Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

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.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

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.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

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.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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.