Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Committee (1st Day)

17:12:00

Amendment 1

Moved by

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Purpose: protection of premises from terrorism(1) The purpose of this Act is to protect premises from terrorism.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely to protect premises from terrorism.

My Lords, this amendment seeks to insert a new clause before Clause 1 that aims to clearly establish the purpose of this important Bill: namely, the protection of premises from terrorism. Before I begin, I was very sorry to hear that there has been a stabbing and subsequent death at a school in Sheffield this afternoon. I know I speak for the whole House when I say our hearts go out to the victim, their family and the people of Sheffield at this difficult time. The events of recent years have made it tragically clear that terrorism remains one of the gravest threats facing our nation. The horrifying attacks at the Manchester Arena, London Bridge and Borough Market are seared into our national consciousness. These atrocities were targeted not just at individuals but at our entire way of life. They were aimed at places where people come together to live, work and celebrate life. It is the duty of government to protect our citizens and public spaces from such evil, and that is precisely what this Bill seeks to achieve. I again pay tribute to Figen Murray. Without her work in campaigning for this Bill, it is unlikely that it would have come before your Lordships’ House. We owe a duty to the victims, survivors and families to get this Bill right. Legislation must always be crafted with clarity of purpose. A Bill without a clearly articulated objective risks confusion during implementation and unintended consequences. That is why this amendment is so essential. It explicitly states: “The purpose of this Act is to protect premises from terrorism”, and requires the Secretary of State to have regard to that purpose when “taking any actions under the … Act”. The Bill is of the highest importance, and the Official Opposition will take a constructive approach to scrutinising it to ensure that we can deliver these urgently needed security measures in the best way possible. We have already tabled a number of priority amendments to the Bill. During a meeting with me and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst last week, the Minister indicated that the measures under the Bill may not be implemented for at least two years. I am sure the Minister will confirm that today. I must express my concern about that timeline. Two years is a considerable length of time between the passing of a Bill and its measures taking effect. As we have seen all too often, terrorism does not wait. Therefore, we will be tabling additional amendments to ensure that the Bill comes into effect as soon as possible, to ensure the Government deliver on their promises promptly and effectively.

17:15:00

There are a number of other areas in the Bill we would like to look at more closely. We will table additional amendments in the coming days to give the Committee the opportunity to scrutinise it fully. This is an extremely important Bill, and we are determined to work with the Government to ensure we get this right.

Protecting the public must always be the priority, and we must also be mindful of the burdens we place on businesses and other stakeholders. As Conservatives, we understand that regulation can stifle enterprise, dampen innovation and undermine the vibrant public spaces that are so central to British life. We are proud of our high streets, entertainment venues and bustling public spaces; they are part of what makes Britain great. There is an important balance to be struck.

Amendment 1 would play a crucial role in striking that balance. Anchoring the Bill to a clear and focused purpose will ensure that the decision-making remains guided by the primary objective of enhancing security. That would ensure that Ministers remain unequivocally focused on that goal. That said, we are open to discussions with the Government on the wording of this proposed new clause to reflect the Government’s objectives.

My amendment also provides much-needed reassurance to businesses, local authorities and stakeholders affected by the Bill’s measures. They need to know that the Government’s actions will be guided by a clear and consistent objective—protecting them and the public from terrorism.

It is worth highlighting the scale of the financial impact. According to the Home Office’s own impact assessment, the cost to businesses is expected to be £207.5 million per year. That is by no means a small sum for businesses, and it underscores the importance of ensuring that this legislation is in the best possible shape before it is implemented. We owe it to businesses and to the British public to get this right.

We must also acknowledge that there are currently no mandatory requirements for premises to consider terrorist threats and to take forward proportionate mitigations. Despite numerous inquests and inquiry findings highlighting the risk, there remain inconsistent security outcomes at UK public locations. As noble Lords will know, the UK has experienced 15 terrorist attacks since March 2017 and disrupted 39 late-stage terrorist plots. Those statistics are a stark reminder of the ongoing threat we face. It is clear that voluntary measures are no longer sufficient. The Government must legislate to mandate the protective security and preparedness outcomes to be achieved.

We must also ensure this legislation is future-proofed. The threat landscape is constantly evolving and we must be prepared to adapt our security measures accordingly. This amendment, by focusing on the purpose of protecting premises from terrorism, provides a strong foundation for that adaptability.

In closing, I urge noble Lords to support this amendment. It will strengthen the Bill, provide clarity to those implementing it, and reinforce our collective resolve to protect the public of this great country. This is a cause we can all unite behind—the cause of national security, public safety and the defence of the freedoms that make this nation great. Let us seize this moment to get it right. I beg to move.

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord in the desires that he expressed, but in my view those desires are not assisted by this amendment. It is otiose and tautological compared with the rest of the Bill. Sir John Saunders, in his recommendations in volume 1 of his three reports on his excellent inquiry into the Manchester Arena events, emphasised that it was necessary to place the duties on individuals—to make sure that individuals took their responsibilities properly—and that indeed has been the objective of the campaign led so well by Mrs Murray. In my view, if one reads Amendment 1 and then the Long Title of the Bill, one sees that the Long Title covers everything included in Amendment 1 and an awful lot more. My view is that we should not enter into a discussion about what in the abstract is required of premises; that is not what the Bill is about. It is about placing on individuals enforceable responsibilities, the failure of which would provide serious consequences for those individuals. That is why we are here, and that is why we should stick to the Long Title without this amendment.

My Lords, I am minded to support the amendment, but maybe that is because I am a little uncertain about how we are going to ensure that what we all want, which is to protect the public, is guaranteed by the Bill. I worry about a certain mission creep. At Second Reading, a lot of people quoted Sir John Saunders saying: “Doing nothing is, in my view, not an option”, but I also quoted Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, who quoted him as saying: “Equally, the Protect Duty must not be so prescriptive as to prevent people enjoying a normal life”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/24; col. 625.] As I understand the aim of the amendment, it is simply to ensure that we do not forget what the point of the Bill is. Whether we like it or not, regulatory powers have a tendency of leaving their original aim and growing or going elsewhere. In that sense, I want to ensure that we do not forget what the Bill is about, and that means this amendment. It might seem silly to say that, and tempting to say, “We won’t forget what this Bill is about”, but a lot of the evidence in relation to the Bill does not indicate that the specific measures in it will actually keep people safe from terrorism. I do not doubt that it puts a huge amount of responsibility on individuals, but I do not know that the end result is going to be what we intend it to be. I was of a mind to think that the amendment might help to keep focus; that is one of the things that I was attracted to. One of the things that is nagging me—and I am going to raise it here because it seems an appropriate place—is that, if we are going to say that the aim is to protect people from terrorism, we also need to know what we mean by terrorism. I am not being glib. The Government themselves have noted that the Bill is partly in response to the changing nature of terrorism—we now have lone-wolf terrorists; it is not straightforward, so we cannot just rely on the secret services and so on—so the changing nature of those terror threats requires this regulation. However, I do not know that we are closer to knowing what that definition of terrorism is. We can all say, as we all will, that we want to pass a piece of legislation that will keep people safe from terrorism, yet we have decided that we do not know how to define terrorism. Let us think of the official confusion in relation to Axel Rudakubana. As one journalist pointed out last week, saying that he was known to the authorities is an understatement. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out that this is about putting responsibility on individuals but, in that instance, it is hard to name an authority or individual who did not know the threat embodied by that young man, including the police, social services, mental health services, counter-extremism services, education establishments and Childline. He actually said, “I am going to be a mass murderer”, and we know about the ricin, the al-Qaeda manual, and so on. Yet he was not labelled a terrorist. I worry that, if we are confused about our definitions, in relation to this Bill as well, there could be problems. I have a final point on this. I also worry precisely because we have decided, or declared, that terrorism is changing—I do not challenge the idea that there is something in this—such that somebody who created ricin and had an al-Qaeda manual was not labelled a terrorist. He did not fall through the net—he was caught in the net—yet, none the less, as has been pointed out, nothing was done. At the same time, we have an expansive slippage between the notions of extremism and terrorism. It has become very unclear what we mean. It might be a joke, but it was revealed over the weekend that the report commissioned, albeit rejected, by the Government, featured a reading list indicating dangerous, far-right extremism that could lead to terrorism. A viewing and watch list was included, featuring Michael Portillo’s “Great British Railways” programme and “Yes Minister” as potentially indicating a problem. You know, that is, like, “What? How mad”. The reason I am mentioning it is that I do not want mission creep in relation to definitions, or in relation to the regulatory aspects of this Bill. I am terrified of the unintended consequences for community organising, civil society, venues and so on. I just think there is nothing wrong with a very specific reminder of what we want this Bill to do. That is what attracted me, at least, to this amendment.

My Lords, I of course approve of the Government’s overall intention behind the Bill. However, I have serious concerns about how it will be implemented and whether it is necessary to have this wide range of powers on quite small organisations, events and places that will have events coming within the scope of the Act—when it is an Act—only once or twice a year. We could have real problems there. My concerns are similar to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, from whom we just heard. There is a real need for focus, and for the Secretary of State, when making regulations, to get them sharply on the point. This is especially so in relation to the likely impact on smaller businesses as well as voluntary and community-run organisations in the standard tier premises. There is a lack of evidence that the Bill will adequately reduce the threat of terrorism to smaller organisations, if indeed they are likely to be at risk. There will be problems too for one-off and occasional events, which may attract quite large numbers, but in informal surroundings. There will be a big burden on them. How will it really work? So, the purpose is necessary. Just because there are going to be 850 people at an event, do we really need the whole panoply of this Bill? In 2023, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee produced a report, which, for those who have not looked at it recently, is well worth looking at. It was a careful and well-evidenced report that addressed the then draft Bill. I know that things have moved on since then, but the conclusions reached by that committee on the evidence to which the report referred highlight areas that need to be addressed in the approach to be adopted today. The committee pointed out that in the 2010s—a slightly different period from the one that my noble friend Lord Davies opened on—there were 14 terror attacks. A lot of those involved knives; there were also vehicle attacks, bombs and one firearm. This was in the 2010s. The majority were out of scope of what is in the Bill: they were on the streets, on Crown premises such as barracks, or on transport. Those would not be covered by the Bill, yet they were the bulk of the attacks. This Bill is irrelevant to them.

17:30:00

Neil Sharpley of the Federation of Small Businesses pointed out to the Committee that the potential costs were far greater than those anticipated by the Home Office and feared

“a real danger that costs will escalate”.

Costs, as he said—rightly, I suggest—would

“vary from business to business, but because of the enormous numbers of … small and medium-sized businesses involved, a significant number will experience significant costs”.

He thought that the estimates given as to costs would be likely to rise seriously.

The cost for both standard and enhanced-tier premises of implementing these proposals is relevant. It has been estimated by the Government but, certainly in 2023, that committee considered that those estimates were

“disproportionate to the level of threat, particularly for”

those smaller businesses

“captured in the standard tier”.

I know that the standard tier was only 100 people and is now 200, but we really have to look at that because 200 is not very many if you go to a village event, to take a practical example.

Mark Gardner from the Community Security Trust recognised that

“any legislation is going to have to set arbitrary levels”

but the threat, he said,

“does not depend on the size of the premises. The threat depends … on the nature of the premises”—

we have heard that the Bill will not catch many where terrorist events have occurred—but also on who is entering them.

There are some practical things, too. When we come to it, the stages of implementation will be important and the regulations must focus on that. It should be enhanced tier first, the big boys and then the small players. There should be annual reviews of how it is working to look at not only the burden but effectiveness. There should be proper provisions for training to ensure that exercises really are not box-ticking but are relevant. They should be focused for that reason and must be relevant. The precise details of duties must be meaningful and practical. The Government have to give proper consideration as to how voluntarily-run organisations will be impacted: village halls, and so on.

A purpose clause will focus the mind of the Secretary of State to ensure that the regulations made and the activities of the regulator, whoever that may turn out to be, are truly relevant to the purposes of this legislation, namely: to protect against an attack, where practicable, and ensure that proper measures are in place in the event of an attack. However, they must be realistic and proportionate. We cannot make this a perfect world, and I have lived in London and worked here since 1971.

My Lords, I have to admit to being unclear, after what I hope will be a short debate of 20 minutes, as to what exactly this amendment is for. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, wanted a mini-Second Reading debate, because that is what we have had. I remind him, and noble Lords who have spoken, that this is Committee and not Second Reading. The arguments should therefore be addressed to the amendment concerned. I am also unclear, when I look at Amendment 1, what it actually adds. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said that the Long Title of the Bill really spells it out. If that is too much for anybody who is unclear what the Bill is about, simply look at its title: “Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill”. Does that not really rather sum it up? Why do we need this clarificatory line to say: “The purpose of this Act is to protect premises from terrorism”? You just have to read the title of the Bill; it says that already. Noble Lords have talked about mission creep and the problems of defining terrorism. Can I just make one point quite clear? If, as a citizen, you become involved in an act of violence, you are not going to worry about whether the individual concerned meets a particular category of terrorism. What you want is immediate action and somebody coming to protect you. The Bill is about trying to prevent that initial act of violence. This amendment adds nothing and is pointless. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, whom I respect on so many issues, said that the Opposition’s purpose is to get the Bill implemented as soon as possible. I suggest that introducing amendments like this will not add to that cause.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made one point with which I agree. It is that there is a need for focus. Unfortunately, this amendment is not focused. He talks of the threat of terrorism: the Long Title and the text use the term “acts of terrorism”, and that is where the focus needs to be.

My Lords, this has been a short debate on Amendment 1. If the Committee will indulge me, I am keen to very briefly set out an overall approach from these Benches to Committee stage. I reiterate that we support the Bill. We recognise that families and survivors have already had to wait a very long time to get this important legislation on the statute book, but we believe it is also important to get clarity on certain areas of the Bill and to probe the thinking behind some of the drafting, so that it can be the best Bill possible. I also pay tribute to Figen Murray and the campaign team. They have done an amazing job, but there remain areas in the Bill that are very much a framework. Greater clarity, as well as reassurances from the Minister, would be helpful. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, regarding Amendment 1. In fact, I was sitting in my office this afternoon thinking, “Isn’t that exactly what the Long Title of the Bill says, so what is the added purpose?”. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but I am afraid that I too did not really hear the additional purpose of his amendment. As I see it, the purpose of the Bill is about public confidence and public protection, as well as the protection of premises. In other words, it should be about people as well as just premises. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it is about people taking responsibility for themselves. It is about making sure that people feel safer when they go to a venue or an event. On Saturday, I happened to go to a theatre in central London where I was asked to open up my rucksack. I also went to a very small private museum on Sunday, staffed by volunteers, where I was not only asked to show my rucksack but had it confiscated and put in a locker. These things do not necessarily cost money, since at that museum they were volunteers. The Bill should be about introducing measures that minimise the risks, making sure that venues and events have a plan in place and a person responsible for implementing that plan “to reduce the vulnerability of the premises” as it says in the Long Title of the Bill. The Bill is also about making sure that there is a plan in place in the tragic event that an attack happens. One of the main problems that I see with this amendment is that it sets out only part of what the Bill aims to do. Yes, the Bill is about protection of premises from terrorism, but it is also about having plans in place to minimise the number of casualties in the extremely unfortunate case that an attack occurs. We should remember that people who are involved in an attack have injuries for life—and not just physical injuries. They can also have emotional and mental health injuries. For that reason, from these Benches, I am afraid that we cannot support this amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful for this short debate on Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He was right, at the start, to remind us of the reason why this Bill has been put in place, as did the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. That is because of attacks on Borough Market, on Manchester Arena and on London Bridge. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned a death today in Sheffield, about which I pass on my sympathies to the family. I cannot comment in any more detail at this time, but ongoing investigations will take place. I understand the intention of the amendment, but, if I may, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey have endorsed what I would have said from this Front Bench about the Bill. The Bill has a Long Title, which I which will not read for the convenience of the House, but it is on the face of the Bill, and that is relatively clear as to what the purpose of the Bill is. The Bill is designed, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, to ensure that premises and events in scope are better prepared for an act of terrorism, should one occur. We have taken some expert advice on what that should be, and the consideration is that there are certain measures that could be put in place which, if they were in place prior to a terrorist attack occurring, could potentially save lives. For ease of Members, although we are jumping ahead slightly, I refer them to Clause 5, which sets down a number of public protection measures that are required. This goes to the heart of what of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned about what we should do in the event of an attack. In Clause 5, the Bill sets down a range of measures, including “evacuating individuals from the premises … moving individuals to a place on the premises or at the event 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”. They are specifically in Clause 5 and, later on, in Clause 6, setting out clear objectives for both public protection procedures and measures. Those procedures are designed to reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals if an act of terrorism were to occur. I am straying into the sort of Second Reading debate area that we have had, which I do not want to do, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and others mentioned the issues around the scope of the Bill, the cost of the Bill and other issues there. We have taken a measured approach and have made some changes, based on consultation, raising the level of the threshold in the Bill from 100 to 200, with a later second tier of 800. That will reduce the number of venues taken into the scope of the Bill from 278,900 down to 154,600, with 24,000 in the higher tier; so we are cognisant of the fact that there were, potentially, a number of areas where that would have brought a lot more premises into scope and created much more difficulty for people. What we are trying to do with this legislation is to establish the principle that we have requirements in place which are there for low-level training and support for individuals to be able to understand what happens in the event of a terrorist attack. Again, I said at Second Reading that, downstream, we have to undertake a lot more work to prevent any attacks in the first place; but, in the event that one happens at a premise in scope, we have to ensure that measures, as in Clauses 5 and 6, are in place. I think that the Explanatory Notes, the Long Title and the clauses that I have mentioned meet those objectives, but that is for the Committee to determine. I will add one more point, if I may. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talked about the two-year period for implementation. By all means, let us have a debate about that downstream, but, again, what this Committee is trying to do—and what the Government are trying to do in supporting this House and supporting the objectives of Figen Murray and the campaign—is to make sure that the measures in place are effective; are implemented in an effective way; have proper oversight and regulation from, as we will discuss later, the Security Industry Authority; and that we give consideration to all other bodies impacted by the Bill to allow time for them to undertake the training, undertake and understand the legislation and put preparations in place.

17:45:00

We have said that we think that that will take a two-year period. That is for Ministers to determine later on if the Bill becomes an Act, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will understand why we said roughly two years: it is because of those factors. That goes, again, to the heart of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, about the concerns for organisations generally. That two-year period will give an opportunity to put them in place. At the end of that two-year period—or, indeed, when we do commence the legislation, the measures in Clauses 5 and 6, and the responsibilities that we are putting on organisations in those two clauses, will not stop a terrorist attack, but will potentially put mitigating training measures in place in the event of an attack such as Manchester, Borough Market or London Bridge. So I hope that the noble Lord will reflect on what I have said, withdraw his amendment in due course and not return to it at a later date, because I think we have covered those points to his satisfaction.

My Lords, I am grateful for the participation of noble Lords in relation to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about it being tautological, but it is not intended that it should be a repeat of something. As I said, the idea is to make it a Bill that has clarity, with an articulated objective. That is the purpose of the amendment and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that it ensured the point of the Bill. Clearly, there is a disparity of opinion in the House, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed.

Clause 2: Qualifying premises

Amendment 2

Moved by

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out from ““building”” to end of line 8 and insert “means “building” as defined in section 121 of the Building Act 1984” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment brings the definition of a “building” in line with other areas of legislation.

My Lords, this amendment seeks to bring the definition of “building” in this Bill into alignment with the definition provided in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984. At first glance, this may appear to be a purely technical adjustment, but it is one that holds practical significance and improves the coherence of our legislative framework. Consistency in legal definitions is essential for ensuring that legislation is clear, workable and enforceable. By adopting a well-established definition already enshrined in the Building Act 1984, this amendment offers several distinct advantages. First, it ensures legal certainty. The term “building” appears across numerous pieces of legislation that deal with construction, planning, safety and environmental concerns. Diverging definitions introduce the risk of ambiguity and could result in unintended consequences or legal disputes. Secondly, it supports efficiency and clarity for all stakeholders—whether they are local authorities, developers, legal practitioners or enforcement bodies. A single, consistent definition avoids the need for unnecessary cross-referencing and interpretation, reducing administrative complexity and the scope for conflicting judgments. Thirdly, this amendment aligns with wider efforts to create a streamlined and harmonised regulatory environment. With the increasing need for integrated approaches to construction and building safety, clarity in our definitions becomes all the more vital. Moreover, this amendment ensures continuity. The definition under Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 has stood the test of time and has been tested in practice. It is familiar to professionals across the construction and legal sectors and therefore provides a trusted and robust foundation for any regulatory measures contained in the Bill. In conclusion, this amendment may seem modest, but its impact on the clarity, coherence and efficiency of the legal framework is significant. I urge your Lordships to support this sensible and pragmatic change, which would uphold the principles of legal certainty and good governance. If the Minister is unable to agree with my proposed definition, I hope that he will at least take on board our concerns about the definition of premises and look to bring forward an improved definition on behalf of the Government so that we can get the Bill right. I will now speak to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. This amendment proposes to include in the definition of building any permanent or temporary structure. This amendment draws inspiration from Section 30 of the Building Safety Act 2022. It seeks to clarify that the public protection requirements should apply not only to permit edifices but also to temporary structures, such as those erected for events such as Christmas markets or other seasonal activities. I commend the intention behind this amendment. The safety and protection of the public must be at the heart of any legislation concerning the built environment. Temporary structures often serve as focal points for large gatherings, where the potential risks associated with terrorism can be just as significant, if not more acute than in permanent buildings. When saying this, I have in mind the horrific terrorist act on 20 December 2024, in which a large 4x4 was driven into a crowd at a Christmas market in Magdeburg in Germany, killing six people and injuring at least 299 others. Equally, we saw over the Christmas period a vehicle attack in New Orleans. I can fully understand why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has tabled his amendment, which is similar to mine, and aims to probe whether the scope of this Bill will apply to temporary structures. I will also speak to Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to Clause 5. This amendment seeks to leave out the words “immediate vicinity” and replace them with “or at the event”. This is a probing amendment, intended to clarify the scope and meaning of the term “immediate vicinity”. I commend the noble Baroness for bringing forward this important question, as the phrase “immediate vicinity” is inherently vague and open to interpretation. When drafting legislation, particularly provisions that relate to events, gatherings or the use of premises, clarity is paramount. The lack of a clear definition raises several practical concerns. First, from an enforcement perspective, ambiguity around the term “immediate vicinity” may cause confusion for regulatory authorities and event organisers. How far does “immediate” extend—is it 10 metres, 100 metres or further? Does it take into account natural barriers, such as walls, fences or roads? Without clear guidance, there is a risk of inconsistent application and potential disputes. Secondly, for those responsible for ensuring public safety or compliance with regulations, the lack of a defined perimeter could lead to uncertainty. Event organisers need to understand precisely which areas fall under their responsibilities for security, crowd control and other measures in this Bill. A clearer definition would also aid in drafting licensing conditions and emergency response plans. Thirdly, we must also consider the practical realities of modern events, which are often sprawling and multifaceted. Many public events, such as festivals, markets and sporting events, naturally extend beyond a single well-defined boundary. In such cases, the concept of “immediate vicinity” may prove too narrow to cover all relevant areas where public safety measures are required. By replacing “immediate vicinity” with “or at the event”, this amendment seeks to broaden and clarify the scope, making it more effective for the diverse nature of events and gatherings. In the context of this discussion, we need to be very clear about which premises will be affected by the Bill. I have used my amendment to probe this, alongside the other noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. There may be existing regulatory frameworks that adequately address the safety requirements for temporary structures, such as those enforced by local authorities or event-specific safety regulations. Care must be taken to avoid unnecessary duplication which could impose additional and potentially disproportionate administrative burdens on organisers of short-term events. In conclusion, I wish to use my amendment to open a discussion on the nature of a premises. I commend the spirit of the amendments from other noble Lords, which also seek to address this issue. I look forward to hearing from them and would encourage ongoing dialogue with stakeholders to explore how best to address the safety concerns around temporary structures, without placing undue burdens on event organisers or enforcement bodies. I beg to move.

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 3, which is in my name. Like the amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, my amendment addresses the definition of qualifying premises in Clause 2. My amendment proposes that the definition in Section 30 in the Building Safety Act 2022 is the more appropriate place to look for guidance, given the nature of this Bill. The definition in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 was designed for a measure which laid the basis for a wide-ranging system of building regulations relating to the construction of the buildings themselves, whereas the focus of this Bill is rather different. As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, it is concerned as much with the people as it is with the buildings. That suggests that it is better to look for a shorter definition in the Bill itself, rather than borrowing from the 1984 Act, so that we know exactly what we are dealing with. It seems to me that a definition is necessary here to make it clear—if that is what the Government wish—that the protection of the Bill should extend to temporary buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has done quite a lot in introducing the purpose of this amendment for me in his introduction. Like him, I have in mind the horrifying episode in Magdeburg in December, when a lorry drove into a crowded market and caused appalling injuries to people. When that happened, we had a market in Edinburgh, which was set up as temporary buildings in a fairly crowded space; it was full of people. If you are a terrorist, you look for a soft target and it struck me that that was another extremely vulnerable target, because people would be in considerable difficulty unless arrangements were made for evacuation in a hurry and so forth, and unless there were other measures to avoid the perpetration of acts of that kind. To an extent, my amendment is a probing amendment. On the one hand, I am seeking an assurance that the Government have considered this problem, given the paramount purpose of the Bill. It must be beyond argument that the purpose extends to securing the safety of members of the public who gather together to visit markets of that kind, where what is on offer is displayed in hastily erected facilities that are here today and will be gone tomorrow. As I said, those who are planning acts of terrorism may see these as soft targets and exactly the places they would want to go. If the protection of the Bill is to extend to these places, it is better that the Bill should make this plain. There is another reason I suggest that it would be helpful to include the words in my amendment. The public protection measures provided in this Bill need to be enforceable if they are to be effective or, to put it another way, they must be capable of being enforced. It would be unfortunate if attempts to extend these measures to temporary buildings of the kind that I have in mind were to be frustrated because it was open to argument in a court that they did not fall within the meaning of a building for the purposes of this Bill. One wants to avoid uncertainty of that kind, which is why it is better to spell it out in this Bill in the very few words I suggest. I also have in mind the point the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, mentioned when discussing Amendment 1. One has to be very careful not to overload the people who are trying to provide entertainment services to the public with measures that make these enterprises either too difficult or too expensive to operate. There is a real question for the Government to consider on whether temporary situations of this kind are to be protected in the way the Bill is designed for. My amendment is probing because I suggest that this issue is one that needs to be carefully thought about. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. It may well be that he will return on Report with an amendment, if he thinks that is right. It might be my amendment, or—the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, might be fond of this—it might be that it does not extend to temporary buildings, which is another way of looking at the problem he has raised.

18:00:00

My Lords, we are with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on this. If the market to which he is referring is the one I am thinking of, dispersing people from that site would be very difficult, with a bloody great rock and a castle in the way. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his support of my amendment, but I am afraid I am going to question one part of his amendment. The section in the Building Act 1984 refers to a “permanent or temporary building, and … any other structure or erection”, including “a vehicle, vessel … aircraft or … movable object”— there is mention in the section of hovercraft. I find it difficult to see how this would be quite the right reference for the Bill. We have Amendment 20 in this group, which seeks to take out the reference to “immediate vicinity”, and is a probing amendment. This would mean that the objective would not include reducing the risk if an act of terrorism occurs in the immediate vicinity of premises or an event. That is not what we are aiming to achieve; we are aiming to understand, and allow interested organisations to understand, what “immediate vicinity” means. A lot of organisations that briefed us are concerned about this; owners and operators want to comply with the law, take all reasonable steps and do the right thing, but they are not quite sure what that means. We have heard about grey space, which is the public space outside a building where, by definition, event organisers and security personnel have no control, and only the police can control them—for instance, an area where people queue on a pavement to enter premises but are outside neighbouring premises, or queues which cross over one another. I assume that the words “so far as is reasonably practicable” are the key to what immediate vicinity means in any given situation. Does that phrase mean only what is physically practicable, as a matter of physical layout and the scope for protective measures, or where it is appropriate for an owner to control what goes on, or is it also what is financially practicable, and is that related to the scale of an event or the activities taken over a period as a whole, or to the financial position of an owner of operator? The Explanatory Notes say that what is reasonably practicable is to put in place particular procedures, but I am not quite sure that that answers the point. It strikes me that what is in the immediate vicinity of any building may affect insurance issues, such as the premium payable by the owner or whether a claim by an owner is met by insurers. As well as the Minister clarifying the point today, if he is able to, can he tell us whether the Home Office has considered the need for guidance, perhaps with examples of what is in the immediate vicinity? However, as I typed that, I thought that that could be confusing, because if an example is not there then people may think that it would not apply. What help can the Home Office give, or ensure that the Security Industry Authority gives, to help the assessment of whether an area is within the immediate vicinity of premises?

My Lords, I will deal with Amendments 3 and 20; I do not wish to say anything about Amendment 2. So far as Amendment 3 is concerned, I am sure we have all attended many events that have taken place in large, demountable premises. It is a long time since I have been to the International Eisteddfod in Llangollen, but certainly the last time I attended the arena was a demountable premises—I would have called it a building—that could be packed up on lorries, taken away and stored somewhere. We have all been to sporting events in premises like that. It is a bit of a puzzle to me as to why, in Clause 2(2), the Government diluted the word “premises” by referring to buildings in Clause 2(2)(a). I urge the Government to consider, before Report, putting a definition of premises and/or buildings in the interpretation section at Clause 33. It is my belief that, subject to whatever decision we reach in your Lordships’ Committee about the number of people attending an event which brings those premises within this Bill, we need to include demountable premises. I turn next to Amendment 20. I mean it when I say that anything that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee or Lady Suttie, say, I treat with great seriousness, having known them for a very long time. When I hear the noble Baronesses say something together then I treat it with even more respect. However, I have looked at their amendment, alongside Clause 5(2). I urge the Government to consider whether their amendment dilutes the effect of this Bill, rather than achieves their aims—and I do not wish that to happen.

My Lords, I will respond to that very quickly, because I was waiting for the “but”. It is a probing amendment. I looked for ways to introduce the concept of immediate vicinity in order to question it, and this was the first time where I could do so. I hoped that that would be clear. I certainly am not seeking to dilute the Bill, merely to seek clarity.

I understand and accept what the noble Baroness was attempting, but Clause 5(2) refers to “if an act of terrorism were to occur on the premises, at the event or in the immediate vicinity of the premises or event”. To me, that seems to fulfil all requirements.

My Lords, I am slightly wary, because I want to probe what we mean by the definition of buildings. I find these issues interesting. but I am less interested in them technically and will probably be accused of steering into Second Reading territory. I genuinely think that trying to clarify what we mean by “building” is important. It speaks to my fear that the Bill might unintentionally dampen down civil society, have an impact on grass-roots activity and lead to a hyper-regulation of public spaces. I do not think that is what it intends to do, so I urge the Government not to expand beyond a narrow view of what a building is. I was struck when a village in Lincolnshire was forced to cancel its Christmas fair, after it had been told to block off roads due to the risk of a potential terrorist attack. In a discussion on this, somebody noted that it was because there were worries about the impact of Martyn’s law, when it becomes law. I did a little digging and discovered a number of organisations that said that councils and other organisations were citing Martyn’s law guidelines—as we know, it is not a law—in a risk-averse way, pushing back against large gatherings such as bonfires and so forth. My nervousness is that this law will be used to push a precautionary principle when it comes to civil society. I get anxious about that, so the last thing I want to do is to interpret any gathering, temporary or otherwise, where there are a lot of people, as a building or structure. Somebody just made a point in relation to markets and Christmas markets. One organiser said, “If this carries on, I doubt we will continue, as it takes all the joy out of it”. I just remind the Committee, to go back to the Home Secretary’s point, that the aim of the Bill is not to destroy the capacity of ordinary people to gather, because that would be to let the terrorists win. So, whatever way we come down on our definition of buildings, let us not forget that there is a cost to pay if we overinterpret this to say that, “There is a large group of people; terrorists can attack them; close everything down”. In which case, the terrorists will have won, and what is the point of that?

My Lords, whichever way we look at this, I suggest that it is absolutely plain that we need a clear definition of “building”. A number of good points have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, made a good suggestion. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is also a good one. There is merit also in taking at least part of the Building Act, but “building” needs to be defined. Thus, I think it must be clear, when one considers it, that Section 121(2) of the Building Act is not completely apposite, because it does include the words, “a vehicle, vessel, hovercraft, aircraft”. One could include the definition there but exclude expressly those words or any other bits. One could do it by reference to the Building Safety Act, or it may be that the best route is to go to the definitions section at the back, look at the two existing statutes that are in place and take a good definition combining those where appropriate. I suggest that we certainly need a proper definition of “building” at the back, which must include demountable, collapsible buildings—things that very often look almost like a tent. Are large tents to be included, or a circus site event which could hold 500 people? If we are going to protect people, let us get it right.

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has put his finger on it. It seems to me that, if it is a large tent and 500 people are gathered within it, then somebody ought to be making arrangements to ensure that people are protected. That is what the Bill is about. I have listened with great fascination to the discussion about where we draw the definition of “building”. I always tend, because I am prejudiced that way, that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, gives us a view on definitions, we should take serious note of that, because in my experience he is usually right. I leave it to the Government to come forward with what they think is a satisfactory definition that embraces what we need. Ultimately, what we are trying to say with this legislation is that people who organise public events, whether they are formal events, community events, concerts or whatever else, should be thinking in advance, “Is this going to be secure?” That also means thinking about what I will do if somebody over there commits a terrorist act that has an implication for the people who are gathered in my event. I hope that my noble friend, when he replies, will say that the Government will look again, will gather together all those with strong views on the definition of “building”, temporary or otherwise, tents or not, and work out what works best. I think that our objective here is quite clear: that people should have a responsibility for the protection of people when they have gathered them together for whatever purpose.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 20. First, I say in passing, on the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about the scope of the Bill, that terrorism is very well legally defined. It is either violence or the threat of violence for a political purpose. How that is interpreted depends on the political purpose and the act. It is a broad definition, and some may wish to change it, but it is well understood within the criminal law.

18:15:00

On Amendment 20, I took the definition of “immediate vicinity” to be enabling. First, it is saying to the person who has the premises not only to consider the safety of the people in it, but also people nearby who might be hurt from a terrorist act within it. We might imagine a bomb or a firearm that is discharged from the building. The organiser has to think about these things when planning the event.

Secondly, Clause 6(3) says, and it is repeated elsewhere in the Bill:

“‘Public protection measures’ are measures relating to the monitoring of the premises and the immediate vicinity”.

I suppose that would enable CCTV monitoring in areas adjacent to the premises, for which there is no obvious legal justification. Of course, in discussions with such people as the facial recognition commissioner and the Data Protection Commissioner, the people who occupy these premises need some legal basis on which to have that discussion. I took it that this enables them to have that discussion, because the law has given them a duty. At the moment, it could be argued that they have no duty. So, I take both things to be facilitating things and not intrusive things. Yes, there might be a limit to how far that immediate vicinity is, but a bomb can damage things for an awful long way. It is a very serious matter, and I think that to define it by metres would probably be unwise.

My Lords, I may be accused of intruding, because I have not been here for the whole thing. It just interests me that, on one side, we are talking about what is in Clause 5, what we do when a terrorist incident takes place, and on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was mentioning how we prevent it. From a Northern Ireland perspective, we had places and events every day of the week that were open to terrorist attack. Yes, having the facilities in place to enable us to take action if it takes place, but then there is also what we do to try to stop it taking place, making it more difficult for the terrorists to do it. We therefore channelled them, unfortunately, into working around what we have put in place. When we are talking about buildings—I am sorry that I am not technical enough—what about the places outside where people are waiting? I do not understand why we need a building, alone, for the Bill, because people are under threat when they come together in large numbers. That is crucial. We had many events that did not involve buildings at all. Listening to this, I just think that we are not quite linking the two things together to make a good argument, a good reason and a good result for, first, trying to prevent it and then making sure that our protection is far enough away that it does not endanger people. I shall give a simple example and then I will stop. We had vehicle checkpoints on the border, and they were easy to bomb and blow up to begin with, because people drove into them. It was not suicide, so it is not that far different, but proxy, where people drove into the middle and blew it up. Then we started using electronics—I know these cannot be used for every event—where we moved the protection further away, so that people had to come through that first. But then you create a queue on the other side. All I am saying is that to me, the lay person, I am not sure that we are not slightly confused about where this terrorist attack is going to take place. I cannot think that they consider only buildings.

My Lords, I was not going to be involved in this, but I have a history of ministry in this country, including over the summer months, and after Easter, there are many gatherings that all meet in large tents. Big tops can house up to 10,000 people. If the clause is limited to buildings, so many vulnerable places and open spaces will be left out. In this country in the summer, there are incredible gatherings—particularly of young people—that do not take place in what you would call a building. They will be in the big top. Subsection (5) tries to define “premises”, which is a much more flexible word than concentrating on “buildings”. Of course, some meetings will be taking place in buildings. The heart of all of this, however, is large gatherings of people—particularly of young people in the summer. Noble Lords would be absolutely surprised by how farmers lend their land for these kinds of concerts, which can go on for a while. The people who organise these events, such as spring harvest, hold the responsibility for the protection of people, as laid down in the Bill—not because it takes place in a building but because of the event itself. So I would want to look for a tighter definition than what a building is, because I think we know what a building is. I want the events, where they take place and those responsible to have the same due regard as those who have big theatres. So, will the Government continue their flexibility in their definition as they did in subsection (5)? They may borrow some of the phrases from these amendments, but just remember that we get gatherings that are just so vast, you would not actually be providing protection against terrorism for that many people.

My Lords, I have three brief points to make in response to this rather interesting short debate. My first point relates to Amendment 20, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. As my noble friend said, it is very much a probing amendment that resulted from organisations that organise events and have premises but are unclear as to the definition. They are people who want to do the right thing but want a greater explanation on the record from the Government as to what it actually means in practice. My second point continues the flattery of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. If the noble and learned Lord is asking a question, I feel it is one that has to be answered. He is asking the right question although, as he acknowledges, perhaps he has not come up with the right answer yet in terms of the wording. I hope the Government will return to this before Report with some of the suggested wording, taking on board the various points that have been raised. My third and final point relates to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In many ways, the noble Baroness hits the nail on the head; we should not let the terrorists win. But that is what the Bill is about: it is about getting the balance right between not letting terrorists win and yet letting the public feel safe to go to events and public buildings and not worry, because they know that somebody, somewhere has thought about what to do in the case of an attack.

That was an interesting group. I thank noble Lords for tabling the amendments; they are worthy of discussion and I hope I can answer each point in turn. Essentially, there are two issues: the definition of “building” and the definition of “immediate vicinity”. I will try to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, in their amendments. Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord De Mauley, seeks to amend the definition of “premises” in Clause 2(2) so that the term “building” refers to the definition at Section 121 of the Building Act 1984. The Bill has carefully defined qualifying premises and qualifying events to ensure that it is able to appropriately catch the wide range of premises and events that there are, and the definition in the Building Act sadly does not align with this. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, sort of stole my notes on this, because she commented that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, includes a number of moveable objects, such as transport items and transport purposes. I confess I did not know that before the amendment was tabled, but research helps on these matters. Having looked at what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has said, there are parts of the definition in the Bill that are not replicated in the Building Act. The term “building” is commonly used and the Bill relies on this ordinary meaning. We do not want to over-define terms that are already well understood, particularly where doing so may create confusion or indeed loopholes. For those reasons, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the extension to transport objects—including hovercraft—means that the definition of “building” in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 is not really appropriate for this definition today. I hope the noble Lord can accept that and I hope my comment reflects what has been said in Committee today. I turn now to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It was interesting, and I understand the intention of his amendment. I have not been in this House long, but I sense that the noble and learned Lord’s contributions are ones the House listens to; so I understand and accept the point he has brought forward today. Clause 2(2)(b) specifies that “qualifying premises” must be wholly or mainly used for one or more of the uses specified in Schedule 1. These uses cover activities where the premises are accessible to or used by the public. I hope I can reassure the noble and learned Lord that temporary buildings can form part of such premises. I hope that will give him the reassurance he seeks in relation to his amendment. The amendment would extend the scope of Clause 2 to include temporary buildings or structures even if they are not a feature of the usual activities undertaken at the premises. For example, where a field is not in scope, erecting a very temporary structure for the purposes of an event, such as an annual village fete, could draw the field into scope of Clause 2 under this amendment. It may not normally meet the conditions elsewhere, by the very nature of the building being put up, but it would then be drawn into scope by his amendment. The Government are mindful of the many temporary and one-off events that occur across the UK, many of which will draw large crowds and consist of temporary structures such as tents and staging areas. It is the Government’s intention to capture these events under Clause 3. We have carefully designed the criteria to do so, in a way that strikes a balance between achieving public protection and avoiding undue burden on businesses, organisations and local communities, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, again including the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. To that end, we are not looking to legislate for all events and Clause 3 carefully clarifies this. As such, open access events that do not have such checks in place will not be in scope of the Bill. The Government do not consider it appropriate or practical for events that do not have these types of controls and boundaries in place to be in scope. Again, I understand why the noble and learned Lord tabled his amendment, but I hope that on reflection he can accept the points I have made and will not take his amendment further. Amendment 20 is important, because it asks for genuine clarification. I hope I can give clarification to both noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, on this amendment, which seeks to examine the meaning of “immediate vicinity”. I want to first reassure that the duties under the Bill do not require responsible persons to implement procedures or measures that are beyond their control. Self-evidently, there are some things in the immediate vicinity that will be beyond their control: for example, erecting safety equipment on pavements or other land for which they are not responsible outside the premises. As I have already set out, the purpose of the Bill is to require people in control of qualifying premises and events to take steps aimed at reducing the risk of physical harm to people in the event of a terrorist attack that might directly impact their venue. An act of terrorism close to a building may also result in physical harm to people inside that building, as well as to people queuing, entering, exiting or even just passing by. Therefore, when considering appropriate procedures and measures to reduce physical harm from, and vulnerability to, terrorism, it is right that duty holders also think about what they should do for their premises in the event of an attack taking place just outside. We have not deliberately chosen not to define “immediate vicinity” for the purposes of this Bill. The Bill relies on what we term the ordinary meaning of those words. What constitutes the immediate vicinity of a premises or event will depend on its specific circumstances. If the Bill were prescriptive and, for example, to stipulate a certain distance from the premises, it would undermine the flexibility with which requirements can apply to a range of venues in an array of different places. For example, the procedures appropriate for an inner-city pub are likely to be quite different from those for a sprawling visitor attraction in the countryside.

18:30:00

On the noble Viscount’s point, the dynamics of an attack cannot be predicted but the steps taken to prepare for a response to those attacks can be. For example, for a nightclub that regularly experiences queueing on the pavement outside, this is in the immediate vicinity of the premises and it does not have full control over the area, but what the person responsible might reasonably have is consideration over the entrance policies, which could be changed to avoid the queues happening in the first place—for example, whether the queues are in the least vulnerable location, whether security or front-of-house staff have procedures to identify and report suspicious activity, and how to communicate with customers gathering in the immediate vicinity of a premises, such as those queuing outside, in the event of a lockdown or an invacuation or evacuation procedure.

Just before Christmas, I attended the Paul McCartney concert, where I queued outside for a long period. That was entirely in the gift of the Manchester Arena, because it arranged the entrance so that the queue was outside. The Bill sets down criteria to allow the persons responsible to review the immediate vicinity of a premises over which they have control by changing some of the policies within the premises. I hope that will reassure the Committee. It is key to reiterate that the persons responsible for the premises and events are required to put in place appropriate procedures and measures so far as is reasonably practicable. While the importance of examining such a concept is recognised, this amendment risks removing an important feature that the Bill seeks to achieve. I hope I have reassured the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, with regard to that.

It is not about the physical things on a road outside of the control of a premises but about what measures the responsible person in the building might put in place in response to the type of attack that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned or the issue of queues outside, for which they are directly responsible because of the actions of the organisers of the premises. There are ways in which we can examine the “immediate vicinity” while not putting responsibilities on people for things they do not have responsibility over. I hope that will reassure the noble Baronesses and that they will not press their amendments further.

As ever, I hope I have answered the three amendments in this group. I sense that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, wishes to intervene, so let me see if I can satisfy him still further.

I am grateful. Will the Minister undertake to think again on the point I made about certainty when you meet resistance from people with a temporary facility wondering whether they have to go through all the trouble and expense of complying with the measures in the Bill. The problem is that it is quite easy for a lawyer to construct an argument to point to the Building Safety Act, which says that “building” means any “permanent or temporary” building. It does not say that here, so it raises a question as to whether temporary things are covered at all. The way to cut out that argument completely is to include those few words, which I am not sure would do any harm at all to the Bill. I am not asking for an answer now, but I would be grateful if the Minister would consider very carefully whether there is an advantage in certainty, given that it is important that these measures are capable of being enforced, to avoid arguments going round in circles as to what “building” really means.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I have tried to impress on the Committee that we think that the type of circumstance that the noble and learned Lord has suggested is covered by the Bill. I will obviously examine Hansard and the contributions again in the light of the discussion, but I remain convinced that the Bill meets the needs that the noble and learned Lord is concerned about. However, reflection is always a good thing and I will certainly examine his comments in detail. I had a sense of a looming intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, before I sit down, but I am obviously just generally nervous of his potential interventions coming my way. I hope I have satisfied noble Lords and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie. With that, I hope that the amendments are not pressed. I will look at Hansard and at the comments made.

My Lords, I will not try to answer any points about Amendment 20. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned it but did not really emphasise whether his amendment, or a similar amendment referring to temporary structures, would do any harm in this context. I do not think it would, but it is a discussion that we should have. The Minister is quite right to be wary of any body language demonstrated by the noble Lord sitting immediately opposite me—you never know what is coming.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has made his case and I have made mine. His words are always worthy of examination, and that I will do.

My Lords, Section 30 of the Building Safety Act 2022 or Section 121 of the Building Act 1984, that is the question. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, makes some strong points, particularly in regard to whether it is capable of enforcement. That is an extremely important point. A number of other important points have been made by noble Lords. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, about people attending events without having to worry and having a relaxed time is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, makes an extremely helpful point about wanting a good definition, which includes collapsible buildings, and he talked about circuses with up to 500 people. All in all, this is a definition that requires some further discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is right that it is for the Government to come forward with a definition that satisfies us all. On that basis, perhaps we can go away, have a discussion, and come back at Report with something that satisfies all of us. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendment 3 not moved.

Amendment 4

Moved by

4: 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 can be quite short on this. The purpose of this amendment is to address the use of the words “from time to time” in the context of defining the premises to which the obligations will apply—whether from time to time 200 or more individuals may be present or, in the case of the enhanced duty, 800. It is a probing amendment. I acknowledge straight away that “not less than once a month” may not be the right definition, but there had to be something, and “from time to time”, I suggest, is simply too vague. Is it to be once a year? If you have an event every year, that is “from time to time”. As is presently defined, the premises are caught if “it is reasonable to expect that” a given number of individuals may be present “from time to time”. An annual event might be caught, but what happens if it is just someone who does something from time to time? As a lawyer, I am very uncomfortable with this, and I can see the arguments that lawyers much cleverer than me will produce. The premises are ordinarily qualifying premises only in the sense that they have a capacity of 200 or 250, but they may have an annual day to which 750 come one year and 900 come another. Will that come into this category? They may even have an annual day to which a bit over 800 might be expected. If that is so, the full panoply of the Act will fall: not just to the qualifying premises events but to the enhanced premises events. It is important to be clear about what you want to catch, who will be subject to enhanced obligations, and what is proportionate and necessary to keep people as safe as we reasonably can without creating unnecessary barriers and boundaries. I ask the Government simply to look very carefully at the words, “from time to time”, and to consider whether a better definition could be employed. Amendment 11 suggests a provision that, where premises are “assessed as low risk by an independent safety assessor”, they are to be “exempt from the duties imposed under this Act”— in other words, you can have an opt-out. It might be that that would be applicable only to lower categories of events, but it is certainly worth looking at. If you have a good record, you would not do it tomorrow. However, in a year or two, everyone will have experience of how this works—the regulator will have that experience—and, if they see that a given place is well regulated and well run, it will not need to be within the full panoply of the Act.

My Lords, despite supporting the Bill in general, I strongly support Amendment 11, which I will speak to. An assessment of risk, which is generally agreed to be appropriate in all aspects of modern life, seems to be absent from the Bill. Any premises or event, regardless of the real risk of it being attacked, must take a series of potentially very costly precautions. It is worth noting that of the 15 terrorist attacks to which the impact assessment seems to refer as the main basis for the Bill, six were in London, two in Manchester and one in Liverpool, and all were in urban areas. In fact, all of them were in areas that had tarmac underneath them; not a single one was in a rural area. Does that suggest that it is right to treat events in rural settings as being as high risk as those in urban areas? It is like applying 20 miles per hour speed limits throughout the entire country: it might marginally improve safety, but at a cost of bringing the economy to its knees. In their search for economic growth, is this really what the Government want? I urge them to introduce a little good sense and allow there to be an assessment of risk in these situations.

My Lords, I will be very brief. I urge the same in relation to that amendment: having a specific risk assessment and some flexibility and common sense. I will ask the Minister about how you can have that flexible attitude to buildings. I was very impressed by the letter from the Minister on places of worship. It was very sensitively handled, and it understood, as it said, the unique work of faith communities and so on. It did not say that no faith community buildings would be exempt, but it understood that they could be treated differently, with a certain sensitivity for what their roles are. We heard a number of very good speeches on that at Second Reading which asked the question, “Well, if you can look at a church or another place of worship in that way, why can’t you look at somewhere else like that?”

18:45:00

Can the Minister explain why we cannot have more of that: a specific risk assessment for types of buildings, and an assessment of the importance for communities of certain buildings, without that meaning that you are being cavalier about people’s safety or public protection? Already, the Government have conceded that not all buildings—not just places of worship but schools and educational facilities—are being treated the same. A few of us, especially me because I organise events, would rather that he did that a bit more across the Bill.

My Lords, I too shall be very brief. We believe that all three amendments would have the effect of watering down this draft Bill and reducing the number of premises that would be covered by it. These amendments are working on the assumption that smaller events and venues are less at risk. Can the Minister say whether the Home Office has done any analysis on whether it is indeed the case that smaller venues are less at risk from terror attacks? Is that not, in itself, an assessment of the unknown? It seems to be the case that terrorism and extremist-related attacks are increasingly unpredictable and random in nature. Noble Lords have talked about the compliance burden. Again, I would like to know a little more about how the Minister would see that in reality. Am I right in assuming that, in the 24-month rollout period before the Bill is implemented, the Government will continue to carry out extensive consultation with the sector and adopt a pragmatic, realistic and common-sense approach, following their consultation with the industry? As I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I feel that this is about striking a balance between not discouraging creativity and not causing a considerable financial burden to small venues and small events, while maintaining a sense of security in the public. Public confidence and a sense of security play a huge role in people’s minds when they consider whether they will go to an event or venue. People feeling unsafe is not good for business.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11, standing in my name, as well as Amendments 4 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. Amendment 11 seeks to establish an exemption for premises which have been assessed to be in a low-risk category by an independent assessor. As the Minister knows, we have concerns about which premises will be required to implement security measures under the Bill, and we feel that there should be some flexibility for the premises that are affected by it. It may be that the correct flexibility would be delivered by Amendment 22, in the name of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, which will be debated later in Committee, or by Amendment 8, in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. However, the overriding point here is that there must be some flexibility in approach. Not all premises that are currently caught by the Bill are in need of these additional measures, and it equally may be the case that the Bill as drafted will miss a number of premises that are in need of them. We hope the Government will listen to these concerns and engage positively so that we can ensure that the right premises are required to put in place the appropriate measures to protect the public from the risks of terrorism. This amendment would make this judgment an independent one, taking the discretion out of the responsibility of the department and giving premises that are at low risk access to a route to exemption. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s remarks in response to this debate, and I hope he will engage with me as we seek to deliver the flexibility I have spoken about today. I will now speak to Amendments 4 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, which seek to clarify the Bill’s language around the frequency of a premises breaching the capacity threshold. As drafted, the Bill says that the measures will apply when a premises reaches the threshold in the Bill “from time to time”. This is far too vague, and the organisations affected by the Bill need clarity now. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst has rightly seized on this point and argued forcefully for the need for clarity today. While I expect that the Minister will tell us that this can be addressed through guidance, it is important we get clarity in the Bill. To establish a way forward, I ask the Minister to set out what timeframe the Government expect to appear in the guidance. If the Government can answer that question today, can he explain why that timeframe cannot appear in the legislation itself? It is our view that setting the timeframe in law would give businesses and other organisations which will be regulated under the Bill certainty that this definition will not be altered through guidance. I hope the Minister can see how the lack of clarity on this point in legislation could leave space for the timeframe to be changed over time, which could see more venues caught by the rules than is appropriate, and Parliament would have no input in that process. As I said in the opening debate in Committee, the seriousness of the issues involved in this Bill means we must get the legislation right. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to this probing amendment and look to table constructive amendments to Clause 2 where necessary at Report.

I am again grateful to noble Lords for the constructive way in which they have approached the amendments before us. If I may, I shall start with Amendment 11, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. The first and foremost point I want to make on Amendment 11 is the one that is made to me as Minister by the security services. The threat to the United Kingdom from terrorism is currently substantial. Terrorists may choose to carry out attacks at a broad range of locations of different sizes and types, as attacks across the UK and around the world have shown. As I have explained during the passage of the Bill, the Bill is not about preventing terrorist attacks—that is the job of our security services and the police. The objective of the Bill is to ensure that public protection procedures and measures are put in place to reduce the risk of physical harm if an attack occurs and the vulnerability of premises and events to attacks. The key point for the noble Lord is that this is not related to the particular premise or a particular time, be it rural or not and inside or outside the scope of the Bill. It is about ensuring that the threat, which is substantial, is recognised, and that can happen at any premise and at any time. That is why we believe the amendment to be well-intended but not in keeping with the objectives of the legislation, so the Government cannot support Amendment 11 for those reasons. If the Government took a position on setting a size threshold in the Bill and considered the noble Lord’s amendment the right approach, we would end up discarding a large number of premises that could, due to the threat being substantial, be subject to attack. That point was made very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in her contribution. Amendments 4 and 9 have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. They would change the provision of Clauses 2(2)(c) and 2(3)(a), which provide that, to be in scope as qualifying premises, 200 or more individuals must be reasonably expected to be present on the premises at the same time in connection with uses under Schedule 1 “from time to time”, as we have stated. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord would change “from time to time” to refer to the number of individuals expected “not less than once a month”. This would change both the number and range of premises caught by the Bill either at all or at enhanced duty premises. The Government’s intention in bringing forward the Bill is to ensure that we examine that, where significant numbers of people gather at premises, steps have been taken to protect them against terrorism. This should be the case whether the relevant thresholds are met on a daily or monthly basis or less frequently. An assessment based on the number of people expected at least once a month would not take into account the myriad ways in which different premises are used and attendances fluctuate over the course of a year. For example, there is the seasonal nature of sports grounds and visitor attractions, and a monthly assessment would take those premises out of the equation. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord is again offering me a probing amendment to examine, but I cannot support its current phraseology.

So, is once a year “from time to time”?

We are trying not to define what “from time to time” is because, for example, if a premise on one day of the year met the threshold, that would be from time to time, or it might be monthly or daily. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would mean a prescriptive assessment on a monthly basis, and that in my view would not be sufficient, given the substantial level of the threat.

I understand the difficulty that the Minister is in, but the point I am trying to make is that it is important that those operating the premises know what they are required to do. Unless they know what “from time to time” means, it is very difficult for them to do that.

Without straying into other parts of the Bill, I would hope that people and premises that fall within scope of the Bill, be it a 200 or an 800 threshold, would have clarity over their responsibility areas. If they look at Clause 5, “Public protection procedures”, they will know exactly what is required of them for those public protection matters that fall within the scope of the Bill. So, whether it is “from time to time” as in one day a year or as in every week or every month, if we are more prescriptive, as would be the case under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we would take out a number of premises that—even if it was only one day a year, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned—would still meet the criteria of the scope of the Bill. My judgment is that the measures in Clause 5 are important but not onerous. They are about training, support and examination of a number of areas. Therefore, if from time to time, one day a year, a premise falls within scope to meet the objectives, the responsible person needs to examine the premise and look at the measures needed in place. That is the reason. I say that not because I want to impose burdens on a range of bodies but because the terrorist threat is substantial. While the terrorist incidents have occurred in large cities, there is no likelihood that they may not occur in other parts of the country. Therefore, those measures are required within the scope of the Bill. From my perspective as the Minister responsible for taking the Bill through this House, it is important that they are required on a “from time to time” basis, not on a very prescriptive monthly basis. That is why I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

In the case of an enhanced premises, where there is an event of 1,000 people once a year but for the rest of the year there are never more 200 or 300 people going through, does that bring it into that category? You are normally just “qualifying” premises and so must have the facilities and systems in place to deal with a terrorism event if, heaven forbid, such happens, but if, now and again, you get to 800 people, does it mean that you have to search everyone coming and going throughout the year or is it only when there is the event? That is where I have concerns.

19:00:00

I hope that I can help the noble Lord. There are two categories. There is a 200 threshold and an 800 threshold. If a premise crosses the 200 and/or the 800 threshold, it will be responsible for undertaking certain activity as prescribed by the Bill, common to which are the items in Clause 5. From time to time, if an event is over 800, it will have to go to the levels of the Bill for those thresholds of businesses and premises over 800. That is the nature of the proposal before the House in this Bill.

My Lords, regarding Amendment 4 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we need to define exactly what we mean by “from time to time”. Is it a decade? It must be defined if organisations are to understand their responsibilities. At the moment, it is unclear. In my Amendment 11, I seek merely to establish an exemption for premises that are assessed to be in a low-risk category by an independent assessor. We have genuine concerns about which premises will be required to implement security measures under the Bill. I have heard what the Minister has said, but I am not entirely convinced. This is an issue that we will take away and consider before Report. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

My Lords, the amendment leading the group was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, so he should have replied and he must formally withdraw it.

I formally withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Amendment 5

Moved by

5: Clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “200” and insert “300” Member's explanatory statement This amendment would raise the minimum threshold for a premises to be a “qualifying premises” to 300.

My Lords, without making this a Second Reading debate, as we have discussed, I want to repeat the degree of scepticism that I expressed at Second Reading about the value of this Bill. Of course, the threat of terrorism is real; of course, it is important to deal with it by every possible means, but it is equally possible that this Bill will end up with a lot of bureaucracy, paperwork and assessment without doing anything to deal with the threat of terrorism whatever. However, it is the Bill that we have, and we need to do all that we can to make it workable and get the detail right. That is why I have tabled Amendment 5. I can be quite brief, because this is a fairly simple concept and a core provision in the Bill—as to where premises are caught and affected by the standard duty. This threshold will determine the success or failure of the Bill; it is this threshold that will capture popular opinion about the Bill when it eventually comes into force, and it is this threshold that determines whether, if you are a volunteer or run a business of any kind, you can carry on as you did before, being prudent about the terrorist threat, or whether you have a new set of formal legal duties that you must pay attention to. As I said at Second Reading, when you make something law, you are telling people that they must pay attention to that above the purpose of their organisation. That is what making it law means. This is where the Bill is going to bite. This is the area where volunteers may decide that they no longer want to continue in what they are doing. It may be the area where they give up. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, it may be the area where it takes away the fun, the point, the raison d’être of the activity from those who do it. Therefore, it is important to get the threshold right. As I said at Second Reading, I accept that the Government have taken a step, raising the threshold from 100 to 200, which has significantly improved the Bill. However, my Amendment 5 would raise that threshold to 300. I have two points to explain why that higher threshold is worth considering. First, I do not think that we have had a proper explanation yet of why 200 is the right number. The shadow Minister raised this question in Committee in the Commons. The responding Minister’s only explanation was that “300 would significantly impact the outcomes of the Bill, and particularly what the standard tier seeks to achieve”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill Committee, 31/10/24; col. 68.] That is obvious, but why? We need a little more understanding of why it is 200 rather than 300 and why it is any particular figure other than the arbitrary seeking of a number. One Minister said something like that in the Commons: “We’ve got to decide a number, and this is that number”. However, it is such an important number that it deserves some proper thought. Secondly, lots of activities are still caught by this 200 threshold. The impact assessment says that it is 154,000. That is down by nearly half from what it would have been at 100, but it is still a lot—that is one premise for one activity for every 450 people in the country. For a threshold of 200, that is quite a significant figure. An occasional capacity of 200 people is quite a small number of people. One in eight village halls are still caught by this threshold. The Music Venue Trust says that a sixth of its premises are caught between the 200 and 300 thresholds. These are not small numbers, but they are still relatively small activities. That is the point. We must try to set the threshold at a point where we are not capturing those who do not need to be caught by it. Is the Minister confident that the threshold really must be so low? Can he give a clear explanation for why it has to be set at that level? Can he go beyond explaining that it is simply arbitrary, that it has to be set somewhere and that 200 is the right number—end of discussion? We need a little bit more debate than that and I hope that we might get it now.

My Lords, Amendments 6 and 7, in my name, follow a similar line to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost. His request is that the threshold moves to 300; mine is that it moves to 400 or 500. The truth is that I do not think there is a magic number. I think the number was first 100, and I am grateful to the Minister for moving it to 200, but as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, there is no particular reason for this number. It can be almost any number; it is just that you capture more and more businesses, village halls and voluntary organisations by going for the lower number. I want to push for this to be debated fully this evening, because this is one of the core issues within the Bill and something that needs a lot of time. The amendments seek to increase the threshold and exempt smaller venues. That would be so important for so many of them. It is about viability and costs, as many businesses are struggling with all the costs that face them. The Government should be trying to protect them and these premises from further resource pressures. Therefore, it is the damage that is going to be done that I ask the Government to think about. By raising the threshold, these amendments would alleviate the administrative and financial responsibilities involved and associated with implementation, while concentrating resources and efforts on larger premises, which will always be higher-value targets for terrorist activities. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made a very important point in an earlier group. Every time we do anything like this, we say to the terrorists that they have had another victory and done something more, by making us start to change our lives—that is what is happening here. I feel very strongly that we need to minimise the effect on the people of this country, as much as we possibly can, and go for the largest number that can possibly be considered. I cannot believe that there is not an argument we could have which would enable the Government to accept a number of 400 to 500; they may wish to consider the 800 number, but that is another issue. I am less concerned about that; I am concerned about smaller organisations—the voluntary organisations and smaller business—and the chilling effect that this will have.

My Lords, when I heard about this Bill originally, one could see and understand that it made sense for Wembley Stadium or somewhere of that nature. But when under the last Government, not this one, I saw that the figure of 100 was being used, I realised how many small businesses and small organisations such as church halls would be affected. It made me ask a question, which the Government have rightly answered. All the consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny, and all the trade organisations that were asked, have said there is very little evidence that, for the safety of small venues, this legislative regulatory framework will keep people safe. What it is guaranteed to do is stymie entrepreneurship and volunteering in local areas, and make people think that it is just not worth organising events or staying open. I congratulate the Government on having listened to that and for raising the standard tier from 100 to 200 people. Having done that, the question is why they stopped at 200—why not 300 or 400? These numbers are not rocket science, and this is not a glib or silly point or playing games. That is why I raised—rather badly, a moment ago—that, on the numbers game, education settings and places of worship are classified as standard duty premises, regardless of their capacity, because they are different kinds of premises. We know that it does not have to be this number or that number otherwise people will be killed in terrorist offences. The Government are prepared to be subtle and flexible, and this Bill can be the same. It is worth us probing why the Government stopped at 200. I would go higher, because I am very worried that it will stymie community organisations and small businesses, which will just fall apart. The Government have a mission of growth and keep saying that they believe in it. They do not want to be saying to new companies or to the hospitality industry that they are going to have to fulfil overregulatory bureaucracy to survive. It is not that such organisations do not care about their clientele or staff; it is that this Bill does not just demand that they think about that but that they must fulfil, under threat of law, a particular set of regulatory mandates. It is difficult; that is what they have all said.

19:15:00

My Lords, Amendment 8 similarly seeks to raise the threshold for mandatory compliance with the requirements of the Bill to “300 people, or, if smaller”, where “the Secretary of State determines that the premises are at a heightened risk of terrorist attack”. This is a more flexible measure than the amendments proposed by my noble friends, although I entirely agree with the sentiment of the speeches that we have heard from my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Udny-Lister, and in an earlier group by my noble friend Lord De Mauley. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, observed a moment ago, the Government were entirely right to increase the threshold from 100 to 200, but I suggest that 200 is still too low and will cause disproportionate expense and disruption to small businesses. In particular, I will focus on the potential impact on community volunteering. In engaging in the balancing act of the protections which this Bill will afford, one must look at the history of the type of terror attacks that we seek to address. As my noble friend Lord De Mauley observed in his remarks, they are largely urban and at large venues. While the Minister is right to say that attacks can happen at any premises at any time, it is also right to say that there is a greater risk at certain types of venues and in certain locations, and that is borne out by the history of terrorist attacks. It is therefore incumbent, I suggest to the Committee, that this legislation adopts a flexible approach to risk. I have sought to reflect that in my Amendment 8. I suggest that we must have a proportionate approach, or this legislation will have the effect of closing largely community venues, much valued by people up and down this country. One needs look only at the Home Office’s own impact assessment, produced with the Bill. At page 9, the authors note that among respondents to the survey of premises with a capacity of 100 to 299—the owners of smaller premises, places of worship, village halls and community centres—only four in 10 “agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack”, and “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”. This Bill is a sledgehammer that is going to crack the nut of our village halls. I ask the Minister: if, two years down the line, after the implementation of these procedures, we find it is very difficult for village halls to find trustees and volunteers who are prepared to take on the legal obligations of the enforcement regime that this Bill imposes and those village halls start to close, what will the Government do to undo the damage wrought to our communities by the closure of these much-valued venues? I strongly commend my amendment and a measure of flexibility to the Government and the Committee this evening.

My Lords, not for the first time in a debate on terrorism in your Lordships’ House, I have to say that I do not want to be the person who in a few years’ time says, “I told you so”. This Bill is about terrorism. If a terrorism act resulted in the deaths of 20, 30 or even two or three people in a hall that was holding a qualifying event that had 232 people, for example, in the audience, in both Houses we would be saying, “Something’s got to be done. We got this wrong”. I remind your Lordships that one of the most notorious and most damaging terrorist attacks this country has ever seen took place in a public house in Birmingham. So the idea that we hold a sort of numbers auction on the capacity that qualifies under the Bill is, I am afraid, foolish and wrong. Indeed, I am very concerned about this debate on numbers, because it runs the risk of being part of a playbook for terrorists to read—and many terrorists do read very carefully, both on the internet and elsewhere, when they are making their decisions.

On that basis, there would be no numbers, no tiers and no distinctions at all in this piece of legislation. One of the most shocking and barbaric actions happened recently with the group of—what was it?—40 young children at a dance class. Those of us trying to seriously probe what regulation would mean based on numbers—because there are numbers in this Bill—does not mean that we want to encourage terrorists to go in and kill people in any circumstance. It is wrong, because a lot of the terrorist things that have happened recently have happened because we did not do something before, not because of the numbers of a venue and regulation—for goodness’ sake.

If the noble Baroness had waited until the end of my next sentence, I would have answered her question. I recognise that we have to set some number. It was suggested that there was no reason for a figure of 200. Can I just remind your Lordships—because it has not been mentioned yet in this debate—of part 8, volume 1, of the Saunders report? Sir John said, at paragraph 8.43, which I am sure all noble Lords will have read with care: “An important question for the government will be whether setting the level for the Protect Duty in the first category at venues with a capacity of 100 or more is workable. Very different issues will arise for venues capable of accommodating an audience of only 100 people and one capable of accommodating many thousands such as the Arena”. That is the Manchester Arena. The stated aim of the consultation on which those comments were based, said Sir John, “is for ‘light touch’ regulation. While that may be justified when dealing with smaller venues, it seems to me that different considerations should apply to larger commercial premises. Not only are the potential consequences so much more serious but, for that reason, these premises are more likely to attract the attention of terrorists. They are also likely to have greater resources to put protective measures in place”. In the final part of what I regard as a very important quotation from Saunders, he says, at paragraph 8.45: “I recommend that when considering the shape of the legislation, the government considers whether it will be necessary to have further categories above the 100 capacity. While categorising by capacity may be the most straightforward way of deciding on the nature of the Protect Duty to be imposed, there may be other factors that need to be considered. For example, it may be appropriate to use different capacities depending on whether the venue is indoors or outdoors. This will need to be considered”. I also know, as many other Members of this Committee will know, that Figen Murray and those such as Brendan Cox, who have been the backbone of her campaign, have researched these matters with care, and they were asking, on the basis of the evidence they obtained, for a lower figure of 100. I accept that we have to have some figure, but it must not be one which is part of the encouragement or playbook of terrorists. The Government have accepted that that figure of 100, which Sir John Saunders had in mind and which was adopted by Mrs Murray, should be raised to 200 and have nuanced the legislation in various parts of this Bill, exactly as Sir John Saunders anticipated and recommended should be done. I therefore believe that this is a reasonable balance and that we should now recognise that this is a proportionate and nuanced provision and stop playing about with these numbers.

My Lords, I too recognise that inevitably we have got to fix a figure, and that is for this House and/or another place to do. I would just like to say one thing about Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, where he says, “if smaller, the Secretary of State determines”. One has to see the reality of that, which is that this would probably happen anyway—although I support his amendment—to the extent that how or why would the Secretary of State intervene? He would intervene only because of intelligence. We have to remember that it is not just what we all think in here. Our intelligence services have kept us safe—touch wood—we are told from many planned incidents over the last few years. Therefore, regardless of the number being six or 800, we rely on them to come through and tell us where the threat is. We have been talking about whether it is a small premises that is attractive to terrorists or a large one, or whether it is a significant name of an event or whether it is the people attending. They will go first to find a target that will gain them the maximum amount of attention. They then say, according to what happened with us and I am sorry to go back to it, “Which one is easy for us to go for?”. We cannot decide that in here. But we must put the numbers down. I agree with Amendment 8 from the point of view that it recognises that the Secretary of State must have the power to intervene on any event, and not just necessarily the Secretary of State but the police and the intelligence that leads to some form of action on it. So I do support the amendment.

My Lords, I am pleased that we are having this debate. I am not going to decry the three previous groups, but this actually comes to the nub of what I suspect what this Committee stage will be about. I listened very carefully to what the noble Viscount just said. I have to say that it is quite possible that, under any set of circumstances, the police or the security service will have identified a high risk. Under those circumstances, I hope they would intervene and I hope the organisers would take it extremely seriously and respond—and actually, I suspect that in every single case they would. But the fundamental issue, which is raised by this set of amendments, is not what is the burden of this but what is the risk appetite that the people who are organising this event, and that we as a nation have, about the event concerned? Every organisation, when it considers its risk register, will consider its risk appetite: what are we prepared or not prepared to tolerate? This figure is, of course, arbitrary. It could be 100; my personal belief is that it should have remained as 100, but the Government consulted very widely, listened to the views that were expressed and came up with this number. So we are presented with 200. A terrorist attacking a premises of 199 is potentially going to kill a very significant number—as many as were killed at the Manchester Arena. They may not be able to injure quite as many as at the Manchester Arena, but they could cause immense damage.

19:30:00

The choice for your Lordships in this Committee, for the Government and for any of the venue organisers is: what is your risk appetite for such an attack? What are you prepared to tolerate? The argument from a number of noble Lords is that the limit should be not 200 but 300, 400, or maybe even more than that, but the reality is that you are saying, “Our risk appetite, by accepting that higher number, is that we are prepared to tolerate that number of people potentially being killed because no precautions were taken”. That is not to say that those precautions will have been necessary in every case, but it is a decision that has to be made about risk appetite. That is not easy. Boards and committees I have been on have struggled over what their risk appetite should be, because they do not really want to accept any risk whatever, but that is what you have to do. There is a trade-off between safety and the consequences of putting these obligations on to the people who are organising these events. That is the choice we have to make.

A few years ago, I produced a report for the Mayor of London on London’s preparedness to deal with a terrorist incident. The question he wanted me to answer was whether he was putting enough armed support officers in the capital to deal with the sorts of attacks that had taken place in Paris and Brussels in recent years. I think he wanted to be in a position where he would be able to say, should something dreadful have happened after my report, “Well, I asked that Lord Harris to do a report for me and he said it would be okay”. I am afraid that is not the answer that I gave the mayor. I said, “Ultimately, it’s down to you. What is the risk appetite that you have for coping with this? Of course you could reduce the risk significantly by doubling or quadrupling the number of armed support units, but what is your risk appetite to do that and what do you think the consequence is?” That is exactly where we are on this Bill: what is our risk appetite?

What is the noble Lord’s risk appetite for closures of community venues and village halls as a consequence of these provisions if the threshold is set too low?

That is what it means to consider your risk appetite: you consider the risk of something dreadful happening and the risk and the consequences associated with trying to address it. That is the choice we must make. I suspect that ultimately we are going to disagree on this. My risk appetite, because I do not really like being killed in the name of some terrorist or other ideology, is that I would prefer the number to be smaller; I would prefer it to be 100. I accept that some noble Lords opposite would rather see the figure set higher. We have a different view of the risk appetite. My answer to all these amendments is that the Government have consulted widely and responded to that consultation. They have increased the number from 100 to 200. Personally, I am prepared to accept the risk judgment made by Government Ministers on that basis. That is the way in which we should approach it. We will all have different numbers in mind and different views of risk appetite, but ultimately we expect our Government to take a sensible, balanced risk appetite, and I believe that this is it.

My Lords, at the risk of incurring the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, while we are on the subject of nickel-and-diming over numbers, how did the Minister settle on a figure of 800 attendees, above which an event becomes a qualifying event and compliance becomes significantly more expensive? It is quite a specific number. One might have expected a round number, such as 1,000. What specifically led the drafters to go for 800?

My Lords, as other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Carlile, have said, there are many who feel that 100 would have been a better threshold, including many of the families of the victims. There is no amendment to reduce the threshold to 100, which is a shame, not least because I know it is what many in the Martyn’s law campaign group would have liked to see. We should recall that the House of Commons backed 200, which is probably an acceptable compromise because, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, we ultimately will not agree on this, but it has to be about a compromise and the House of Commons overwhelmingly supported 200. Pushing the threshold up to 400 or 500 would destroy the whole purpose of the Bill. It is, of course, important, as some noble Lords on the Conservative Benches said, that we do not overly add to the burden, or add unnecessary obstacles to creativity or to developing a sustainable business model. But encouraging people in charge of venues or events to think through what they would do in the event of a terrorist attack surely makes good business sense. There is in what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, proposes the risk of unintended consequences. There is a risk that raising the threshold would put people off going to small venues and small organisations of, say, under 200 or even under 100, because they will know they have not been covered by the Bill. We on these Benches will support the Government in their threshold of 200 unless, in the course of further debate, there can be really compelling reasons to change our minds.

My Lords, when the Minister comes to answer this short group of amendments, could he comment on what assessment there has been of the SIA’s capacity to advise and regulate these potentially hundreds of thousands of applications, and on the capacity of the security industries and consultancies that will provide expertise to assist applicants in putting forward their detailed plans? We have had a very emotive discussion on these amendments, which I regret to a degree, because this is an incredibly important discussion about where the line falls. There does have to be a line, but one consequence of moving it from 100 to 200, or 200 back to 100, or to 500, or whatever it may be, is around the actual pragmatic capacity of the regulatory body, the Government and the industry that will provide consultancy services to enable what everyone in this Chamber wants to happen. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that point when he comes to respond.

My Lords, I support the amendments to Clause 2 tabled by my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Murray of Blidworth. I am sorry that the Government have declined to give this group a proper title and referred to it as the “degroup”. For the benefit of the Committee, it would have been better for this group to have been given a proper title, such as “capacity of premises”. I hope the Minister will take this back to officials, so that we can have proper titles for groups of amendments going forward. These amendments collectively seek to adjust the minimum threshold for qualifying premises under the Bill and to ensure that the legislation strikes a careful balance between security and proportional regulation. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 propose raising the threshold from the current 200 person capacity to 300, 400 and 500 respectively. These are important proposals that merit some serious consideration. The current threshold of 200 people is relatively low and risks imposing unnecessary and disproportionate burdens on small venues, community spaces and independent businesses. I particularly have in mind when communities come together to protest at public meetings called at short notice in community halls, often with more than 200 and perhaps more than 300 people—I see the Minister smiling; we have all been there. Small and medium-sized enterprises, including restaurants, cafes, independent theatres and community halls, are vital to the social fabric and economic vitality of our communities. Many of these premises operate on razor-thin margins and simply do not have the financial capacity or staffing resources to implement the comprehensive security measures that may be required under this legislation. Compliance with the regulations could entail significant investment in security equipment, personnel, training and operational changes—costs that could be ruinous for smaller businesses. It is also worth considering the administrative burden that a low threshold may impose on both the businesses themselves and the enforcement authorities tasked with overseeing compliance. By setting the bar at 200 people, the current provision potentially captures a vast number of venues that pose a relatively low security risk. This dilutes resources that could be better focused on higher-risk premises where security efforts would be more impactful. Moreover, we must take a proportionate and risk-based approach to security policy. If we overburden smaller venues with costly and complex requirements, the unintended consequences may be that many of them are forced to reduce their operations or even close altogether. That would deprive communities of essential spaces for social, cultural and economic activities, particularly in rural and underserved areas where small venues play an outsized role. Raising the thresholds to 300, 400 or 500 people, as proposed by these amendments, would ensure that security requirements are applied where they are most necessary—namely, at larger venues with higher footfall and greater potential risk. It would also signal that this legislation is responsive to the concerns of business owners and recognises the practical realities of running a small venue in today’s challenging economic climate. It is crucial that we approach this matter with pragmatism and proportionality. A higher threshold would help protect businesses, community spaces and cultural venues from unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining a clear focus on enhancing public safety where it truly matters. We must recognise that many smaller establishments operate on tight margins and have limited resources. Mandating extensive security measures may be feasible for larger venues but could place an unsustainable financial and administrative strain on smaller premises. Raising the threshold would help to ensure that security requirements are applied where they are most necessary: namely, at larger venues with higher footfall where the risks are more significant. That said, I appreciate the wisdom in Amendment 8, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, which he spoke to with some passion and which takes a nuanced approach. This amendment proposes a dual system where the default threshold is raised to 300 people but the Secretary of State retains the discretion to designate smaller premises as qualifying if they are at “heightened risk of a terrorist threat”. That flexibility is crucial. Although larger premises are generally more attractive targets, we must acknowledge that smaller venues can also be vulnerable under specific circumstances, whether due to their location, the nature of the events they host, or intelligence indicating a credible threat. Granting the Secretary of State this discretionary power ensures that the legislation remains responsive to evolving security challenges without imposing blanket requirements on small businesses. Furthermore, Amendment 8 reflects a thoughtful understanding of the need for a risk-based approach to security. Security should be proportionate to the threat, and, by incorporating an element of ministerial discretion, we can achieve a more targeted and effective framework. In conclusion, these amendments collectively represent a pragmatic and balanced approach to enhancing public safety while safeguarding the viability of small businesses and community spaces. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to adopting a higher default threshold alongside a discretionary mechanism to ensure that security measures are applied where they are most needed.

Again, I am grateful to noble Lords. A range of amendments have been brought before the House and the nub of the arguments is about the threshold for qualifying premises. That issue was quite rightly debated in this House at Second Reading and was also debated in the House of Commons.

19:45:00

I begin my contribution by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, because, again, I do not want this debate to be about a numbers game. I want it ultimately to be about the responsibilities that organisations have to help protect themselves in the event—which still remains unlikely—of a terrorist attack. That is what the nub of this debate should be about.

As noble Lords mentioned, at Second Reading some noble Lords supported the 200 threshold that the Government have settled on; my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey suggested today that he would have supported a lower threshold of 100; amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and others, suggested 300; and the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, suggested 500. Ultimately, the Government have to make a judgment on those figures—there is no right number.

I say to noble Lords across the House that the Bill is the end product of a long period of consultation. The Bill was considered following the public inquiry by Sir John Saunders, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned. It is the product of legislation considered by the previous Government, of consultation in draft, of Home Affairs Select Committee scrutiny, and of two wider consultations that took place with the public in 2021 and 2023. It is also the product of discussion with impacted stakeholders, which included premises with capacity above 200, 300, 400, 500 and, to take the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, up to 800 and beyond—all those figures were discussed with stakeholders over that period of time—and of discussions with security experts. This Government inherited a Bill on 4 July that we have made changes to. Again, they will potentially not find favour with all Members of this House, which includes raising the threshold from 100 to 200. Ultimately, we have to land on a figure, and the Government have determined that that figure should be 200.

Self-evidently, there are different views and debates in this House. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned, any figure above 200 for the threshold will, by varying degrees, whether at 300, 400 or 500, start to degrade the impact of this legislation and to take premises out of what I would still term the “good practice” that will need to be adopted by organisations in the event of a terrorist attack.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, has again made suggestions and is concerned about the impact on a range of small businesses or organisations. I fully understand that concern, but I hope I can reassure him that the figure of 200 and the measures requested by the Bill are important measures that I still regard as good practice. Let him look at Clause 5 and at what the Bill requires, and he will see that that is good practice. I accept that at over 200 a range of issues will need to be considered, but my contention to the House is that the consultation we have undertaken means that 200 is a figure that should be stuck to. When I am in the position where I have noble Lords behind me saying 100 and noble Lords in front of me saying 300 or 400, I find myself thinking that maybe the Government are in the right place on this, and maybe we can have the benefit of the doubt on that. We think the figure is in the right place.

The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, mentioned the 800 figure. For the very same reason that the 200 figure—

My Lords, I do not think it was me.

I thought the noble Lord mentioned 800.

It was the other one.

Sorry, I left north Wales at 7 am, so it has been a long day already. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned the figure of 800. Why have we come to our figure? I can make all sorts of justifications. Two hundred takes into account the greatest number of large premises, so it is a figure that we have determined accordingly. We have to set the figure at a certain level and we have done so following the wide range of consultation that has taken place.

To what extent has the department made an evaluation of the impact on volunteering of the measures as they are currently proposed, with a threshold of 200? Does the Home Office have a threshold for the number of trustees that they think will go unfilled, or the lack of volunteering in community ventures and village halls, as a consequence of the threats and burden imposed by these measures?

The measures that we have accepted are part of the consultation that we have undertaken. The noble Lord was a Minister standing at this Dispatch Box in this department during the genesis of this Bill, so he will know that there has been wide consultation on these matters. Again, I point him to Clause 5 on public protection measures. Clause 5(3) refers to “evacuating individuals from the premises … moving individuals to a place on the premises … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”. Are those onerous issues? Or are they things that, even in our own assessment, are relatively low cost in terms of training? That relatively low cost is, essentially, in person hours when determining what those requirements are. Again, we could fix a number. If I fixed the number at 300, 400 or 500, we would take even more premises out, but that would dilute the purpose of this legislation, which is to set good practice for the prevention of an attack when an attack is occurring and the steps that can be taken to save lives. People’s experiences—not mine, but those in the consultations of the public inquiry—mean that the 200 figure we have now settled on is the right one. I commend that figure to the House and hope that noble Lords will support it in due course when it comes to the final decision by this House before Third Reading.

I thank everyone who contributed to this section of Committee. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful comments. I appreciate that there is a degree of arbitrariness in this number, but, equally, it is our task to try to make it as non-arbitrary as possible and make sure that the number we eventually choose is as well grounded in reality as it possibly can be. Perhaps I might be permitted just one remark before sitting down. I say that because there is pressure for risk aversion, and we have heard some of that in your Lordships’ House today. It is important to be careful what we are doing here. We need to keep in mind what the threshold number means. If we set it at 200, for example, we are not saying that we are prepared to tolerate the risk of 199 people being killed in a terrorist attack. That is not what the threshold is about. The risk that we want to tolerate of that is the number zero. What we are saying is that there is a trade-off. The costs to businesses and society of complying with these measures are justifiable above a certain number when we take the broader risk of terrorism into account. As the Minister said, the risk of a terrorist attack is unlikely in any individual case. We have to be able to debate this number prudentially while understanding exactly what the threshold means. We have debated it and I suspect we will so again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Amendments 6 to 9 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.54 pm.