Lord De Mauley:

Moved by Lord De Mauley

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

My Lords, I prevail upon the patience of your Lordships, if I may, in speaking to my Amendments 5 and 5A. These seek to increase the threshold for enhanced duty premises for qualifying events from 800 people to 1,000 people. The matter of thresholds was discussed at some length in Committee, but discussion focused, as it did a moment ago, on the lower threshold for qualifying premises in Clause 2—that is, 200 people.

My concern, which is similar to that which was expressed in Committee and earlier today by those proposing the relevant amendments, is analogous. However, the consequences for those organising small, ticketed, charitable events, with attendees exceeding 800 people, are considerably greater, because the costs of implementing the necessary measures to comply with the Bill’s requirements are that much larger. The Minister gave a suggestion as to what those would be in the debate earlier.

It became clear from the Minister’s response to amendments in Committee proposing to increase the lower threshold that there was little science behind the Government’s choice of 800 for the upper threshold. In fact, he admitted that the numbers are arbitrary, saying:

“Ultimately, we have to land on a figure, and the Government have determined that that figure should be 200”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 545.]

This is, of course, in the case of the lower threshold, but it seems reasonable to assume that the Government’s approach to the higher threshold is the same, and I have heard nothing today to change that view.

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

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

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

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

I will respond very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. With due respect, it is not because I say so; it is because we have had a consultation. We had consultations in 2021 and 2023, when his party was in government, we have had discussions with the Home Affairs Select Committee and public discussions on this issue generally, and a revised figure was part of the consultation to determine the lower figure. So the 800 figure is not because I say so: it was determined by the previous Government—his Government—and endorsed by this Government coming in. Your Lordships’ House should remember that that figure came out of discussion we had following the Manchester inquiry and inquiries into other similar recent events.

I do not want to test the patience of the House. We had a long discussion in Committee and on the amendments we discussed earlier. Following engagement with stakeholders, the security industry and the public at large, and with the recommendations of several sets of officials dealing with several sets of Ministers, we have come to the conclusion that there is no right number —I accept that—but that the number of 800 will ensure that we bring into scope a large number of premises that have a higher level of security but should be doing those things on the basis of good practice and as part of normal training and induction for members of staff.

The 800 figure applies to the Wembley Stadiums—large football stadiums and the larger venues. I believe they can accommodate the restrictions and requirements in the Bill. The cost that we have estimated for the higher tier is only just over £5,000 per establishment. A £5,000 opportunity cost that might not even be a physical cost is not a burden on that establishment, but it may help to save a life. In the event of a terrorist attack, which we will try to prevent downstream, the measures in this Bill may help to save a life. Had they been in place at the Manchester Arena when the attack took place, lives may have been saved. That is an important consideration. I commend the 800 figure to the House and I hope it will reject the noble Lord’s amendment if he presses it.

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

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

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

Ayes 213, Noes 249.

Amendment 5 disagreed.

Clause 3: Qualifying events

Amendment 5A not moved.