Public consultations on the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill took place in 2021 and 2024, and the Home Affairs Select Committee scrutinised the Bill in 2023. As a result, the Labour-led Government has proposed a number of changes to the original draft of the Bill.

The second reading in the House of Lords took place on 7th January 2025. Over the nearly five hours of debate, many points were raised by individual peers; ranging from the effect of the legislation on heritage railways to the role of facial recognition in venue protection. Here, we comment the more significant areas of discussion about the proposed changes and matters felt by peers to be not yet satisfactorily resolved:

  • In respect of the standard tier, it is proposed that the threshold be raised from 100 individuals to 200 (200-799) when it is reasonable to expect that number will actually be present. The threshold for this tier was vigorously debated with some proponents wanting a higher level (300 being mentioned) whilst others wanted it re-set at the 100 level. The Bill sponsor explained that the proposed change from 100 to 200 had reduced venues in scope from 278,900 to 154,600 in the standard tier with the overall costs (for both tiers) reducing from an estimated £2.17 billion over 10 years to £1.83 billion. The annual cost for a standard tier venue is reported to be about £330 and that ‘1 in 8 village halls’ would still fall within the standard tier. Noting these aspects of the debate, we observe that it could be suggested that the decision to change the threshold has largely been predicated on cost rather than security considerations. However, the Bill gives the Home Secretary discretionary powers to lower the standard threshold to 100 but without explaining the basis upon which that change would happen.
  • The Home Office proposes that the Security Industry Authority (SIA) becomes the Regulator for the legislation, vested with new powers of inspection and sanction. The SIA would be accountable to Home Office Ministers. This proposed role for the SIA was queried by multiple commentators noting the significant change in role that this would entail for the SIA.
  • Partly in recognition of the scale and complexity of the work required to prepare the SIA for its new function (e.g. preparing statutory guidance, and a civil and criminal sanctions regime), and partly to give affected organisations time to prepare, it was proposed that ‘at least 24months’ will elapse after Royal Assent of the Bill before the legislative requirements are commenced.
  • Amongst the numerous points of detail raised were consideration of the intersection of cyber and physical threats; training and guidance particularly for the many smaller venues in the standard tier; the application of existing civil liabilities for corporate bodies and individuals; responsibility for command and control during incidents; and making Licensing Act 2003 and Bill responsibilities and regulation complementary.

It was agreed that the next stage of examination of the Bill will be in committee. We concluded from the debate that there are some contentious changes proposed to the Bill, perhaps most notably the role of the SIA as the regulator. There is no doubt that considerable further time will elapse before settled law will be available to help protect the public.