA will be there to provide guidance, support and help for individuals and organisations to meet their responsibilities, which, I reiterate, are relatively low under the provisions of Clause 5. Turning to Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, there are limited circumstances in the Bill where an individual would be liable for an offence committed by a body in connection with failure to comply with a requirement. That will happen and apply only to certain persons in control, and again, it is an offence to fail to comply with compliance or restriction notices only in relation to enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. The offence is therefore less likely to be implemented against village halls or community premises in any event. Again, it is our intention, as it has been all the way through the Bill—and I reiterate that in respect of Amendment 26—that a civil claim for breach of statutory duty may not be brought against an individual. I hope the House will accept those reassurances. There are limited proposals in Clause 5. There are responsibilities for a responsible person, but they are not ones on which we do not seek guidance and advice from the SIA in the event of non-compliance. Prosecution would be the very last resort in any particular instance. That applies equally, as I mentioned, to other amendments, including Amendment 23. I hope those reassurances will allow noble Lords not to press the amendments. The implementation period of, potentially, two years, the guidance issued by the SIA, the reviews we have put in place, and the assurance I gave the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on the last set of amendments—that any review of implementation would be published and open to scrutiny—will, I hope, give noble Lords the reassurances they sought in tabling the amendments.

Having been prematurely enthusiastic, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 19.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

19:30:00

Clause 17: Penalty notices

Amendment 20 not moved

Amendment 21

Tabled by

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

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

Amendment 21 not moved.

Clause 19: Daily penalties

Amendment 22 not moved.

Clause 20: Determining the amount of a penalty

Amendment 23 not moved.

Amendment 24 not moved.

Clause 27: Guidance

Amendment 24A

Moved by

24A: Clause 27, page 20, line 12, at end insert— “(2A) Before publishing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

Amendment 24A agreed.

Amendment 25 not moved.

Clause 31: Civil liability

Amendment 26 not moved.

Clause 32: Powers to amend this Part

Amendments 27 to 29

Moved by

27: Clause 32, page 23, line 3, at end insert— “(ba) amendsection 5(3)(public protection procedures) so as to—(i) specify a further procedure, or(ii) omit, or amend the description of, a procedure for the time being specified;(bb) amendsection 6(3)(public protection measures) so as to— (i) specify a further measure, or(ii) omit, or amend the description of, a measure for the time being specified;”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment moves to clause 32 of the Bill the powers left out of clauses 5 and 6 by my amendments to those clauses.

28: Clause 32, page 23, line 18, at end insert— “(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult before exercising the powers in clause 32 to amend Part 1 of the Bill.

29: Clause 32, page 23, line 18, at end insert— “(2) The power in—(a) subsection (1)(a) or (b), so far as it confers a power to lower a figure,(b) subsection (1)(ba)(i), or(c) subsection (1)(bb)(i),may be exercised only if the Secretary of State considers that doing so is necessary for public protection.(3) The power in—(a) subsection (1)(a) or (b), so far as it confers a power to increase a figure,(b) subsection (1)(ba)(ii), or(c) subsection (1)(bb)(ii),may be exercised only if the Secretary of State considers that it is not necessary for public protection to retain the figure, procedure or measure (as the case may be) for the time being specified.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment imposes conditions on the exercise of certain powers to amend Part 1 of the Bill.

Amendments 27 to 29 agreed.

Amendments 30 to 32 not moved.

Amendment 32A is a manuscript amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. It is quite long, so I do not propose to read it out unless any noble Lord wishes that to be done. I invite the noble Lord to move the amendment. Amendment 32A

Moved by

32A: After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause— “Counter-terrorism measures in planning law(1) The Secretary of State must consult with local authorities on integrating counter-terrorism measures into the planning and design of new buildings which are likely to be designated “qualifying premises” for the purposes of this Act.(2) Following that consultation, the Secretary of State must introduce measures to ensure the incorporation of anti-terrorism design principles in new building projects, particularly those in high-risk areas, where the buildings in question are likely to be designated “qualifying premises” for the purposes of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment was tabled as Amendment 43 at Committee stage.

My Lords, I beg to move the manuscript amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I will be quite brief and I do not intend to push it to a vote. My reason for bringing the amendment forward—it is a repeat of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, in Committee—is because it is fundamental to the aim of the Bill, which will become an Act. It is about the design of new premises. One of the most strategic things that can happen is to ensure that premises are designed to mitigate the effects of a terrorist attack or, ideally, to prevent it altogether. To be fair, the Minister reassured us in Committee that some action would be taken. It is not that I was not reassured by the Minister, but I was not reassured by the Government’s response in two respects: first, when that change would happen and, secondly, the method by which the advice to planners would be effective. I thought the best way to change that might be in this Bill, not some future one. It is so important that we design places to enable evacuation and invacuation, and to reduce the risk of a rampant gunman running around a building—all of which is entirely possible by design, particularly in new venues. I would not propose this for every venue but certainly for our major venues—perhaps the 1% of our venues that account for a very high percentage of the people who attend public events and, frankly, will be the priority targets for terrorists, as that is where they will achieve, in their warped view, the most impact by creating public outrage. For those reasons, I would like to hear how the Government intend to implement this type of design change in a way that, I hope, can be more reassuring than I heard in Committee. This is nothing to do with the Minister but entirely to do with the Government’s response.

My Lords, I will speak, briefly, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I do not want to repeat everything I said previously, but it is important. I know the Minister will say that this is not the appropriate Bill, but the trouble is that there is never an appropriate one, and therefore we keep on missing the opportunities of starting to design out terrorism and crime from the very start. So I would hope that, after this, the Minister will at least take this on board with his colleagues and try to push hard for people to start thinking seriously about doing this for new developments, particularly larger ones.

My Lords, I am not sure whether we are actually debating this or not, because I do not think the chair has put it to us. However, I will say in one sentence that both the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, have a point that this is an important provision. We should be building into planning legislation —into licensing legislation—arrangements to design out terrorism and, I would go further, to design out crime. I hope that the Minister will be able to say in reply that that is something the Government will bring forward in another way, at another time.

The noble Lord has correctly picked up on my error. The matter is before the House and the amendment has been moved.

My Lords, I rise briefly to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We on these Benches agree that this is an extremely important matter. Perhaps this is not the appropriate piece of legislation to put it in but, as we said in Committee, it is an extremely important measure that in the longer term will save both time and money.

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Udny-Lister, for raising this matter both in Committee and on Report. The amendment today is a late addition but it is welcome none the less, because it allows me to put on the record a couple of very key points. I will not revisit the debate we had in Committee, but I did say then that the national policy framework for England and its equivalent in the devolved Governments already contains provision on the need to promote public safety and take account of wider security arrangements during the planning process. That requires local planning authorities to take information from the police and other agencies and to consider steps that could be taken to reduce vulnerability, increase resilience and ensure public safety and security. There is also associated planning practice guidance providing greater detail. But I get the sense, and I understand where both noble Lords are coming from, that it is far better to design out that challenge in future new build than it is to put in place other measures downstream. As was mentioned in Committee, there is the National Protective Security Authority, and counterterrorism police will continue to serve as valuable advisers on these issues. But since Committee, and this is where I hope I can help both noble Lords, we have reflected on this as an important issue. My officials have discussed the matter further with their counterparts in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we want to consider how we can reinforce planning authorities with the existing arrangements and requirements to consider security and its importance as part of planning regimes. It might be helpful for me to say very quickly that the Government are updating their National Design Guide and National Model Design Code, which provide guidance on the very issues that the noble Lords, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned on safety and security in public spaces. The plan is that they will be published later in the spring. The Government intend to consult on changes to the national planning policy guidance, to make it clearer and to introduce a more rules-based approach, in spring 2025. The consultations will specifically include policies for addressing security—the very points that both noble Lords have brought to the attention of the House in this amendment, and on which we had a full debate in Committee. To conclude, I will say what the noble Lord said I would say, which is that this is not the appropriate vehicle for this legislation. That is what Ministers say occasionally at Dispatch Boxes and it is the right thing to do in this instance. But I hope the reassurance that I have given to both noble Lords, that this is on the Government’s agenda and that there will be a consultation that noble Lords can feed into, addresses the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and by the two noble Lords who spoke on this matter in Committee and today. So I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

I thank noble Lords for such a generous response to such a late amendment. I appreciate it, and I am reassured by what the Minister has said. I heard the timeline, and I can see why these things need to be considered carefully. With that reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 32A withdrawn.

Clause 35: Regulation

Amendment 33

Moved by

33: Clause 35, page 25, line 13, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clauses 5 and 6.

Amendment 33 agreed.

Clause 37: Commencement

Amendment 34 not moved.