Lord Davies of Gower:

Moved by Lord Davies of Gower

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

My Lords, I rise to open this first group of amendments to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, who, unfortunately, is not in a position to be here today.

Although we do not wish to divide on Amendments 1 and 4, we have tabled them to seek further clarity and precision from the Government on this crucial area of the legislation. These amendments, proposed by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, replace the vague phrase “from time to time” with the more precise

“not less than once a month”.

This change is more specific and tightens up some of the language in the Bill. If, say, a venue has 200 people once a year for a Christmas party but has fewer than 200 at every other point in the year, under this amendment that venue would not be covered.

The logic of this amendment is to ensure that the SIA is given a clear benchmark by which it can measure venue capacity. This avoids ambiguity, and I hope the Minister will agree that it improves the quality of the legislation. I eagerly await his response and hope to see some movement from the Government on this issue. I look forward to hearing from my noble friends Lord De Mauley and Lord Udny-Lister. I am sure that this will be a constructive and positive debate.

My Lords, my amendment seeks to raise the qualifying premises threshold in this Bill from 200 to 500. This is a necessary and proportionate adjustment to ensure that the legislation is both effective and enforceable. At its core, this Bill is about ensuring that public venues take reasonable steps to protect the public from the ever-present threat of terrorism. This is a goal that we all share, but it is also our duty as legislators to ensure that any obligations that we impose are realistic, achievable and properly targeted. The current threshold of 200 is, in my view, too low. It captures far too many small businesses, community venues and organisations that simply do not have the resources to comply effectively with the security measures required under this legislation.

We must therefore ask ourselves what we are truly trying to achieve. If the Bill is about protecting high footfall venues that are most likely to be targeted, a threshold of 500 is much more appropriate. A venue that regularly accommodates 500 people is a significantly different proposition from one with just over 200. The former will have the infrastructure, resources and operational capacity to manage the enhanced security obligations that the Bill requires, whereas the latter will often struggle under the weight of compliance, detracting from the effectiveness of the legislation as a whole.

Moreover, this is a question of enforcement. By setting the threshold too low, we risk overburdening the enforcement agencies tasked with ensuring compliance. We should be concentrating our efforts where they will make the most difference: on larger, more high-risk venues, where the potential impact of an attack would be greatest. A threshold of 500 strikes that balance.

I also want to address the issue of fairness. Many small and medium-sized businesses are still recovering from the financial strain of recent years. The hospitality, entertainment and cultural sectors in particular have been hit hard. If we impose overly stringent requirements on smaller venues, we risk pushing them into further difficulties, leading to unintended consequences such as venue closures or reduced community engagement. This is not, therefore, about opposing security measures—far from it. It is about ensuring that these measures are appropriate for the size and nature of the premises they apply to.

I do not bring this amendment forward lightly. I support the principles of the Bill and I recognise the importance of making public spaces safer. However, legislation must be both proportionate and practical. The Government have not, in my view, provided sufficient justification for the 200-person threshold, and nor have they demonstrated that raising it to 500 would compromise security in any way.

On the contrary, I believe this amendment enhances the Bill by making it much more targeted and therefore effective. For these reasons, unless I hear a clear commitment from the Government today that they will reconsider their position, I will be dividing the House on this amendment. I urge noble Lords to join me in supporting a measured, proportionate and practical approach to this issue.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 3 in my name, which seeks to raise the threshold for a qualifying premises from 200 to 300, with an exception to allow the Secretary of State to set a lower threshold if any particular premises are at a heightened risk of terrorist threat.

While I agree with many of the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister in relation to 500, it is important that the House has the option to consider other variable thresholds. I suggest that this amendment, in setting the threshold at 300 with the flexibility to include other venues between 200 and 300, is a pragmatic, measured and proportionate adjustment that balances the need for public safety with the realities of implementation of this expensive and burdensome set of regulations on small businesses and community venues.

While we should do as much as possible to reduce the impact of an attack, should one occur, we must ensure that pubs, village halls, community spaces and other, similar venues are not subject to undue regulatory burdens where the risk does not justify them. By raising the threshold to 300, we are ensuring that those venues most at risk are prioritised. Almost all venues under 300 will now be excluded by reason of this amendment, while providing a degree of flexibility for exceptional cases where a lower threshold may be warranted.

The logic behind this adjustment is clear: a threshold of 200 captures too wide a range of premises, including many small business and community venues that may not have the capacity or resources to implement the complex security measures required by the Bill. Many of these venues operate on tight budgets and rely on volunteer or part-time staff. I worry greatly that one of the unintended consequences of the Bill will be to drive such small business and community facilities—which are presently just about managing and just about balancing their books—out of business, with the consequent massive impact on our communities and high streets. If this happens, the terrorists will have won.

I do not need to remind the House that the Home Office’s own impact assessment estimates that the costs to business of the measures in the Bill, at present values, are likely to be between £4.871 billion and £563.4 million, with the Government’s best estimate at £1.785 billion. This additional burden will land just at the time when small businesses and community ventures are reeling from additional regulatory burdens and rising taxes.

Increasing the threshold to 300 would ensure that the primary focus remained on larger venues with higher footfall and, therefore, greater potential risk. As I observed in Committee when debating these amendments, one need look only at the Home Office’s own impact assessment to see the considerable level of concern about the viability of small businesses and community ventures. At page 9, the authors note:

“Among respondents to the survey of premises with a capacity of 100 to 299”— the respondents being the owners of smaller premises, places of worship, village halls and community centres—only

“four in ten … agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack … Around half ... reported that the revised requirements would be difficult to take forwards ... Six in ten ... were at least somewhat concerned that the cost of meeting the standard tier requirements will affect their organisation’s financial ability to continue operating”.

However, in my amendment I recognise that security concerns are not always dictated by capacity alone. This is why it would allow for the Secretary of State to include particular premises that are at heightened risk of terrorist attack. This provides flexibility.

Commendably, prior to the introduction of the Bill, the Government raised the proposed threshold from 100 to 200 following the outcome of the consultation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister that there has been nothing in the debates on the Bill which really justifies the figure of 200, when set against the potential impact on the large number of premises now caught by the present threshold. The proposal in the amendment is a cautious—and, I suggest, proportionate and sensible—step, and I invite noble Lords to support it.

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

My Lords, I am grateful that we are debating the amendments in this group. I declare my interest, having lots of churches in Manchester that fall under the terms of the Bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords, I slightly query the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that a change of tone and consensus has broken out. We are at a stage where there is no point fighting until the last man standing. There are some fundamental philosophical disagreements about what we are doing in relation to this Bill, and I raise those because they relate to the amendments we have heard about.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that, for smaller venues with a capacity of, say, 50 or 100, we are establishing the notion that everybody should be sensible and take precautions. My argument is simply that we do not need new legislation at any level to encourage that, and that this could have been done through present legislation. For example, we have oodles of health and safety legislation. Councils are for ever issuing guidance on how events should be organised. This is a hammer to crack a nut, and it might have unintended consequences. That is what all of us have argued.

When I explain to people what I am doing in the House of Lords at the moment and what Bills I am following, and I explain this one, they are totally bemused that, in tackling terrorism, we are having a conversation about premises and regulators. They are more than aware that we need to tackle the problem and the threat of terrorism, and this just does not feel as though it is the most important way of dealing with that. The right reverend Prelate made a good point: it is not as though terrorists sit around and say, “That is a 500-seater”. As we know, whether it is a dance class in Southport or, in the case of Sir David Amess, an MP holding a surgery, it can be small places; or it can be the use of a vehicle as a weapon at a Christmas market. We have been through these different examples.

The question before us is whether the Bill will keep the public safe. My contention is that I am not convinced it will, but it will do a lot of damage to the public realm, and it could undermine civil society. Some of these amendments would at least help to remove the threat of legislative intervention from the smaller venues that are likely to be at the heart of community and civil society events. Of course there is a difference when there is a law. Even if you are a small venue, you might think “We do take precautions. We have 200 people. It is not as though we wander around oblivious to the protection of anyone who comes into our premises”. Once you have the threat of a regulator and a law, it is coercive and there are threats and things you need to do—I do not mean reports that have to be written—and you are answerable. As we have seen in every aspect of the evidence that has been given in consultation, people are put off; they say it is not worth running the venue or the event, and volunteers are standing down, as a number of later amendments will indicate.

We may have to make the best of what I consider to be an unnecessary and distracting law. I want to fight terrorism, but not this way; none the less, we should at least make the best of a bad job.

My Lords, this has been a useful if very short debate, and many of the issues raised in Committee have been repeated.

Most of these amendments would greatly increase the number of premises and events exempt from the provisions of the Bill. In particular, I want to speak against Amendments 2, 3 and 5 from the Conservative Benches. As has been described, they would increase the threshold to 500, or 300 for standard premises, or, in the case of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, from 800 to 1,000 for enhanced premises.

I will make two brief points, which are very much in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. First, it is worth recalling that the Bill, to quote from the Long Title, is

“to reduce the vulnerability of the premises or event to, and the risk of physical harm to individuals arising from, acts of terrorism”.

It is not a Bill that will prevent terrorism per se; it is about protecting individuals. It is about having a plan in place for what to do in the horrific eventuality of an attack and having someone responsible for ensuring that lives can be saved, so that people can be evacuated or invacuated as quickly and as safely as possible. Having such a plan, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others have said, is surely just common sense and good practice for any event or premises, no matter what its size.

Increasing the thresholds to such a degree as these amendments propose would, in our view, risk negating the very purpose and value of the Bill, as it would exempt so many additional premises or events. We cannot and should not necessarily make assumptions about the size of the venue or event that a terrorist or terrorist organisation would choose to attack. Being prepared, and having thought through an escape plan and what to do to save lives in the event of an attack, gives reassurances to the public and has to be good practice. I would even argue that it makes good business sense, if people, including potential customers, feel reassured.

Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the figure of 200 is already a compromise. The previous draft Bill produced by the former Conservative Government had a threshold of 100. My party and others, including the Home Affairs Select Committee, expressed concern that this would impact too many businesses and their premises, so the figure was raised to 200. As I said in Committee, I would have preferred 100, but I understand the reasons for the compromise.

For both these reasons, these Benches will not support any amendments this afternoon if they are pushed to a vote.

I am grateful to noble Lords for speaking to these amendments and I look forward to seeing the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, back in his place at an early opportunity to continue these debates in future.

There are, in essence, three sets of amendments before us in this first group. Amendments 1 and 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, look at stipulating that the threshold is met monthly rather than “from time to time”. There are other amendments, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Murray, relating to the threshold and, at the end of the group, there are some small, technical government amendments that I will move in due course. I will speak to each in turn.

First, I will address the main point that was very well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in relation to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned. The Bill is not about preventing terrorism. There are mechanisms for the Government to look at policing, intelligence-led activity and legislation in the Crime and Policing Bill—a whole range of measures to prevent terrorism. This Bill, as has been mentioned, looks at the vulnerability of premises and making sure that we do all that we can to put public protection measures in place.

I said this in Committee, but it is important to refer noble Lords again to the measures in Clause 5 on public protection. For the areas that we are looking at, they include

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

All of those are good practice and potentially have no or limited cost.

Amendments 1 and 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seek to change how attendance is measured at premises by stipulating that the threshold must be met monthly, not from time to time. The case was made that there is a need for a revised basis to assess the number of individuals in attendance at premises at once within a fixed, regular time period. As I set out in Committee, the Government disagree with that principle—although I know and understand why it has been brought forward—because we want to make sure that, if we do that, the benchmark we are examining for the premises is consistent.

Changing “from time to time” to a standard of the number of individuals expected at a premises at least once a month, or any other form of benchmark, would alter the scope of the Bill. It would exclude many of the premises from qualifying, whether due to seasonal or irregular attendance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can give the noble Lord the figure, if he allows me a moment to find it. I have the figure in this pile somewhere and I will await some dissection of the file to arrive shortly to give him a definitive figure on that, if he will allow me. If not, I will come back to that in a moment. From my perspective, the figures of 800 and 200 are correct. I have that figure to hand somewhere—here we go. See: I knew at the end of the day, with a little bit of diligence, no ambush and advance notice, I could find the figure. Raising the threshold to 300 would mean that only 92,288 premises—or 10%, down from 17%, of eligible premises—would be captured. The figure that we have currently is significantly higher than that.

Again, 92,288 is a significant number of premises covered by the Bill, but if I go back to Clause 5(3), those requirements are not what I would term onerous. They are good practice. There are things that a good employer should do. They are things that good volunteers should do. There are things that are applicable not to stopping terrorism but to providing security in the event of a terrorist attack being undertaken. Again, if this House were a premises covered by the legislation, which it is not, and an attack were happening now, the responsible person here would have to decide which exit we went from, whether we stayed under the table, whether we shut the door and who should we contact. Those are the requirements in Schedule 5 to the Bill. They are not onerous, and I think that, on balance, as wide a group of premises as can be included is the desired amount, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister, wishes to intervene.

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

Again, I say to the noble Lord that the Government have made a judgment on the 800 figure, which we have estimated is just over £5,000 in cost, but this figure of 800, which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, would change to 1,000, is a figure that probably impacts the Wembley Stadiums, the big theatres, the big venues. A £5,000 cost for that, which is what we have estimated in the impact assessment, would be a reasonable cost and would probably be consumed in normal training for staff, because most of those arenas hold full-time staffed events. For the 200 to 800 threshold, again, we have been looking at the whole question of what is reasonable. I think that 200 is a reasonable figure to assess on that.

However, we are going to disagree and, if we disagree and if the noble Lord wants to move his amendment, we will test the will of the House. That is what this place is about. I will see him in the Lobbies—reluctantly —if need be but I hope that he will understand why we have settled on the 200 figure to date.

Before I sit down, I must speak to government amendments 6 to 11, which make small technical amendments to the Bill and which follow reflection we have had at official level and ministerial level. The amendments further clarify how the Bill is intended to apply to premises and events. They do not change anything in the scope of the Bill but simply increase certainty about the premises in scope of the Bill. For example, private events such as weddings attended by relations and friends, or office parties attended by employees or customers, are deemed private events that are not attended by the public. The amendments make it clear, even more so than they did previously, that they should be out of scope.

I hope the noble Lord will not test the will of the House. But if he does, I urge my noble friends and anybody else who wishes to join us to vote him down.

My Lords, this has been a relatively short but very good debate, and I thank my noble friends for their amendments in this group. Amendments 2 and 3 address the threshold for qualifying premises. My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s amendment proposes raising the threshold from 200 to 500, while my noble friend Lord Murray’s amendment strikes a balance by setting it at 300, with flexibility for the Secretary of State to make determinations in exceptional cases.

These amendments recognise the practical implications of compliance while ensuring that the duty to protect the public is both proportionate and effective. It is essential that this legislation targets venues most at risk while avoiding undue burdens on smaller establishments, and if my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister is minded to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.

Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord De Mauley, would adjust the threshold for enhanced duty premises from 800 to 1,000. This refinement aligns with the broader effort to ensure that security obligations are applied appropriately. Larger venues naturally pose greater security challenges. Amendment 5A, which similarly adjusts the threshold for qualifying events from 800 to 1,000, also makes sense to me.

The cost of compliance for events will be large and thus slightly raising the threshold will allow for greater focus and precision in what the Bill intends to remedy. If my noble friend Lord De Mauley intends to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.

On Amendments 6 to 11, tabled by the Minister, I acknowledge the suggested improvements, replacing “invitations” with “tickets”, and substituting “other” with “similar”. These amendments means that the public protection procedures will apply only when members of the public are in attendance and not at private events such as weddings. I am supportive of these amendments and thank the Minister for tabling them.

In conclusion, the amendments I have spoken in favour of today enhance the clarity, proportionality and practical application of the Bill. In the face of ever- present security threats, our legislation must be both robust and precise.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.