Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

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.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

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.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

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.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

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.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

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?

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

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.