Lord De Mauley:

Moved by Lord De Mauley

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 statementThis 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.

Ayes 200, Noes 236.

Amendment 13 disagreed.

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