Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 14th October 2024
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has the wholehearted support of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and, I hope, the whole House. Some of those who campaigned hardest for it have joined us in Parliament for this evening’s debate.
Seven and a half years ago, on the evening of 22 May 2017, thousands of people went to Manchester Arena for a music concert. Many of those in attendance were children and teenagers. They were there to see Ariana Grande, their favourite pop star, and to dance and sing along to her songs. They were there to soak up the atmosphere with friends and family. But as the event drew to a close and people started to leave, terror struck. Scenes of happiness gave way to shock and trauma, and what had been an enjoyable spring evening was transformed into a nightmare. More than 1,000 people were injured, and 22 of them never came home—nine of those were teenagers. Today, we remember them all. Their lives were brutally cut short in an act of pure evil.
We also think of the victims of other terrorist attacks. They will never be forgotten. Their families and friends, left to pick up the pieces and somehow go on, are in our hearts and prayers. We think also of all those who survived this and other similarly abhorrent acts, the survivors of all terror attacks, who live with the scars, whether physical or psychological. We think of the first responders who are on the frontline when the worst happens, bravely working to protect the public and to save lives, and we think of the police and security and intelligence agencies who work night and day to prevent attacks and keep us all safe. We give them our thanks.
In the aftermath of the Manchester Arena attack, our country did what it always does when confronted with terrorism: we came together. As the city grieved, we stood shoulder to shoulder with those affected and offered our friendship and support. In the darkness came rays of light—those who were determined to support each other and ensure that more was done to save young lives in future.
That spirit is embodied by Figen Murray, who is with us in the Public Gallery today. It is because of Figen that we are all here to talk about this legislation. Figen’s son, Martyn Hett, was among those killed in the attack. I cannot imagine Figen’s pain and I am in awe of her courage. To suffer such a horrendous loss and somehow find the strength to fight for changes that will help others is heroic. Despite her grief, she has campaigned, and when asked this morning why she does so, she said that she looks at her child’s ashes on the bookshelf and she does not want other families to have to face the same. Figen and campaigners have fought for this law. This Bill has been a long time coming, but she has never given up. I am sure the whole House will agree wheneb;normal;j I say to Figen, “You are a true inspiration. Officially, we are debating the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill but in essence and in spirit, this is ‘Martyn’s law’.”
The first responsibility of any Government is to keep the public safe. That is, and will always be, our No. 1 priority. We will not let terrorists or extremists destroy or distort our way of life. That is why Labour committed in our manifesto to strengthening the security of public events and venues, why the Prime Minister made a commitment to Figen Murray and why we have moved at speed to introduce the Bill in a matter of weeks after the general election. Earlier work was done on the Bill under the last Government and I am glad to say that it has cross-party support—I hope that, when it comes to security matters, the House will always be prepared to come together.
The Manchester Arena inquiry made 169 public recommendations. Volume 1 focused on the security of the arena and set out the need for a protect duty in primary legislation. The chair, Sir John Saunders, whom I thank for all the work he did, concluded:
“Doing nothing is, in my view, not an option. Equally, the Protect Duty must not be so prescriptive as to prevent people enjoying a normal life.”
That encapsulates the purpose behind the Bill and behind so much of what we do when countering terrorism and extremism: ensuring that proper measures are taken to keep us safe; ensuring that people can get on with their lives and making it possible for people to keep enjoying all the things they do; and protection of life—protection of our way of life.
Since March 2017, MI5 and the police have together disrupted 43 late-stage plots and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks. We know from those incidents that the public can be targeted at a wide range of public venues and spaces. We know too that the terror threat has become less predictable and potential attacks harder to detect and investigate. That is why everyone needs to be part of the measures we take to keep people safe—including those who run premises and events, who need to know what they can do and what they should be doing to keep people safe.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I am loath to interrupt the Home Secretary; she is making a passionate and clear case for why the Bill is necessary, and the SNP will be supporting her. Is she aware of the concerns from the live music sector, which will be most burdened and most impacted by this particular Bill? Is she in constant contact with the live music sector, and can she offer any reassurance on the number of issues that I know it has raised with her?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I know there will be many detailed discussions on that in Committee. Since the original draft legislation was published, we have sought to ensure that there was extensive consultation with businesses, with premises and with venues of all sizes. That is why there is a different approach, which I will come on to, for different sizes of venue, ensuring that the response that premises need to make is proportionate and recognises the detailed individual circumstances, which will be very different from one venue and one organisation to another. I will come to that point and that detail.
The legislation requires for the first time that those responsible for certain premises and events consider terrorist risk and how they would respond to an attack. Larger premises and events will need to take steps to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks. For premises to fall within the scope of the Bill, it must be reasonable to expect that there may be 200 or more individuals present on those premises at the same time. In addition, the premises must be used for one or more of the activities specified in the Bill—for example, entertainment or leisure. For those premises that are in scope, a tiered approach has been established, with requirements varying. Events and premises where it is reasonably expected that 800 or more people may be present at once will generally be in the enhanced tier, and any other premises—those where 200 to 800 people may be present—will be in the standard tier.
Those responsible for premises in the standard tier will be required to notify the regulator and have in place public protection procedures to reduce the risk of harm to individuals in the event of an act of terrorism. It is important that those procedures are designed to be very simple and low cost. There will be no requirement to put in place physical measures in the standard tier. There are four categories of procedure: evacuation, which relates to the process of getting people safely out of the premises; invacuation, for example where we need to keep people safe within premises; lockdown, if a premises needs to be kept secure from an attacker who is trying to get in; and communication—simply communicating to all those involved, including staff and the public who might be at risk.
In recognition of the potentially greater impact of an attack on larger premises, those in the enhanced tier will be subject to additional requirements or public protection measures: monitoring for risks and indicators; security measures for individuals, which might mean search and screening processes; physical safety measures, where relevant, such as safety glass; and securing information to make it harder for people to plan, prepare or execute acts of terrorism.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I just ask, given that the atrocity in the Manchester Arena was caused by a terrorist coming in with explosives in a very prominent backpack, how the measures being proposed would have affected that scenario?
Yvette Cooper
We are being clear that it is not for the Government to specify precise arrangements for every venue. I do not think it would be appropriate to do so. Arrangements will vary according to the event. We know that many large venues already have procedures to search bags or conduct those sorts of checks. We are clear that this needs to be done proportionately, and according to the size of the venue and the arrangements in place.
Sir Julian Lewis
If I may pursue that point a little further, if what we are really talking about is explosions being carried out by suicide bombers among large numbers of people, the one thing that all those atrocities have in common is that an explosive device, which is invariably bulky, has to be carried in. Is that not the central point that everybody ought to be addressing?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman is right. That is why one of the things we would expect is that premises have proper search measures, and particularly to ensure that there are security measures around the movement of individuals, but as well as the searches that might take place at an event itself, safety measures may also involve having monitoring procedures in place—for example, if the same individual has been back, circling a venue several times, and is behaving in a suspicious or inappropriate way. Making sure that staff are trained to recognise those kinds of risks and indicators may be an important part of keeping the venue safe.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.
Neil Coyle
I thank the Home Secretary for introducing this important legislation, which means so much to those who were affected in Manchester and to those affected on 3 June 2017 in the London bridge and Borough market attack. My question is on measuring risks and taking measures in advance to try to protect people. Will venues be able to draw down on terror insurance where they have it? Will the Government support an awareness campaign on the need to have terror insurance and support? Where risk assessments highlight a physical barrier or a change to an external area, how will the Bill support venues and local authorities to work together to resolve concerns? Barriers to securing literal barriers around Borough market have included the design and who is going to pay; there have been lots of practical difficulties in designing and installing the permanent barriers to protect all those who still use the amazing Borough market in my constituency.
Yvette Cooper
As my hon. Friend will know, the prevention of future deaths report from the London bridge and Borough market inquests called for clarity of responsibility for venue operators regarding protective security. Addressing that point is one reason that we are bringing forward this legislation. My hon. Friend is also right that, in practice, security and safety measures require people to work together and require partnerships among them, the venue, local councils and others. It is not for this legislation to set out the decisions for insurance companies; its whole purpose is to make venues safer and more resilient to the kinds of pressures and attacks they might face.
Yvette Cooper
I said I would give way to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I will then come to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Sir John Hayes
The right hon. Lady makes two profoundly important points. The first is on the metamorphosis of terrorism and how we need to be persistently clear about how we respond to it in the event of the changes we have seen. The second is about how the whole House comes together on these matters; as the right hon. Lady knows, I have had an interest in this subject for some time and I entirely endorse what she says.
The particular point that I want to make is about anticipating events. The right hon. Lady has spoken a great deal about how we deal with events in the moment, as it were—the training of staff is critical, as she said—but of course we could be talking about a timed device that is planted long before a large event takes place. How does she see the legislation having an impact on a plot that is made well in advance, as I am sure the one in Manchester was?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member makes an important point and I thank him for his long-standing interest in the issue. Those responsible for premises and events in the enhanced tier will be required to provide the regulator with a document that sets out all the public protection measures and procedures they have, and how they expect those processes to reduce their vulnerability and risk of harm from terrorism. The first category is about monitoring for risks and indicators. That might include monitoring prevention measures—for example, if there has been some kind of security breach a week before or some days before—or assessing what the risks might be. The third measure is about physical safety, which might include the physical arrangements that can prevent somebody from being able to take action in advance of a major event to create that risk and threat. There are ways of having those checks in place.
The Bill ensures that there is a new regulator to oversee compliance through a new function of the Security Industry Authority. We expect the SIA’s primary role to be supporting and advising businesses to implement the legislation’s requirements. Even though the SIA will have a suite of powers and sanctions, including the power to issue fines for non-compliance or to shut down events in the enhanced tier, in fact those sanctions are primarily civil. I reassure the House that those responsible for premises and events will be given time to understand and that the SIA’s approach will be to support venues to adopt the new measures. A range of factors will be taken into account so that penalties will be used only to address the most serious or repeated failings.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State for her contribution and for setting the scene so well. We will support the Government’s legislation because it is the right thing to do. The Secretary of State knows very well that we in Northern Ireland have suffered a campaign lasting 30-plus years from the IRA, where shopkeepers and those involved in businesses took steps against firebombs, against people bombing houses and against car bombs, which resulted in a large loss of life. Has there been the opportunity to consider what was done in Northern Ireland in a voluntary capacity to combat such things? I am ever mindful that it was perhaps not necessary to have legislation that handed out fines.
Everyone wants to do the right thing and if that is the case, it is about how we encourage people to do that. Lessons can be learned from back home. I will speak later and highlight some of those things, but I think it is important that we take all the knowledge from everywhere in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member is right that there has been considerable work by many venues and premises in Northern Ireland to respond to the kinds of threats and risks that, sadly, communities have faced through the years. He may also be interested to know that in Manchester a voluntary version of Martyn’s law was introduced after the appalling Manchester Arena attack; training and support were provided for venues and many businesses were keen to sign up. That has been very well supported and the view in Manchester is that it has been hugely successful.
The experience of the hon. Member for Strangford in Northern Ireland and the experience in Manchester is that, too often, there has been a tragic reason as to why organisations have responded in that way. We need to make sure those same lessons are learned right across the country. That is why we are setting out this comprehensive legislation, so we are not in a situation where the biggest venues only respond when something terrible happens—when it is too late and lives have been lost.
We are committed to working extensively with the business community during the passage and roll-out of the Bill. As well as the ongoing programme of direct engagement, we have also updated ProtectUK to make it easier for businesses and others to navigate and understand the supporting information on the Bill. We are acutely conscious in introducing this legislation of the need to get the proper balance and detail right. That is why, as hon. and right hon. Members will know, the Bill’s proposals have been subject to extensive development, and the draft version of the legislation was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny under the previous Government.
Most crucially, we have raised the threshold for being in scope from 100 to 200 individuals. We recognise the need for a location-specific approach because the procedures in one place may not apply to another. We have also ensured that in both tiers appropriate procedures and measures are required only
“so far as is reasonably practicable”.
Those words are crucial to recognising the importance of protecting life and our way of life.
With Figen here, we always keep in our minds that terrible day in Manchester seven and a half years ago. The youngest victim was an eight-year-old girl, Saffie-Rose Roussos. Her headteacher asked the question afterwards:
“How do you tell 276 children that their friend has been murdered”?
That is a question we all ask: how can we explain how anyone could have targeted the event that day, with young children enjoying their love of music and dancing? But that is the point. When terrorists want to cause maximum damage—when they want to destroy our way of life—of course they seek out crowds, but they also seek out innocence, happiness and joy. That is why our task is not just to take measures to keep people safe but to work tirelessly to ensure that people can get on and enjoy their lives, and that we never let terrorists, extremists and criminals win.
Let me finish by quoting Figen. She said:
“It’s time to get this done.”
I could not put it better. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for bringing the Bill forward with such pace and alacrity. I pay tribute to Figen Murray for her tireless campaigning; I know that she, her husband and other campaigners join us in the Chamber. It is also appropriate that we pay tribute to her son, Martyn Hett, who was murdered, alongside 21 other innocent victims, while going to the Manchester Arena in 2017 to watch a concert. It is of course in that tragic context that we find ourselves considering this legislation.
As the Home Secretary said, the Bill enjoys cross-party support, and the Opposition support its aims and aspirations. I am grateful to her for recognising at the Dispatch Box the work that was done, particularly in pre-legislative scrutiny, to ensure that the Bill has the best chance of navigating its parliamentary stages and concluding in a manner that achieves the dual purpose of keeping people safe while supporting the music and entertainment industry, of which we are so proud.
When I met Ms Murray ahead of the general election, I said, perhaps rashly, that I was confident that, irrespective of the outcome of the election, the Bill would be brought forward. I am glad that the Home Secretary did not put me in an awkward position having made such a commitment. I felt confident at the time that I would be proved right, and I am pleased that, on this one occasion thus far, she and her Ministers have done so. Martyn’s law was in both our parties’ manifestos at the last general election, and it is important that this measured and well thought through piece of legislation is properly scrutinised legislation and makes it through the House.
As the Home Secretary said, the threat picture is complex, evolving and enduring, and terrorists choose to attack a broad range of locations. As she also stated, they choose to attack in a manner and in locations that maximise the detrimental impact on our way of life. The protection of our way of life is in many ways just as important as the protection of life itself. As there is a range of potential targets, it is right that the Bill proposes that a range of premises be better protected and ready to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. At the same time, the Government have to think very carefully when regulating in this way, to ensure that we recognise that we cannot regulate away all risks. We should regulate when and where it provides greater safety to the public, ensuring that we do not create a false sense of security or impose a cost so high that venues are unable to comply and therefore fail to reduce the risk.
It is appropriate that we look at the impact assessment produced by the Government, and recognise that the new regulations will affect an estimated 155,000 small businesses with a venue capacity of between 200 and 799 people. That will impose an average cost on them of around £330 a year. The regulations will also impact around 24,000 larger venues with a capacity of 800 and above, imposing an average cost of around £5,000 each year. When I was the Home Secretary, I looked at ways of reducing the burden on the industry as much as possible, while ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders, as it were, could bear the largest load, protecting smaller venues. I therefore welcome the lighter-touch approach that has been put forward, particularly in the standard tier.
While in government, we also looked at the case for raising the standard threshold beyond 200 to around 300. I see in the Bill that a capacity of 200 was settled on. Clearly, as the Bill goes through the scrutiny process, questions will be asked about whether 200, 300, or a lower or higher figure is appropriate. It is right that those questions are asked, and Members across the House should feel at liberty to probe the Government on the rationale, because this is about balance, and ensuring that people are safe and venues stay viable.
In recognition of the important but novel approach that is being taken, what thought have the Government given to a feedback process whereby the implementation could be assessed and thresholds adjusted if needs be? The Government might consider implementing the enhanced tier in a staged process and learn lessons before implementing the standard tier fully. I would certainly be more than happy to discuss that with the Home Secretary across the Dispatch Box, in Committee, or elsewhere.
Turning to the establishment of the new regulator, I welcome the Government’s intention that the regulatory function of Martyn’s law will be delivered as a new function of the Security Industry Authority, but what assurances has the right hon. Lady had from the SIA regarding its readiness for this? As I said, including the standard tier, we are looking at nearly 200,000 venues. We want to ensure that the legislation is effective, and not just on the statute book gathering dust.
Sir John Hayes
I am mindful of my right hon. Friend’s earlier point about how small businesses can cope with the new requirements. Part of that involves increasing their staff’s awareness and understanding of the threat. The training that the Home Secretary spoke about will be vital in that respect. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of minimising costs will be for umbrella organisations to co-ordinate some of that training, in organisations big and small, to improve staff understanding of the risk and how it can be countered?
Mr Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Given that so much legislation of this nature enjoys cross-party support, there are opportunities to discuss the most effective way of implementing our universal desire to get good and effective, but not overly onerous, legislation on the books. Members may feel a bit reticent about asking challenging questions for fear of coming across as seeking to undermine the work of legislation, but I know from the conversations that he and I have had that the opposite is true here. There are opportunities to do as he suggests, for example with the requirement for the enhanced tier venues to get their house in order. That could be done in close co-ordination with local venues in the standard tier, and the relevant training could be done hand in hand without the full financial, time or other burden falling on smaller venues. That kind of detail could make a fundamentally sound Bill increasingly effective.
We need to look at what else can be done to ensure that the plans for premises cannot be used against them, and that if those plans are disclosed, they cannot be utilised by would-be attackers as part of their preparation. Of course, there is a balancing act between having best practice made public—something that would benefit smaller venues—and ensuring that we do not give advantage to those who would do harm.
I also ask that Ministers ensure that the regulator is supportive and constructive. The Home Secretary made that point, and it is important to say it at the Dispatch Box, but making sure that it is really embedded in the organisation is key. The regulator’s desire should be to help venues to stay safe and viable, rather than looking for opportunities to rush in with fining powers, which could either put businesses out of business or introduce such a fear of fines that they decide to take the easy option and close their doors. That is not something that Members on either side of the House want.
Organisations will, of course, need time to adapt and familiarise themselves with the new guidance. On that point, I note that the new legislation is unlikely to be implemented for around 24 months after Royal Assent. If that is the case, will the Home Secretary commit to engage with the industry via the Federation of Small Businesses, Live music Industry Venues and Entertainment, the Greater London Authority and other bodies to ensure that we do not have a one-size-fits-all approach that might, perhaps inadvertently, squeeze sensible changes that could increase compliance without increasing risk?
What mitigations or exemptions will the Home Secretary consider to protect voluntary and community venues, such as churches or places of worship, particularly those that have already said that the new regulations will be burdensome for them? It is vital to keep the thresholds and guidance under review as the legislation is implemented. Fear of regulation often incentivises owners and organisers to take the most cautious point of view rather than the most appropriate one, and that would be counterproductive.
As the Home Secretary said, terror threats are constantly evolving, and we must evolve with them. In doing so, we must be alive to the threat that new regulations and protections have on our everyday lives—on gatherings, on places of worship and on business—and we should keep proportionality at the forefront of our minds. She has made a commitment to do that, and I am grateful that she has done so. In that spirit, I offer the Opposition’s support in ensuring that the legislation passes promptly through the House and is implemented in the best form possible, and that we do what we can to ensure that tragedies such as we saw in the Manchester Arena never happen again.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak today in support of this vital Bill. I start by joining the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary in paying tribute to the bravery and phenomenal campaigning of Figen Murray. To so selflessly and bravely campaign for the safety of others after suffering such unimaginable trauma is truly inspirational. It is the reason this legislation is before the House today, and it is the reason lives will be saved when this Bill becomes law. That should lead to an enormous sense of pride for her and for all the campaigners involved.
As a Greater Manchester Member of Parliament, I find this legislation especially poignant, coming as it does after the Manchester Arena attack in 2017, which united Manchester, our region and our country in grief. Twenty-two people died that night, and many more were left with lifelong physical and psychological trauma. First and foremost, they suffered from an act of indescribable evil and cowardice from people who seek to destroy what binds us and our way of life. They also suffered as a result of security arrangements at Manchester Arena that were not proportional to the severe threat posed by terrorism.
The Manchester Arena inquiry carried out by Sir John Saunders found multiple missed opportunities for detecting and stopping the bomber, or, at the very least, minimising the number of casualties that he was able to inflict. Sir John spoke of serious shortcomings from the operators of the arena, the company tasked with the concert security and the British Transport Police, including a lack of preparedness and a lack of communication between security employees regarding suspicious behaviour. That contributed to the attacker being able to do covert reconnaissance on the arena undetected and find a CCTV blind spot.
Underpinning those missed opportunities was a failure to treat the terror threat with the severity it deserved. At that point, the terror threat facing the country was classed as severe, but now it is classed as substantial, with an attack sadly likely. Indeed, we know that since the Manchester Arena bombing, 43 terror plots on UK venues have been foiled at a late stage. Figen Murray has said:
“We’ve been lucky 43 times but they only have to be lucky once.”
That is why there is such an urgent need for this overdue Bill. I am proud that the Government are treating this issue as the priority that it deserves to be. After all, our most basic responsibility in this place is to do everything we can to ensure the safety and security of our residents. The Prime Minister promised he would act, and he has done so just months into his Administration. I thank him and the Home Office team for their swift action to deliver us to this stage.
The striking thing for me about this legislation is how common-sense it all is. We would be hard pressed to find a constituent who disagrees that all public premises should take reasonably practical measures to mitigate the impact of a terrorist plot. Similarly, it feels like a significant oversight that there was no previous mandate setting out who is responsible for implementing these measures, as there will be should this Bill become law. These are common-sense proposals to deal with serious issues—something every Bill in this place seeks to do, but does not always achieve. That is why it has such strong support in all parts of the House.
I note the supportive comments of the head of counter-terrorism policing, Matt Jukes, who talked of
“the opportunity that this Bill brings to drive greater consistency”
among businesses and communities, and
“to take simple low or no-cost steps that will save lives”.
I appreciate that concerns have been expressed about the burden that will be placed on businesses, particularly smaller music venues that are still recovering from the covid-19 pandemic, but with the support of a dedicated regulator to help them and a period of 24 months to prepare, I do not believe that any business is facing obstacles that cannot be overcome. I thank the Home Secretary for setting out the Government’s tiered approach, and I know that much more will be said about support for businesses as the Bill progresses through the House.
For the Bill to be as effective as possible, we need collaboration between Government, business and campaigners. We have a duty to make it as effective as possible, because while it cannot remove the hurt or pain of those who suffered a loss in the Manchester Arena attack or ease the pain of those who are living with their injuries, it can forever reduce the likelihood of such an event happening again, and it will save lives. That is why I am proud to support the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
As this House reflects on the measures we must take to protect our nation, it is essential that—as others have already done—we remember the tragedy of 22 May 2017, when the Manchester Arena bombing claimed 22 lives in a shocking act of terror. Those of us who are from Greater Manchester all know someone who was there that night, whether they were watching the concert, picking up their daughters, or responding as a member of our emergency services. Among the 22 who were lost was Martyn Hett, a young man from Stockport who was full of life, boundless energy and a personality that lit up every room he entered. Martyn was 29 years old, and for anyone who knew him—as many of my constituents did—he was a symbol of joy and creativity. His love for life, humour, and unique way of connecting with people left a lasting impression on so many Stopfordians.
Martyn’s mum Figen endured a loss that no parent should ever have to face. However, Figen’s response to that unimaginable pain has been one of remarkable strength and resolve. She has become a tireless advocate for change and an inspiration to us all, and she has led the campaign for Martyn’s law in memory of her son. Figen’s efforts have not gone unnoticed: over the years, she has worked with policymakers, security experts and communities to push for these changes, with the goal of ensuring no other family has to experience what she and her family have had to. Her determination has turned a personal tragedy into a powerful force for good. She has taken her message to Governments of different shades, to public forums and to schools, reminding us of the urgent need for better safety measures in public spaces. Martyn’s law is a testament to her courage.
I must also pay tribute to the people of Greater Manchester, who came together in an extraordinary display of solidarity, resilience and compassion. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, our city region stood tall: taxi drivers offered free rides to those stranded, residents opened their homes to concertgoers in need, and local businesses provided food and shelter to strangers. Greater Manchester is a city region known for its gumption and its strength, and that night, we showed the world what true unity looks like. In the days that followed, St Ann’s Square became a place of mourning, reflection and community, with thousands of people gathering there—as well as across the region—to pay tribute to the victims, light candles and lay flowers. I remember gathering in Romiley Precinct, because it was important to be with our neighbours and to feel part of our community. It was not just a moment of mourning, but a really powerful statement that our city region would not be broken by terror.
The Mancunian way speaks to that enduring spirit—a refusal to be defined by fear, but instead by our unity and resolve. It was evident in the tireless work of the emergency services, who responded with bravery and professionalism on that terrible night, and in the action of the countless volunteers who came forward offering what they could to help. The attack sought to sow fear and division, but it only brought us closer together and reminded us of what truly makes Greater Manchester great: its people. As we consider the legislation before us today, we must remember the 22 lives lost and the families forever changed, as well as the resilience of the people of Greater Manchester. We must honour the memory of Martyn and the work of Figen, whose campaign for Martyn’s law is not just a call for better security, but a testament to the power of love and community in the face of terror.
This legislation is intended to ensure that businesses and organisations are better prepared to deal with, and respond to, terror-related threats. The tragic Arena attack exposed deficiencies in the security of public venues. This Bill aims to address those gaps by imposing a legal duty on the owners and operators of public venues to assess the risk of terror-related security threats and implement proportionate security measures. Attention should be drawn to the party responsible for complying with the regulations set out in the Bill, which is the owner, the operator or the leaseholder of the venue. The Bill applies to any premises that, at times, will host 200 or more people, ranging from nightclubs and sports grounds to leisure centres, schools and universities.
A key distinction should be made, and is made, between the three categories to which the Bill applies: enhanced duty premises, which may expect 800 attendees from time to time; qualifying events, which are any event that will have public access and may host 800 or more attendees; and standard duty premises, which may host at least 200 people at times. I welcome the new threshold for standard duty premises of 200 individuals, which largely addresses the concerns raised by Action with Communities in Rural England and will reduce the burden on the organisers and operators of thousands of community-run venues, such as village halls, community halls and church halls. Such venues might be used for community groups, exercise classes and weddings in rural areas where the terrorist threat is usually low.
However, some concerns remain. The Bill grants the Home Secretary the power to lower the 200-person threshold to 100. Such a change should require a strong specific justification related to a clear and widespread threat, and in such cases less burdensome alternatives such as increased police engagement with smaller venues should be considered. We urge the Government to examine carefully whether the benefits of the Bill are proportional to the potential costs for smaller venues and their operators. Furthermore, the Bill contains little scope to train venue operators in their new responsibilities, leaving them preparing the required procedures with—in our view—not enough support. If the legislation is to be as effective as possible, the Government will need to address those concerns.
At this stage, the Liberal Democrats support Martyn’s law and look forward to further constructive scrutiny as it progresses through Parliament. It represents a step forward in ensuring the safety of our public spaces. The devastating attack at the Arena in 2017 serves as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities that exist and the heavy price we pay when they are exploited. We owe it to the victims and their families, and to every citizen, to learn from that tragedy and take measures to prevent it from happening again. By strengthening the security of our venues and enhancing our preparedness, we honour the memory of all those lost, and we demonstrate our commitment to protect the public from such senseless acts of terror.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Greater Manchester is my home. In a recent podcast, Sir Ian McKellen said:
“If you ever arrive in Manchester, if you’re lucky enough to be able to afford the train fare, you come down the steps at Piccadilly, and if you’re lucky enough to be able to afford a taxi, you get in the back of one, and the taxi driver—usually a man, but not always—says, ‘Where you going to, love?’”
He went on to say:
“Where grown men call strangers ‘love’. I think if we all did that, it would be a rather better place, wouldn’t it?”
That is the Greater Manchester I recognise and am proud of. Although I am not a native, I have come to know the warm, welcoming compassion of its people. This is the Greater Manchester that was shaken to its core by the unspeakable devastation caused by the Arena bombing—an act so far removed from the values of the place I now call home. I join the Home Secretary in commending the action Manchester took, effectively enacting Martyn’s law following that dreadful attack. I know that Members on all sides of the House who have visited our region, even for a brief moment, will recognise the warmth and compassion of which I speak.
This Bill, Martyn’s law, is an important step towards ensuring that no other family, no other mother and, indeed, no other parent has to endure the same pain and loss that Figen Murray and so many others have faced. Everyone in Greater Manchester and across the country should feel safe when they attend public venues, whether they are at a local theatre production, a concert or a football match, or simply enjoying a day out, and they should know that their children will be safe too.
In my part of Greater Manchester, Bolton North East, our vibrant arts sector is the heartbeat of the community. Local venues such as the Albert Halls and the Octagon theatre, which will fall under the standard tier of this legislation, play a vital role in bringing people together and providing spaces where families can celebrate creativity and culture. For smaller venues such as these, it is crucial that we strike the right balance, ensuring that both safety and culture can thrive side by side.
I would like to end by paying tribute to Figen and her campaign team, who have worked tirelessly to keep this Bill on the agenda. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the entire Home Office team and the Prime Minister for wasting no time in bringing Martyn’s law to the House within the first 100 days of this Government, and I look forward to supporting the Bill through the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I think it is right that at this moment we all pause to remember those who have lost their lives to acts of terrorism, and not just in recent years but across many decades.
I pay particular tribute to Figen Murray, Martyn Hett’s mother, whose role in this legislation has been recognised today by the whole House. Other families have lost loved ones to terrorism, but she has single-handedly championed Martyn’s law. I have had the great privilege of spending time with Figen, and with so many other families, and it is quite something, frankly, to listen to them speak not just of their concerns, heartbreak and suffering, but of their determined resolve to seek justice for their loved ones, and to steer this legislation across different political parties and bring it before Parliament. I do not have enough words to pay tribute to Figen and so many others, but I can say that the tragedy that has affected their lives has led them to stand tall.
There are other individuals such as Travis Frain, who has made such a big impact by standing up and giving voice to the victims of these atrocities, and they all deserve the greatest recognition and respect. They have shown a great deal of courage in dealing with the pain, suffering and trauma that they have experienced, and in working towards making our country and our community safe, and protecting other citizens from the suffering and hardship that they themselves have faced. It is a testament to their campaign that Martyn’s law has consistently attracted cross-party support.
I want to thank everyone in the House, including those on both Front Benches and the Home Affairs Committee, which examined the draft Bill, as well as everyone who has worked on progressing Martyn’s law from 2021 onwards. That was when the first consultation took place, for 18 weeks. It provided some startling insights into the public’s attitudes towards the protection of venues and the steps they wanted their Government to advance. So many people have been involved in this legislation, but I do want to pay tribute to a former Security Minister who worked on this with me in the Home Office. James Brokenshire, who was a diligent Security Minister, led this work. This month marks the third anniversary of his passing, and he will be in our thoughts.
Of course, our thoughts and prayers must also be with the family of Sir David Amess, whose murder took place three years ago tomorrow. We look at his plaque in the same way that we look at the plaque in memory of Jo Cox. They and their families were victims of some of the atrocities that have taken place in our country.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the right hon. Member for her tributes to David Amess and Jo Cox, and I join her in those tributes. David’s family will be very much in our hearts as we remember him tomorrow, as will Jo and all of her family. The right hon. Member is right to pay tribute to them, and I thank her for doing so.
Priti Patel
I thank the Home Secretary for her comments. Debates such as this concentrate all our minds and thoughts on how we must work together. It is so sad, but many of the Members here have spoken about Sir David and Jo, and in fact great security measures have then been enacted. Indeed, I pay tribute to Mr Speaker, staff members and everyone who has stepped up to do so. However, there is a threat here, which is the suffering, the loss and the pain, and as has been said in the debates thus far, the Manchester Arena tragedy will live with so many of us for so long.
I set up the inquiry when I was Home Secretary, and many of the findings of the important work of Sir John Saunders were absolutely shocking. The families had to sit through and participate in the inquiry, and they were retraumatised to a certain extent while giving evidence and listening to some of the failings, which was deeply painful. This is very much about the lessons we can learn collectively, and not just across Government but as a society. This Bill will always be in memory of Martyn, of course, but it is also in memory of the many others affected.
Sir John Hayes
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for setting up the inquiry, but those recommendations did not stop with this legislation. While it is important that we welcome this in the spirit that has imbued the debate so far, the recommendations on co-ordination and some of the failures in communication between different agencies—those recommendations were mentioned by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand)—do need to be acted on. Notwithstanding the spirit that I have described, it is important that that scrutiny continues and that we learn the lessons to which she has alluded.
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He will know very well from his own time in government, given the roles in which he served, that we have been privy to the details of some awful plans, plots and issues that could have inflicted a lot of problems on our country. We must always have these policies under review.
I want to pay tribute to the work of our security and intelligence services. Their work behind the scenes is just outstanding, and we are blessed in so many ways with the level of scrutiny, the work they do and the resources that come from Government. I want to pay tribute to the team that set up the counter-terrorism operations centre—a new organisation established by the previous Government during the last Parliament—which focuses on the integrated approach of our security services for a lot of the operational work that takes place. We should not just pay tribute to it, but recognise that this work always has to be kept under review, because the threats change. The nature of the threats evolves and changes constantly and, as we know, terrorism is not just domestic but takes place outside this country.
The Bill has had extensive consideration and consultation. It has taken into account the recommendations and details contained in reports and inquests from the Manchester Arena attack, and from the attacks at London bridge and here in Westminster, and other incidents, as is absolutely right. During my time at the Home Office, we gave a commitment to introduce a protect duty, which was welcomed across the House and by campaigners and many businesses, and that consultation was undertaken in 2021. We had to consult and consider carefully how best to implement that and improve public safety protections while being mindful of the many impacts on businesses to which the House has alluded—the need for those impacts to be proportionate and for burdens to be minimised—particularly on smaller businesses and venues, and contemplating the role and responsibilities of the regulator. The Home Secretary touched on some of those points.
Since then, the draft Bill was published last year and was considered by the Home Affairs Committee, and this year the standard tier consultation took place. The results were published last month with the Bill and, importantly, the provisions have been built on and some changes made. It is right that the details have been scrutinised. It is important that we recognise the patience of the campaigners who wanted the Bill to come forward much earlier, but we needed to get the technicalities and the details right. There is no point in bringing forward legislation if we cannot operationalise it.
The Home Secretary has spoken about the role of the SIA. We need to consider how the SIA will be equipped adequately. It was resourced heavily during the covid pandemic, with new duties and responsibilities, but again it is the practicalities that are important, because the Bill brings an estimated 179,000 premises under the scope of the requirements of Martyn’s law, with a distinction in place—some have a standard duty, as we have heard from the Secretary of State. It is right that the provisions are proportionate to the scale and size of premises and businesses, and that there is a link to the risk, but we do not want to see issues with the enforceability of the provisions, so I want to ask the Home Secretary and her team some questions in that regard.
The Home Secretary touched on the whole issue around the SIA, the regulator and the potential to enforce civil penalties, but we need to understand the practicalities, because she also highlighted that we do not want to put additional burdens on businesses through the work that has taken place already. If businesses are not stepping up—not learning from past mistakes and the recommendations of other inquiries—how will that be picked up? Penalties are one thing, but they should be the last resort; we need these institutions and organisations to put public safety and the practicalities first.
I hope that the Minister responding to the debate will talk about the impact on local authorities, including local councils and town parishes. What assurances can be given about the work under way with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support local authorities to meet these obligations, including through training, and considering the implications, practicalities and scope? Will there be financial support for them? What support will be given to schools and educational institutions on their standard duty?
Given the existing measures that some premises have in place to ensure compliance with fire safety, health and safety, and crime prevention requirements, will the Minister look carefully at the interplay between those responsibilities so that the guidance is not complicated but consistent and comprehensive, and that we assist premises in minimising cost burdens while allowing them to work in an integrated way? One big lesson from Manchester, and Sir John’s inquiry and the reporting— we know this, as it was in the public domain—was that there was a lack of integration between the various services working together. That absolutely has to be recognised. We must ensure there is a golden thread running through all the services locally, so they know how to integrate and work together. The impact assessment gives an estimate of the overall cost of the standard duty and the enhanced duty over a significant period, but there is again the question of the practicalities: what does this really mean for the many organisations and institutions that will be involved?
I seek clarity from the Minister about the role of planning policy in delivering Martyn’s law. This is important; with changes in planning policy, we might be able to make changes to the way in which buildings are shaped and designed, and to what local authorities take on board. We might be able to ensure that the relevant authorities receive advice and guidance from the police on how to design out some of these issues and put in safety measures, and bring in developers to introduce good designs and new concepts, future-proofing many institutions, buildings and developments.
I will touch on the nature of terror incidents and the premises that need to be considered, because we need procedures to examine how best to prevent incidents from taking place and places from becoming targets. Monitoring and surveillance is second nature to our institutions, but there is also the question of how premises hosting events should respond to a particular threat or even anticipate an incident—what kinds of processes and procedures will such premises be undertaking? Perhaps the Home Secretary or the Minister could talk a bit about some of the discussions they have had with key sectors. Live venues and events were discussed earlier, but have they been consulted not just on how they will design these incidents out but on the practical measures—the kind of work that will be undertaken or the drills that will be put in place?
There are a lot of lessons to learn just from recent incidents. We saw what happened at London bridge in 2017, which differed from the Finsbury Park attack, the Manchester Arena attack and the Reading Forbury Gardens attack as well. It is important that the SIA, the regulator and the Government work to ensure that those responsible for premises and events have the full duty, and can go into their own planning and preparations in the right way.
I will mention one particular inquiry that is taking place, as it is in the news today: the inquiry into the 2018 Novichok poisoning in Salisbury of Dawn Sturgess, chaired by Lord Hughes of Ombersley. The Government will naturally be considering the harm and damage that that caused, because the actions of a hostile state led to the most atrocious and appalling deaths of innocent people in our country. It reminds us all that incidents come in all shapes and guises, and that we need to find better ways to protect the public and put public safety first.
I conclude by asking the Minister about support for victims of terrorism. The Home Office has been conducting an internal review into the support package available to victims of terrorism, and considering the introduction of a national day of service and tribute to victims of terrorism. Travis Frain, whom the ministerial team will be familiar with and know of, has been a long-standing and deeply passionate campaigner for that. Ministers prior to the election were looking at this matter as well, so we would welcome even a small update on the Government’s thinking regarding support for victims of terrorism and on some of the work that Travis was leading.
I note from the programme motion that the Government are keen for the Bill to complete its Committee stage by mid-November. To ensure it progresses quickly, I hope that Members across both Houses will ask the right questions and work in a practical way with the industry—we have not even touched on the insurance industry but I am sure that will all be covered in Committee—and look at how we can start providing public protection and safety sooner rather than later. I say this in my concluding remarks, particularly recognising that Figen Murray and others are here today watching the debate, because we owe it to them, to their families and to so many who have suffered and who have been waiting in anticipation for this legislation. We owe it to them to enact these measures in a practical way: to give them and the public confidence, as they look to us all to drive this legislation forward with positive outcomes, sooner rather than later.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). I wish to make it clear at the start of my speech that I very much welcome this Bill, which means so much to so many, in Manchester in particular, for the reasons outlined by the Home Secretary, but also those affected by other terror attacks in our country, including my own community which was attacked on 3 June 2017 at London bridge and Borough market.
The Bill is targeted at protecting people from further incidents, primarily at large entertainment venues. This is very relevant to my constituency. Many former printworks in Rotherhithe are now live music venues; Members may be familiar with the Ministry of Sound at Elephant and Castle; and of course many will also be aware of the Young Vic. They could all be brought into the scope, and there are thousands of other smaller hospitality venues that could also be brought into scope for different levels of requirements under this legislation.
As has already been pointed out, we are at substantial risk of further attack, and the people whose motives are to attack us and our way of life sadly choose areas where there are multiple innocent civilians and there is likely to be an international impact, which makes constituencies and communities such as mine more vulnerable, because we have one of London’s busiest train stations. We have part of a world heritage site at Tower bridge. We have millions of visitors at Tate Modern and the Globe theatre, and the Shard itself, which are all sadly targets for those who seek to disrupt or destroy our way of life. I need this Bill to be effective to ensure that my constituents can go about their business and way of life routinely, with minimal fear.
My community did receive a visit from the then Prime Minister Theresa May after the attack in 2017, which was welcome, but the level of support from former Governments was not sufficient. The strength to rebuild the community and the footfall at Borough market and more widely came from the local community, and our community is still indebted to the former dean of Southwark cathedral, Andrew Nunn—now retired—who led and shaped some of the work with his team. There was also the work of the Borough market trust and others, from individual traders who operate as very small businesses right through to large restaurants and traders across London. Many other local businesses played their part, including Barclays bank on Borough High Street, which provided facilities for those locked out of their own premises. News UK, which does not often get praise from this party, provided a generous voucher scheme for hundreds of its employees to ensure that the market was receiving more business sooner, for which traders were incredibly grateful.
I am almost apologetic in raising this matter, because it sounds niche, but one issue that concerns me is the security barriers and the bollards. Seven years on, there have been many issues in trying to ensure sufficient external protection for venues. That comes back to the nature of the attacks we see. Manchester was very different from London bridge and Borough market. Many of the more recent terror attacks we have seen have involved vehicles and knives and blades. Vehicle protections are an issue for many venues that will be covered by the legislation, but they will not be able to act alone in installing protective measures. Clauses 11 and 12 of the previous draft Bill required risk assessments but did not confer sufficient requirements on all agencies involved with responsibility for preparedness to prevent an attack. That is my reading, and I hope that Ministers will address that as the Bill goes forward.
The dispute resolution system set out in clauses 18 to 20 of that document cover use of a premises and venue, but not shared spaces or communal areas. For example, in Southwark we have the entrances and exits from Transport for London roads, Southwark Council roads and communal shared space partly owned by the Borough market trust. Where there is a mixture of owners and responsibilities, there needs to be a clearer means of delivering the change required to make the legislation effective. That needs to be looked at. Do the Government need to work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to improve the planning process so that where measures are identified, perhaps in a risk assessment as in clauses 11 and 12 of the previous draft Bill, there could be a fast-track process for getting them implemented through planning? There are other plans for this Government to improve the planning system, and that would be a sensible measure to take forward.
Then we have the measure on reviewing preparedness. I was grateful to Pool Reinsurance, which was helpful after the attack in talking through the changes that the Government made to terror insurance, which I supported at the time. One of the issues it raised was whether there was sufficient coverage. It seems reasonable additionally to require those with duties under the provisions as set out in clauses 11 and 12 of the previous draft Bill to have terror insurance. That insurance could be integral to protections and preparedness, and a means of drawing down on insurance systems could be written into the Bill.
When it comes to security measures, I do not think that the largesse, generosity or imagination of an individual firm should determine whether they will allow venues to draw down on their insurance. There needs to be a minimum requirement. To give a practical example, when lots of Henry Moore pieces were being stolen across London and elsewhere and melted down, Southwark council said, “We had better get rid of ours”, but actually, we worked instead with the insurer to build some protective measures, such as a plinth alarm, deep planters with concrete bases and CCTV. Those were all paid for by the insurer, rather than targeted at the residents who have this amazing piece in their backyard. Again, this should not be about the imagination of an individual insurer. Perhaps training could be provided by Pool Reinsurance or another actor, or covered by them. Pool Reinsurance could provide an annual review of preparedness. The number of venues with protection could be reported back to Parliament or put in the public domain at no cost to the Home Office, because Pool Re provides something along similar lines elsewhere. I hope Ministers will examine that.
The former Home Secretary also mentioned local authorities and licensing. I agree that the previous Government loaded additional responsibilities with no new resources on to many councils, including my own, with no recourse to public funds being a very significant one. This is another area where I have a concern—I think the Government’s intent is clear, but can full cost recovery be available for local authorities that are having to assess? Some authorities, such as mine, will have more responsibility in delivering that, and local taxpayers should not bear the cost of providing protective measures to defend everyone who visits those venues. It should be a matter of full cost recovery. I hope that that will be made clearer in the Bill.
That being said, I support this legislation. I hope the issues I have briefly referenced will be addressed as the legislation progresses. We all come here to make a difference. This legislation will not just make a difference, but save lives, and it will weaken the chances of those who seek to attack us and undermine our way of life. I am glad it is being welcomed by everyone across the House today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. You must bob if you wish to contribute. I call Rachel Gilmour to make her maiden speech.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Thank you for calling me to make my maiden speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I do, may I commend Figen Murray and her family and friends for the excellent campaign they have continued, completely selflessly? I am sure it will save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of people. They are a great example to us all.
I confess to being unusually nervous—as indeed I should be—as I address my honourable colleagues across the House for the first time as the first Member of Parliament for Tiverton and Minehead. I would like to begin by thanking the two previous MPs for Tiverton and Minehead. My fellow Liberal Democrat, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), has happily been returned by his constituents as their MP, where he will continue to be a hard-working local champion. I am also grateful for the 23 years of service that my predecessor in Bridgwater and West Somerset, Ian Liddell-Grainger, in his own inimitable style, gave to my constituents in that part of my constituency. He is a doting grandfather, who will now have more time to spend with his grandchildren. I also want to thank Rebecca Pow, the former Member for Taunton Deane, who is a prolific gardener—vegetables are a particular favourite, I understand—and whose constituency encompassed some of the villages and towns now in Tiverton and Minehead, as well as the constituency of Taunton and Wellington.
As a new Member of Parliament, this place, even though it bears a resemblance to my alma mater, is a difficult and different environment to master. I know that I speak for all new Members when I thank all members of staff of the parliamentary estate, from Doorkeepers to police officers to catering and cleaning staff. I thank them all for their warm welcome, and for their tolerance and patience with the numerous questions they answer with humour and understanding. Thank you all.
Since September last year, my team, known as “Team Terrific and The Stalwarts”, have knocked on nearly 31,000 doors, delivered hundreds of thousands of leaflets, letters and surveys and spoken to over 12,000 residents. I know what matters to the people of Tiverton and Minehead because I have asked them.
I was raised in Somerset and have spent most of my adult life in Devon, from Holcombe Rogus via Hemyock to Bampton in the Tiverton and Minehead constituency. My husband and I chose to raise our family in Devon. In fact, all four of our children are born Devonians. Our eldest sons, Henry and Tom, were born in the old hospital in Tiverton. It is my sincere intention to support the NHS and social care systems in Tiverton and Minehead by keeping our local hospitals open in Minehead, Tiverton and Williton, and by supporting all our GP surgeries.
Ours is a very rural area and the need to keep local hospitals open is especially pressing given limited transport links and a higher-than-average elderly population. As mine is a rural and often disconnected constituency, transport improvements are one of my key priorities. With that at the forefront of my mind, I have convened a meeting with Peninsula Transport, the body that oversees all public transport in Devon and Somerset. Along with my transport adviser, David Northey, who has a deep history in this area as a former head of strategic planning at Great Western Railway, I have been hard at work for my constituents, putting together a transport plan and highlighting the challenges and solutions for rail and bus services across Tiverton and Minehead.
Minehead train station desperately needs linking to the main line at Taunton; I know that my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Mr Amos) would agree. We need also to secure the number 25 and 28 bus services in the north of the constituency and look carefully at rural bus routes to service the villages of Exmoor, such as Exford, Withypool and Winsford, along with local towns, particularly Wiveliscombe. Those will be key parts of that new plan for the local area.
Poor public transport provision creates a particular barrier to schoolchildren and students in Tiverton and Minehead. Some have no bus to take them to school, no way to walk to school or no way to cycle to get there. Other than the small A-level provision at West Somerset college, there is no—I repeat, no—sixth-form provision in my constituency. Students have to travel to Exeter, Taunton or Bridgwater if they wish to pursue their studies. That limits their aspirations and ability to succeed. Shockingly, West Somerset ranks 324th out of 324 on the social mobility index, and such transport problems explain some of why that is.
However, teachers and heads of primary schools across the constituency and of secondary schools in Tiverton, Minehead, Williton and Uffculme do not lack aspiration for their pupils. They are working daily to improve access to better education. That includes campaigning to have facilities worthy of 21st-century educational standards.
The first letter I wrote, within days of getting elected on 5 July, was to our new Secretary of State for Education, asking for a meeting to discuss the dire state of Tiverton high school. Nearly 25 years ago—I repeat, 25 years ago —Tiverton high school was promised a new build. The previous Labour Government put it on their priority list. The last Conservative Government sat on their hands and did nothing. The school is deemed by the Environment Agency to be a “danger of death” from flooding. There is asbestos in the sports hall, and children are being taught in dining and communal areas. It has capacity for 1,300 pupils but needs capacity for 1,800. Given the pledges made by our new Prime Minister and his commitment to schools, I know that I will get a fair hearing from the Secretary of State for Education. I hope that she will agree to meet a delegation of staff, parents and children from Tiverton high school in the near future.
Community plays a crucial role in Tiverton and Minehead. There are wonderful organisations providing support and help, from community food banks to support groups for carers, to Rotary clubs, conservation groups and the environmental networks with which I work to monitor and prevent the pollution in our rivers and on our beaches. Those organisations all make Tiverton and Minehead the wonderful, beautiful, special part of the UK that it is. When they meet to discuss important community issues, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill will ensure that they are safe. However, my party has previously had concerns about the impact on smaller-scale venues; I am delighted to hear today that the approach is more light touch than expected.
As a former director of the National Farmers Union, I have a deep passion for and understanding of my local farming community, who are spread across the constituency and facing harder challenges than they have for generations. That is thanks to the disastrous Brexit deal foisted upon them by the previous Conservative Government. In the face of climate change, increased rainfall, dryer summers and the rising cost of energy, they battle on. To them I say, “I will always back my farming community. Let’s work together to secure a future for farming across Exmoor, West Somerset and mid Devon. Come to my monthly farmers’ surgeries so that I can represent my farming community to the very best of my abilities.”
Becoming an MP has been my ambition since I was 17, when I joined the Liberal party at school. It has taken me four attempts over 43 years of campaigning, but now that dream has become a reality. Without my family, it would have been impossible. As a professional woman, I have broken several glass ceilings thanks to my inspirational grandmothers, Mabel and Jesse, who offered wise counsel; to Miss Whaite, now Mrs Michael Limb, my Latin teacher, who kept me sane at boarding school; and especially to my mother, who has always believed in me. Mummy, thank you—I love you. I am so proud to have her here today with my husband and our eldest son in the Gallery, so that she can see this moment.
Yesterday I celebrated my three-score-years birthday; I say to my Conservative colleagues, whose maths skills in government were found somewhat wanting, that that is 60. I share my birthday with Margaret Hilda Thatcher, who must be one of the best recruiting agents for the Liberal and Labour parties. I am proud that I share nothing with her other than a birthday. My passion for politics flows from my compassion for my fellow human beings—whoever and wherever they are, irrespective of background, race, religion, colour, gender, sexuality or ability.
It is impossible to mention everyone and everything in one’s maiden speech, but if there is one thing that I wish my constituents to know it is this: they are my world. I feel humbled and honoured to have been elected to represent Tiverton and Minehead in Parliament. They can help me do my job by coming to my surgeries at Tiverton and Minehead, Wiveliscombe and on Exmoor, by ringing my office and my staff, and by writing us letters and emails. I am at their service.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Fabulous at 60! Mabel, Jesse and your mum will be very proud. Now we have another maiden speech. I call Matt Bishop.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) and a privilege to speak to the Chamber today as the new hon. Member for Forest of Dean. First, I extend my good wishes to my predecessor, Mark Harper, for his 19 years of service to Forest of Dean. A few years ago, when I was chair of governors at St White’s primary school in Cinderford, Mark helped secure funding for a new school building. We worked together to finally get the school what it so badly needed, after 40 years of it crumbling. His help was instrumental during that time, and I appreciate all that he did for us.
I am the second Labour MP and only the third ever MP to represent the Forest of Dean constituency since its recreation in 1997. I agree wholeheartedly with what both my predecessors, Mark and the great Diana Organ, stated in their maiden speeches: that Forest of Dean really is the most beautiful constituency in the UK. I know that many others have also made that claim over the last year, but how many can boast that their constituency landscapes have graced the screens of iconic shows and films? Puzzlewood, for example, has served as the stunning backdrop for many shows, including “Doctor Who” and even a “Star Wars” movie. That brings the beauty of the forest to the big screen, allowing individuals from all over the world an insight into the place that I call home.
I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to visit the forest, where they will witness not only its natural beauty but a collection of individuals and groups who understand the importance of community. We have inspiring organisations such as the Forest Voluntary Action Forum, which supports many community-led projects, shaped with and for local people, and the Wilderness Centre, which provides exceptional day and residential visits for schools from the primary, secondary and independent sectors.
That community spirit is also evident through the actions of individuals. Just a few weeks ago, we experienced some localised flooding after the intense rainfall; as the constituency is rural, many areas, roads and houses became almost impossible to reach. During the floods, I saw local farmers in places such as Westbury-on-Severn and Sedbury coming to people’s rescue without hesitation, picking people up in their tractors and getting them home safely. I might have been one of the lucky ones who received that help. It is this spirit of solidarity that inspired me to move to the forest 17 years ago—the place where my wife grew up, and the place where we chose to raise our children, surrounded by a community full of kind-hearted individuals.
However, certain issues persist that require urgent attention. Many residents experience isolation because of inadequate public transport and a lack of community centres. There is a shortage of bus services, with limited routes and poorly maintained roads. With only 5% of the constituency in built-up areas, substantially improving public transport is vital for relationships to thrive and to combat the isolation that many residents feel. I welcome my constituents’ campaigns to turn the site of the former Dilke Memorial hospital into a mental health and wellbeing centre. Campaigning for a dedicated space within the community highlights the drive and determination of my constituents to ensure that no one is left behind.
Finally, throughout my career in public service I have been exposed to the great challenges in our society, and I appreciate the vital role that national Government, local councils, and the community play in addressing those issues. I served for many years as a police officer, including four years here in London for the Metropolitan police. On 7 July 2005, I was one of the first officers on the scene at the Tavistock Square bus bombing, where I saw at first hand the horror, destruction and chaos caused by such despicable acts of terror. I was also struck by the many admirable examples of courage and determination demonstrated by the emergency services, injured victims and members of the public. Perhaps now it is only right that we take a second to remember and pay tribute to all those who lost their lives or were injured during the attacks on our country on 7 July 2005. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
My time as a police officer has shown me the importance of ensuring that our residents feel safe, and I am acutely aware that the security of our communities, locally and nationally, must be a priority for the Government. That is why I chose this debate to make my maiden speech. I wholeheartedly support Martyn’s law, and I am pleased to see it implemented so early in this Labour Government.
Education is another particularly prominent issue in my constituency. As a former governor in multiple schools and as a local councillor, I have seen how national policy directly affects our local education system, which has long suffered as a result of funding decisions made over the past 14 years. During a recent visit to Forest high school in Cinderford, I was alarmed by the state of the school buildings, which were crumbling before my eyes. It is no exaggeration to say that classrooms were flooded, ceilings were collapsing, and the flooring was falling to pieces. We can have the best teachers in the world, but without a basic safe building, how can they provide the education that they want to provide? Our children deserve better, and they deserve better now. They deserve schools that inspire learning and growth, not schools that are collapsing. In recent years, the state of our schools has been forgotten. I, along with the new Labour Government, will not allow this to continue.
There is a song about the Forest of Dean which my constituents will know, called “The Land Between Two Rivers”, written by a constituent, Dick Brice.
Matt Bishop
Later. The song pretty much sums up our constituency. For too long those rivers, the Wye and Severn, have suffered from pollution and sewage issues. The communities in Newnham on Severn, Lydbrook, Lydney and many more villages and towns have rallied to demand action from the Government, and I am committed to bringing their voices to Parliament to reinvigorate the ecosystem and protect our wildlife.
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud to stand before you as a representative of the people of the Forest of Dean. This position is a responsibility I take seriously, and I aim to serve with the same dedication and spirit of co-operation that I observe in our community.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I join others in the House in paying tribute to Figen Murray and her fellow campaigners, who have been tireless advocates for positive change. I also congratulate two new Members on their maiden speeches. I can tell the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) that we could all do with a team of terrific stalwarts. I am sure that Mabel and Jesse will both be looking down, incredibly proud of her comments. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) for his service as a police officer and the courage that he showed in carrying out his duties.
There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind about the importance of today’s debate. The horrific events that took place at Manchester Arena are forever etched in our collective memory. My thoughts are with all those affected by those and other terrorist attacks that we have sadly witnessed in recent years. When we are shaken by such egregious events, that reinforces the fact that the first responsibility of any Government, and of all of us on the green Benches, is the protection and safety of our citizens. It is incumbent on us to take action to prevent these tragic moments in history from repeating themselves. That is why I believe that the Bill is necessary to bring peace of mind and reassurance, and to enable us to stand up to those who seek to harm us and tear our communities apart.
Notwithstanding my overarching support for the Bill, I note the significant requirements it places on the events, entertainment, and hospitality industries. Many in these industries are still recovering from the legacy of the pandemic. The financial requirements for compliance with the Bill add further pressures. I therefore invite the Minister to consider offering financial and logistical support, especially to smaller organisations that struggle to predict footfall. That is particularly pertinent to those premises that experience seasonal peaks and troughs over the course of the year. As the Bill currently stands, those local establishments will still fall under qualifying premises, as defined in clause 2(2)(c), and will be required to put in extra measures at personal cost.
Terrorist attacks evolve at a rapid pace—much faster, as we have seen recently, than the time it takes for legislation to pass through the House. I therefore ask the Minister, first, what consideration has been given to accommodating that? Secondly, will there be regular reviews of the threats and countermeasures through the governing body? Finally, in its current state, the Bill does not accommodate organisations run by volunteers and temporary staff. Large places of worship and sporting venues rely on the good will of volunteers and paid agency staff at peak times. I therefore ask the Minister to engage with such organisations, to find a training arrangement that suits their capabilities as well as meeting the threshold of safety and security sought in the Bill. Those queries aside, I welcome the introduction of the Bill.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
First, I thank Figen Murray for her tireless campaigning. I wish to speak in favour of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, which represents a vital step forward in our collective responsibility to keep people safe.
The tragic events in Manchester reminded us all too clearly of the need for practical measures to safeguard our public spaces and of our vulnerabilities. The Bill provides a framework to ensure that venues and businesses take appropriate steps to protect the public from the threat of terrorism, and I fully support its aims. The need for the Bill is clear. Terrorism remains a real and persistent threat, and we have seen in Manchester, Birmingham and London that terrorism and terrorists are blind to the loss of human life. Public venues are often the target of those who seek to harm us. The Bill will ensure that public spaces are better equipped to manage potential risk, reducing the likelihood of attacks and mitigating their impact if they do occur. We have a duty to protect our constituents, whether they are attending a religious service, a wedding or a concert.
About 2,000 businesses in Dudley could be affected by the legislation, based on VAT and PAYE registrations. It is our responsibility to ensure that those places are not only secure but supported in taking the necessary steps to keep their doors open and their customers safe. The Bill places a duty on venues and businesses to assess their risk and take reasonable steps to mitigate them. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach: the security measures will be proportionate to the size and type of venue. Larger venues such as stadiums will need to implement more comprehensive protections, while smaller ones can adopt simpler measures—I agree with that.
By providing clear guidance and support, the Bill will contribute to the collective safety of our communities. That said, we must be mindful of the challenges that it may pose, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, charities and places of worship. In Dudley, such institutions are the backbone of the community, providing support and a safe space for people to gather. Many of them are concerned about the potential costs and operational demands that the Bill may bring. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a risk-based approach to ensure that smaller organisations are not required to implement the same level of security as larger ones, and I am encouraged by the idea of providing tailored guidance and practical support. I hope that that will be further developed as the Bill progresses.
The Bill is an important and necessary step in protecting our communities from the threat of terrorism. It strikes the right balance between providing security and ensuring that the measures are practical and appropriate. I look forward to working with colleagues in the House and with the Government to ensure that the Bill delivers to our communities the safety and security that they so desperately deserve, and provides the necessary steps for those who have been affected.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
We have heard from many Members who have huge venues in their constituencies, including the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who mentioned Ministry of Sound. I take this opportunity to add a voice for rural venues such as those in my constituency.
Clearly, the Bill is necessary to protect the safety of the millions across the country who enjoy events. The legislation needs extremely careful planning and scrutiny to ensure that small venues are not put at risk by additional red tape. In rural constituencies such as North Cornwall, small to medium events are truly the lifeblood that brings together far-flung communities, and have been for generations. Under clause 4, thousands of community and volunteer-run venues will be designated responsible for any failures and are liable to face strict penalties.
I am invited to, and often visit, small venues around Cornwall, and I see at first hand the joy, spirit and positivity that they inject into their surrounding communities.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I am glad that the hon. Member mentions rural communities, because the stain of terror reaches across the United Kingdom. One of the victims of the Ariana Grande attack was Eilidh MacLeod, a 14-year-old schoolgirl from the isle of Barra, whose mother, like many other parents in hearing the report, felt the ground shake and heard the blast that took the lives of Eilidh and 22 others. The response in Barra has been to set up a musical trust in Eilidh’s name to allow other young people to reach their potential. That response, as well as that of the Murray family in their tremendous campaign, shows that terrorism will not divide us, and our collective response here shows that although it may cast a shadow on the hearts and lives of those left behind, it will not diminish us.
Ben Maguire
I completely agree that terrorism should never divide us—what an excellent phrase.
I fear that if we are not realistic and proportionate with the details of the Bill, cherished and beloved venues in my constituency, such the Hayward cider farm, the Royal Cornwall show, countless pubs—including the St Mabyn Inn, and the Golden Lion in Port Isaac—and the BEAT in Bodmin, as well as community centres, could take a hit, especially in the summer, when thousands enjoy the outdoors. Venues with lots of outdoor space can easily reach the 200-capacity threshold. Of course, the safety and security of event-goers should always be kept at the top of our priorities when planning large-scale events, but we must not look overlook the unrealistic necessity for thousands of smaller venues to comply with strict restrictions, facing fines in the thousands of pounds for non-compliance.
Clause 13 gives the SIA the power to issue compliance notices if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that a regulation has been contravened.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as training, there is a need to consider the regulation around the SIA? Over the past five years the SIA has granted licences to a staggering 95,000 door supervisors who have not been resident in the UK for five years, so we cannot even know their history or criminal records. Does he agree that personnel working in that field not only need to be well trained, but must have the confidence of the public?
Ben Maguire
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.
I hope that small venues are given the opportunity to remedy contraventions before any notice is issued. Likewise, clause 14 provides for restriction notices on non-compliant venues. The Secretary of State said in her remarks that penalties will be issued only to repeat offenders. On that point, I hope that there will be mechanisms and training to prevent such repeat offences.
I also have concerns about the penalties set out in clause 18, which provides for fines of up to £10,000 on standard duty premises. As I have said, that could finish off some of our smaller venues if they do not receive proper training or the opportunity to remedy such a contravention. On the protection of smaller venues, I am concerned about the provision that allows the Home Secretary to drop the capacity threshold from 200 to 100. The circumstances in which that can be done should be tightly defined.
The way a venue’s capacity is defined will also need careful thought. A community hall might be able to take 200 people in theory, but in practice that might be extremely rare. I am pleased to see that the capacity figure has been increased to 200 from the initial 100, which I welcome, and I will watch the progress of that provision keenly in Committee to ensure that it remains. Provided that those protections are put in place, the Liberal Democrats will of course support this crucial Bill. Safety and security must always be paramount.
I will end my remarks with a quote from Brendan Cox, the husband of the late Jo Cox MP and founder of Survivors Against Terror:
“Survivors of terror attacks aren’t looking for sympathy. They are looking for change that makes it less likely that others will endure what they have.”
I am pleased to support the Bill and to see support for it across the House.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
As so many have done, I begin by paying tribute to Figen Murray and the campaigners for Martyn’s law. Responding to such tragedy by trying to make the world a better place deserves our highest admiration.
I am pleased that the Government have introduced this important legislation so quickly in the parliamentary Session. The threat that the country faces is “substantial.” That means that it is complex, enduring and evolving, so it is right that in response we adapt and update the legislation we use to prevent and deal with terror. The terror threat consistently changes. We used to worry about attacks on national infrastructure or iconic sites; now we worry about them at concerts and in bars. That is why it is critical that we strengthen security at public events.
I am a representative of Edinburgh, a city known for putting on numerous events, especially in August. Its festival is the third biggest ticketed event in the world. I spoke to Edinburgh city council in advance of this debate, which told me that it was hugely supportive of this legislation, which will help not only the council but all the venues and premises in the city to prepare for a terrorist attack. Edinburgh offers itself as a pilot site, if the Home Office is interested in testing how the legislation will work in practice.
Combating the evolving terrorist threat means adapting and updating, which the Bill does. It also means recognising that combating terrorism requires a multi-pronged approach—one of the most important components of the Bill. It includes measures to prevent a terror attack and put obstacles in the way of terrorists, but what is new and important is that it provides for premises to develop the way in which they will handle an attack once it has begun. That is critical. Getting venues to think, prepare and develop protocols before an event and before the emergency services arrive on the scene is how to minimise casualties and save lives. That is an important component of our national defences against terror.
On the specific point about the use of the SIA as a regulator, I welcome that, and I think it is the appropriate place for regulation.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I praise the Government for bringing Martyn’s law before the House so swiftly, and I echo the words of campaigners in the memory of Martyn and all those killed in terrorist attacks in our country. I also give thanks to the security services. Given the planned introduction of the Bill and the recent announcement that the SIA will be the regulator, many businesses in the security industry, such as the brilliant Vespasian in Portsmouth North, have asked whether the Minister will review the current SIA’s core legislation and powers to support the industry, in order to implement the law and its invaluable work on our frontline to counter terrorism and save lives.
Chris Murray
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Discussions are to be held about the role of the SIA as it adapts to the changes.
The SIA is an appropriate body to regulate this legislation, but in 15 long years of dealing with the Home Office and its bodies and authorities, I have found that often these organisations are overstretched and struggle with the diversity of organisations that they have to deal with in the UK. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), said that there is no point in legislating if we are unable to operationalise. I implore the Minister to look into the SIA’s funding and resources, to ensure that this legislation has the desired effect.
National security is a reserved matter, but some aspects of the Bill touch on devolved issues, such as fire services, justice and policing. I hope that the Home Office will work constructively with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations to ensure that the implementation is as smooth as possible across the nations of the United Kingdom. I strongly support the Bill. I am very pleased to see it come so swiftly to Parliament, and I look forward to the impact it will have in the communities that want it.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I support Martyn’s law without reservation. It is important that we salute the campaigning and the courage of Martyn’s family, and it is appropriate that colloquially the Bill is named Martyn’s law. What happened in Manchester was shocking and chills us all to the core. It is reflective of so many brutal, wicked acts of terrorism that have been experienced right across this nation, not least in my own part of the United Kingdom.
Here we are today properly debating, under the rules of due process and doing things in order, rules and laws to help us deal with terrorism. But we are conscious that terrorists play by no rules: they do not live within the confines of regulation, restraint or anything that would meet the standards of human rights—quite the reverse. To that extent, society as a whole struggles on occasion to deal with the excesses of terrorism, because of its determination to live within the rule of law. That is all the more reason why we need to do everything we can, even in the small things.
In the main, this Bill is about the small things of dealing with terrorism, to try to put ourselves in the best possible position to deal with the potential threat of terrorism that, sadly, exists across this nation. In doing that, we have to be realistic that dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s is good and necessary, but fundamentally terrorism will be defeated across this nation only when there is no room for it; when it meets the full rigour of the law and that puts it out of business. That is the fundamental reality.
I want to make a few comments about some of the particulars of the Bill. I have some concerns about its potential overreach. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) touched on some of them. Small schools and churches will now be subject to further regulatory requirements. I chair the board of governors of a small country school. We already have to have policies on fire safety, health and safety, and dealing with emergencies. That is all good and necessary, but I would like the Minister to explain what practical additions will be put upon small rural schools and their boards of governors. What will they have to provide that they are not already providing in their emergency, fire safety, and health and safety policies? Boards of governors in particular will want to know that, because they operate within very constrained budgets. In the school that I am involved with, every penny is accounted for and needed for fundamental provision.
I am concerned that, in its global approach, the Bill might put unbearable bureaucratic and financial burdens on very small users. The impact assessment says that the majority of the cost will fall upon the businesses that have to operate within it. That also means small schools, churches, community organisations and all the rest of it. That concerns me.
Earlier an hon. Member asked what the Bill will do to deal with previously planted devices, which are often deployed by terrorists. It is hard to see the impact, without counter-terrorist measures such as x-raying. I make that point mindful that just this weekend we marked the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the Grand hotel in Brighton, where one of the most audacious terrorist attacks, which aimed to kill the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, was perfected by the planting of a bomb in that hotel weeks before. We need to consider what would help to deal with that kind of situation. That is why I am a little bit concerned that the Home Secretary said there would be no measures in the Bill to require physical steps to be taken. If a hotel, leisure centre or large arena has a deficiency in its CCTV coverage that is observable by the SIA or whoever else—as there was in Manchester, where the terrorists were cute enough to pick out the CCTV blind spots—is it not sensible, if we are going to put in place protective measures, that physical measures could and should be included, such as identifying gaps in CCTV coverage, so that in the event of an outrage there is at least a better prospect of bringing the perpetrators to justice? That might also act as a deterrent. In fighting terrorism, deterrence is very often as important as anything else. It is our duty to ensure that that is so.
I will just touch on a couple of other points in the Bill. I note that clause 31, on civil liability, states:
“nothing in this Part confers a right of action in any civil proceedings in respect of any contravention of a requirement imposed on any person by or under this Part.”
That causes me to question. Most or all our buildings are covered by the occupiers’ liability legislation, which is premised on the duty of care of the occupier to their visitors. How can we say, in clause 31, that if we are going to impose obligations in respect of taking steps to protect against the potential of terrorist attack and those steps are not taken, that will not create the basis for civil action? Surely that is an indicator and a contributor to the question of whether or not the duty of care was fulfilled to the visitor. It puzzles me why clause 31 is in those terms.
The final thing I wanted to say relates to the SIA. We are giving a lot of powers to an organisation which, frankly, has not always covered itself in glory. I speak of my own part of the United Kingdom, where the SIA has issued licences to some dubious characters. It is not beyond the wit of terrorists—some of us have seen this—to set themselves up as so-called security firms and apply for licences. Do not ever fall into the trap of thinking that terrorists act by the rules we act by and that they would not do that. Yes, they would.
The SIA has been found wanting. In Northern Ireland, we recently had a case of gross overreach by the SIA, where it brought a prosecution that the judge said had to be stopped and should never have been brought. The SIA spent £200,000 and the case involved illegal searches of property, so it is not a body that is a ready recipient for extra powers. I worry that we will overburden it, if it is to do the job in the way that it needs to be done. I therefore say to the Minister that maybe the SIA is not the right regulatory body, because it already has a huge burden of work and it has not always been successful in what it does.
We want to that we—the elected representatives of this House who want to protect our constituents from the most hideous things, namely terrorist attacks—do all we reasonably can, and that means getting this legislation right.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I rise to welcome the Bill and the cross-party support for it that we have seen in this debate. Seven years ago, I was in the education sector and I worked with a group of trainee paramedics. Those trainee paramedics were deployed on that night in Manchester to the scene of the bombing. They were students, and they ran into the danger and into scenes that are scarcely seen outside battlefields. The support they needed is the reason I support the Bill. I think it is right thing to do. I commend the campaigning by Martyn’s family and by all others who have campaigned for justice for victims of terror. This is the right Bill, because its provisions are common sense. The tiered approach is the right one to ensure that an undue burden is not placed on small businesses and that the legal duty on providers is a reasonable measure.
There was another group of students from that university who, sadly, were affected by terror that same year, just weeks before. They were referred to earlier by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). One is a friend of mine, Travis Frain, who I know Members across the House will be familiar with. He has been campaigning passionately for victims of terror for years, since his experience in that incident. He carried out a survey of over 300 victims of terror, and found that 76% of victims were either unable to access psychological treatment, or rated it to be poor or abysmal. That is unacceptable. That is why Travis has been calling for guarantees on minimum standards for access to psychological treatment and physiotherapy, as well as legal and financial assistance for victims of terror. He has also been calling, as the right hon. Lady referred to, for the publication of the review that was carried internally within the Home Office, so that campaigners can campaign on those recommendations and ensure they are put into action.
We know further actions are needed, but the Bill is an important first step to move towards justice for the victims. It is a fitting tribute to the victims, the families and all those who ran towards the danger.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the Secretary of State for her introduction and for setting the scene so well with passion, delivery and understanding. As I said earlier, there is no one in the Chamber who could oppose the Bill. There is the question of whether it goes far enough—Members have indicated some issues may need to be addressed further down the line—but that is for the future. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their speeches. Martyn’s law is aptly named after one of those who tragically died in the carnage of the attack on children and young people in the Manchester bombing. I do not think there is anyone who has not shed a tear over that. It lingers long.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak about this issue. As many Members will know, the people of Northern Ireland have an unfortunate history of terrorism which greatly influenced the way in which we lived our lives for many years, as we heard from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Those are scars that we live with and will live with for all our days, for they will never go away. We used to check under our cars. I served as a part-time soldier for some 14 and a half years, and checkpoints manned by soldiers or officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary were the norm as they attempted to protect life and prevent acts of terror. We became conditioned to ensuring that at any event, people had half an eye on the possibility of terrorist attacks.
I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, because he and I have been friends in the House for a long time, and I know that he brings to the House personal knowledge based on his own gallant service. We appreciate it very much, and I am putting that on the record for Hansard.
I want to give a couple of examples of what was referred to by the hon. Member for North Antrim. One is the indiscriminate shooting at a church hall in Darkley, during which IRA gunmen murdered three elders welcoming their 70-strong congregation of men, women and children with no affiliation to any organisations, and, indeed, with no other qualification other than to be Protestant. The gunmen came into the hall shooting, and stopped only when, after the pastor cried out, the gun jammed; and the gunman ran out to continue spraying the church with bullets from the outside with his semi-automatic rifle. The question that I pose here tonight is this: what will be done to ensure that churches—and schools, which the hon. Member also mentioned—receive the protection that they need?
After the atrocity of the Darkley murders, every church that I knew of in Northern Ireland ensured that there were men at the door and an evacuation plan for crèches and children’s church facilities in particular. Indeed, child protection training took place automatically after that event of many years ago, and I know that in that church, and in other faith buildings, evacuation procedures are standard to this day. Those who volunteer in the crèches are given routes to send children to freedom should something go wrong. This is our lived experience in Northern Ireland, owing to the evil men who pushed an evil agenda and destroyed the innocence of a nation—but not its spirit.
No one wants these horrors to be a reality, but in Northern Ireland they have been. Our restaurants have a history of being targeted. In the La Mon hotel, which used to be in my constituency, a napalm-type bomb not only took the lives of 12 members of the Collie Club who were having dinner there, but horrifically burned and injured a further 30 people. One of them was Billy McDowell, who died about four weeks ago. Since that time, our hotels have had procedures in place to deal with that dreaded warning phone call.
We have had horrific experiences. We do not like to boast about them, and I am not boasting now. We did things voluntarily because they were the right things to do, and I think that the Bill brings us closer to doing the same things here. The people of Northern Ireland dealt with these horrors and the evil nature that drives them. The police force was so specialised that former RUC officers still train police forces around the world, including in the Balkans, Africa, and countries in the middle and far east. Our expertise is one that I wish with all my heart we did not possess, but it was once rooted so deeply in our minds that someone leaving a shopping bag behind was a cause for the evacuation of shopping centres. That is why I believe that although we cannot live in a lockdown mode, such basic considerations must be standard. The Police Service of Northern Ireland have expertise, knowledge and skills that are transferable, and they should and must be part of the Bill.
I hope that the Minister, who I know will respond to the debate in a positive and helpful fashion because he always does, will tell us the things that we need to hear about the Bill, and about the goals for which the Government are aiming. Let me say this to him, very gently. The police must always be the last word in security. It cannot be individuals and it cannot be organisations; it must always be the police. We must ensure that young kids like my granddaughters, who have no experience of terrorism—and that is something for which I thank God—are kept safe by those who understand that no matter how unlikely it is for an act of terrorism to be perpetrated against kids at a concert, such as those in Manchester, it is a possibility. I have six grandchildren. The two eldest girls, Katie and Mia, do not know enough to view bags suspiciously, or to ask, “Is there something unusual about that?” I know that others have said this, and I say it now very respectfully. Not everyone sees the dangers; not everyone sees what is suspicious. Children are innocent, as they should be, and they should be able to have innocent lives.
We need to find a better way forward. The people in charge of that facility in Manchester need to be aware, for the sake of the children. That is second nature in Northern Ireland, but it must also be in the mindset of people throughout the United Kingdom, which is why I support the reasonable application of the obligations that we are discussing. I have no desire to raise the prices of tickets for events, meals in a large restaurant or beds in a resort and spa, but the basic assumption that such things could happen, and answering the basic questions about what we can we do if it does and who will know what to do, are the bare minimum at this stage.
Let me ask the Minister a few questions. They are intended, as always, to be constructive, and to help the conversation and the building of this legislation. What help and support will be offered to businesses to help them come to terms with what is reasonably expected, and what further support will there be in respect of a cost-effective way of meeting obligations? That, by the way, applies equally to churches and schools. We need to ensure that businesses are not deterred from expanding because they cannot meet costs. Will the Minister outline how we can be a part of the conversation about the introduction of procedures to keep people safe?
Terror is something that I wish was a thing of the past, but the shooting in Omagh in February 2023 of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell, who was coaching at his own son’s weekly football game, and the atrocity in Southport this summer when three beautiful young children were brutally murdered, are a heartbreaking reminder that evil people are still at work, and we need to do all that we can to stay safe and keep others safe with us. Tonight, through this potential legislation, we are taking a step in the right direction, which I trust will save lives and stop terror attacks.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Let me begin by paying tribute to Figen Murray and the Martyn’s law campaign, to Survivors Against Terror, and to all the security partners, businesses, charities, local authorities and victims groups that have informed the Bill and helped to get us where we are today. I also thank the Minister and the Home Secretary for the constructive tone that they have taken in debate, and for their offer to work with us to ensure that the Bill completes its stages rapidly. It is a tragic turn of events that a terrible incident is the catalyst for a change in the law, but I hope that the family of Martyn Hett can take some pride in the legacy that Martyn has left.
We have heard some very good contributions this evening, and in particular two very good maiden speeches, the first of which was made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour). It was lovely to see her family in the Gallery—they were obviously very proud of her—and to hear of a number of local priorities on which she will be working on behalf of her constituents. Although she said that she did not have much in common with the Iron Lady, whose birthday was yesterday, I could tell that there was an iron lady within her, and I look forward to hearing her future contributions in this place.
The second maiden speech was made by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). He paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, Mark Harper, who worked hard for the constituency, and told us how hard he would work for his constituents in this place. He challenged a number of Members on whether they could say that a television show had been made about their constituencies, and on which was the most beautiful. Well, I can, because that BBC blockbuster “Howards’ Way” was filmed in Hamble Valley. We are particularly proud of that, and the hon. Gentleman should be rightly proud of his constituency.
We have had some other really important contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) spoke as someone representing the locality of the terrorist attack in Manchester—his constituency is in Greater Manchester. He spoke very passionately on behalf of his constituents about the lessons of the inquiry, which were outlined in his speech. I could tell that he cares deeply about his constituency and what happens with this piece of legislation going forward, and I pay tribute to him for his speech.
The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) spoke about the compassion and kindness of the people of Manchester. When Conservatives go to the Tory party conference in Manchester, we are always welcomed very warmly in the bars and by the people of Manchester, despite expectations. We send them our best wishes going forward.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) rightly paid tribute to Figen Murray and the charities that helped her and her wider campaign secure a change in the law. My right hon. Friend also mentioned the former Security Minister James Brokenshire, to whom I was briefly Parliamentary Private Secretary and who passed away three years ago. She is absolutely right to outline the early work that he did on this change in the law, and we all very much miss him in this place. We also miss Sir David Amess, who was brutally murdered three years ago tomorrow, and we remember Jo Cox in this House as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) rightly outlined some concerns about the Bill’s shortcomings, particularly around organisations that have seasonal peaks. I will be interested to hear the Minister outline how some of the challenges for smaller businesses with seasonal peaks can be addressed in this legislation.
Our great country has come under attack far too often, and all Governments have worked tirelessly to protect the United Kingdom. We believe that that is why we must support the legislation in its aim. I am proud of the work that the previous Government, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, did to bring in Martyn’s law. It is a measure of how much work was done by his family and various organisations that both I and the Minister can stand here today to show that this Bill is needed, and that we can broadly support its measures and aims. Once again, I sincerely congratulate the Government on the fast-tracking of this Bill, and I congratulate the Home Secretary on the way in which she opened the debate.
The aim of Martyn’s law is to ensure that premises are better prepared for terrorist attacks, to help protect the public. As I have said, we welcome this Bill, but we need to make sure that we find the right balance between public protection and the requirements placed on businesses and community venues. As noted by Neil Sharpley, policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, this law will have an administrative impact on small businesses and there will be an additional cost to them. Michael Kill, the CEO of the Night Time Industry Association, said:
“We must ensure that the balance between heightened security and practical implementation is carefully considered.”
The shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), said that although we are supportive of the Bill, we remain concerned about the level of regulation that will be imposed on the venues included in this legislation. The Government’s impact assessment outlines that 155,000 small businesses with a capacity between 200 and 799 will have average costs of £330 per year, and that larger venues will have average costs of £5,000 per year, so I would like assurances that the Minister is looking at a range of options to mitigate those costs as much as possible. I would also like assurances about the burdensome costs on smaller venues, charitable venues and religious venues that have that level of capacity, as mentioned by both my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham.
I want to raise some concerns about clause 4 of the Bill and the “person responsible” element of the legislation. Although I accept that clear lines of accountability are necessary, what important safeguards will be in place for the responsible person in the horrible event that something should tragically go wrong? They could include anonymity, support structures that can be placed around the responsible person, or a line in the Bill stating that the SIA must use its powers and investigatory functions in the most constructive way possible.
I want to finish by thanking the Government once again for continuing the important work on the Bill. As I have said, we will work constructively with the Government throughout the passage of this Bill and raise concerns should we have them, as we have done this evening. I welcome the Minister’s approach once again, and praise the family and supporters of Martyn for their work in getting this important legislation on the statute book. As the official Opposition, we look forward to supporting its passage in this place.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. I will endeavour to address the themes of the arguments that have been put forth. Before doing so, I place on the record my thanks to the Home Affairs Committee for its scrutiny of the draft Bill in the last Session, and I thank the Opposition for the constructive approach they have taken to this Bill, for the support that they have given today and, indeed, for the work done by the previous Government.
As many hon. Members have rightly set out, keeping the country safe is the first duty of government. Just last week, the director general of MI5 set out in his threat update speech that the country is subject to the most interconnected threat environment that we have ever seen. The threat picture is complex, evolving and enduring, with terrorists choosing to attack a broad range of locations. It is not possible to predict where in the UK an attack might happen, or the type of premises or event that could be impacted, but engagement with business indicates that preparedness and protective security in the counter-terrorism space often falls behind areas where there are long-established legal requirements, such as health and safety.
In recent years, inquests and inquiries into terror attacks have set out the need for a legal requirement, including monitored recommendation 4 in volume 1 of the Manchester Arena inquiry. The police, the security services and other partners continue to do all they can to combat the terror threat, and we are immensely grateful to all those who work around the clock to counter threats and protect the safety of our country. The public are safer as a result of their efforts, and we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.
Many businesses and organisations already do excellent work to improve their security and preparedness. However, the absence of legislative requirements means that there is no consistency or consideration of the outcomes. That is what this Bill—Martyn’s law—seeks to achieve. It will improve protective security and organisational preparedness across the UK, thereby making us safer. Through the Bill, qualifying premises and events should be better prepared to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. Those responsible for certain premises and events will be required to take steps to mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack and reduce harm in the event of a terrorist attack occurring. Additionally, certain larger premises and events will have to take steps to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks. The public rightly deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events, and the Government see it as reasonable that, in many locations, appropriate and reasonably practical steps should be taken to protect staff and the public from the impact of terrorism.
Like other Members, I would like to take the opportunity to thank and pay tribute to Figen Murray, whose campaigning has been crucial in driving this Bill forward. Her tireless work is an inspiration to us all. To have suffered such a tremendous loss and still find the strength to campaign for change is extraordinary, and I know that I speak for all Members of this House in saying Figen, you are an inspiration.
I turn now to the main points raised during today’s debate. First, I should say that we were privileged to hear two truly excellent maiden speeches from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) and my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). Both spoke exceptionally well and did their constituents real credit, and I know that the House will look forward to hearing much more from them as they draw on the huge experience that they both bring to this place.
I should also say, as this legislation progresses, that we keep in our hearts all those who have lost their lives in terrorist attacks, including the late Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. They are gone but their memory endures, as does our commitment to supporting their loved ones and the survivors who live with the scars of being caught up in terrorism, whether physical or psychological. I firmly agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) in respect of the late James Brokenshire, who is much missed in this place.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the late Ian Gow, the former Member of Parliament for Eastbourne, who was brutally assassinated in a terrorist attack in 1990? His shield is here in the Chamber, honouring his memory all year round, and I would invite the Minister and all Members to share their tribute to him as well.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that intervention, and yes, of course I join the hon. Member in that. I am sure that all Members will want to pay tribute to the late Ian Gow.
The shadow Home Secretary asked about implement-ation. Following Royal Assent, there will be time to understand and, where necessary, act upon the new requirements before they come into force. We expect the implementation period to be at least 24 months to allow for the set-up of the regulator, and we will continue to engage and communicate with industry and other stakeholders during this period, including in the live music sector, to ensure that there is sufficient time for those responsible for premises and events in scope to understand their new obligations, and to plan and prepare. A robust monitoring and evaluation plan is also in place to measure the Bill’s effectiveness following implementation, and the Government will keep the Bill’s measures under review and have the powers needed to adjust the regime if necessary.
Several Members asked about the proportionality of the standard tier. The Government are extremely mindful that many premises and events continue to face the challenge of rising costs. The Bill seeks to achieve public protection outcomes while avoiding an undue burden on businesses and other organisations. In the standard tier, the focus is on having procedures that are intended to be simple and low cost. There will be no requirement to put in place any physical measures.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of my constituents in Rochdale will warmly welcome this Bill, particularly given that many of them were in the Manchester Arena on that dark day in 2017. I would like to suggest, though, that many small music venues worry about the proportionality of this Bill. Does the Minister want to give them reassurance that the voluntary scheme in Manchester has worked well so far, and that this revised version of the Bill will reduce the costs that were anticipated before?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, a Greater Manchester MP, for making that important point. It is worth saying in response that the feedback from businesses in the Greater Manchester area has been incredibly positive. While we are mindful of the potential burdens on business, we have consulted and worked closely with the sector and we will continue to listen carefully to the concerns it may wish to raise.
Dan Jarvis
I am going to make a bit of progress. I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I am conscious that time is against me and that Madam Deputy Speaker is looking intently at me.
The right hon. Member for Witham made a number of important points, not least that the primary role of the Security Industry Authority will be to provide advice, guidance and support to those responsible, to enable them to meet their obligations. The Bill also gives the SIA the necessary enforcement and investigation powers. These are modelled on those of other similar inspection regimes, which will allow an inspector to enter premises, interview staff, gather the information they need and assess the level of compliance. In the most serious or persistent of instances, criminal sanctions will be available.
The right hon. Lady also asked for an update on our work to support the victims of terrorism, and she rightly referenced the good work of Travis Frain, whom I also have had the privilege of meeting to discuss important issues, including that of memorialisation. The right hon. Lady raised a number of important points, and I will commit to write to her specifically on this point but also on the other points that she raised. She should be assured, however, as should the whole House, of this Government’s commitment to supporting the victims of terrorism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), another Greater Manchester MP, spoke powerfully about the impact of the Manchester attack. I fully agree with everything he said, as I did with the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) spoke movingly about Martyn Hett and eloquently paid tribute to the solidarity, resilience and resolve of the people of Greater Manchester. I can also assure her, and the House, that dedicated, easy-to-follow guidance and support will be provided for duty holders to ensure that those in scope have the required information on what to do and how best to do it. This will include local authorities and volunteers, as raised by the hon. Members for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) and for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) respectively.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) asked about planning processes, and I have made a particular note of his point about bollards. I can assure him that we will consider, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and planning leads in the devolved Governments, how security considerations are referenced in and achieved through the planning regimes and guidance, in the light of the Bill’s provisions.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley made a number of important, pertinent points. He rightly said that the protection and safety of the public is paramount, but he raised a number of points around the impact on smaller premises and the changing nature of the threat. I can give him the assurances that he sought. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) made a number of useful points, not least about seeking to strike the right balance between security and the impact on business.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall rightly reflected his own constituency experience and spoke about rural venues, smaller premises and penalties. I am also grateful to him for mentioning Brendan Cox. It is absolutely right to reference the significant contribution that Brendan Cox has made to this process. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) made a really important point about Edinburgh. It is a great city that knows how to host events, and I am particularly pleased to hear that the city welcomes this legislation. Of course, we will want to work closely with colleagues in Scotland and elsewhere to ensure the successful implementation of this legislation.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) made a number of important points, not least on ensuring that we work together to defeat terrorism. He also raised important points about smaller premises and the SIA. I am happy to discuss those points with him further, but I can say to him that the enhanced duty requirements will not apply to premises used for childcare or for primary, secondary and further education. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) also mentioned Travis Frain, and I am grateful to him for doing so. I join him in paying tribute to Travis’s work. He has been an inspirational campaigner and we will want to continue to work closely with him in the future.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as always, drew very sensibly on his experience of Northern Ireland from a terrorism perspective. His contribution is always appreciated. He raised a number of specific points and I will endeavour to come back to him by letter in order to give him clarity.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is always very kind and I knew he would say yes to me eventually. He has not commented yet on churches. Could he give us some idea of what his thoughts are there? I mentioned in my contribution the fact that all churches right across Northern Ireland took precautions after the Darkley hall massacre. Every person needs to be safety conscious, and every person in church took that role upon themselves.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning churches. All places of worship will be included in the standard tier. We recognise their unique and hugely important contribution, and we have looked very closely at how we can ensure that this legislation will provide them with appropriate protections. Again, I am happy to discuss this further, should the hon. Gentleman wish to do so.
The Bill’s provisions have been very carefully designed to strike the right balance between public protection and avoiding undue burdens on premises and events. These simple, common-sense steps will bolster the UK’s preparedness for and protection from terrorism.
I finish by reiterating the thanks of the whole House to Figen Murray. To have gone through what she has and still work so tirelessly for change is both humbling and inspiring. Figen has said that it is time to get this done, and she is right.
Security is the foundation upon which everything else is built, and nothing matters more to this Government. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: Programme
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 19 November 2024.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Anna Turley.)
Question agreed to.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: Money
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided, and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Anna Turley.)
Question agreed to.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 29th October 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 October 2024 - (29 Oct 2024)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have some rules to announce. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I beg to move, Date Time Witness Tuesday 29 October Until no later than 10.00 am Figen Murray; Brendan Cox Until no later than 10.20 am Andy Burnham Until no later than 10.50 am National Association of Local Councils; Society of Local Council Clerks Until no later than 11.25 am Ambassador Theatre Group; The Royal Ballet and Opera Until no later than 2.20 pm Metropolitan Police Service Until no later than 2.50 pm Federation of Small Businesses; The Counter Terrorism Business Information Exchange (CTBIE) Until no later than 3.10 pm Sport and Recreation Alliance Until no later than 3.40 pm UKHospitality; The Night Time Industries Association Until no later than 4.10 pm The Concert Promoters Association; LIVE (Live Industry Venues & Entertainment Ltd) Until no later than 4.30 pm The Association of University Chief Security Officers Until no later than 4.50 pm Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) Until no later than 5.10 pm Home Office
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 29 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 29 October;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 31 October;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 5 November;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 12 November;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 14 November;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 19 November;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2; Schedules 1 and 2; Clauses 3 to 12; Schedule 3; Clauses 13 to 34; Schedule 4; Clauses 35 to 38; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 19 November.
I am delighted to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I look forward to detailed discussion of the provisions in the Bill with my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches and with the right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition. On Second Reading, there was extensive agreement across the House about the merits of the Bill, not least among hon. Members who are now serving in Committee. I welcome that and trust that we will continue in that constructive spirit. I believe that the resolution before us will provide the Committee with enough time to scrutinise this important Bill and I invite the Committee to agree it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Dan Jarvis.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Dan Jarvis.)
The Committee deliberated in private.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make declarations of interest in connection with the Bill? None do, so we will begin to hear oral evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Figen Murray OBE and Brendan Cox gave evidence.
The Chair
I welcome our first witnesses this morning. The Committee and I are delighted that you are our first witnesses and I congratulate you on all your efforts in relation to the Bill. I will be grateful if you could introduce yourselves.
Figen Murray: My name is Figen Murray. I am the mother of Martyn Hett.
Brendan Cox: My name is Brendan Cox. I am one of the co-founders of Survivors Against Terror and have worked with Figen on Martyn’s law.
The Chair
Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. This panel will have until 10 am, and I call the Minister to ask the first questions.
Dan Jarvis
Q
Figen Murray: I have taken the liberty of writing something down that I would like to read out, please, if that is okay. I hope that will address some of that.
I begin by thanking absolutely every person who has had any involvement in bringing Martyn’s law to this point. It has been a long five and a half years since the campaign started, and the kindness and support people have extended to us have been quite incredible.
As I sat in Parliament on 14 October for Second Reading, I realised that the relatively long journey that still lies ahead—given all the different steps the legislation must still undergo—will not be an easy one. On Second Reading, my name was mentioned many times and many lovely words were said, but I need people to understand that I would not have progressed much without my co-campaigners, the campaign team, and the incredible support of my husband and my remaining children.
Seven and a half years ago, our life as a family was destroyed forever. I want you to note the word “forever”, as there is no coming back from this. As a family, we are damaged goods. The day Martyn died, something died inside all of us. Do not get me wrong: as a family, we are very close. Individually, however, we all carry our separate emotional scars that are now an integral part of each of us. That will be the case for every family anywhere in the world who has been hit hard by terrorism. Our numbers are growing, sadly. Outwardly, I function at a high level day in, day out, but make no mistake that my heart is in shreds—yet it is my broken heart that drives me to try to stop others from ever having to feel this way.
Coming back to Second Reading, I was buoyed that every party said that they supported the Bill. If security cannot unite us, what can? I welcome the all-party support. On Second Reading, I also heard some concerns about getting the balance right and keeping the Bill proportionate. I agree with that. Right from the start, we said that one size does not fit all, and that the Bill needs to be proportionate. It has never been intended to be burdensome.
My worry is that the increase in the capacity threshold from 100 in the draft Bill to 200 now risks getting the balance wrong. It excludes too many venues. The cost to businesses for Martyn’s law is a drop in the ocean compared with the €43 billion that the Rand Corporation estimated that terrorism cost the UK between 2004 and 2016, or even the £100,000 lost by Mr Fred Foster, a market trader at Borough market, during the attack in 2017.
However, we need to be clear that the risk from terrorism is real. Our terrorism threat level stands at “substantial”, meaning that an attack is likely. Although there have not been any successful terror attacks, it is easy to let complacency creep in. We must not forget that attack methodologies have now changed. People get radicalised and go out an use vehicles, knives, and home-made IEDs—improvised explosive devices—to kill others.
There are currently about 800 active investigations and about 2,500 subjects of interest who are being watched by the authorities as they are linked to terrorism investigations—the aforementioned 800—but there are a further 30,000 individuals who have expressed extreme views that could lead to them committing acts of terrorism. Those figures have not changed over recent years. The geopolitical situation, sadly, also means that extremists exploit the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza to recruit more people to follow their ideology. There is no sign of those figures reducing in the near future.
The director general of MI5, Ken McCallum, has also recently spoken about 43 near misses since 2017. Those are 43 planned attacks that were stopped just in time. Everyone in this room surely must appreciate that sooner or later an attack will not be stopped in time and people will yet again die or be injured or traumatised. There is no room for complacency. The threat is out there and it is real. Terrorists do not care who they kill. They aim to kill, shock and gain notoriety.
We have had attacks such as a planned knife attack on an LGBT community in Cumbria, a knife attack against an MP inside a church hall in Essex, a bomb outside Liverpool women’s hospital, another bomb at a hospital in Leeds, a knife attack in a park in Reading, a knife attack at a conference in London, a knife attack at a high street in London, a firebomb attack at an immigration centre in Dover, a letter bomb delivered to a Scottish university, a knife attack at a railway station in Manchester, and a vehicle attack at a mosque in London. If anyone thinks that where they live is too small or too rural to be targeted, they are wrong. Our experience in this country and around the world shows us that terrorists can strike anywhere.
A lot of venues are already busy preparing and implementing as much as they can. Manchester has trained over 2,500 people in free-of-charge face-to-face ACT training, and businesses and venues across Manchester are implementing the legislation as best as they can. Venues in Manchester are doing that voluntarily because the city was badly hit. People in Manchester understand the risk as they were directly affected, but we need this legislation on the statute books; without it, people will simply not take security seriously.
Security is often seen as low priority as people do not believe their venue is at risk from terrorism. A recent tabletop exercise in Manchester for the standard-tier venues resulted in most venues saying that the cost of implementing measures is either negligible or very low cost or effort, and that it enhanced customer experience as people felt safer.
At Second Reading, a few people worried about liability and the responsibility given to volunteers. Anybody who already has any responsibility for organising or managing community spaces and events already has liabilities under civil law. Martyn’s law will not create additional liabilities—they exist already. What Martyn’s law is more likely to do is to help communities know that they are discharging those responsibilities properly. Volunteers in various venues across the country already voluntarily take on responsibility for fire safety or health and safety, and this would be simply a small add-on. Martyn’s law is asking people at the standard tier to understand how to lock down, how to evacuate, how to invacuate or how to communicate with others. It is as simple as that on the standard tier.
Another concern was around churches and schools. Our children have the right to be protected from harm. Most schools already had lockdown procedures in place, anyway, long before Martyn’s law became a topic. Places of worship are places where people of all faiths should be able to worship freely and without fear. They need to be protected. We have seen attacks on places of worship in countries such as Sri Lanka, New Zealand—in Christchurch—and France. Since the Gaza conflict a lot of synagogues are currently on high alert as the threat is understood.
To sum up, Martyn’s law will save lives. Terrorism is here to stay. The public have a right to be kept as safe as possible when they are out and about enjoying the freedom our country offers. Martyn, Saffie, Nell, Sorrell, Eilidh, Megan, Olivia, Georgina, Courtney, Philip, Kelly, Elaine, Alison, Lisa, Michelle, Wendy, Jane, John, Angelika and Marcin, Chloe and Liam were all out enjoying a great evening that night and had every right to make it safely back home. I absolutely believe that had Martyn’s law been firmly established, they would still be alive now. Please consider what is the right thing to do. I will finish by saying once again that it is time to get this done. Thank you for listening.
Brendan Cox: I would add a couple of things to that; Figen has set it out incredibly powerfully.
As I mentioned in my introduction, I am part of something called Survivors Against Terror, which is a network of about 300 survivors of terror attacks: people that have been bereaved like myself and Figen and people who have themselves been injured in attacks. What draws that network together is a desire to reduce the likelihood of future terror attacks and to reduce the harm that they do. We do that by campaigning for the rights of families to things such as mental health support and compensation, by educating the public on the role they can play in the fight against terrorism, and by campaigning for effective laws that make terror attacks less likely in the future. That is how Figen and I first started working together, right at the start of this campaign.
I got involved for two reasons. First, frankly, I was inspired by Figen and her determination to make something good come out of something that was absolutely horrific, and to make sure that no other family unnecessarily goes through what her and her family have, but also, fundamentally, because the methodology of terrorism has changed, as Figen mentioned. The age of very complex attacks, often directed by people from outside the country and involving the need to assemble a device or to work out how detonators work, gave our security services lots of opportunities to intervene and disrupt terrorism plots. We are now in an age in which people are just using knives or cars, and the way in which we respond to that terror threat has not caught up.
It is impossible for our security services to keep our country safe with this new distributed methodology. We therefore have to have much more of a partnership approach: how can we all play a little role in making each other safer? I think this comes from our experience, but as the network of survivors supporting Figen and her campaign we do not want anybody’s sympathy, we want to make people safer so that these things and the impact they have had on our lives do not happen to anyone else. There is nobody more driven in wanting to defeat terrorism than those who have been directly affected by it.
There are two ways in which terrorists can win. One is by killing and maiming people. The other is by disrupting our way of life—making us live in fear and changing our way of engaging with each other. That is why, right from the start, proportionality has been central to our thinking. We do not want this to change our way of life. We do not want terrorists to win, either by injuring people or by changing our way of life, and that is why right at the heart of this proposal, from the beginning, has been proportionality. We want everybody to be empowered to play a small role in making us all safer. We do not want airport-style security outside village halls, as some of the papers might suggest we want.
The final thing I would say is that nobody wants to have a law named after their child. What we do want to do is to make sure no-one unnecessarily goes through what Figen and her family has. We want to make sure that there is a legislative response to the clamour of action that you have had in every inquiry post-2017, whether into the Manchester attacks or into the London attacks, to say that this is a loophole that has to be closed and now is the moment to close it.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I have had the great privilege of meeting Figen and Brendan over many months on this, so I have no questions.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Q
Figen Murray: I think it is that as many places as possible are covered. We as a campaign team are concerned about the threshold, if I am honest. I live in a small town —more like a village—and with the original 100 threshold, quite a few of the restaurants as well as the little theatre we have and the pubs would have been covered under the law. With the change in the threshold, my little town is now not coming into scope at all and is completely not secure under Martyn’s law. It concerns me. The change from the 100 threshold to 200 will exclude about 100,000 premises. It feels like quite a lot now no longer need to be within that scope. It worries me.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Q
Figen Murray: The Manchester Arena inquiry obviously had Martyn’s law as one of its recommendations. If I remember rightly, Sir John’s words were that it is needed as a matter of urgency. I think he referred to training, and he also recommended—which is certainly not covered in Martyn’s law under the standard tier—that people have lifesaving training. That is not for debate in Martyn’s law at the moment. But certainly the ACT training was part of the recommendation.
Brendan Cox: To add to that, the other thing that has been amazing—I think you are hearing from Mayor Andy Burnham later—has been the extent to which Manchester has already started to operationalise some of this, so when we are having the debates about proportionality, we can consider some of the real experiences of businesses that are already implementing this. It is worth really digging into that conversation, because what it shows is that lots of businesses that fall below the threshold are voluntarily taking part in the training and starting to implement Martyn’s law, because they know what it gives them. Who does not want their venue to be safer from terror attacks? It is something that organisations in general want to do, and that is why we have been seeing the adoption of this ahead of the legislation being published, even by venues that will not be covered by the capacity legislation.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Q
Figen Murray: We had in Manchester a tabletop exercise that Nick Aldworth and I were allowed to witness. They invited us in and they gave us the results of that tabletop exercise. There were medium-sized businesses, small businesses, and venues and businesses even under the scope, and the feedback was that implementing Martyn’s law would actually be either no-cost or low-cost and that it would enhance, in a lot of cases, customer experience, because people would feel safer. The most onerous thing, in some people’s opinion, was to ask their staff to do the 45-minute, free-of-charge ACT e-learning training. Basically, they had to pay one hour of staff wages, but on the whole, they felt it was good and the staff felt better having that knowledge, because they felt better equipped to deal with a crisis.
In fact, some of the venues in Manchester were also saying they do regular real-life practice of lockdowns, for instance. For some reason, Manchester has really embraced it. A few years ago, I got called into a council meeting and they basically said, “We want to support you. What can we do?” I just looked at them and said, “Don’t wait for the legislation. Just do it anyway.” And Manchester did. They worked together with counter-terrorism police and put on the free-of-charge, once-a-month, three-hour, face-to-face ACT training. The sessions are always oversubscribed; they are very well attended.
Brendan Cox: I think that the fact that it has been taken up so strongly belies some of the idea that this is a huge burden on businesses. Of course, with any methodology like this, you can come up with a costing for how much the opportunity cost of doing x, y or z is. You have the big public campaigns around “See it, say it, sorted.” Of course, there is a cost with that. You could measure that cost through the amount you spend on it, the opportunity cost of the things that people could be doing while they are listening to it, the distraction cost—there is a whole way in which you could come up with a very big figure, but the reality is that is a proportionate response to what is a very substantial threat when it happens. As Figen mentioned, our threat is substantial at the moment, and that is therefore the proportionate response that we are trying to come up with.
In the conversations on and implementation of this in Manchester, one of the reactions we got, which was a broader reaction from the public as a whole, was, “Doesn’t this already exist?” The public expect that public venues would have an obligation to keep you safe. You have an obligation on the temperature that you need to keep food at, the number of toilets that you have and to fill in your tax return, but you do not have any obligation to keep your often paying customers safe from a very substantial threat, which is judged to be substantial by the Government. That is a massive loophole, and that is what this Bill helps to fill.
The Chair
There are no further questions, so I thank both witnesses for their contributions this morning. We will move on to our next guest, who is Andy Burnham.
Examination of Witness
Andy Burnham gave evidence.
The Chair
We have until 10.20 am for this oral evidence session. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Andy Burnham: I am Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester. As colleagues will know, I left Parliament in 2017, two weeks before the attack at the Manchester Arena, so I have been closely involved with all the developments ever since.
Dan Jarvis
Q
Andy Burnham: Thank you very much, Minister. Before I get to the question, I will say a little more about my background, which has led me up to what I think. I was shadow Home Secretary at the time of the Paris attacks, and those at the Bataclan in particular. If that had happened here, this legislation would already be on the statute book. Obviously, as Figen said, we have lived through the terrible events of 22 May 2017, but in the seven and a half years since, the nature of the threat has changed. I do not think we could have imagined some of the incidents that we have seen since then, such as the terrible loss of a really loved colleague in Southend and the attack in Southport. We would not have expected that. I remember asking Theresa May at the time of the Paris attacks if we were prepared for an attack in an English city—even then we were thinking only of cities; we were not thinking outside of cities. I say that because all that has shaped my thinking over the years.
When Figen first came forward with the concept of this Bill, I took time to think it through with colleagues in our city region. We are part the Resilient Cities Network, which is a group of 100 cities around the world, and we are in the Strong Cities Network, so we are constantly sharing best practice with cities around the world, and it was our view that the lack of a clear set of standards for security in our venues was a real gap. We were conscious, though, that there may be an impact on venues, hence the measures that were brought forward had to be right but proportionate, and I think care has been taken over that.
As you have just heard, Manchester city council has done an exercise working with venues and surveying venues on some of the voluntary things that have already been done in our city region. As you heard a moment ago, the impact is negligible—it is low-cost—but venues also report that they think it has raised standards generally within the organisation and improved the visitor experience. The experience that people have when they visit—their sense of safety when they are in the city—matters a lot to us as a city region and we are working to raise it. We have gone ahead and, if anything, we want to keep going further and raising the bar.
I will finish by saying that my main message to the Committee this morning is that I ask all of you to please ensure that the Bill is not watered down any further—actually, I look to the Committee to strengthen it. Again, I believe that venues with a capacity of 100 to 200 should be covered by the Bill. I do not think it is right that there is no requirement for training within the standard tier; there should be a requirement for staff to take the free ACT training. The message from Greater Manchester is that we continue to support Figen and all the families who lost loved ones on that night. In one way, we support those measures for that emotional reason, and always will, but we also do so from a Resilient Cities perspective. We believe they will only strengthen people’s experience in our city. We think it is in the interest of parents whose kids come into our city to go to the many events that take place every weekend to understand that there is a basic level of security at all the venues across our city region.
Tim Roca
Q
Andy Burnham: That is a fair question. Of course, we have had those conversations. I have been at events—with Figen, actually—with our night-time economy adviser, Sacha Lord, where we have said, “Look, we think we should do this.” Then there have been conversations like, “Well, it’s difficult. The hospitality sector has had challenging times,” but as we have talked it through I think people have come round to the idea that security and safety is one thing that no venue should compromise on, because in some ways that is the first thing to get right. If you get that right, you will get lots of other things right. It is about raising the standard of what the industry does.
There is evidence that the Manchester visitor economy —I know Manchester is not far from your constituency and you probably know it well—has improved over the years and in many ways mirrors the offer that people can find in London, but we have a night-time economy adviser because we want to keep raising the bar. We are not complacent at all. There just has not been an outcry or backlash. People have worked with it. This attack happened in our city: we lost 22 people—young people, mainly, but people of other ages as well—on that night. It is incumbent on us to challenge ourselves about what we do as a city to respond to that, and to recognise that life is changing and the outlying towns and villages of Greater Manchester could see an incident of that kind.
There is a broader point here: speaking as police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester, I do not believe yet that the country has all of its procedures in place to face what we are experiencing. I say that with reference to fire and rescue services. Currently, it is still not clear what the role of fire and rescue services is in relation to what is called a marauding terrorist attack. How can that be the case? That clearly needs to be addressed. We have done local things, but this legislation should be only the start, in my view, of really ensuring that there are arrangements in place that provide clarity to blue-light services and venues, as well as others, on the basics of responding to an incident. I think there is still work in progress on that point.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Q
Andy Burnham: That is a really important question. The guidance that I want to see would advise them to have a night-time economy strategy. That is really important for a whole host of reasons, and it is not just about the most serious attacks. We see concerns about spiking or the unacceptable treatment of women and girls, and there is a whole range of issues that need to be addressed. If we want to have the levels of safety that we all want to see in our country, there has to a more serious look taken at some of what happens within the night-time economy. For me, that would include ending out-of-area taxi working, for instance. We have a situation in our city region right now where, if you go into the city centre of Manchester pretty much any night of the week, but certainly on a Friday or Saturday, you will see hundreds and hundreds of taxis with a Wolverhampton plate.
Linsey Farnsworth
indicated assent.
Andy Burnham: You are nodding, which suggests that other places see that. It cannot be in the interest of public safety to have taxis licensed 100 miles away. I would say to local authorities that we need to start calling for change on public safety on nights out. That would include arrangements at the local authority level to ensure that taxi drivers are adequately licensed, and that the relevant criminal record checks are done at a local level and not undercut by something happening a few hundred miles away. I think that is an issue for Parliament. The time has come to end out-of-area work and require that the local authorities where people are doing their job are the ones that license those vehicles. I would like to see wider guidance given to local authorities and legislative change to support them in taking steps to protect the public when they are on nights out, both in implementing this legislation and in improving the safety of what goes on in and around venues on nights out.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Q
Andy Burnham: As we have said, smaller venues have been working with Manchester city council and the feedback has been that it is a positive thing to do. Obviously, to have specific training on how to lock down or evacuate a venue is helpful not only for the most serious of incidents but more broadly. Let us be honest: venues face a wide range of incidents on an ongoing basis. There are risks to people’s safety throughout the year. It is something that is part of the night-time economy. I think that it has to be proportionate, but the measures in the Bill are proportionate.
I would go back to that request for mandatory training. If it is free training, why is that not in the standard tier? How does that impose a burden? Did we hear that it is an hour of a member of staff’s time? I do not consider that to be burdensome, to be honest with you. I consider it to be good practice that people are supported in their working time to access and do that training. It would clearly help in a terrorist attack, but it would probably help more broadly in terms of situational awareness, vigilance, and general good practice for running and stewarding a venue and ensuring that it operates well at all times.
I personally do not see why the threshold has been raised to 200. As we have just heard, many of your constituencies will now have many venues that are not covered. Given what we have seen this year, I think it is as likely for an incident to happen in one of those venues as it is in a pub with a capacity of 300 or 400. I do not see that as less likely. Furthermore, I do not think that what is being asked of those places is unnecessarily burdensome. You could even argue that it is more important for the smaller venues to do it, because they will have less resource to call on in the event of an incident.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Q
Andy Burnham: Mr Bishop made a point about recommendations from the Manchester Arena inquiry. The deputy Mayor, who is sitting behind me, has led a whole process to look at implementing every single one of those recommendations—to the letter. As I have said, what happened on 22 May 2017 has changed the city, but not in the intended way. It was intended to divide us, but it brought us together, as you have just recognised. It was also intended to weaken us, but in fact it will leave us with stronger arrangements. At no point in this process have I seen anything other than overwhelming public support for what Figen has called for. The public support has never been in any doubt whatsoever.
I want to come back to the point about the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. You may remember that, on the night, there was confusion within the fire service about what to do, and it took a long time to arrive at the arena. The service has gone through a painstaking, difficult exercise about what happened and how, and it is a very different organisation as a result.
I want to come back to this point: the role of fire and rescue services is not clear. We, along with London, are the only two fire brigades in the country to have put in place arrangements for all our firefighters to have training in marauding terrorist attacks and to have the capability to respond. That is not the case with the others. Again, I had no resistance to that training from the firefighters or the Fire Brigades Union; everybody saw that it was the right thing to do. But we are now in a position where neighbouring fire and rescue services do not have that capability. It is unclear what happens in an incident, and it should not be unclear.
The Greater Manchester experience is that we have done everything that this legislation is asking, and more. We continue to challenge ourselves and do more, but it has to be standardised nationally for the reasons we have given around the nature of the threat. The message from us is that none of it has been resisted or too difficult to implement with our public services. There is strong public support. I come back to what I said earlier to members of the Committee: please do not let this Bill be watered down any further. If anything, it should be strengthened. Amendments should be coming forward to strengthen it. The risk is that smaller venues will become the ones that are more targeted if we leave that flank open, and I hope that we will not. I think that the standard tier should go back down to venues of 100 or more.
Chris Murray
Q
Andy Burnham: Thank you, Mr Murray. We are really grateful for its support. A lot of collaboration is going on between Edinburgh and Greater Manchester at the moment; the director of the festival was with us just last week.
I have visited Edinburgh festival for the last three years, and I am left in awe at the arrangements in place there because of the depth of experience in Edinburgh of running major events with many facets and many venues, and because of the number of visitors who come into the city. There is a lot to learn from Edinburgh city council and how it manages things. The fact that it supports the Bill should say something. Those who have been to the festival know that a whole range of venues are used—all kinds of sizes. That is the point I made a moment ago in response to Mr Roca: if the smaller venues were not covered by the Bill, they would potentially become the ones more at risk and more targeted.
The point is about the whole ecosystem of venues, from the smallest to the biggest. Measures should not be disproportionate, sure, but if the Bill went through in its current form that would cause me anxiety, given my position. I would have to look at the venues that were not covered. To go back to the question that Linsey Farnsworth raised, that would not make the job of Edinburgh city council, Manchester city council or any other local authority easier. Having clarity in terms of the arrangements is not going to make the job of local authorities harder—the more arrangements are standardised, the better.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
The reason Martyn went to this gig was the reason a lot of people go to gigs—they love music. You love music. Greater Manchester, and Manchester itself, is fantastic for music. Could you explain what is happening in Manchester locally to reassure some of those small-scale live music people, who are saying that this could put them out of business—“We’re not the big boys, we’re not the arena, how can we cope with this and make everyone feel safe without changing our way of life?” As Brendan said, not changing our way of life is ultimately the purpose of this legislation.
Andy Burnham: It is a good question, Paul, and it goes back to the guidance for local authorities. The way we work—when I say “we”, I am thinking of the leader of Manchester city council, Bev Craig, and deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester, Paul Dennett; people you will know—is that we get close to the venues because we all love music and we are a music city region. You will know that there has been a threat to one of our venues night and day in recent times; at different points, we have had similar issues with other venues.
We cherish the infrastructure, and we work hard to keep it. We work hard to understand the issues that venues have, and how we can work in a practical way to help them. That is what I mean by getting close to the night-time economy—that is critical, and it is one of the things we do really well in this country. It is a big reason why people come and visit Britain: not just for the big arenas, but for the grassroots music scene as well. We had WOMEX, the Worldwide Music Expo, in the city last week; Councillor Besford has been very much at the heart of that, and he runs the English folk festival. We, like Edinburgh, often have events that involve the smallest and the biggest.
My point is: do not just impose things on venues. You have to sit down and talk with them and ask what we can do to help. This is my point about Greater Manchester Fire Rescue Service—if you have a capable fire service, they can go in and help. The blue-light services can help provide the training and help people comply with the measures in the Bill. This is not just about leaving venues on their own, saying, “Here is Martyn’s law, so get on with it even if it puts you out of business.” That is not how it is done. We are doing it a different way: get down there and listen to them all. They will all have different issues, so support what they do because they are important in bringing visitors to the city.
I am just giving you the Manchester perspective. That is the way we go about things. The music infrastructure in the city, and the broader entertainment infrastructure, is highly valued. There was an era when a certain nightclub was just left to close and there are flats there now. We do not think like that these days; we protect the infrastructure and that means supporting the venues. It is tough for them, so get close to them and support them. I appreciate that times are hard, but there are blue-light services everywhere that can help them raise their game from a security point of view.
I just think that we cannot talk ourselves into a sort of thing where it is all too big a burden. I can tell you from experience: a terrorist attack is a massive burden on a city and what it does challenges everybody at every level—and that is ongoing. Like Figen said, Manchester will never be the same again after what happened. It has changed us but it has strengthened us and made us more united, and as I say, I do not want any other city to go through that. The Bill is designed to prevent people going through that and part of what I would say is that the way we and Edinburgh do it is a good model for others to look at.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank Mayor Burnham for his evidence. We move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor Keith Stevens and Helen Ball gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Helen Ball: Good morning. My name is Helen Ball. I am the town clerk of Shrewsbury town council in Shropshire and I am also the chairman of the Society of Local Council Clerks nationally.
Keith Stevens: My name is Keith Stevens and I am the chair of the National Association of Local Councils, which looks after the 10,000 parish and town councils across the country.
Dan Jarvis
Q
My question is for Councillor Stevens. I know that you have had a long-standing interest in the process. As part of the pre-legislative scrutiny in the previous Parliament, I know that a number of concerns were raised around proportionality and thresholds, and also around the lack of clarity with regard to the regulator. I would be grateful for your view on the changes that have been made to the Bill since. Also, how receptive do you think local councillors will be to those changes?
Keith Stevens: Having heard what has gone before, as a parish councillor I was quite pleased when the threshold was lifted to 200 because that is proportionate. I will give the simple example of my own parish council. The village hall where we hold all our meetings has a capacity of, I think, 190. I have to be honest: we rarely get to 190 people at a parish council meeting. Normally, it is 20 people, including the councillors, as a maximum. That is why raising the threshold to 200 was welcomed by a lot of councils, because it meant that the rules were not quite as strict. However, I do not think that means that parish and town councils will not look at the security of any venue that any event is taking place in. Security is important and we always look at it.
Sorry, what was the second part of the question?
Dan Jarvis
Q
Keith Stevens: I think they are receptive to the changes and I think that local councils and councillors are very supportive of Martyn’s law. They have all seen the things, and most parish councils have quite good relationships with the security services. In my own area, we have regular monthly meetings to talk about the situation; actually, the police often use parish councils almost as the pulse of what is going on in the village. When there were all the problems last year, the police were in contact asking us to let them know whether we had heard any rumours that got off the ground. So, yes—very supportive.
Sonia Kumar
Q
Helen Ball: We have had conversations with a lot of parish councils and parish clerks over the last few months. A lot of village halls are quite distinct in where they are, so there is some concern as to how they would actually be able to enact evacuation and lockdown procedures, particularly when you have just got a large room and you may only have one entrance and one exit. There is that level of concern.
A lot of the problems that we have at the moment are more about the fear of the unknown; people have read the Bill and are looking at the worst-case scenario. We have tried to advocate—as a society and also as NALC, as part of our Martyn’s law working group—that it is a bit of a “Keep calm and carry on” situation, and that we can do this. A lot of it is a common-sense approach to security. The sentiment from our society is that the legislation should be welcomed and that regardless of whether there are bandings within certain buildings, we should develop a culture of terrorism awareness.
“What price is a life?” is the other comment that a lot of clerks have said of late. Why would somebody’s life be less important if they were in a building that has 199 people as opposed to 201? It is incumbent upon our sector to try to encourage a better culture.
Chris Murray
Q
Helen Ball: Let me give you a bit of my perspective as a practitioner. My involvement in that kind of terrorism management came two weeks after the Manchester bombings, because we were due to have an outdoor music event with 12,000 people in our park. We were starting to get comments from the public such as, “I don’t think I’m going to feel safe. Can I have my money back?” It was incumbent upon us to sit down with the event organiser and their security team, and the counter-terrorism officers and the local police, to put measures in place that would reassure the public that they were safe.
A lot of the kind of things in the current Bill are things that we have been doing. In effect, I, as a town clerk, have had to take on that kind of responsibility. I already had the responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, so it is not as if it is something brand new to us; it is just a different vein.
From our sector, clerks are exceptionally resourceful individuals. They have to be, because they have lots of plates spinning at any one time. So the right kind of guidance would be beneficial—perhaps guidance that we could work within the sector, including the security industry authority, to have very specific guidance that would help our fellow clerks. I think they would take it on board, because they see that this is an important piece of legislation that we have to work towards.
Keith Stevens: In the Bill, it would be good to have slightly more clarity on the responsibilities. If the parish council owns the land, and it is let out for an event, whose responsibility is it? Yes, I think it is down to the parish council to make sure the event organiser is carrying out everything per the rule, but whose responsibility is it if that person says, “Yes, I’ll do all that.”, and then does not? It is one of the slightly grey areas that could be made clearer.
Chris Murray
Q
Helen Ball: It is something that has evolved over the years. When I became town clerk in Shrewsbury 15 years ago, when we were renting the park for an event, it used to be a case of, “Fill out the application form, send me your public liability insurance and the cheque, then drop the keys off when you are finished—thank you very much.” Now we have more stringent premises licenses that require us to ensure that there are event plans and security plans, and that they are communicated with emergency services and the emergency planning team. It has become a morphed role anyway that we have absorbed. I do not really see how Martyn’s law is going to add significantly to that. It just gives us more strength in the argument with event organisers that we have legislation backing us.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Q
Keith Stevens: I don’t think so. One of the issues stopping people coming back or standing for councillor has been the standards regime. I was pleased that it was announced that that is being looked at, and it would appear to bring back the standards regime and the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I think that is the only reason why people have not come forward so much, and that is a growing problem not just for councils, but for charities, because of red tape and things like that. I think people will come forward and support their parish council on issues such as safety. People in the village have children and relatives, and they want to keep them all safe. That is where I think parish town councils are almost the key to safety in the community. They are the ones that know what is going on, and people follow their lead.
Helen Ball: I agree with Councillor Stevens. Parish councils are the beating heart of a community. The fact that they have community venues, parks and open spaces, as well as holding events in there, adds to the culture and the dynamic of that community. When you have that strong community infrastructure, you are likely to have a greater mandate from people wanting to stand. Both NALC and the Society of Local Council Clerks have regional structures, which means that we can cascade that enthusiasm and culture down to grassroots level.
Keith Stevens: I would just add that a lot of parish councils are custodian trustees for their village halls, and the village halls are run by a charitable management committee. In my view, it is beholden on the parish councils to make sure that all the community groups in their villages or towns also understand the effect of Martyn’s law. However, I have to mention that it will have a cost. There is not a cost on lives but there are a lot of smaller parish councils with a lower precept; the cost to them will increase, and we will need to undertake training programmes, which has been mentioned.
Ben Maguire
Q
Keith Stevens: The costs for the extra time of a clerk. A lot of parishes have a clerk who works five to eight hours a week, and they will have to find time to do some of those things.
Ben Maguire
In terms of training?
Keith Stevens: Yes, both training and carrying out the review. When Ms Ball carried out the review, it took quite a long time, didn’t it?
Helen Ball: Yes.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from members of the Committee, I thank Councillor Stevens and Helen Ball for their evidence this morning. We will constitute the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Paul Laffan, Stuart Beeby, Heather Walker and Alex Beard CBE gave evidence.
The Chair
For this oral evidence session, we have until 11.25 am. Can the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Heather Walker: I am Heather Walker. I am the chief operating officer at the Royal Ballet and Opera.
Alex Beard: I am Alex Beard. I am the chief executive of the Royal Ballet and Opera, formerly the Royal Opera House.
Paul Laffan: I am Paul Laffan, the group safety and security manager for ATG Entertainment.
Stuart Beeby: I am Stuart Beeby, the group operations director for ATG Entertainment.
Matt Bishop
Q
Alex Beard: In principle, these risks are ones that we face operationally day to day. We are already on the crowded places register, so we are already taking many of the actions implied in this legislation. In particular, the lens through which we do that is a risk-analysis approach, with support from the counter-terrorism security adviser and our specialist contractors.
Codifying the expectations of us through “reasonably practicable”, as well as having access to support in implementing this legislation through the relevant authorities and a regulatory body to refer to, are positive additions in principle. Of course, that is subject to there not being any cracks in the obligations between the various actors, and there being sufficient resource for the regulator to deliver its functions. I see this as building on the practice that is already in place. I would just like to stress that we are fully supportive of the legislation. We were involved in its consultation and we regard it as being a good thing.
Stuart Beeby: ATG Entertainment’s perspective is as a multi-site operator. We have 64 venues across Germany, America and the UK. 33 of those are in the UK, from Torquay to Glasgow. Similarly to the Royal Ballet and Opera, we have been involved in the creation of this Bill. While we feel we are already on a good footing with our processes and training and are fully supportive, it is a similar message from us if the process is too formulaic—a one size fits all.
Right now we work with all the security elements, be it contractors and risk assessments and the like or our counter-terrorism colleagues in the local constabularies. The challenges that we face running a 1,000-seat theatre in Torquay are very different from those at our two large theatres in Manchester or our 10 in the west end. So we are very supportive and feel that we are in a good position moving forward with training and processes, but we have an eye on how formulaic this may be with—forgive me—a cookie-cutter approach to it.
Sonia Kumar
Q
Paul Laffan: For us, we already have the processes built in. We have been doing this for a number of years to ensure that we are prepared, as we should be as a public space. Although our venues are vast and wide, the majority are quite straightforward in terms of what we do. The events themselves do not vary a great deal—it is either a play, a musical, a comedy or whatever—the operation of the building does not alter too much and the buildings themselves are predominantly listed, large buildings.
We would expect to conduct initial assessments, which we have already done, and to review them at a similar frequency to all our health and safety approaches; just regular touchpoints subject to any massive changes. We therefore do not feel that the risk assessment element would be overly onerous upon us. For others in our industry, where they have more dynamic spaces and second spaces, it could be slightly trickier; having that resource and knowledge could be challenging. However, we do not foresee its being a huge concern for us.
Heather Walker: One of our thoughts is that the public will need to understand how venues will operate under this Bill. As an example, post covid when we were all opening up, we all worked very closely together to make sure the kinds of mitigations and arrangements in place, so that the public felt safe coming back into theatres, were similar.
Whichever theatre you went to, you saw the same sorts of things in place. I think the nature of risk assessing for this arrangement, which I totally agree with, is going to mean different things for different people. Having different kinds of events, or a different audience profile attending those events, will perhaps change what mitigations you put in place. From the public’s perspective, they will need to understand that not everybody is doing the same thing. That might create some concerns about just how safe one place is compared with another.
Paul Laffan: If I may add to that, I think this comes back to “reasonably practicable” and how we apply that. Someone’s risk assessment can vary from operator to operator, person to person, so it is a question of how much guidance there will be around the expectations so that, when we are weighing up that impact likelihood, cost analysis, of “reasonably practicable”, we understand how we quantify that for a large operator with significant funds behind, it versus a small operator with far less funds. That then would raise concern for me that we may inadvertently create a higher risk profile for another venue; if ATG or the Royal Opera House spent a lot of money strengthening our own resolve and it makes another operator who does not have the same access to funds appear a more viable target.
Stuart Beeby: Our principle is “deter”. That is the key thing: the counter-terrorism strategy is not “defend”, but “deter”. That means that if there is hostile reconnaissance and you look professional and so on, if you are being targeted you could be pushing them along to what is considered a softer target, although dynamically they are actually complying with all the requirements of the Bill.
Paul Laffan: There would be some shape and colour around the risk assessment process and what some of the expected outcomes and the suitable and understood control measures are that would be pragmatic and proportionate to the risk, but also replicable across the entire industry. On Heather’s point, if as a customer I go to see “Mean Girls” one day and a ballet the next, I should not be surprised that there is security and a similar experience on the front end.
Tim Roca
Q
Alex Beard: It puts additional responsibilities on the SIA, which needs the resources and expertise to fulfil those duties. It is a big step up—that is my No. 1 observation.
Heather Walker: And it needs the time to put this in place so that it is consistent and appropriate.
Paul Laffan: Certainly from our point of view, it is a good appointment. It is the logical one, given what it already does in the private security sector. Our only real concern would be around its—forgive me for using the wrong word—ability to pragmatically apply the risk assessment and the review of processes in what is quite a different industry and setting across much of live entertainment, versus the classic private security sector, but we are sure that that will come out in its guidance as it starts forming.
It would be great to have clarity in the Bill on how the SIA will interact externally, such as with public planning. As we strengthen our own four walls, if that shifts the attack vector to externals, with things like vehicle-as-weapon, we have very little control over the public spaces outside our buildings, yet we will introduce a crowd of people leaving after a show. HVM—hostile vehicle mitigation—is an example. That is something that we always push for in planning applications and it is very swiftly declined, fundamentally on the basis of cost and whether it suits the planning aesthetic of pedestrianised areas. It is about understanding how much power the SIA will have in enforcing, collaborating and engaging with external bodies on behalf both of the Bill and of us as private entities.
Alex Beard: Ensuring that there are no cracks between the obligations on individual institutions and the role of the local authority and the statutory authority is absolutely key. Even when hostile vehicle mitigation is accepted as required or desirable, the time lag in implementing it can be very considerable.
Chris Murray
Q
Heather Walker: Security is both a moral and a commercial obligation for our visitors and our staff. It is essential that the public and our staff feel safe in our building; that is an important part of their feedback and how we keep on attracting them. The reasonable practicableness is a very subjective view. As an example, we do bag searches for everybody who comes into the building. Some might feel that having security arches is reasonable, but we have to balance that with the fact that we are a theatre—we are providing entertainment and this is a social space to come into with your friends and family. All these things are about balance and assessment. Having a CTSA to guide us through that is certainly extremely valuable.
Stuart Beeby: Our view, looking across the United Kingdom, is very similar. Things are affected, and there is a groupthink. We can demonstrate with statistics how long it took people to come back into places of mass gathering for great entertainment: post covid, it has taken a long time. I speak as the largest operator of theatre in the UK. There will be areas, particularly in some constituencies, where there are still independent theatres run by local authorities. The challenge with the cost base in live entertainment is very real, given the national living wage, energy costs and just the costs of producing. There has always been a high bar, but with those three it is a bit of a perfect storm. Unfortunately, cost is a reality that makes people look.
As we tried to paint a picture earlier, when we talk about the formulaic, you could get the same effect by scanning the ticket, having the table, checking the bag, having another queue for bigger bags or maybe not even allowing bigger bags into your theatre. You can do all that. If you come to our theatre at the Lyceum, with Disney as our partner, where we are doing 2,100 people with eight shows a week, you will see dogs there. I do not use dogs at the Savoy or the Princess theatre in Torquay, but that does not mean that you are less safe. There is an assessment.
We have to constantly manage that message. We do customer feedback, and you are right that we get the two bookends: “You made us do a bag search, it was raining, it was ‘An Inspector Calls’, the average age was 65 and we were out in the rain,” versus, “You were rushing us through, I had a bag and the check by your security staff seemed cursory.” We are constantly having to balance it.
There will be a real challenge on cost, which comes back to the application. For us, I guess it is about being very clear. It needs to be effects-based in terms of how it is assessed and the mitigations you put in place, because good training and being professional are just as effective as somebody being poor and just trying to whizz everybody through an arch, which would create a lot of cost. That formulaic piece is key.
We are constantly managing the message that these are safe spaces to be, because in the theatre the average age is still higher. It is still that demographic that is 45-plus with more disposable income and, particularly in regional theatre with your matinées, there will be more retirees, so they are very receptive to trigger events.
The Chair
As no other members of the Committee have questions, may I thank all our witnesses for their evidence this morning? That brings us to the end of our morning session. The Committee will continue taking oral evidence at 2 pm, here in the Boothroyd Room.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 31st October 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 31 October 2024 - (31 Oct 2024)
The Chair
Good morning, everybody. I begin with a few preliminary reminders. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or, alternatively, passed them to Hansard colleagues in the room.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. The selection list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which that amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill.
Clause 1
Overview
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. It is good to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge, in his place. He and I have known each other for a very long time, and as this may be our final exchange—
Dan Jarvis
Well, as it sounds as though it will be our final exchange, I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his service and wish him well for the future.
The purpose of clause 1 is to aid the reader of the Bill to understand its content and structure, which I am sure will be a great relief to members of the Committee as we debate the Bill. As the clause provides an overview of the Bill, this seems an appropriate moment to set out a reminder of why we have sought to legislate.
The first responsibility of any Government is to keep the public safe; that is, and will always be, our No. 1 priority. Since the start of 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots, and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks. As the MI5 director general, Ken McCallum, set out last month, this country is today subject to
“the most complex and interconnected threat environment we’ve ever seen.”
As can sadly be seen from recent terrorism incidents, the public may be targeted at a wide range of public venues and spaces. We know, too, that the terror threat has become less predictable and potential attacks harder to detect and investigate. That is why those who run premises and events need to know what they can do, and what they should be doing, to keep the public safe. That view is supported by inquests and inquiries into terror attacks, which have recommended the introduction of legislation to improve the safety and security of public venues. That includes, but is not limited to, monitored recommendation 4 in volume 1 of the Manchester Arena inquiry.
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place, or appropriate measures taken, to keep us safe. Wherever people are and whatever they are doing, they deserve to both be and feel safe, ensuring protection of life and of our way of life.
While we recognise that the risks posed by terrorism are already proactively considered for some premises and events, there is a lack of consistency, which needs addressing. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill—Martyn’s law—will remedy that inconsistency. The Bill’s proposals have been subject to extensive development, and a draft version of this legislation was subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny under the previous Government. Indeed, the shadow Minister gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on that matter.
The Bill that we have brought forward has been adjusted to strike an appropriate balance between protecting the public and avoiding an undue burden on premises. We recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be suitable for all premises and events, which is why, for example, we have adapted the Bill’s requirements to include the “reasonably practicable” test. That will enable those responsible for qualifying premises or events to take into consideration what is within their control and the resources they have available to them, as well as what is suitable and appropriate for their venue.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to Figen Murray, from whom we heard so movingly on Tuesday. She has without doubt been the driving force behind this Bill. I am sure that all Committee members will agree that Figen is an inspiration to us all. With that, I look forward to the exchanges to come in the course of proceedings in this Committee.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to start with something that Figen Murray said this week in her evidence to us, which, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, was incredibly powerful:
“Martyn’s law will save lives.”––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 7, Q1.]
That is what she said, and that is what will happen.
As the Minister has pointed out and as Ken McCallum of MI5 has put so powerfully, the number of foiled plots shows that, sadly, the terror threat is not going away but getting more intense. That puts even more of an onus on all of us to keep the public as safe as possible, especially when they are at their most vulnerable —simply going on a night out to enjoy themselves. I think I speak for all members of the Committee when I say how moving it was to hear Figen read out the names of all the individuals who lost their lives in the Manchester Arena bombing.
Like many Greater Manchester MPs, I know that many of my constituents in Rochdale will welcome the Bill, not least because many of them regularly go to the Manchester Arena—indeed, many were present on that awful night in 2017. Brendan Cox put it perfectly when he said that
“nobody wants to have a law named after their child.” ––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 8, Q1.]
It is a tribute to both him and Figen that they have turned their own losses into campaigning to make sure that no other families suffer at the hands of terrorists.
We as a Government are also bringing in Awaab’s law, named after two-year-old Awaab Ishak, who died when he was exposed to mould at his family’s home in Rochdale. We are creating new duties on private landlords to make sure that no other child dies in the same way. And, of course, there is the Hillsborough law: a duty of candour on all public bodies to ensure that the state can never again fail to comply with public inquiries or deny bereaved families the right to fair legal funding. What links each of those pieces of legislation is that they have been driven by the sheer determination of individuals—of those who have suffered a loss but are determined to turn that into something positive for others.
As the inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing found, both the state and the private sector have more to do to make our public venues safer. This Bill at least makes a real start on delivering that change. Andy Burnham was right when he said that Manchester and Greater Manchester have shown resilience since the 2017 bombing. I would add that the city showed similar resilience after the 1996 IRA bombing, turning that awful event into a catalyst for the regeneration that we have all seen since.
With Martyn’s law, we can make our public spaces across the country more resilient. We expect public premises to have a fire safety plan, so it seems obvious to expect them to have plans in place to mitigate the threat of a terror attack. This version of the Bill recognises the need to balance safety with proportionality, while retaining flexibility to amend that proportionality at a later stage if that is needed.
Manchester’s experience of a voluntary version of this Bill has shown that if smaller venues are engaged with and supported in the right way, these changes can help our thriving night-time economy and do not hinder it. But it is simply unacceptable that, for bigger venues in particular, there has been inconsistency on whether they have strong enough security checks. The terrorists will win if they restrict our freedoms to do simple things such as going out to enjoy a concert or show. We can reduce that fear—the fear that all those terrorists feed off—if we make our public venues safer in the way the Bill intends.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I really welcome the bipartisan work that the Minister has done on this legislation and also welcome the Conservative party support. I would like to add the Liberal Democrats’ wholehearted support for this important legislation. However, I would like to flag with the Minister my concerns about training, or the lack thereof, under the Bill at the moment. I would like to work with him to explore that area in a bit more detail. That issue has certainly been raised a lot by constituents when it comes to smaller venues just over the 200-people threshold. I would like to clarify that in more detail before we reach Report. The hon. Member for Rochdale rightly raised the comparison with other safety procedures, such as fire. That is a powerful point, but I add that often those fire safety procedures come with training programmes for the staff responsible. I sound that note of caution.
I pay tribute to Figen Murray, Brendan Cox and everyone the Committee has heard from. I again give my wholehearted support for the legislation.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Clause 1 offers a comprehensive overview of the Bill’s structure, laying the foundations for essential protections across public venues. The Bill introduces a two-tier system, distinguishing between “standard duty” and “enhanced duty” premises, based on venue size. That tiered approach ensures that venues expecting 200 to 799 attendees may face manageable requirements, if needed, focusing on basic but effective protective measures that respect available resources. Meanwhile, venues expecting more than 800 attendees are subject to higher standards, proportionate to the risk.
Witnesses such as Matt Jukes, assistant commissioner for specialist operations in the Metropolitan police, said that
“the proposed measures in the Bill…are proportionate, and highly likely to be effective.” ––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 29.]
Another witness, Keith Stevens, the chair of the National Association of Local Councils, talked about the village halls where many parish and town councils meet, and was pleased that the threshold has now been lifted to 200 because that is proportionate. Those and other witness statements demonstrate that the balance of measures in the Bill will help prevent small venues from becoming overburdened, aligned with the Government’s commitment to proportionality and public safety.
By providing clear and adaptable guidelines, clause 1 provides an overview to the Bill that enables venues to enhance security in ways that suit their unique operational needs, promoting safer and more resilient public services across the UK.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge is withdrawing his amendment.
Tim Roca
Fair enough. But I will speak to clause 1 of the Bill. I will focus on small businesses, because we heard a lot in the evidence session about the impact on them. They are the lifeblood of our economy and key contributors to keeping our high streets vital and thriving.
It is important to reflect on the evidence we heard about the impact that the Bill will have on small businesses, particularly what Mayor Andy Burnham said about the experience they have had in Greater Manchester already. The city council in Manchester held partnership sessions with large and small businesses alike—over 2,000 people across 10 sessions representing 700 businesses. They then held the tabletop discussions that Figen Murray talked about, including with large spaces such as the Printworks, all the way down to small independent restaurants. The response of those businesses was clear. They believe that there is a need for the legislation, and they do not believe that the provisions are prohibitively onerous. They believe that, at most, it would cost them two hours of staff time.
I will quote from Gareth Worthington, the night time economy officer at CityCo and Manchester business improvement district, which I am happy to place in the Library:
“If a venue operator does not know how to evacuate their venue they should not be running that venue and if training can be provided to help make that evacuation safer then venues should grasp it with both hands.”
Businesses recognise that their first duty is to keep their patrons safe, and that sensible practical measures can be taken to reduce the chance of harm. Businesses are aware of the threats out there. The Minister alluded to those when he spoke: 43 late-stage terrorist plots foiled, and in the last year the number of state-threat investigations launched by the security services increased by 48%. The practical measures in the Bill are necessary, reasonable and proportionate.
Finally, I want to talk about Figen Murray, as she is one of my constituents. I cannot put it better than the way Mayor Andy Burnham phrased it:
“Figen responded to an awful, evil act of hate, with love…Everything she has done since losing her son has been about making the world a better place in his memory.”
He also said:
“Through her work with young people and her campaign for Martyn’s Law, she is helping to prevent future tragedies and give every parent peace of mind. She is a real icon of Greater Manchester.”
I am proud that she is one of my constituents.
Tom Tugendhat
Given that this is the last time I will speak on this Bill Committee, I want to pay tribute to Figen and Brendan for the work they have done.
There is always a danger with such Bills that we put the blame not on the perpetrator but on those who are actually victims. I say that because the businesses that must make provision, pay the cost and bear the burden are also victims of the perpetrators. Let us be absolutely clear: for all that this law lays out the responsibilities on businesses, the true responsibility falls on those perpetrating these attacks.
Today, as Ken McCallum would tell us, the Iranian state is a prime originator, and the Muslim Brotherhood is a feeder, of the evil we see perpetrated. It is the various jihadi extremist organisations that make this country less safe, and different aspects of other political parties also make it more dangerous. We must be absolutely clear that responsibility for the actions we are talking about actually falls not on the businesses but on those who encourage, tolerate and perpetrate terrorism. Let us be absolutely clear today that one of the principal vectors for this violence comes straight out of Tehran and through various organisations that are still operating in this country despite many attempts to close them down.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale, for Dudley and for Macclesfield. I am also grateful for the contribution made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall; the Government appreciate the Liberal Democrat party’s support, and I am happy to work, and have further conversations, with him before Report on the important point that he raised about training.
Finally, I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. I completely agree with his point about responsibility, and he is right. He will know that this new Government take these matters incredibly seriously, and I can give him and the rest of the Committee an absolute assurance that we will not rest in seeking to address the points he made and the concerns he dealt with admirably when he was the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Qualifying premises
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “200” and insert “300”.
This amendment sets the threshold for qualifying premises at 300 individuals.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 20, in clause 32, page 22, line 9, leave out “100” insert “200”.
This amendment sets the floor for standard duty at 200 individuals.
Amendment 21, in clause 32, page 22, line 12, leave out “500” and insert “799”.
This amendment sets the floor for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events at 799 individuals.
Clause stand part.
Tom Tugendhat
I tabled the amendments for the simple reason that a burden will fall on businesses and on individuals; we can belittle it and say that complying will take only an hour or two, but for many small businesses that is a significant burden. As was made clear in the evidence session only the other day, the burden on local authorities, including at parish level for parish halls, can change the way in which trustees approach this issue, which is why we looked to make the changes that I recognise the Minister has indeed made.
It is important to ensure that the burdens do not grow. That is why I have tabled some of the amendments before us, which change some of the fines and request a change from simply issuing an instruction to introducing a statutory instrument—a very specific moment when the Minister actually has to make a decision and bring the issue back to Parliament. We can belittle the hours, but trustees and volunteers at village halls make their own time available—I speak from personal experience, and others will have seen this as well—so if the burden is too great, plenty of village halls will simply close because we are asking people to take on more than they are willing to give.
That is why we have tabled the amendments, but as they all speak to the same point, which is not overburdening people, my remarks can be taken to apply to them as a whole.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendments. Before I turn to them, I will briefly explain why clause 2, which sets out the criteria by which premises are determined to be qualifying premises that fall within scope, is so fundamental.
I recognise that the scope of the Bill—particularly the qualifying thresholds—is an important issue to discuss. Once more, I assure Committee members that the scope of the Bill, including the thresholds, has been developed following detailed discussion with those responsible for premises and with security experts within Government. That has involved hundreds of stakeholder engagement meetings, two public consultations and the important pre-legislative scrutiny process. As a result, the Government’s firm view is that the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the public and avoiding an undue burden on premises.
Let me turn to the detail of amendments 20 and 21, which were tabled by the right hon. Member. He will be well aware that the Government have increased the qualifying threshold in the Bill from 100 to 200. As he correctly set out, clause 32 provides for the Secretary of State to be able to increase or decrease that figure and the threshold for the enhanced tier. As a result, the number of premises in scope of the Bill, and therefore required to comply, may be increased or decreased.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that that power is narrow, and regulations made under it will be subject to the affirmative procedure before they are made, to ensure the appropriate level of scrutiny by parliamentarians. The power is also limited in that the Secretary of State may not amend the figure to less than 100 in respect of the standard tier or to less than 500 in respect of the enhanced tier. That provides a floor, or absolute minimum number, below which the qualifying threshold cannot go.
The Government’s intention, in having the power in clause 32, is to be equipped to respond to changes in the nature or level of the threat from terrorism. We envisage that the qualifying thresholds would be reduced to either floor in only very limited circumstances, such as the nature of the threat changing significantly. The power therefore provides a necessary lever that can be used, if needed, to ensure that the legislation remains fit for purpose and continues to strike an appropriate balance between protecting the public and avoiding placing an undue burden on premises. The Government do not therefore support the amendments.
Finally, I turn to amendment 22. As I set out during oral evidence, setting a threshold inevitably raises discussion as to whether it is the right figure, and what falls on either side of the threshold will inevitably be questioned. Indeed, the Committee heard a range of views from witnesses giving evidence on Tuesday, many of whom spoke to what they believe the appropriate threshold to be. The discussion included arguments for setting it higher or lower than 200.
Ultimately, the Government have to take a view about what the most appropriate threshold is. After careful consideration of the pre-legislative scrutiny findings and consultation responses, and after taking into account the views of stakeholders and security experts, the Government have decided that 200 is the right judgment.
The amendment changing the figure to 300 would significantly impact the outcomes of the Bill, and particularly what the standard tier seeks to achieve. Furthermore, as we will discuss when we debate clause 5, the standard tier requirements have been redesigned to be relatively simple and low-cost for responsible persons to take forward. They do not require premises to make physical changes.
The Government’s firm view is therefore that 200 represents the right threshold to bring premises into the scope of the Bill. That figure strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the public and imposing a burden on premises. The Government therefore do not support the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment.
Tim Roca
I want to speak briefly to the point about thresholds, which has just been discussed. The consultations prior to the Bill were based on a threshold of 100 at the standard tier, and I welcome the ability the Bill gives the Secretary of State to reduce the threshold back to that, should the evidence warrant that. I think Members will be reassured by some of the safeguards the Minister has just talked about, which would have to be in place before any such change happened.
In the protect duty public consultation, half of respondents thought that the threshold should be 100. Moving it to 200 has already taken 100,000 premises out of the scope of the legislation, leaving 180,000 within it. Raising the threshold to 300 would in effect remove the standard tier altogether. Figen has been very clear on this point:
“Raising the threshold of 200 even higher would mean that proportionality would no longer exist”.
She has also pointed out that in her small town of Poynton, in my constituency, a threshold of 200 would already mean that not a single venue is covered by this legislation. A move to 300 would therefore be a mistake and fatal to the purpose of the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat
Given the very obvious numbers on the Committee, there is no point in pushing the amendment to a vote, but I still believe that the burden on small businesses is too great. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Specified uses of premises
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move amendment 10, schedule 1, page 26, line 15, leave out paragraphs 3 and 4 and insert—
“Entertainment and leisure activities
3 Use (other than a use mentioned elsewhere in this Schedule) for the provision of entertainment, leisure or recreation activities of any description, where the activity is principally for the benefit of visiting members of the public.”
This amendment makes general provision about premises used by the public for entertainment, leisure or recreation activities and replaces references to specific types of such activities.
Dan Jarvis
The amendments in this and the following group seek to ensure that the Bill will work as effectively as intended, including by clarifying and simplifying the definitions of certain uses of premises and certain terms. They are not intended to bring any new premises into scope or to inadvertently bring unintended premises within scope.
Government amendments 10 and 11 simplify schedule 1 by creating a new category of “Entertainment and leisure activities”, which brings together the premises previously captured by paragraphs 3, 4 and 6. That will help to ensure that the legislation and accompanying guidance are simpler to understand for persons potentially within scope of the Bill.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment made: 11, in schedule 1, page 27, line 10, leave out paragraph 6.—(Dan Jarvis.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 10.
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 29, line 29, at end insert—
“(but see paragraph 4(a) of Schedule 2)”.
This amendment makes clear that paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 (aerodromes) is subject to the exception in paragraph 4(a) of Schedule 2 for premises covered by an aerodrome security plan under the Aviation Security Act 1982.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 13, 14 and 15.
Dan Jarvis
Government amendment 12 simply highlights that the term “aerodromes” does not include those covered by the exception in schedule 2 with an aerodrome security plan under the Aviation Security Act 1982.
Government amendment 13 is a technical amendment to ensure that Scottish further education establishments are more appropriately described and to reflect any future changes to relevant Scottish legislation.
Government amendment 14 is a change to clarify that agricultural colleges in Northern Ireland are captured, and Government amendment 15 is a technical change to improve the accuracy of the definition of higher education institutions as applied in Scotland.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendments made: 13, in schedule 1, page 32, line 4, leave out from “listed” to “in” in line 6.
This is a drafting change.
Amendment 14, in schedule 1, page 32, line 13, at end insert—
“or established under section 5 of the Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland) 1949 (c. 2 (N.I.)).”
This amendment provides that paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 covers use of premises for the provision of further education at Northern Ireland agriculture colleges.
Amendment 15, in schedule 1, page 34, line 19, leave out from beginning to “the” in line 22 and insert—
“in Scotland, a higher education institution within the meaning of section 35(1) of”.—(Dan Jarvis.)
This is a drafting change.
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move amendment 16, in schedule 1, page 34, line 37, after “to” insert “visiting”.
This amendment clarifies that the use of premises for the provision by a public authority of facilities or services is only relevant for the purposes of Part 1 of the Bill if members of the public visit the premises in connection with those facilities or services.
Dan Jarvis
Government amendment 16 clarifies that premises used by public authorities for the provision of facilities or services are only in scope if the public visit the premises to use the facilities or receive those services.
Government amendment 17 clarifies that
“visiting members of the public”
includes members of the public who have paid to access, have invitations or passes allowing access to, or are members or guests of a club, association or other body. That more accurately captures the differing arrangements for public access that may be in place at premises in scope, such as private members’ clubs.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Amendment made: 17, in schedule 1, page 34, line 42, at end insert—
“References to “visiting members of the public”
20 In determining for the purposes of this Schedule whether premises are used by “visiting members of the public”, it is irrelevant that access to the premises may be limited (at all times or particular times) to members of the public who—
(a) have paid to access the premises,
(b) have invitations or passes allowing access, or
(c) are members (or guests of members) of a club, association or other body.”—(Dan Jarvis.)
This amendment contains provision about the meaning of references in Schedule 1 to “visiting members of the public”.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
We have previously spoken at length about the purpose of schedule 1, so I trust that the Committee are suitably satisfied as to why it should stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 2
Excluded premises and events
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Schedule 2 specifies certain types of premises that are excluded from the Bill’s scope, which is necessary where there are already similar legislative requirements or protective frameworks in place. This covers, in particular, certain transport premises and premises occupied by Parliament and the devolved legislatures.
Schedule 2 also defines a category of open-air premises that might fall in scope, but where it would be impractical or disproportionately difficult to deliver the requirements given the nature and operation of those premises. The category includes parks and premises used for grassroots sports, which generally do not have controlled access or defined physical boundaries. These premises are therefore excluded, except where they employ individuals to ensure that members of the public have paid to access the premises, or where they have invitations or passes to do so; in cases where entry and exit to the premises are controlled and payment is taken, it is considered that there is a greater capacity and capability to consider reasonably practical procedures and/or measures as required.
Schedule 2 also maintains the provisions in schedule 1 that places of worship and premises used for childcare or primary, secondary or further education fall within the standard tier, meaning that qualifying events cannot occur on those sites.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 3
Qualifying events
Amendments made: 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, leave out “all or part of”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.
Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, after “time” insert
“in connection with their use for the event”.
This amendment clarifies that, for the purposes of determining whether Part 1 of the Bill applies to an event, the number of individuals present on premises in connection with the event must be considered.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 3, line 2, leave out “all or part of”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 4.
Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 3, line 7, at end insert—
“(2) Where the condition in subsection (1)(e) applies only in relation to one or more parts of the premises at which an event is to be held, for the purposes of this Part treat what is to be held at each such part of the premises as a separate event (to be held at that part).”.—(Dan Jarvis.)
This amendment caters for cases where parts of the premises at which an event is to be held are open to the public generally and other parts are areas for which members of the public will need permission to enter.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Persons responsible for qualifying premises or events
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 4 defines who is responsible for qualifying premises or a qualifying event, and therefore who is responsible for meeting the relevant requirements. With regard to premises, paragraph (a) of subsection (1) provides that:
“a person is responsible for qualifying premises if the person has control of the premises in connection with their relevant Schedule 1 use”,
such as the operator of a hotel.
Subsection (2) sets out what is meant by “relevant Schedule 1 use”. If premises are used for one of the uses specified in schedule 1, that is the relevant use. That is the case even if premises are also used for other purposes not listed in schedule 1. Some premises will be used for more than one of the uses specified in schedule 1. In such cases, it is the person with control over the premises in connection with that principal use who will have to meet the relevant requirements.
Subsection (3) provides a regulation-making power that enables the Secretary of State to provide specific rules as to how the principal use is to be determined. We expect that the principal use will be readily apparent in the vast majority of cases, but the power will ensure that clarity can be provided if and when needed. Principal use is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Guidance will set out the relevant factors that should be considered when making a determination—for example, taking account of the amount of time for which the premises are used for each type of activity. The regulation-making power can be used if further specific provision is necessary.
On qualifying events, subsection (1)(b) provides that the person responsible is the person who has
“control of the premises at which the event is to be held in connection with their use for the event”—
for example, the organiser of a music festival. The relevant circumstances of the event will need to be considered to determine who the responsible person is. For example, if a concert is to be held in a park, and a company putting on the event has control of an area of the park for the purposes of delivering the concert, that company will be the responsible person. Conversely, if the local authority that operates the park puts on the concert, it will be the responsible person. Where the local authority is not the responsible person, it will still have a duty under clause 8(5) to co-operate with that person to enable them to comply with their requirements.
Subsection (4) specifies that if there is more than one person responsible for qualifying premises, or a qualifying event, they are jointly responsible for ensuring compliance with the Bill’s requirements, and may act jointly in meeting their requirements. In addition, clause 8(2), which we will debate shortly, imposes obligations on the responsible persons to co-ordinate with each other in meeting the requirements. Such a situation will arise when each of the parties has control over parts of the premises in connection with the relevant schedule 1 use. It does not mean, for example, that the multiple tenants of a shopping centre are jointly responsible for the shopping centre as a whole; rather, each will be responsible for their respective premises.
Finally, schedule 1 includes some specific provisions to identify the responsible person for particular types of premises. For example, in the case of a primary or secondary school, paragraph 16 provides that the responsible person will either be the local authority or the governing body of the school. Clause 4(5) provides that those specific provisions apply instead of the general provisions of the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Public protection procedures
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 5 places a requirement on those responsible for all qualifying premises and events to put public protection procedures in place, so far as is reasonably practical. This applies to both standard and enhanced duty premises and events. The intention of having such procedures in place is to reduce the risk of physical harm that could be caused to individuals present at qualifying premises and events if an act of terrorism were to occur.
The procedures will help to prepare people working at premises and events to take steps to reduce the risk of harm and move people away from danger. All qualifying premises and events will have to consider how to evacuate, move people to safety, lock down and communicate information. In practice, these procedures focus on simple, low-cost activities such as identifying safe exit routes and lockable doors. The Bill does not require standard duty premises to make physical changes to their sites. Premises must consider the procedures that are appropriate for them.
The procedures that the Bill requires are simple steps to reduce the physical risk to the public from acts of terrorism. They are similar to, but often with key differences from, other legislative procedures. For example, in developing evacuation procedures, those responsible may want to consider safe exit routes for full, partial or phased evacuations, and where they differ from evacuation procedures required by fire safety, such as how they are communicated and where people should congregate. With a focus on ensuring preparedness, security experts advise that these types of procedures are best placed to reduce the risk of physical harm. Qualifying premises will all be different. Further information on how the procedures would apply in practice is provided in the factsheets. Statutory guidance will support the development and implementation of appropriate procedures to allow premises and events to introduce procedures that are right for them, taking into account their circumstances and resources.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I wanted to speak on this clause because it is arguably the most important component of this legislation and could have the biggest impact. Obviously we all hope that terrorist events do not happen, but we must be alert to the possibility that they can, and to what we collectively need to do to prepare for that situation.
Enhanced-tier organisations, particularly those at the upper end such as stadiums, will already have many operations in place to prepare for that. They will do table-top exercises; they will do war games; they will designate staff; they will have protocols. But for the standard tier, in particular, will not automatically be doing that. As we see the terror threat evolving to target those smaller standard-tier institutions, it is important that we prompt them, through this legislation, to do that thinking.
The former US Under-Secretary of State for Homeland Security, Juliette Kayyem, talks about the distinction between “pre-boom” and “boom” with terrorist events. Pre-boom, we can do a lot of work to stop terrorists—put in checks and do things—but we have to think about what we do in the moment when the terrorist attack has already begun. That is not the time for institutions, particularly small institutions, to be thinking, “What is the exit route? What do we need to do? Who’s in charge here?” In reference to American school shootings, Juliette Kayyem says that the least useful person, once a school shooting has started, is the person who says, “We should have banned guns.” It is too late to be having that conversation, and the gun is already in the school. People need to be prepared for that situation.
The four requirements under subsection (3) are small, and quite intuitive, prompts that we are asking of standard-tier institutions; but in giving those prompts we could be encouraging them to take the small steps that will, when the terrorist event happens, affect the outcome and could really save lives. This is a really important clause.
The Opposition have made the point that the clause presents a burden on business, and it is true that it is bringing into scope organisations that probably have not had this burden placed upon them before. Admittedly, there is a component of burden being placed here—but actually it is not the legislation that is doing that; it is the evolving terror threat, which we are responding to. That is why it is important to note that the proposals made here—those four requirements—are straightforward. As I say, they are almost intuitive and commonsensical. They are not onerous and they are low-cost.
My constituency, the city centre of Edinburgh, is event central. We have hundreds of events there every week, and in August we host the third-biggest ticketed event in the world—double the number of people go to events in that month as go to the Olympics. But they are not all in one place. It is not one big stadium; they are spread throughout the city.
Some of those events, such as the Tattoo, would qualify for the enhanced tier, but many of them would be standard tier. If we can prompt them to make these changes, we really could make a huge impact. If we do not do that and there is a chilling effect because people feel insecure, the burden on organisations will significant; we need to take that seriously. That is why the distinction between standard and enhanced is appropriate, and I think the requirements being made of the standard tier are the right ones.
This very important clause codifies something that society should be doing anyway, given the evolving terror threat. The way we will know it has had an impact is that we will never hear about it again, because the prompts will mean that further action is not required and tragedies do not happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Public protection measures for enhanced duty premises and qualifying event
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 6, page 5, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from creating further requirements for enhanced duty premises by regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, in clause 6, page 5, line 8, leave out subsection 6.
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to omit or amend the description of public protection measures for enhanced premises and qualifying events without regard to the considerations set out in Clause (6)6.
Clause stand part.
Tom Tugendhat
This very simple amendment is in line with the others that I have already spoken about. It would limit the Government’s power to exert extra burdens on small businesses.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling this amendment. The Government consider that specifying further measures is an important power for the Secretary of State and must be available to ensure effective protection of the public through these measures.
Having the ability to specify further public protection measures through regulations means that the requirements of the enhanced duty can be amended to reflect changes in the terrorism threat, advances in technological solutions and our response to them. For example, there may be lessons learned from future incidents, further common types of attack may emerge, or best practice may evolve.
The right hon. Gentleman’s amendment would limit the Government’s ability to protect the public and safeguard them from harm. I understand that the intention behind it may relate to fears over the burden that future measures may create. However, the clause is drafted to constrain the power to be exercisable only where it is considered that the further measures will reduce vulnerability to, or the risk of physical harm from, an attack. It is intended to ensure that new requirements are limited to those necessary to protect the public, and remain in line with the overall objectives of the measures under the clause. Given the evolving nature of terrorism and the threat it poses, the Government consider it necessary to include this power, and therefore do not support the amendment.
On amendment 26, the Government consider it important to be able to remove or amend public protection measures from the list in subsection (3). For example, the Government might identify potential amendments to improve the measures through lessons learned and evolving best practice. This power is drafted so that the Secretary of State may remove or amend the types of measures only if they consider that doing so will not either increase the risk of physical harm to individuals or increase the vulnerability of the premises or event to the risk of acts of terrorism. That is in accordance with the overall objectives of the measures within this clause, as stated in subsection (2).
Were we to agree to the amendment, specified measures could be amended or removed without a requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to expressly consider how those public protection objectives would be effective in taking away or altering a measure in the list approved by Parliament. The Government do not consider that appropriate and therefore respectfully do not support the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments.
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Enhanced duty premises and qualifying events: documenting compliance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 7 places a legislative requirement on those responsible for enhanced duty premises and events to prepare and maintain a document that records their compliance in relation to putting in place procedures, under clause 5, and measures, under clause 6. This is necessary to ensure that premises are able to more easily demonstrate compliance, and the Security Industry Authority is able to assess that against the Bill’s requirements. Many premises will already be documenting similar mitigations in regard to existing security plans for non-legislative purposes—fire safety and health and safety legislation, for example.
Documents should contain statements that relate to the public protection procedures and measures that are implemented, or proposed to be implemented, at their premises or event. Documents should also contain assessments to provide a rationale as to how the proposed procedures and measures will reduce both physical harm to individuals present and vulnerabilities of the premises or event if an attack were to occur.
When complete, the document should contain the totality of the procedures and measures deployed and sufficient detail to enable the authority to assess whether those responsible for premises and events are compliant with the Bill’s requirements. In the first instance, those responsible for enhanced duty premises and events are required to provide the document as soon as reasonably practicable after it is prepared and within 30 days of any subsequent revision.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Requirements to co-ordinate and co-operate
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 24, in clause 9, page 6, line 19, leave out paragraph (a).—(Tom Tugendhat.)
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from specifying further matters relating to qualifying premises or a qualifying event on which the responsible person would have to inform the Security Industry Authority.
Clauses 9 and 10 stand part.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 8 places a requirement upon certain duty holders to co-ordinate or co-operate with each other when complying with requirements. Subsections (1) and (2) deal with instances whereby there is more than one responsible person, requiring those persons to co-ordinate so far as is reasonably practicable with the requirements imposed upon them. An example of this may be a joint venture between two parties with equal control. The requirement applies to all premises and events within scope of the legislation. It will ensure organisation between mutually invested parties and encourage unified decision making in relation to the requirements placed upon them.
Subsections (3) and (4) concern where one qualifying premises forms part of another. The persons responsible for both premises must so far as is reasonably practicable co-ordinate with each other in complying with the relevant legislative requirements. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that responsible persons in such scenarios, such as a shopping centre, combine efforts or actions to reach mutually effective and compliant outcomes in relation to relevant requirements. That might, for example, entail the shopping centre operator liaising with different units in scope to ensure there is a co-ordinated and effective evacuation plan.
Subsections (5) and (6) concern where a person has some form of control of an enhanced duty premises or event, but is not the responsible person. Where that is the case, they must so far as is reasonably practicable co-operate with each other in complying with the relevant legislative requirements. Examples of persons in control but not the responsible person would be a building owner who has leased the premises to a separate operator, or a landowner who has given permission for a qualifying event to take place on their land. The purpose of this requirement is to assist the responsible person in ensuring that appropriate public protection measures are in place under clause 6. In instances where they require relevant permissions or support from other parties who have some control over the premises, there is a duty placed on such parties to co-operate so far as is reasonably practicable.
Subsection (7) specifies that a requirement under this section does not extend to a requirement imposed by a penalty notice. Those responsible may require co-ordination or co-operation from other duty holders in regards to meeting relevant requirements, including compliance and restriction notices, but this does not extend to penalty notices. If there is a dispute in relation to scenarios of co-ordination or co-operation, clause 11 enables interested persons to apply for certain determinations by a tribunal. The tribunal may be asked to determine whether a person is a responsible person, or the extent to which a person who is not a responsible person has control of the premises. In summary, placing a requirement upon relevant responsible persons and duty holders to co-ordinate or co-operate will further drive compliance with the Bill’s requirements and therefore better protect the public.
I turn briefly to clause 9, which requires those responsible for qualifying premises or events to notify the SIA when they become or cease to be responsible for premises or events. Those responsible for premises or an event must notify the SIA of that responsibility upon commencement of the legislation. If a person becomes responsible for premises or an event after the legislation has commenced, they too must notify the SIA of that. The requirements of the clause will assist the SIA in knowing which premises and events within scope of the legislation are actively demonstrating compliance and so identifying those who are not. The time limit within which notifications must be made will be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. Clause 9 also sets out that the Secretary of State may, via regulations, specify the form and manner in which notifications must be sent and the information that is required to be included in a notification, such as information about the premises or event and contact details for the responsible person.
Clause 10 places a legislative requirement on those responsible for all enhanced duty premises and qualifying events to designate a senior individual where the responsible person is not an individual. Examples of responsible persons that are not individuals are bodies corporate, limited partnerships and unincorporated associations. The individual undertaking the role must be someone who is involved in the management of, or has some form of control within, the organisation—for example, a director or partner, rather than a lower-level employee. That will help ensure that the individual appointed has appropriate influence and seniority to drive forward compliance with the requirements. The senior individual may delegate actions that relate to the relevant legislative requirements to ensure they are complied with. However, they cannot delegate their overall responsibility for ensuring compliance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 31st October 2024
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 31 October 2024 - (31 Oct 2024)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Clause 11 will enable an interested person to apply to the tribunal for an independent determination on matters where disagreements may arise. An “interested person” can mean either the Security Industry Authority or a person who has—or, for an event, will have at some point—control of the premises or event to any extent. Interested parties may apply to the tribunal where there are disagreements or a need for clarity on whether a premises or an event are in scope and in which tier they fall, who is responsible for them, and whether a person is required to co-operate with the person responsible for them. A determination by the tribunal will be legally binding.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Role of the Security Industry Authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Review of the role of the regulator in oversight of public protection requirements—
“(1) Within 18 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report reviewing the role of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator.
(2) The report must include a cost-benefit analysis comparing the respective situation for each of the matters listed in subsection (3) on how—
(a) these have been carried out by the Security Industry Authority, and
(b) they might be carried by local authority teams if the regulatory duties were transferred to them.
(3) The issues which must be included in the analysis contained in the report laid under subsection (1) are—
(a) effectiveness in performing investigation and enforcement functions;
(b) relationship and synergies with other locally-based enforcement regimes;
(c) relationship and interaction with existing statutory licensing regimes; and
(d) effectiveness of provision of guidance as part of oversight, adherence and awareness of the new public protection requirements.”
This new clause would require a report reviewing the role of the Security Industry Authority, including a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the regulatory functions being carried out by the Security Industry Authority with those functions being provided alternatively at a local authority level.
Schedule 3.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 12 will allow the SIA to effectively operate as the regulator for the Bill by setting out its responsibilities, powers and role. The primary role of the SIA will be to provide support and guidance. However, it is also important that it has the powers necessary to investigate and monitor compliance, so that the legislation can be enforced effectively. Schedule 3 therefore grants powers to authorised inspectors to investigate whether persons responsible for premises or events are contravening or have contravened requirements of the Bill. The schedule outlines their powers to gather information, the use of warrants, their ability to enter premises without a warrant, and supporting offences.
Under the schedule, inspectors will be able to serve information notices to gather relevant information for inspection purposes. The notice could require a person to provide written detail relating to an investigation or to attend an interview. Inspectors may enter premises without a warrant, subject to certain conditions in paragraph 4. However, schedule 3 also provides for inspectors to apply for warrants to enter premises, with paragraph 6 setting out the powers afforded to inspectors once a warrant is issued. The schedule also creates criminal offences for failing to comply with information notices, obstructing authorised inspectors and impersonating inspectors.
Under clause 12, the SIA must prepare guidance about how it will exercise its functions, which must be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. Approved guidance must then be published and kept subject to review, and revised accordingly as needed. The SIA must also provide advice about the requirements of the Bill, as well as reviewing the effectiveness of the requirements in reducing the risk of harm and the vulnerability of premises and events in scope.
The clause also requires the SIA to comply with requests from the Secretary of State and provide an annual report, which is to be laid before Parliament. The SIA is the appropriate body to undertake this role, due to its years of experience in increasing security standards and ensuring public protection. I hope that the Committee will support clause 12 and schedule 3.
I turn now to new clause 2, tabled by the shadow Minister, the right Member for Tonbridge. Establishing the SIA as the new regulator for this legislation, which is the first of its kind, will take at least 24 months. That is in line with the timeframes taken to establish new regulatory functions in existing bodies over recent years. I am sure he will agree that it would not be possible or fair to judge a new regulator’s performance before the regime has been established. Once the SIA has taken on its new role, it will take time before there is robust data against which to evaluate its performance.
The legislation already establishes several checks and balances on the performance of the SIA, as is standard with arm’s length bodies. They include the production of an annual report on performance, enabling the Secretary of State to issue directions to the SIA, and ensuring that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint board members and approve statutory guidance for publication.
Further to this, I have confidence that the SIA is the right home for the regulator because it already plays an important role in safeguarding the public through its statutory and non-statutory work. With a wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation, it better protects the public. With the addition of its new function, the SIA will be able to raise security standards for both people and places.
The Home Office will maintain appropriate levels of oversight and accountability to ensure that the regulator is delivered as intended. Once operational, the Secretary of State will closely monitor the performance of the regulator to ensure that it carries out its functions under the Bill effectively. For the reasons that I have set out, the Government do not support the amendment.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I tabled the new clause on the SIA for the simple reason that its reputation goes before it. Work that was done in the Department under a previous regime demonstrated that there were alternatives, which we felt would offer not only better value for money but greater ministerial oversight and better accountability to those who are forced to use its services. But clearly, with the Government’s majority, it is for the Minister to decide.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 13
Compliance notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
A successful terrorist attack can have devastating consequences. It is vital to the effective operation of this legislation that the SIA can take action if it believes there is or has been a failure to fulfil the Bill’s requirements. Clauses 13 to 16 will enable it to do so. Clause 13 therefore gives the SIA the ability to issue a compliance notice.
A compliance notice requires the recipient to remedy non-compliance within a certain period and could require specific actions to be taken. For example, a notice could require the recipient to put in place an evacuation procedure within four weeks where no such procedure is already in place.
The SIA must allow a reasonable period for specified steps to be taken, and, before issuing the notice, must give an opportunity for representations to be made. Failure to comply with a compliance notice could lead to the SIA issuing a monetary penalty and, in relation to enhanced duty premises and qualifying events, would be a criminal offence. A person may appeal a compliance notice under clause 16. Due to the risk posed by terrorism, it is important that the SIA has the tools to address non- compliance where guidance and engagement fall short.
Clause 14 provides that the SIA may issue a restriction notice where it believes that appropriate public protection procedures or measures are not in place at an enhanced duty premises or event. The SIA may issue such a notice if it believes that the restrictions specified within it are necessary to protect people from the risk of harm if an attack occurred at or near a premises or event. To reiterate, a restriction notice cannot be issued for standard duty premises. For that reason, it is anticipated that it will be used in exceptional circumstances where immediate action is needed to mitigate the risk.
The notice can require the temporary closure of premises, prohibit an event from taking place, or impose certain restrictions on the premises or event. For example, it could limit the number of people who may attend an event at any one time. The restrictions would apply until appropriate measures are in place, or the notice expires or is withdrawn. A notice cannot last more than six months initially, but is subject to being extended for three months at a time.
I do not wish to pre-empt our debate on later clauses, but it is important to note that the SIA will be able to issue both non-compliance and daily penalties where a restriction notice has not been complied with. Where it is in the public interest, a person may ultimately be prosecuted for breach of a restriction notice, which is an offence under clause 24.
I turn now to clause 15. Once a compliance notice or restriction notice has been issued, it is important that the SIA has the flexibility to vary and withdraw it if needed to reflect positive steps taken by the recipients or to deal with their continuing non-compliance.
The clause also contains several safeguards. First, it specifies that a compliance notice or restriction notice cannot be made more onerous, in order to protect the recipient from changes that are more burdensome. It could therefore be used, for instance, to vary a notice to reduce the requirements in it or to extend the period for complying with it to allow the recipient more time to satisfy it.
The clause also includes the further safeguard that a restriction notice may be varied to extend the period for which it has effect by no more than three months at a time. That must happen before it expires, and only so long as there are reasonable grounds to believe that the reasons for the original notice still apply.
The SIA may also withdraw a compliance or restriction notice where it considers that the notice is no longer required. For example, a restriction notice may not be needed to protect the public from the risk of harm because non-compliance has been rectified or sufficiently reduced. That is what the clause seeks to achieve.
Finally, clause 16 provides a right of appeal against a compliance or restriction notice, or the variation of either notice. An appeal can be brought within 28 days of the notice being given, on the grounds that the decision to give or vary the notice was wholly or partly based on an error of fact, wrong in law, unfair or unreasonable, or for any other reason. Pending the outcome of an appeal, a compliance notice will have no effect unless the tribunal orders otherwise, but given the reasons for issuing a restriction notice, a restriction notice will ordinarily continue to apply.
The clause ensures that enforcement decisions of the SIA are subject to review by an independent judicial body. The tribunal may consider evidence that was not before the SIA at the time of its decision and, where it does not dismiss an appeal, the tribunal will vary or cancel a notice.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Penalty notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 5 to 7.
Amendment 28, in clause 18, page 13, line 17, leave out “18” and insert “10”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 30.
Amendment 29, in clause 18, page 13, line 18, leave out from after first “is” to “5%” in line 20.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 30.
Amendment 30, in clause 18, page 13, line 21, at end insert
“up to a maximum amount of £10 million”.
This amendment sets a maximum non-compliance penalty for enhanced duty premises at £10 million.
Government amendment 8.
Clause 18 stand part.
Amendment 27, in clause 19, page 14, line 24, leave out “different” and insert “lower”.
The amendment restricts the Secretary of State to lowering the daily penalties rate for non-compliance by regulation.
Clauses 19 to 23 stand part.
Dan Jarvis
This group of clauses sets out the means by which the SIA will be able to issue civil penalties for non-compliance. Although it is intended that the SIA will rely mainly on advice and guidance in the first instance, a credible sanctions regime with suitable monetary penalties is necessary to ensure that the regulator can secure compliance where it identifies serious or persistent non-compliance.
Where a person fails to fulfil a requirement, it is important that the SIA has the ability to issue financial penalties that can reduce the financial benefit of non-compliance. Where a person fails to comply with a compliance notice, restriction notice or information notice, they may be prosecuted for a criminal offence if it is in the public interest. In most cases, however, penalties will likely be the appropriate way of dealing with non-compliance.
Clause 17 enables the SIA to issue a penalty notice if it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a person is contravening or has contravened a relevant requirement—for example, if the responsible person for an enhanced duty premises has failed to put in place appropriate public protection measures. A penalty notice will always specify a non-compliance penalty to be paid by the recipient.
The maximum amount of a non-compliance penalty to be imposed by way of a penalty notice is set out in clause 18, which sets the penalty amounts at a level to counter financial gain from non-compliance. The maximum penalty is higher for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events because of the potentially more impactful consequences of non-compliance in the event of an attack.
In most cases, it is anticipated that penalty notices will be used in the event of breach of a compliance or restriction notice, but the Bill allows for a penalty notice to be issued regardless of whether a compliance or restriction notice has been issued. That will provide a powerful deterrent to those who would seek to evade the requirements.
Clause 17 also includes particular provision to ensure that penalty notices are issued fairly. A penalty notice cannot be issued more than once for the same contravention, and payment cannot be required less than 28 days from the issue date.
Government amendments 5 to 8 update the clause in respect of the maximum penalty for failing to attend an interview. Paragraph 3(1)(b) of schedule 3 gives the SIA the power to issue notices to require a person to attend an interview. Notices can be issued to a broad range of individuals, including employees, who the SIA considers may hold relevant information.
Tom Tugendhat
Simply to say that, although there needs to be a maximum sum to levy as a penalty, £18 million strikes any reasonable person as extremely high. Although we completely agree with compliance, the fines strike me as a little out of proportion.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments made: 5, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, at end insert—
“(za) in the case of a contravention of a requirement imposed by a notice under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3 (requirement to attend and answer questions), £5,000; paragraph 3(1)(b)”
This amendment sets at £5,000 the maximum monetary penalty that an individual may be given for failure to comply with a requirement imposed under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3.
Amendment 6, in clause 18, page 13, line 11, after “if” insert
“, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.
Amendment 7, in clause 18, page 13, line 13, after “if” insert
“, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.
Amendment 8, in clause 18, page 14, line 1, at end insert—
“(za) subsection (1)(za),”—(Dan Jarvis.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.
Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Offences of failing to comply with compliance notice or restriction notice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
As I have already said, the Bill gives the SIA powers to take a range of enforcement action, including issuing monetary penalties, to enable it to deal with non-compliance. Such action is anticipated to be the primary method of enforcement, allowing swifter resolution without resorting to criminalisation. However, where civil enforcement is not enough, the public will expect criminal consequences for cases of non-compliance, such as persistent and egregious failures.
Clause 24 makes it a criminal offence to fail to comply with a compliance or restriction notice that has been given in relation to enhanced duty premises or a qualifying event. It will be a defence for the accused in subsequent criminal proceedings to show that they took all reasonable steps to comply with the relevant compliance or restriction notice. The offences are triable either way and, if convicted on indictment, a person will be liable to a sentence of up to 2 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.
Turning to clause 25, receipt of accurate information will be vital to the effective functioning of the SIA and to ensure that any public safety risks arising from non-compliance can be addressed. Although we expect information to be provided in good faith in the majority of cases, clause 25 makes it a criminal offence to provide false or misleading information where the person either knows that the information they are providing is false or misleading, or is reckless as to whether it is.
That might happen where the responsible person notifies the SIA that they are responsible for qualifying premises but knowingly misleads the SIA as to whether their premises are in the standard or enhanced tier. A person in receipt of an information notice might also give false information to the SIA in responding to that notice. The offence does not criminalise genuine or honest mistakes, such as where a person provides information that proves to be inaccurate but did so in good faith. The offence is triable either way and, if convicted, a person may be liable to a sentence of imprisonment for no more than 2 years and/or a fine. The offence will provide a deterrent and an appropriate punishment for those who purposely provide false or misleading information to the SIA to avoid complying with the requirements or to evade enforcement action.
Clause 26 provides that a person other than the body may also be liable in some cases for a criminal offence committed by the body. The person must be a relevant person in the body or a person purporting to act in that capacity for the body. A relevant person is involved in the management or control of the entity, such as a company director or partner. That ensures that those involved in senior management can be liable for offences committed by the body. Those offences relate to serious misconduct and persistent, egregious non-compliance by the body.
Specifically, a relevant person may be liable alongside the body for the offences of failing to comply with a compliance, restriction or information notice if the body committed the offence with their consent or connivance or as a result of their neglect. They may also be liable where they have consented to, or connived in, the body committing the offences of providing false or misleading information, obstructing an authorised inspector or pretending to be an inspector. The provision is necessary to deter serious non-compliance by ensuring managerial responsibility within bodies. Members of the Committee will no doubt have seen the importance of similar measures in other legislation.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I want to make a few points on offences, following our evidence sessions on Tuesday.
Obviously, the situation in the aftermath of a terrorist attack can be very febrile: emotions run high, and media attention can be high. It is human psychology, sadly, to look for someone to blame, and we might have imagined, before we scrutinised the Bill, someone guilty of this offence finding themselves in the eye of that storm. When we questioned Shropshire council representatives on Tuesday, they spoke about the obligations that would be on them if they were the people affected. I was reassured to hear them say that they already felt that burden of responsibility and that this legislation did not impose any further such burden on them.
The legislation refers to non-compliance in general, not non-compliance in the aftermath—that is really important. I thought it would be good to put on record the reassurances we heard on Tuesday on these measures.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Guidance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 27 will place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish dedicated guidance to assist those in scope of the Bill in understanding how best to fulfil the requirements placed on them. The guidance will be easy to follow, requiring no particular expertise. It will help in determining how many persons may be reasonably expected to be present on the premises, and whether premises or an event are in scope and, if so, in which tier. It will provide guidance around the requirements to be followed, such as what an appropriate evacuation procedure should include or understanding what public protection measures it might be reasonably practicable to have in place at enhanced duty premises.
The published guidance must be laid before Parliament. It must be kept under review and may be revised accordingly. The revised guidance must also be published and laid before Parliament. The guidance may be used by the SIA in providing advice to duty holders and, where the SIA has taken enforcement action, a person will, in proceedings such as an appeal, be able to rely on proof that they have acted in line with the guidance to show that they have not failed to comply with a requirement in the Bill. I should be crystal clear at this point that the Government do not endorse guidance or advice issued by third-party providers. We continue to refer people to the ProtectUK platform and we have factsheets on gov.uk for all guidance and Bill updates.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Disclosure of information
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 28, page 20, line 1, at end insert—
“(A1) Any person may disclose information to the Security Industry Authority for the purposes of the exercise by the Security Industry Authority of any of its functions under this Part.
(A2) The Security Industry Authority may disclose information held in connection with the exercise of any of its functions under this Part to—
(a) any person for the purposes of the exercise by the Security Industry Authority of any of its functions under this Part;
(b) any person with functions of a public nature for the purposes of the exercise by that person of any of those functions.”
This amendment makes provision about the disclosure of information to, and by, the Security Industry Authority.
Dan Jarvis
Clause 28 provides that any necessary disclosure of information under the Bill will not constitute a breach of obligations of confidence owed by the individual or body making the disclosure. At the same time, the Bill ensures that the disclosure of information under the Bill is in accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation and any relevant prohibitions in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The clause provides assurance that disclosures required by the Bill should not contravene data protection and other relevant obligations.
Government amendment 9 ensures that the clause achieves the aims of the Bill. For the SIA to effectively carry out investigation and enforcement, it is vital that it can receive and use relevant information, especially that held by other regulatory and public bodies. Government amendment 9 therefore seeks to ensure that there is a clear and express information-sharing gateway for both the SIA and those who propose to share relevant information with it. The gateway is appropriately limited to either the SIA exchanging information with any person so long as it is for the purposes of the SIA exercising its functions under the Bill, or the SIA sharing information with other public bodies to exercise that body’s existing public functions. In relation to the latter, many of those bodies will derive their relevant functions from statute, but in some limited cases, the public functions will not be statutory, such as for sharing with central Government.
As clause 28 already provides, disclosures required or permitted by the Bill must be in accordance with the data protection legislation and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. That ensures that there will be compliance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. I hope the Committee will support the amendment.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I intend to speak only briefly on the clause. I welcome the data protection assurances given by the Minister. This is an important clause because it allows the SIA to receive and share information by way of disclosures to facilitate the exercising of its functions. This morning the Minister spoke about our security agencies having thwarted 43 late-stage plots. Integral to that would have been the sharing of intelligence. Sadly, that is not always the case, as we saw in Manchester—terror plots do happen.
Time and time again in inquiries following tragic events, whether that is large-scale disasters or children being harmed in the family home, we hear people confirming that things could have been so different if only agencies had shared information and disclosures had been made. Clause 28, as amended, will allow important preventive work to be undertaken and information to be shared. It will only serve to strengthen the SIA’s ability to ensure our safety.
Dan Jarvis
I very much thank my hon. Friend for her helpful contribution. I trust that hon. Members agree that these measures should stand part of the Bill.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Means of giving notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
We have already debated clauses 12 to 14 and clause 17, and the compliance restriction penalty and information notices that the SIA will be able to issue to fulfil its investigative and enforcement functions. Clause 29 sets out the valid methods of service by which the SIA can give these notices and to whom. The methods specified are post, email, delivery by hand and leaving a notice at the person’s proper address. That will ensure that the SIA can reach people effectively.
Clause 29 also provides that notices issued to a body corporate, limited partnership and unincorporated association can be validly served on specified persons within those entities. For example, where the notice is issued to a body corporate, it can be served on an officer or member of that body. Such a person could include, but is not limited to, the designated senior individual under clause 10. Issuing notices to such persons will ensure that they are made aware and will reduce opportunities for avoidance or non-compliance.
Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to make further provision about notices issued under part 1 of the Bill. That includes, in particular, their form and content, and the variation and withdrawal of notices. The relevant notices are compliance notices, restriction notices, penalty notices and information notices. The main provisions for these notices, which we have debated, set out the information that must be included in a valid notice, and how they may be varied or withdrawn. The power for the Secretary of State to make further provisions under clause 30 is considered necessary for adjustments to be made once the legislation is implemented.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Civil liability
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
The clause prevents a person from bringing a claim in private law against a person responsible for qualifying premises or events for a breach of statutory duty where they have failed to comply with requirements in the Bill. The Government consider it appropriate that means of redress for non-compliance with the new regime should be limited to enforcement by the SIA.
The SIA will have a range of enforcement actions, which are underpinned by some criminal offences, as has already been debated. It is not considered necessary to allow persons to bring private claims for simple non-compliance, such as seeking compensation for the responsible person failing to put in place public protection procedures. However, the inclusion of the clause does not preclude or otherwise affect any right of action that a person may have independently of the bail.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Powers to amend this Part
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 32, page 22, line 20, leave out from “for” to “in” in line 21 and insert
“enhanced duty premises to be standard duty premises.”
This amendment prevents standard duty premises from becoming enhanced duty premises at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
Tom Tugendhat
This is a simple repetition of the amendments we have made throughout the Bill to alleviate the burden on small businesses and ensure that the balance is appropriate.
Dan Jarvis
I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendment. He seeks to remove the provision in the clause that would allow the Secretary of State, via regulations, to make standard duty premises be treated as enhanced duty premises. It would have the effect of limiting the Secretary of State to only being able to provide that premises that would ordinarily be in the enhanced tier be treated as if standard duty premises. That is already the case in the Bill for certain premises, such as places of worship.
As I have explained, the nature and level of the threat from terrorism can evolve and change rapidly, with different behaviours, methods and tactics emerging. It is therefore important that the Government can respond quickly to protect the public if it becomes evident that there is a particular threat to certain types of premises and that the public protection measures in the enhanced tier should be in place there to reduce vulnerability and the risk of harm.
I again reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that regulations to make amendments to schedule 1 under this power would be subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring the express approval of both Houses of Parliament. For those reasons, the Government cannot support the amendment.
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Interpretation of this Part
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
The clause is technical in nature, defining certain terms used throughout the Bill. For example, the clause provides that the meaning of “terrorism” in the Bill is the same as in the Terrorism Act 2000. The clause is necessary to provide the meaning of these terms for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Licensing: disclosure of plans of premises
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Current licensing legislation in England, Wales and Scotland requires that detailed plans for all licensed premises are kept on a register and made available for inspection by the public. These plans include sensitive information, such as CCTV and emergency exit locations, and we know that this information could potentially be utilised for hostile reconnaissance.
To minimise the accessibility of such information to hostile actors, we are amending the Licensing Act 2003, which covers England and Wales, and the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to enable the UK Government to make regulations on the form and content of plans that will be kept on a public licensing register. The regulations will restrict the public disclosure of sensitive information that is likely to be useful to persons committing or preparing acts of terrorism.
Specifically, the regulations will set out that new licence applicants will be required to supply—in addition to the standard detailed plan—a new high-level plan, which will be available for public inspection. This second plan will not include any sensitive information, but will still enable members of the public to see information about licensing applications that might affect them. The standard detailed plan will still be available to licensing authorities and other responsible authorities, including the police and fire authorities, to enable them to make informed licensing decisions.
Schedule 4 provides that plans compliant with clause 34 must accompany premises licence and club premises certificate applications, which will include any variations or amendments. In practice, once the regulations are in effect, this will mean that the two-plan approach will need to be adopted by businesses applying for these licences.
The schedule further sets out that businesses with pre-existing licences may, if they wish to, seek to replace the existing non-compliant plan with a compliant one. The compliant plan would then be placed on the register and thus be available to the public. For the avoidance of doubt, this will not be mandatory for businesses that already have a licence—we are clear that that would not be proportionate. Taken together, these provisions will better protect licensed premises across England, Wales and Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 35
Regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
Briefly, clauses 35 and 36 are general provisions required for the operation of the Bill. Clause 35 sets out the parliamentary procedure accompanying the regulations. Clause 36 details the territorial extent of the Bill: parts 1 and 3 of the Bill extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; part 2 of the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, with part 1 of schedule 4 extending to England and Wales and part 2 of schedule 4 extending to Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Commencement
Tom Tugendhat
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 37, page 25, line 5, after “force” insert “for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements”.
See explanatory statement to NC1.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 19, in clause 37, page 25, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) Parts 1 and 2 come into force for standard duty premises requirements on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint in line with section [Independent review of operation of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements].”.
See explanatory statement to NC1.
New clause 1—Independent review of operation of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements—
“(1) Within 18 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the operation of the enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements, including any recommendations for the implementation of the standard duty.
(2) The review in subsection (1) must—
(a) assess the level of costs and liability transferred to businesses and individuals arising as a consequence of the statutory provisions in this Act;
(b) consider any wider implications for businesses and individuals in meeting the new public protection measures and any potential need for additional statutory safeguards, support or guidance for businesses and individuals as result of the passing of this Act; and
(c) be led by an independent chair and comprise a panel comprising representatives from the hospitality, live music, performing arts, cultural and retail sectors, grassroots sports venues, small businesses and local government.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the Government’s formal response to the review specified in subsection (1).
(4) The Secretary of State may not make a regulation under section 37(2A) until—
(a) the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) the report specified in subsection (3) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”.
This new clause, together with Amendments 18 and 19, would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of the enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements before commencing the standard duty requirements.
Tom Tugendhat
I am afraid that amendment 18 is on the same point we have made throughout, which is about overburdening.
Dan Jarvis
Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for these amendments. While I completely understand the sentiment underpinning them, the Government do not support them. I would, however, like to assure the Committee that the Government are committed to learning the lessons from implementation, which is why a robust monitoring and evaluation plan to monitor the Bill’s effectiveness is in place. What is more, the Government have already committed to undertaking a thorough post-implementation review, which will assess whether the legislation is meeting its policy objectives, including analysing the costs and impacts on businesses and other premises in scope.
The Government have been clear that, following Royal Assent, we expect there to be an implementation period of at least 24 months, which will allow for the set-up of the regulator, while ensuring sufficient time for those responsible for premises and events in scope to understand their new obligations and to plan and prepare. Detailed guidance will be provided to assist those in scope to prepare for the requirements, as well as extensive communications and engagement with business and organisations.
Furthermore, as I have already set out, the Bill’s requirements in the standard tier are focused on straightforward procedures designed to increase preparedness and reduce the physical risk to the public from acts of terrorism. The procedures are intended to be simple and have no cost, other than staff time, to develop and implement, with no requirement to purchase or install any additional equipment beyond what they already have in place.
Tom Tugendhat
It’s your chairmanship! I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Jarvis
I turn finally to clauses 37 and 38, which are further general provisions. Clause 37 provides that the Bill’s provisions will be commenced via regulations made by the Secretary of State, save for the provisions contained within part 3 and the regulation-making powers in parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, which come into force on the day that the Bill is passed. Clause 38 details how the Bill should be referred to once it has become an Act.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
New clause 1 has already been debated and is not being moved. New clause 2 has been debated already, but do you wish to comment on it, Mr Tugendhat?
Tom Tugendhat
On a point of order, Sir Edward. I will comment on it very happily, and merely repeat that the SIA is a regulator that has faced significant challenges over recent years and, again, I raise the question as to whether it is the appropriate regulator. As usual, however, the Minister would have the numbers in a vote.
The Chair
Thank you.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Dan Jarvis
With your leave, Sir Edward, I will take this opportunity to thank you for chairing this Committee and to thank all Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, not just today but in proceedings on Tuesday. I will also take the opportunity to say a particular thank you to all those members of my Department who have worked incredibly hard to draw this legislation together, in conjunction with the staff of this House. Their efforts have been very much appreciated. I am grateful for the cross-party nature of what we have achieved as we have progressed the Bill through the House.
Tom Tugendhat
It would be churlish of me not to thank you, Sir Edward, for the speed and efficiency with which you have guided us through this. This is also an opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the Minister, who has been a friend for many years—nearly 20 years, actually. It is a wonderful symmetry that, on my last day on the Front Bench for my party, I am doing what I did when we first met, which is scrutinising him.
The Chair
It has been a pleasure to serve you all, and it has been so easy—no controversy. Thank you very much.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 9th December 2024
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 December 2024 - (9 Dec 2024)
20:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 89 / Noes: 340 - Question accordingly negatived.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Developing and implementing training on public protection procedures—
“(1) The Secretary of State must take steps as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to ensure that—
(a) adequate training provision is made available for persons responsible for qualifying premises or qualifying events in respect of public protection procedures that includes—
(i) the monitoring of premises or events and the immediate vicinity of premises or events;
(ii) evacuation procedures and the movement of individuals into, out of and within a premises or event;
(iii) physical safety and security of occupants in a premises;
(iv) provision of security information to individuals on a premises or at an event; and
(v) other measures related to terrorism protection training;
(b) a training implementation plan is put in place to ensure all organisations and persons to which the provisions of this Act apply are encouraged to undertake training related to public protection procedures.
(2) Functions of the Secretary of State under this section may be exercised by any organisation or persons authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the steps they have taken in relation to subsection (1).”
This new clause, together with Amendment 28, would require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a training plan in respect of qualifying premises and events before Parts 1 and 2 of the Act are commenced.
Government amendments 1 and 2.
Amendment 27, in clause 19, page 15, line 5, leave out “different” and insert “lower”.
This amendment restricts the Secretary of State to lowering the daily penalties rate for non-compliance by regulation.
Government amendments 3 and 4.
Amendment 25, in clause 32, page 22, line 35, leave out “100” and insert “200”.
This amendment sets the floor for standard duty at 200 individuals.
Amendment 26, page 22, line 38, leave out “500” and insert “799”.
This amendment sets the floor for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events at 799 individuals.
Amendment 28, in clause 37, page 25, line 31, leave out from “force” to end of line 36 and insert
“on the day after the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on developing and implementing training on public protection procedures contained within this Act.”This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Government amendments 5 to 24.
Matt Vickers
I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to the Martyn’s law campaign, the incredible group of individuals who are the Survivors Against Terror, and all the businesses, charities, local authorities, civil servants and security partners that have helped to shape the Bill. Most importantly, I thank the tireless campaigner Figen Murray, and her son Martyn in whose name this Bill has been devised. I would like to reflect for a moment on Martyn and the 21 other innocent victims who were killed in the heinous attack in the Manchester Arena in 2017. The loss of their lives and the pain of their families and friends must never be forgotten.
I pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who is unable to be present today to speak on behalf of the official Opposition.
Martyn’s law was a manifesto pledge for the Conservative party, and we published a version of the legislation in draft during the last Parliament. We took the issue of public protection very seriously when in office. We delivered £1 billion of counter-terrorism funding for 2024-25, so our forces can mount a swift and effective response to any terrorist attack. Funding will total at least £1 billion in 2024-25 as we provided essential support for counter-terrorism policing and ensured the police had the resources they needed to meet and deal with the threat of terrorism. We enshrined our Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 in law, introducing tougher sentences and ending the automatic release of potential terrorist offenders. Those found guilty of serious terror offences will now be handed a minimum 14-year prison term and up to 25 years on licence.
Part of the reason for publishing this legislation in draft was a concern to get the balance right for the different premises to which it applies—their responsibilities, and how feasible it is for them to effectively comply with those responsibilities and with public safety. We are grateful to the Home Affairs Committee, which undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and made valuable recommendations, and to all those who responded to the Home Office consultation. It is because Martyn’s law is so important that it is imperative we get it right in this place. It is in that spirit of support, co-operation and openness that we have suggested small amendments to the Bill.
New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the effectiveness of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator of these new provisions for both this House and other places within 18 months of the passing of the Bill. This is in recognition of the challenges inherent in extending new regulatory powers to an existing body. The report would include a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the SIA’s regulatory functions and an analysis of the implications if those functions were alternatively carried out at the local authority level.
The SIA’s role in this Bill is extensive, and it is our view that a review after the roll-out of the new provisions will provide the Government with the opportunity to take stock and decide whether the existing arrangements are the most effective regulatory framework. If they are a success, that is fantastic, but if there are issues, it is surely best to address them early and, if necessary, make changes then and there. I know there has been some anxiety from organisations about a perceived lack of clarity in how the SIA will approach regulation and whether it has the institutional dexterity to understand such a diverse range of venues.
From my discussions with relevant representative groups, businesses and venue operators around the country, I know there is wide-ranging support for the changes in our amendment from the industry. They want to ensure their venues are as safe as they can be. Indeed, many have already taken steps unilaterally to improve security and are eager to work with the Government on further progress. However, there is a feeling that current advice and guidance is limited, and this lack of information is leading to anxiety, particularly at a time when business confidence is falling and new taxes are incoming. Therefore I ask the Government to ensure that affected venues and industries are given full advice on how to comply with the incoming regulations as soon as possible. By agreeing to a future review of the SIA’s regulatory effectiveness now, the Government can ease those anxieties and ensure that everyone is focused on the most important objectives: delivering the provisions in the Bill and bolstering our collective security. For that reason, I ask the Government to support new clause 1.
We have tabled amendment 27 in a similar spirit of openness and co-operation. It would prevent the Secretary of State from increasing by regulations the daily amount venues can be fined under this legislation. As the Bill stands, places that are classified as standard duty venues can be fined up to £500 a day for violation. For those classed as enhanced duty venues, the fine is £50,000 a day for violation. I know the Minister will have met many of the organisations that are required to make changes under the Bill, and I am sure that he, like me, found them to be actively supportive of the changes and genuinely interested in working collaboratively towards better safety regulations.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Without the regulations and guidelines being set out clearly, there is a risk that businesses will worry about being fined quite heavily just because they do not quite know what they should be doing. Does my hon. Friend agree that this amendment and new clause 1 will help cement that clarity in place?
Matt Vickers
All the people in the industry are genuinely and wholeheartedly committed to improving the safety of their venues, but there are anxieties and concerns about what that means. The review of who is in charge and who is responsible for ensuring compliance will get rid of those anxieties and foster confidence in the industry and let us move forward together with the industry.
We would like reassurance about how the Government intend to use the powers to increase the rate of daily penalties. The Bill allows the SIA to levy large fines for non- compliance with the requirements of this legislation in addition to the daily penalties. For a sector recovering from covid, those could be difficult to meet, as could a daily penalty of £500 levied on a small organisation run by volunteers.
We have heard from several trade associations about the potential impact. Neil Sharpley, policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, said the FSB is “broadly supportive” of the Bill but added that
“we are concerned about the administrative impact of the burden that will be imposed on smaller businesses, and we are concerned about the costs.”
Michael Kill, CEO of the Night Time Industries Association, said that
“it is crucial to address the proportionality of the proposed measures, within all settings. We must ensure that the balance between heightened security and practical implementation is carefully considered.”
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, I piloted the measure as shadow Minister on Second Reading. I welcome the Minister to his place and thank him for his usual courtesy.
This is genuinely not a political point, but does my hon. Friend agree that, with other measures currently burdening small business such as increases in taxation, business rates and national insurance contributions, this amendment helps because it allows venues to plan and make sure that not too much money is going out? That applies particularly to charities and smaller venues. That is why the remit of the SIA must be checked, and why this amendment should be backed.
Matt Vickers
I could not agree more. There is huge anxiety among businesses about challenges and pressures—whether the national insurance contribution increases on employers or the huge change to small business rate relief affecting small businesses in leisure, hospitality and retail, slashing it from 75% to 40%. These are challenging times, including for very small family businesses, and also, as my hon. Friend points out, for the voluntary sector and many organisations that prop up our communities and play a central role. By perfecting this Bill, we can relieve those anxieties and allow those organisations to follow on with confidence and comply with the measures in the Bill.
I would appreciate some reassurance from the Minister about how he expects to use the powers to change daily penalties. I hope he will demonstrate that the ethos of the Bill is collaboration between the state and private organisations, not the establishment of an increasingly costly financial penalisation system. We believe that would help to settle any underlying anxieties and allow both the Government and venues to focus on working together to ensure that the roll-out of this Bill is the very best it can be.
Amendments 25 and 26 stop the Secretary of State changing qualifying tier amounts by regulation. They are simply designed to provide future certainty to organisations as they work to become compliant with the Bill. They would remove the power of the Secretary of State to lower the threshold for the standard duty premises and enhanced duty premises from 200 and 799 individuals respectively. The current qualification levels have been determined after consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. These are significant policy choices and I believe the Government have reached this position after listening to that feedback. As I have set out today, the industry and venues are actively supportive of the Bill and actively want to play their part in improving venue security. We worry about the uncertainty caused by the potential of the Secretary of State to change the thresholds for the standard and enhanced duty premises in future. How is that power compatible with allowing the industry to plan long term, in the knowledge that the qualifying criteria for each tier will not change?
We want to ensure that venues have the confidence to commit the required resources to adopting the provisions of the Bill, knowing that the rules will not change suddenly. Impact assessments have shown the challenges that face different types of venues. Smaller venues and lower capacity premises such as places of worship, village halls and community centres showed particular concern about the impact on fellow smaller businesses and their ability to meet the revised requirements within the small resources available to them.
About four in 10—or 39%—of respondents from premises with a capacity of 100 to 299 agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack. Nearly half—46%—disagreed and said that only larger premises should have a legal obligation. About half—51%—reported that revised requirements would be difficult to take forward. Six in 10, or 58%, were at least somewhat concerned that the cost of meeting the standard tier requirements would affect their organisation’s financial ability to continue operating. Among those from places of worship or village halls, only around three in 10 agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack.
More than 54% of those from village halls and community centres, which typically have a smaller capacity than premises across other sectors—72% had a capacity of 100 to 299—disagreed and said only larger premises should have a legal obligation. Over half of those from places of worship and village halls felt the revised requirement would be difficult to take forward, mainly due to the perceived burden in time and effort. I therefore ask the Minister in what circumstances he would envisage needing to lower the floor for either standard or enhanced duty premises and what consultation would take place before the Government did so.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that proportionality is particularly important? While clearly venues like the Manchester Arena should have a properly worked out plan, it is inappropriate for village halls and church halls to worry about the cost and bureaucracy involved. Can we have the lightest possible touch for those small community venues?
Matt Vickers
That is right. The community organisations that are affected, whether parish halls, village halls, churches, or small businesses such as the local pub, are invaluable to, and sit at the heart of, our communities, and it is essential that we protect them. There is a balance between what everyone who supports the Bill wants from these protections, be they on the Opposition or Government Benches, namely to prevent the most horrific atrocities, and ensuring that those businesses and community organisations can continue to exist.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Bill’s provisions are appropriate for venues below the enhanced tier. They are proportionate, low-cost and not onerous. They are prompts to encourage organisations to do the kind of thinking that they should do anyway to prevent terrorism or any kinds of attack. The measures are not disproportionate at all, and the legislation is appropriate in that respect.
Matt Vickers
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. An existing regulatory body is being given an additional job; there is no harm in coming back after 18 months to review whether the provisions are working and are fit for purpose. Similarly, there is logic in the House having a say on the fees and penalties that might be applied, rather than that being delegated to the Secretary of State. Those logical changes could relieve some of the anxiety in the sector. Everyone wants the Bill to go forward and fulfil its objective of making our communities safer, but some of the anxieties in the sector about unexpected and unintended consequences for community venues and small businesses are real, so let us relieve some of them by agreeing the amendments.
Paul Holmes
I hope the shadow Minister will forgive me for intervening once again, but I expressed concern about the “responsible person” element at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading. As he has outlined, smaller charity and voluntary sector bodies, such as theatres and community organisations, welcome the aims of the Bill, as do I, but when voluntary organisations are responsible for allocating someone who will be legally responsible to the Security Industry Authority, that spreads fear among those organisations, given the bureaucracy that they already face. Does he agree that we need to look carefully at how great a burden we put on theatre groups, and in particular on voluntary community associations, which will be subject to the regulations?
Matt Vickers
We need to reflect, take time, and review the measures in 18 months, including the regulations. Many of our community and voluntary organisations already struggle to find the manpower to fulfil their functions, and this is another function. Its purpose is right, and it is right to take the legislation forward and provide these protections, but we have to consider the wider perspective and the proportionality for smaller venues, given the potential impact on communities.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is not in my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but I am church warden of a small parish church. Most parish churches would probably come under the 200-person limit, but the vast majority would be caught by 100-plus. Not only is there fear among volunteers who have to take on this responsibility, but significant risk of unintended consequences. Volunteers may not be prepared to take on the responsibility, and as a result, vital community infrastructure spaces may close to the public. Would that not be a terrible unintended consequence of this well-meaning Bill?
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend is right. We look at the numbers—100 and 200—and think of organisations we know, and events that we have attended in churches and parish halls. I used to be a Scout leader, and the paperwork, the burden and the challenges used to put us off, in many ways, from fulfilling some of our functions. People who might have come along to help one day get slightly put off by the challenges and responsibilities that come with doing so. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the shadow Minister not welcome the fact that the Bill increases the capacity from 100 to 200? His Government previously set the limit at 100—the figure that he is so concerned about.
Matt Vickers
I welcome the revisions; that is why we had scrutiny. The fact that the figures can be determined unilaterally is the concern. There is agreement across the House that it is right to take the Bill forward. We are looking at what we can do at the edges to mitigate the impact for smaller venues, but I agree in principle with what the hon. Member says.
Jerome Mayhew
I am particularly concerned about the Secretary of State or Minister having the power to reduce the number from 200 back to 100 by regulation. That is addressed by amendment 25. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the absence of significant evidence or consultation to support such a move, 100 is essentially an arbitrary number? Why 100, and not 125, 150 or 175? Does he agree that we need more evidence to support that regulation-making power being given to the Secretary of State? Does he therefore agree that amendment 25 is a sensible alternative?
Matt Vickers
I agree entirely. There is no reason why we should not bring that measure to the House for decision. There is no reason to delegate that power to the Secretary of State. It would be sensible to take that delegation out. We have just talked about the fact that some people think the number should be 100, and others think it should be 200. It would be logical to bring the measure back to the House, if required, in due course, and I hope the Minister agrees.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
We all hope that the Bill is absolutely right—that is what we want—but there is nothing wrong with increased scrutiny. Would it not be right for the Government to accept new clause 1, so that we can ensure that there is a review? Through that, we can get the evidence, and then we will know whether we have got it right.
Matt Vickers
That is entirely right. Most of the amendments are about looking at what we can do around the edges of the Bill to mitigate the challenges for small community organisations and small businesses.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
We have to be careful. Of course we want to work cross-party, and should be cognisant of small business, but on the other side of the debate, campaigners are worried that the Bill is already leaning too much the other way, and we will start to lose proportionality if we adopt the shadow Minister’s amendments.
Matt Vickers
I slightly disagree. A body is taking on this regulation. Reviewing this in 18 months to see whether it is working is sensible. Keeping the ability to make decisions on numbers, rather than giving it to the Secretary of State, is a logical way forward. We all want this Bill to work, and we all realise the meaningful and important reasons why the Bill was brought forward, but we are talking about mitigation. All the amendments are fair, logical and sound in how they try to balance the two interests. We want to make all venues safe, whatever their scale or size, but we need to do so in a way that allows businesses and community organisations to carry on delivering, at the heart of our communities.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Last week, along with Opposition colleagues, I met representatives of a number of hospitality businesses across different sectors. Everyone wants to make their venue more secure, and everyone acknowledged the importance of the legislation, but there are points to address on clarity and the uncertainty being caused. We have talked about the responsibility of volunteers, and where it starts and ends. Some venues will have queues outside, and it is not clear how the legislation will work in that case. An 18-month review is important, because it would allow us to look at whether the legislation is making people more safe and secure. Does the shadow Minister agree?
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend is right. When it comes to the Bill, the stakes are high for small community organisations and small businesses, so I see no harm in reviewing the regulations after 18 months, and in keeping those powers for the House, rather than delegating them to the Secretary of State. That is logical and makes a lot of sense for many venues. It is the way forward.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 2(2)(c), defining the premises that will be covered by the legislation, states:
“it is reasonable to expect that from time to time 200 or more individuals may be present”.
Under the regulations, that might read “100 or more”. Coming back to my experience as a member of the parish church, I would love there to be 100 or 200 people present, but the congregation is closer to six or seven. However, the capacity of the church—the structure—is sufficient to take in 100 or 200 people. While on the face of it, the legislation seems reasonable, does my hon. Friend share my concern that a facility that could welcome 199 people may not have the structures in place, or physically have the people available, to support the increased burden placed on it by the Bill? That would increase the risks of unintended consequences and closure. That would be dealt with by amendment 25.
Matt Vickers
My hon. Friend is entirely right. In voluntary organisations, men and women who tend to do something else by day give their time to volunteer in the evening or at the weekend. They have other things going on in their lives. They will not necessarily be expert on the laws surrounding venues and what goes on in them, but from time to time—once a year, or once every two years—they will be expected to know about these regulations and to comply with them. There is logic in keeping the number at the intended 200, as well as in reviewing the regulations. We would allow the regulatory body to come back on that point 18 months, in the review, when we would review those numbers. We are just saying that these things should not be delegated to the Secretary of State at this point.
Tim Roca
I welcome the progress of this important Bill. We know the danger of terrorism in this country for the constituents we represent. There have been 15 domestic terror attacks since 2017, as well as the tragic arena bombing. That excludes terrorism in Northern Ireland. There have also been 43 late-stage plots foiled by the security services. We recently heard from the head of the Security Service about a 48% increase in terror investigations in the last year alone, so the threat is absolutely real and it is always changing.
We have had various attacks, including the marauding-style terrorist attacks that we saw so tragically here in London some years ago. The Bill is a crucial to making sure that premises, businesses and venues do what they can to keep people safe. We know from businesses and venues that they understand their obligations to their patrons, whoever they might be, and they want to keep them safe.
We have had a healthy debate about the Bill’s provisions. There has been a sensible, mature, cross-party discussion about what works and what is practicable. I pay tribute to Manchester city council for the exercises it undertook. It worked with businesses to ensure that measures were both sensible and proportionate while keeping people safe. Across I think 10 sessions last year, and having spoken to 700 businesses and 2,000 people, it went through some of the measures in the Bill, and businesses overwhelmingly supported them. They understood the need for them, and that they were not onerous. Those ranged from businesses as large as Printworks, which many people in Manchester will know, down to local restaurants and bars, and the response was incredibly positive.
I say that because I want to reassure hon. Members from across the House about the proportionality of the measures in the Bill. In fact, I will quote Gareth Worthington, the night-time economy officer at the Manchester business improvement district:
“If a venue operator does not know how to evacuate their venue they should not be running that venue and if training can be provided to help make that evacuation safer then venues should grasp it with both hands.”
On the thresholds, we have arrived at a sensible place. We had a healthy debate in the Public Bill Committee on them, and I think they are reasonable. I reiterate that I think campaigners would perceive any tweaking of provisions on the thresholds or delegated powers for the Secretary of State as a watering down of the Bill.
Tim Roca
I shall not, because I think we have touched on that point enough.
Finally, I pay tribute to my constituent Figen Murray for her bravery in championing these measures. No parent would ever want to have the name of their child on a law if they could help it, but she has worked tirelessly to push forward these measures. I hope to see them enacted. I recommend the Bill and thank the Minister for his hard work on it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I echo the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca): this has been a constructive, cross-party legislative process. I also pay tribute to the Security Minister for the way in which he has engaged with me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, cross-party. My comments on the Bill are made in that spirit.
The purpose of the Bill, as well as new clause 2, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is clear. I am pleased that the House has been given the opportunity to champion Martyn’s family and their campaign. The Bill draws clear lessons from the tragic 2017 attack and brings fresh commitments to protecting lives.
Sir Ashley Fox
On that point, does the hon. Member not think that those volunteers in church halls and other small venues would be put off by the thought of having to go through a training course, implementing a training plan and all the other aspects of new clause 2? While those may be worthy objectives for larger venues, does he really think them desirable for small venues? Does he not perceive the risk that they may put off volunteers who would otherwise freely give of their time?
Ben Maguire
I spoke to many venues across my constituency this weekend, and actually they were more put off by the ambiguity of the Bill and the lack of specifics that they will be required to undertake. New clause 2 would give them that clarity and ensure that they knew exactly what was required of them under the Bill.
Dr Luke Evans
I think that the volunteer side in particular is concerning a lot of people. One thing that strikes me about new clause 2 is that, given that these are often volunteer organisations, who would fund the training? Has there been thought about who would pay for it and how much it would cost? Small venues like my village halls may struggle to make a couple of hundred pounds a year, let alone be able to afford further training. I wonder if the hon. Member would enlighten me on how that may work.
Ben Maguire
I suspect that that will be a question for the Minister when we come towards the end of the debate. It is certainly something that volunteers will seek clarity on so that they can know exactly what is required of them under the Bill. Without adequate training, we will end up with just vague asks of them, and they will not know exactly how to carry out their duties under the legislation.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
With due respect, the hon. Gentleman said that the cost was a question for the Minister, but since this is his proposed new clause, surely he should have some idea of the financial and other implications for the organisations that would have to comply with it.
Ben Maguire
I certainly would not suggest, and neither would the Liberal Democrats, that the training fee should fall on small venues, but the Government should consider it so that there is clarity for those smaller venues. I hope that answers the right hon. Member’s question.
The new clause covers evacuation procedures, monitoring of premises, physical safety and security and the overall provision of protecting lives. It would also establish a full training implementation plan, with the Secretary of State regularly updating Parliament to ensure that the right progress is being made. Crucially, it would ensure that our businesses are fully supported and given the clarity that they need. The public deserve to know that wherever they are—at a concert, a wedding or a local cider festival—staff are properly trained to respond to such emergencies. They should have confidence that venues are held to a consistent standard of preparation and readiness. For the venues themselves, the new clause would greatly improve safety, and would provide clarity and consistency on the standards that they must meet under this law.
Of course, there are concerns from many micro and small businesses about the financial impact and additional bureaucracy that these requirements may bring. That is why the new clause proposes a practical training plan to minimise the financial burden, with scalable and specific training.
Jerome Mayhew
I have already mentioned that I am a church warden of a small parish church, so I have practical experience. I also have other duties—I am the safeguarding officer, because there are insufficient volunteers who are prepared to undergo the quite significant training needed to maintain safeguarding duties in that organisation. I accept that, given the Church of England’s troubled history over the past 20 years, safeguarding is a necessary part of modern life, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the duties imposed on volunteers are cumulative in their impact? I can be a Member of Parliament, a church warden and a safeguarding officer, but can I also be responsible for the additional costs and responsibilities that he has in mind?
Ben Maguire
Certainly, the intention of new clause 2 is not to be a burden on our small venues, but to do the opposite and make sure that they have clarity on what they are supposed to do, what their responsibilities are and how they practically carry out the requirements contained in this legislation.
I was glad to receive the promising indication of a commitment in writing by the Security Minister. He said that if the Bill is given Royal Assent, an implementation period of 24 months will be set. That will give venues the time to understand their new obligations, plan and prepare and, if needed, provide training to staff. The Government promise that training will be supplied by a number of expert security partners. I look forward to hearing more details on that.
Over the weekend, I met various local venues in my North Cornwall constituency, such as the Sea View Farm Shop, which expressed concerns over possible fencing requirements. Its venue hosts small outdoor festivals with between 1,500 and 2,000 attendees. It is similar in scale to the nearby Rock Oyster Festival, and can be contrasted with much larger events such as Boardmasters, which hosts over 60,000 people. Could the Minister provide clarity on the requirements for outdoor events?
We are not seeking to push the new clause to a vote, but we seek reassurance from the Minister today about training for staff and operators for venues big and small. New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, proposes a review of the role of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator. We do not oppose a cost-benefit analysis of the role of the SIA, but we worry about the impact of additional responsibility on local government, which is already stretched to breaking point, without the accompanying resources to deliver that.
I welcome the intent to ensure efficiency and effectiveness, but I must stress the need for reassurance that smaller venues, such as the village halls that we have heard about and the community centres that, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) said, are often run by volunteers, will not be disproportionately impacted. In North Cornwall, we have venues such as the John Betjeman Centre in Wadebridge, village halls in Padstow, Lewannick and St Mabyn and many more.
I acknowledge amendments 25 and 26 to raise the minimum capacity thresholds for standard and enhanced duty premises to 200 and 800, respectively. These spaces are integral to our communities yet they operate with limited resources, often run by volunteers, and cannot shoulder excessive regulatory burdens. Any changes must prioritise support and scalability for these organisations, so that they are equipped to meet public protection requirements without being overwhelmed. This legislation will not be able to do that if it is too burdensome for businesses, which are not clear what their obligations really are.
Will the Minister confirm that the content of our new clause will be given due consideration? Keeping everyone safe is the absolute priority, but by providing clear guidance and training we can avoid burdening our already struggling local businesses, and ensure that they have the clarity that they need about the legislation.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I would like to start by expressing my admiration for Figen Murray for her unwavering advocacy of this Bill, in memory of her son, Martyn. Her defiant message to promote peace and positive change in Martyn’s name has been a source of inspiration to us all. Figen’s strength and dedication in pushing for meaningful reforms to prevent such devastating attacks is truly commendable. Her courage and commitment continue to drive this important work, and we are deeply grateful for her contributions.
As a former police officer, I believe that this legislation represents an important step forward in improving our national security framework and in providing our communities with greater protection from the evolving threat of terrorism. The Bill is needed as the level of threat remains complex, evolving and enduring. By implementing stronger security measures, providing clearer responsibilities for venue owners and enhancing co-ordination between relevant agencies, this legislation will help safeguard the public in places where they gather, work and celebrate. In an increasingly unpredictable world, it is vital that we remain proactive to protect our communities and strengthen the resilience of our society. The Bill is a crucial part of that effort.
By designating a person responsible for considering the risks and for planning a response in the event of a terrorist attack, we are taking a proactive and structured approach to security. The role is about not only managing immediate responses, but fostering a culture of vigilance, communication and preparedness within communities and organisations in general. The legislation will ensure that our response is as effective as possible.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I thank him for his service in the police. Three victims of the Manchester Arena bombing were from my constituency —Sorrell Leczkowski, Courtney Boyle and Wendy Fawell —which is why I am so supportive of the Bill. He is talking about the duties of venues and their managers, but does he agree that it would be helpful for the Government to give clear guidance about their responsibilities for outdoor and public spaces when managing the particular regulatory framework that the Bill will create?
Matt Bishop
I wholeheartedly agree that that is a very important part of the legislation.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
What has been striking about the debate so far is the extent of cross-party consensus on this matter. My worry is that the Bill contains a set of proposals that we might be supporting because they are something that we deem possible to do, whereas we may be neglecting some things that are harder to do. In the inquiry into the bombing, several aspects of the story were very concerning, from the way the asylum system worked through to the Prevent programme. While 90% of MI5’s counter-terrorism casework is Islamist, the latest data shows that the number of Prevent referrals for young people suspected of Islamist radicalisation has fallen from 3,706 in 2016-17 to only 781 in 2022-23. As a former police officer, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have to do something to ensure that Prevent is properly targeted at the real threats we face?
Matt Bishop
I wholeheartedly agree; anything to support Prevent training in schools and education is very important.
The legislation will ensure that our response is as effective as possible and minimise the risks to lives and infrastructure. It is essential that everyone, from leadership to staff members, understands the importance of this role and supports the planning and implementation of all safety protocols.
However, the Bill is not just about securing physical spaces; it is about fostering a sense of security and trust in the places where we work, gather and celebrate. At a time when the threat of terrorism can cause widespread fear and uncertainty, knowing that protective measures are in place allows people to go about their daily lives with greater confidence. It is about protecting not just our buildings, but the social fabric that holds our communities together.
Being a member of the Bill Committee was insightful. It was an opportunity to closely examine the provisions of this important legislation and engage in constructive discussion with my colleagues, other stakeholders and those sadly affected by terrorism. In Committee sittings, I was pleased to hear that various businesses and venues are already implementing the standards of the Bill in their operations, which are intended to ensure that public premises and events are better prepared so that if the unthinkable happens, they are ready to respond.
The response to the Bill highlights the commitment of many organisations to the safety and security of the public, and their recognition of the importance of proactive measures in the face of potential threats. It demonstrates a shared understanding that protecting people from harm is the responsibility of not just the Government, but everybody in our society. The Bill seeks to formalise and build on those efforts, ensuring that security practices are consistent, comprehensive and capable of meeting the evolving nature of the terrorist threat.
I acknowledge the concerns raised during this debate and in Committee, which I believe have been addressed to make the Bill more effective, fair and responsive to the challenges at hand. As we move forward, it is crucial to remember that this is a shared responsibility; as I said, the Government cannot act alone.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about shared responsibility, and how it is the responsibility of us all to protect each other. As a former police officer, is he not worried about a degree of vigilantism, with untrained people taking the law into their own hands and doing things that perhaps, as a police officer, he thinks police officers would be best placed to do?
Matt Bishop
That is a fair point, but I am not worried that the Bill will cause that. I think that the wider general public will allow the police to deal with the matters in hand when they need to, but there may be, as I mentioned, several opportunities to act on this together.
Public venues, businesses, local authorities and communities themselves must all work in tandem to create a robust, unified front against terrorism. By integrating efforts across sectors, we make our society stronger, more resilient and able to respond more effectively to threats while ensuring the safety of every individual.
Terrorism is not a static threat—it constantly involves, and so must our response. The Bill will ensure that we remain ahead of emerging risks. As we have seen in recent years, attacks are becoming more unpredictable, more dispersed and harder to anticipate. The legislation will give us the tools and the framework needed to adapt and respond to those ever-changing threats. The legislation is about more than policy; it is about the future we want to build for our children, our families and our communities. We owe it to future generations to ensure that they inherit a society that values safety, peace and resilience. By taking action now, we lay the foundation for a stronger, safer tomorrow.
Paul Holmes
Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I had to nip upstairs to sit in a Bill Committee programming session.
I am delighted to be here to speak on this legislation. As I mentioned earlier to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I had the privilege of working alongside the Minister when I was the shadow Home Affairs Minister who took the Bill through Second Reading. I say again to the Minister, and to the Home Secretary, that I am a big fan of his, as he knows. That is for genuine purposes: for the way he treated me as the shadow Home Affairs Minister at the time, with informal consultations and phone calls, and for genuinely opening up the spirit of cross-party working on this legislation. I congratulate him and pay tribute to him, his Department and all officials working on the legislation for making sure the Opposition were involved. I am very pleased that he is in his place this evening so that I can thank him for that spirit of co-operation.
We know that the Bill is a key piece of legislation and a commitment that the Conservatives made at the last general election, and I am delighted that the Government have taken it forward. As he will know, I spoke of some concerns on Second Reading that I want to chase the Minister on, if he might be so bold as to try to answer them at the end. I have a number of concerns that I will speak about briefly, as you will be delighted hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot promise to be too brief, but I will be as brief as I can. You will have to excuse me if I am out of breath—I did run upstairs and then back downstairs to get here in time, and I am not the fittest person in the Chamber.
I pay tribute to Figen Murray and Martyn’s family. As I said on Second Reading, it should not require circumstances such as those we have seen to bring about a change in legislation. However, Figen Murray can rest assured that Martyn has played a huge role in changing the law for the good, and Martyn’s family have a right to be proud of that legacy.
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 1 and amendments 25 and 27, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). We all support the aims of the Bill and want to see the legislation succeed. We want to make venues across the country safer and to ensure they have the correct apparatus in place so that people who use hospitality or other venues across the country, of all shapes and sizes, can do so with confidence that a system and a regulatory framework are in place. We want people to be safe when they use those venues. My constituents expect that. I expect that for myself and for my family.
Just last night, my family and I used a hospitality venue for a good couple of pints. That will be one of the venues covered by this regulatory framework. Sitting there, looking forward at the parliamentary agenda, I thought how venues such as that one have a number of concerns. Those are the things I want to talk about this evening. In our constituencies, we have voluntary sector organisations, theatre groups, community centres and charities of all shapes and sizes who volunteer every day to do their best by their community, to represent the community and to work for the community in the best way possible. I remain concerned that, as has been outlined by a number of my hon. Friends, including the shadow Minister, there remains an undue burden that will be placed on those organisations, because of some of the environmental factors—I wondered how to put that, as I do not want this speech to be political at all—that have been placed on them in recent months.
Patrick Spencer
Will my hon. Friend speak for a moment about the situation facing small football clubs? They often have many people turning up week after week to watch their team play and are on a tiny budget with tiny margins, no money to spare and no money available for training. In such circumstances, surely those clubs will be really hard done by under some of the provisions in the Bill.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is correct. My constituency has a number of small football organisations, some of which are subject to legislation that is currently going through the Lords more slowly than we would necessarily expect a piece of legislation to progress. The income of small football groups will be the focus of that Bill. However, my hon. Friend is right: not only does this Bill cover small football venues and football clubs, but it covers all sorts of organisations, some of which I have mentioned.
There are small community theatres, for example, which are the backbone of many small communities. People want to go to them with their family and watch amateur dramatics. The plays are sometimes better than in the west end—I have seen them—and the scale of some venues means that they will be in the lower tier under the Bill, but they have very small incomes. There are also charities with very small incomes that have been affected by fiscal decisions in the Budget. I assure the Minister that I am not being political, but as the impact assessment shows, and as the constituents I have spoken to have said, many charities will be affected by increased costs through their national insurance contributions and the different taxation that will come in.
From what I have read, the average cost for smaller venues will be £330 a year and the cost for larger organisations will be £5,000 a year. Those are the latest figures that I can find, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that additional cost of £330 a year for smaller venues, because to many organisations, that will place a big burden on them. I met representatives of small theatres recently who were concerned that they have not been invited to a roundtable with the Minister to discuss the implications for the sector. I would be grateful if he outlined whether the Government intend to meet them, based on their concerns about the Bill.
I will bring my comments within the scope of new clause 1. Given the issues that I have outlined, I think the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford to have a review process for the SIA is perfectly sensible. When we set up a new organisation that has some kind of independence, regulatory enforcement capacity or management capacity, it seems purely sensible that after the period set in the new clause, we look to see whether its action has been proportionate, whether there has been overreach and whether it is doing its job properly. Has it taken the full responsibilities outlined in the legislation? Members may not think that it is overworking; it might be that it is underworking and we need to give it more responsibilities in the long run.
It seems perfectly sensible for the Government and the Minister to come to the Floor of the House. They should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. Opposition Front Benchers, me and all my colleagues want the Bill to succeed, but we want it to be proportionate. When we set up an organisation with such responsibilities and an organisational jurisdiction, we want to ensure that it is reviewed, that it is conducting itself and taking its responsibilities seriously, and that the system is working.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 1 is not about a presumption of finding fault, but about ensuring that the proposals work correctly? It is so important that the regulator and the regulatory role work perfectly so that the Bill can be implemented in the way that is expected.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is reasonable and a very good colleague in the way she carries out her duties in this House, so it will come as no surprise to hear that I absolutely agree with her. I do say that about some Government Members, so I am not being partisan—[Interruption.] Most of the time. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point.
That is why the Minister should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. We do not want to disrupt the passage of the Bill. We do not want to disrupt the good intentions and the outcomes that everybody, on both sides of the House, wants. As a Conservative, I naturally think that the state should not be big or oversized. When we set up organisations such as this, it is natural that the House and Members will want scrutiny functions to make sure that the organisation acts within the spirit of the law and within its jurisdiction and responsibilities. I think that is perfectly reasonable.
Dr Luke Evans
For me, when we think about creating the regulator, it is about ensuring that it is effective. It needs to be staffed and funded appropriately, and we need to ensure that it does the job that the House expects it to do. The idea of having a system to report back is important when we make these provisions. When my hon. Friend was shadow Minister, did he give any thought to how many businesses come within scope, and whether there are resources in the regulator to even provide those assessments, so that we can make sure that it is held accountable and that this is effective legislation?
Paul Holmes
I would like to say that I have given that great thought, but as hon. Members across the House will know, after we came back in July, my tenure as a shadow Home Affairs Minister was rather short—[Interruption.] I thank the Minister, who said, “Shame”. That was after being shadow Northern Ireland Minister, shadow Foreign Affairs Minister and other Ministers, too. But I took this piece of legislation very seriously. The Government should make that decision, but I hope that the SIA is properly resourced and that it conducts its duties in the right way. That is why I think new clause 1 should be accepted this evening.
I do not want to overstay my welcome, but I will speak briefly about one of the concerns that I raised on Second Reading about the responsible person element of the Bill. I remain seriously concerned about this, and it was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). Although I accept the scope of the Bill and the impact that it will have on the statute book, many organisations, particularly during cost of living crises and at this time of year, rely on their volunteers, and if we place undue and burdensome regulations on them, volunteers will simply not come forward and be in the voluntary sector. Charities are going through a difficult time. I remain concerned that if we tip slightly too much towards being overburdensome on those very small organisations, we will see a dearth of people in the voluntary sector. No one wants to discourage people from volunteering—we do not, and I know the shadow Minister and the Minister do not—but I worry that the thresholds set out in the Bill will have unintended consequences. I ask the Minister to look seriously at new clause 1 and amendments 25 and 26, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford.
Many will be happy to know that I am drawing my comments to a close. However, I am personally delighted that this Bill is before the House in record time, five months after the Government came into office. I hope that the Minister will see that the Opposition are working, and will continue to work, in a constructive way to get this on to the statute book. It is sad that, in order to have a relatively major piece of legislation changed so rapidly, we had to go through the atrocities that we saw in Manchester and terrorist attacks around the United Kingdom. However, I know that the legacy that Martyn leaves is one that his family will be greatly proud of, as this country should be. This is a mainstream, major piece of legislation, and I hope that by working together, we will ensure that people who go to venues for many years to come will be protected, and they will be protected in Martyn’s name.
Chris Murray
I welcome the fact that the discussion in the House today shows real cross-party support for the aims, principles and objectives of the Bill, and that the amendments focus only on nuances and more technical aspects. That shows that we are all united in trying to achieve this goal and in preventing tragedies such as that which happened in Manchester from happening again.
In trying to understand those nuances and where the more technical sides should be drawn, it is useful to reflect on the legislation’s key dimensions and advantages. First, obviously, it makes terrorist attacks less likely. The terrorist threat is substantial and we know that it is changing. It has gone from large-scale infrastructure and iconic sites to much more workaday, normal locations.
The most recent terrorist attack that we tragically saw in this country was an attack on a children’s dance class. It is clear that the terror threat is evolving and we must evolve with it, which is why the Bill is important, but it is also important because it minimises the death and destruction that result from a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks may still happen despite our best efforts, and it is important for us to plan for that eventuality and make the right decisions in order to be ready when they do happen.
The former President Obama’s Under-Secretary of State for Homeland Security, the Harvard professor Juliette Kayyem, has talked of the “boom” of a terror moment or crisis, and divides planning into “pre-boom” and “post-boom”. Pre-boom is what must be done to prevent an event from taking place, but it is equally important to plan for the post-boom moment. We must ensure that even those running small venues have done some thinking in advance of an attack. What are the escape routes? Who needs to have the keys? What happens if they send people in this direction rather than that direction?
The Bill incorporates a distinction between enhanced and non-enhanced tiers, and that too is important. In my constituency we put on some of the biggest and best events in the world. I am utterly confident that those in the football and rugby stadiums and theatres who are in charge of security planning do all this thinking anyway, but there are many smaller venues where it has not occurred to people that that is necessarily their role, but which are now in the line of fire. It is important for people to recognise that responsibility, because the public have a right to expect it. The Bill codifies what should be happening anyway. We must bear that in mind as we decide where to set the thresholds, who falls in or outside scope, and what level of burden we expect organisations and venues to face.
In Committee, it was reassuring to hear several of my concerns being allayed. One of them has already been discussed, namely the impact on business and the potential for a burden. There is no denying that something of a burden will be placed on some organisations where no one has done any thinking or preparation for a potential terrorist or other attack, but the Bill contains very proportionate elements that do not impose much of an extra burden. Its requirements are intuitive, they are not onerous, they are straightforward and they are commonsensical. As I said in an intervention earlier, they are essentially prompts for organisations to do the kind of thinking that we would hope they were doing already to avoid an attack. That not only avoids attacks, but mitigates their impact.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the proportionality of the Bill, which we discussed in Committee. The word “burden” has been used a great deal this afternoon. In his evidence to the Committee, Andy Burnham said:
“I just think that we cannot talk ourselves into a sort of thing where it is all too big a burden. I can tell you from experience: a terrorist attack is a massive burden on a city and what it does challenges everybody at every level—and that is ongoing. Like Figen said, Manchester will never be the same again after what happened. It has changed us but it has strengthened us and made us more united, and as I say, I do not want any other city to go through that.”––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 16, Q11.]
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a proportionate Bill, and that the burden of a terrorist attack far outweighs any burden caused by its provisions?
Chris Murray
Absolutely. There is a small element of burden in the Bill, but it is light-touch and proportionate, and the alternative scenario is significantly more burdensome. In my own city of Edinburgh, the impact of a terrorist attack and of people not feeling secure in the aftermath could be destructive not just to the lives affected by the attack, but to the whole economy on which our city is based, which is event-focused. It is right for us to draw that distinction, and to seek to get the balance exactly right.
Nick Timothy
The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent speech about the “protect” element of the counter-terrorism strategy. It is clear from the Manchester attack inquiry report that the asylum system is a big part of the story.
Salman Abedi and his brother Hashem—who planned the attack and prepared the explosives, and was as guilty of the attack as Salman—were born in Britain to Libyan asylum seeker parents. Their father, Ramadan Abedi, was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an Islamist militia. He was granted asylum in this country, but travelled back and forth between Britain and Libya throughout that time, which is a story that we often hear about people who are granted asylum here. Given the number of people who come here illegally and across the channel, whom we have no ability to investigate and on whom we cannot make checks, how does the hon. Gentleman think we might reform the asylum system to prevent such things from happening again?
Chris Murray
I am struggling to understand quite how that falls within the scope of this debate, but it is important to discuss the issue of how we deal with terrorism. As we have seen in the history of this country, terrorist attacks can be both foreign and domestic. They can be homegrown, or they can come from overseas. I have talked about the need to prepare for an attack before it happens, so that mitigations can be introduced. They can be long term, which means looking at where the threat is emanating from, or they can be immediately in advance of an attack, which means introducing security measures. My argument, however, is that the benefit of the Bill relates to what happens after the attack has taken place. We need to help the smaller venues that now find themselves within the scope of terrorist attacks to prepare for those attacks. It is not a question of who committed the offence, but a question of how they are prepared to deal with that event.
Dr Luke Evans
I was fortunate enough to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s Westminster Hall debate on the Edinburgh fringe and its success around the world. That is a prime example of where the Bill might be helpful. Has the hon. Gentleman given any thought to how those small venues can work together? If they share best practice, that can create an environment of security. I wonder whether the fringe organisations themselves have thought about this, given that they are, by their very nature, likely to be a target. Sharing best practice may help to strengthen the entire environment when people visit it.
Chris Murray
That intervention was slightly more in scope and was also about Edinburgh, so I was happier to take it.
The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, in advance of the Bill Committee debate and the debate that we are having now, I spoke to Edinburgh city council and to some of the event organisers, who told me that it is exactly because Edinburgh has become a place where fringe events take place regularly that these considerations have been normalised. Our city has put a lot of the necessary infrastructure in place, along with the thinking and the organisational requirements—and there is also a corporate memory between the small venues—to cope with terrorist events. As Andy Burnham pointed out in his evidence, Edinburgh is one of the national leaders on this front. However, I recognise that not every community has that advantage, which is why the Bill will extend to other communities the measures that already benefit mine.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Member said earlier that these were “prompts”, and that what we should consider was what happened after an attack. What is worrying is that the Bill goes beyond that. It talks about occasions on which it is suspected that a terrorist offence might take place or is taking place. That is not an “after”. The Bill creates an obligation for those who are in charge of the event in question to prevent individuals from entering. Before an event or while it is happening, there is a security obligation on some of these small groups to prevent people from entering the premises. That is not a prompt; it is a huge burden on the organisers.
Chris Murray
The right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Again, having been on the Public Bill Committee, my argument is that the Bill is proportionate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I look forward to the other contributions to the debate. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, terrorist threats are now a way of life, be they lone-wolf attacks, aggression and poisonings by Russia, attacks by terrorist groups from across the world, or Iranian attacks on those who support a free Iran. Such attacks focus our attention on where we are. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and I look forward to his comments. I wish to be constructive in my comments, and I have a few questions to ask. Hopefully, the Minister can give me some reassurances.
In Northern Ireland, terrorist attacks were the norm for some 30-odd years. I declare an interest: I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for three years, and in the Territorial Army for 11 and a half years. Why is it that when my fellow soldiers in the Ulster Defence Regiment and my part-time colleagues the Territorial Army went to a restaurant or café, they sought out a place where they could watch everything that was happening? They could see who was coming in and who was going out, and they had an escape route, so that they could get out quickly. That was the life that we led. In this debate, we are asking our churches, our charities, our missionary groups and those who run community halls to consider things of which they have no experience. I am not saying that critically; I am saying it observationally, because I want them to be aware.
When the gallant Minister got the call to serve in uniform, he answered it. I put on the record our thanks to him for doing that, which tells us a lot about the Minister and his psyche. I look back at some of the atrocities and I am reminded of the Darkley massacre, in which the Irish National Liberation Army burst into a church and killed a number of people who were attending—innocent people. Had it not been for the bravery of some of the people on the door, more probably would have been killed. I think of Tullyvallen Orange hall, near Newry, where the IRA killed a number of Orangemen, simply because they were Orangemen.
The point I am making is that that was our life in Northern Ireland, and now we are asking our churches, our charities and other groups across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to look at providing better security. We are asking people with no experience to do that—people who have never considered there to be any need to do so—but we are doing it for a purpose.
We all support this legislation. I want to put on the record that I support it, and I understand the reasoning behind it. We were all incredibly concerned about the Manchester atrocity; it is an example of what we have to try to stop.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I completely understand that we are asking people to consider something that they have never experienced or had to consider, but is that not what we do with fire regulations?
Jim Shannon
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, this is not about fire regulations; it is about making sure that nobody dies, which is different. It is much, much more than fire regulations, which require people to check whether an extinguisher is working. This Bill is about making sure that nobody comes in to kill anybody, so it is a different scenario. I respect the hon. Gentleman, but we have to get a bit of focus.
I am reminded of the community hall where the Rev. Robert Bradford was killed. The caretaker was on the door when the IRA came. They shot the caretaker and the reverend, and his plaque is at the back of this Chamber. I am ever mindful of his courage and the stand that he took. These are the things that we deal with. We are not better than anybody else, but these are the things that we have faced down the years.
I want to focus on churches. On Second Reading, I spoke about Northern Ireland’s unfortunate experience of these matters, and about the need for churches and places of worship to have a plan in place. I made it my business to go and talk to my churches and to get their thoughts. They want to be part of the process, so we need to see how we can help them. I note that a few of my questions have been asked by other hon. Members, so I will restrict my remarks to churches’ questions about their roles and responsibilities. I ask my questions constructively.
On new clause 2, which I understand will not be moved tonight, I have spoken to a number of churches and key holders in my constituency, and they have all told me that they include terrorism plans in their annual child protection training, which they undertake at their own cost. Those are massive steps for people who may have faced some of these things in the past, but who suddenly find themselves thrown into the cauldron because of where they are. One church highlighted that it ran a special awareness event after the Southport atrocity in recognition that the church hall, where most of the adults gather, is a different building from the one used for church events.
I just want to understand how the process will work. This hyper-awareness is good as long as it is not driven by fear. I want to focus on that fear. I think it was the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) who referred to the fear that some people experience on these issues. In church services and meetings, where there are children and elderly people present, or in community group meetings, we do not normally have to deal with these things, but now we have to, because it is important. The legislation is important. That is why the Minister is bringing it forward, and why the House will support it.
We need to ensure that the larger venues and churches have support, so that there is no fear—just a plan of action. People can focus on the fear and become incredibly worried, or they can focus on a plan of action to ensure that if something happens, they can stop it. That is where I wish to focus. I will give the example of Queen’s hall in Newtownards in my constituency, which can hold about 300 people. The events that I have been to there are nearly all charity events. It holds charity events, church events and fundraising events for missionary organisations, and they all galvanise a lot of people and bring them in. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) referred to the onus being on the organisations. I always try to be constructive, and I ask the Minister constructively what that will mean for how such places function, and how they will focus on looking after the people.
I also ask for clarity on the help that churches can expect to receive on training, to ensure that they are compliant with the standard tier expectations. They are not saying that they will not do what the Bill asks. They will; that is not the issue. I am just thinking about how we can help those churches, charity groups and others to gain the experience that they will clearly need. Will funding be made available to the charitable sector for the provision of training and assistance? Will a dedicated professional be available to churches on this issue? Will they check that churches are compliant and have a fit-for-purpose plan of action? That is my request on behalf of the churches that have spoken to me.
We must remember that churches can be largely self-governing, and the smaller churches outside the mainstream of the Presbyterians, the Anglicans, the Methodists and the Roman Catholics do not have bodies to break this down for them. I am asking on behalf of those smaller churches. I attend a smaller church—the Baptist church—but I am also thinking of the Elim church and the Brethren halls, of which my Strangford constituency has a great many, with large congregations. I make these queries in a constructive fashion, and I know that the Minister will give the answers, not just to me but to everyone in the House.
Dr Luke Evans
I too have lots of churches in my constituency, and while I fully support the legislation, I do worry about some of the rural churches. There is a risk of a fine, if they are not compliant. Does that mean that there is a risk that those venues, which are already under stress, would not be able to open? I hope that is not the case, and that the Minister can allay some of my fears, but given how the legislation is written, that could be a prospect. That would be very damaging for many of the rural churches in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member has made his point very well, and I am sure that the Minister will answer it. I just want to make sure that the churches, the charities, the missionary groups and the community groups across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are able to meet, and that they get the necessary help to ensure that normal life continues. The churches all need to know what to do and when.
It took me a long time to be able to talk about the Southport stabbings, because they left horrors in the mind of every one of us. They shocked many on the mainland, but in Northern Ireland they recalled to our memories horrific attacks and the days of having men at our doors during a service. Times have changed, and so too have procedures, but we still have enough trauma to recognise the danger. The churches and charity groups tell me that they want to be equipped, and to be able to respond. This legislation calls for the churches and the charities to be equipped. I am asking the Government, and in particular the Minister, to ensure that there is help and support, in case the unthinkable does take place.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
This legislation is a fitting tribute to Martyn Hett and the lives of 21 others that were tragically cut short in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack. It is also a testament to the tireless efforts of Martyn’s mother, Figen Murray, who has campaigned with such dignity and determination to ensure that no family endures the pain that hers has suffered. This Bill is about increased resilience for us as a country. It seeks to make our public spaces safer by requiring premises and events to take proportionate, practical steps to prepare for and mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack. It is about ensuring that if the unthinkable happens, lives are saved and harm is reduced. I speak with personal conviction on this matter. Having served in a counter-terror role, I have seen at first hand the devastating consequences of terrorism and the critical importance of the prior preparation that this Bill lays out. It is essential that our laws and systems keep pace with an ever-evolving risk.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Manchester, in a way, stimulated or catalysed this legislation. It is bigger than that, but it is no more tragic, for it could not possibly be, as he has described. He is also right to say that terrorists are becoming more adaptable, so we have to adapt the way we deal with them. Legislation is part of that. It is difficult, because legislation takes a long time to perfect, if properly scrutinised in this House. The amendments that have been tabled today are an attempt to improve the Bill, not to frustrate it. Does he agree that the Minister and the Government will need to regularly review the provisions of the legislation—there is reference in the Bill to reviews, guidance and so on—and that that will become an ongoing part of how we deal with that increasing adaptability on the part of those who seek to do us harm?
Mike Tapp
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. Any threat that this country faces is continuously reviewed by the Ministry of Defence, MI5, the police and the Government, and we adapt our approaches to suit.
That brings me to the fact that since 2017, MI5 and the police have disrupted 43 late-stage attacks, yet we have seen 15 domestic terror attacks in this country. These incidents underline the ongoing and difficult nature of the threats. I am sure the whole House will agree that we have the finest intelligence services in the world, and we owe it to them to enable their work as much as we possibly can from this place. This Bill is another step towards achieving that. The approach it proposes is both practical and proportionate for small and large venues. I commend the Government for engaging widely in the development of the Bill and for working with businesses, local authorities and security experts to ensure that it is both effective and proportionate. It is right that we in this House support the Bill, and in doing so, we send a clear message that we will not only remember those we have lost but act decisively to protect those we serve.
Jerome Mayhew
Mention has been made during the course of this debate of cross-party consensus and what a good thing that is. In some senses that is absolutely right. We should have absolute cross-party consensus on honouring the memory of Martyn Hett and all those who were killed and injured in the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017, but I raise a note of caution because sometimes when we stop being adversarial in this place, we create legislation that is not as good as it could be. That is particularly the case where we have a very emotive issue such as this, and where there is a huge amount of personal sympathy across all the parties in the House. There is a risk that extreme circumstances provoke a natural reaction of saying, “Something must be done. This has to be prevented from ever happening again,” and we end up with bad law.
There is a good example of this risk in the Bill’s progression from its development under the previous Administration, through the election and out the other side. The initial intention of clause 2 was that the standard duty would apply to premises with a capacity to welcome 100-plus people. In my view, this would have had a wholly disproportionate impact on the kind of community buildings that I represent as a church warden, as well as on the village halls that we have already discussed. Pretty much every village hall has the capacity to accommodate 100 people. Every church, bar the very smallest chapels, can expect to welcome 100 people at a wedding or funeral from time to time. There is a tiny, infinitesimally small risk of terrorism in these typically rural areas, yet the previous Administration’s Bill would have imposed very significant costs and time commitments on volunteers. I have already mentioned a couple of times that I am a church warden and, again, I emphasise the risk of unintended consequences when we are all so keen to get on that we do not challenge each other.
Sir John Hayes
To reassure my hon. Friend on that subject, he will understand that those of us who have served on the Intelligence and Security Committee are fearless in holding Ministers to account, as this Minister will no doubt find out, and similarly fearless in challenging the agencies, which do such a wonderful job for us. He is right that the agencies need to be questioned appropriately and scrutinised fully.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, about proportionality, it is, of course, right that our response to risk measures the real character of that risk and is proportionate to it.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention, and I am reassured by his comments.
In a previous life, I was a barrister specialising in health and safety risk and risk management, and I was later the managing director of the leisure company Go Ape—Members might not have heard of it—and was responsible for the risk management of over 1 million customers a year. We could have killed every single one of them, so I am deeply familiar with the appropriate mechanisms for risk management. One risk that has to be taken into account is that, if the response is too great or too onerous for the assessed risk, people might not think it is reasonable, leading to omission.
Effective risk management requires mitigations to be put in place that bear some relation to the severity of the anticipated adverse event multiplied by its likelihood. I am very concerned that the previous Administration’s initial proposal that these duties should apply to premises with a capacity of as few as 100 people would have broken that association between a reasonable response and the assessed risk.
I am therefore grateful and impressed that the Government have listened and changed clause 2(2)(c) to raise the standard duty threshold to a capacity of 200. To my mind, that seems a reasonable compromise to protect smaller facilities, which are, of course, most likely to rely entirely on volunteers, and are unlikely to have the financial capacity to undertake the kind of paid-for training suggested by the Liberal Democrat new clause 2 or to have enough volunteers who are prepared to accept this additional burden on their free time. I think this strikes the right balance. However, I am concerned that paragraph (a) in clause 32 introduces a power, through regulations, to reduce the figure back down to 100 without giving a reason. Why is that?
I therefore support new clauses 25 and 26, which would set minimum thresholds of 200 for the standard duty and 500 for the enhanced duty. A cross-party approach has taken the Bill this far, and it is important that that approach is maintained.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I join other Members in paying tribute to Figen Murray for the tenacity and courage with which she has campaigned—a campaign that has done so much to bring us to this point. Any of us who have been touched, even indirectly, by a terrorist attack know the pain, the loss and the shock. That pain is only made worse if there is a suspicion that anything, no matter how slight, might have been done to have avoided or reduced the harm done. In fighting this campaign, Mrs Murray really has done Martyn’s memory proud.
As has been obvious throughout this debate, there is a huge amount of consensus on the need for the measures in this Bill. It is a good Bill. The draft Bill before the election was a good draft, it was improved by pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Bill that this Government introduced and that has come out of Committee is better. The decision before us tonight is not whether we want these measures, because I think we agree, without exception, that we do. The decision before us is what can be done to make this the very best Bill it can be—one that provides the protections that are so clearly needed, as we heard from witnesses in the Committee’s evidence sessions and throughout the debate around the Bill, both inside and outside this House, without putting an unnecessary burden on those venues that do not need it for the purpose that we seek.
It is precisely because this Bill has broadly struck the right note that I rise to support new clauses 25 and 26, tabled in the names of the shadow Minister and the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) respectively. In doing so, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to hospitality, although I intend to speak primarily not on the hospitality sector, but on the voluntary sector and volunteer-run venues.
I am thinking, in particular, of a venue in the constituency I represented until this year’s general election. The Brierley Hill Civic is a medium-sized venue in the Black Country and, about a decade ago, an asset transfer process was started to transfer it from Dudley council to Dudley council for voluntary service. Over that time, Dudley CVS has done a fantastic job—a really professional job in every sense of the word—in providing a first-class venue for the area. It will typically host a few events each year that top 500 attendees, although they do not reach as high as 800.
The standard duty in this Bill is absolutely appropriate for a venue like Brierley Hill Civic. The concern is about how Dudley CVS, which is primarily run by volunteers, would be able to fulfil the enhanced duties if the threshold were suddenly lowered, taking the venue into the enhanced duty category. That would cause them great difficulty on a practical level as well as a financial level, because as a non-profit-making organisation, they have to balance the books.
Sammy Wilson
I fully understand the reasoning and the demand for a Bill such as this when it became known that, after a terrorist event, lives were lost because of bad organisation. If it is possible to introduce legislation that helps to avoid a situation that we have seen develop in the past, then of course we should do it. However, we have to be cognisant that when we introduce legislation, it has consequences for the people to whom it applies.
As we have heard time and again during the debate, Members believe that this legislation is both proportionate and practical. If Members genuinely believe that that is the case, there is absolutely no reason why new clause 1 should not be supported. We are entering a new field and imposing new regulations on bodies that were not regulated in relation to terrorism before, so surely it is important that we find out whether or not the objective and the intention is actually fulfilled. One way to do that is to monitor the effect over a period of time.
I have some concerns about the legislation, which people have already raised. In many cases, I do not think that the measures are practical. Secondly, I do not believe that they will not have an impact. That is not what Members expected and it is not what they want. Members across the House have said that they think the legislation may put people off engaging in activities that they would have undertaken in the absence of the regulations—activities that make a valuable contribution to their communities.
There is always a danger that people interpret the legislation that comes before the House, and sometimes our own rhetoric encourages them to do so. They may think a result of this legislation will be that it reduces the danger of people suffering a terrorist attack. To be clear, that is not and cannot be the purpose of the Bill. Terrorist attacks can be stopped only if we have intelligence, the security forces can act on that intelligence and we act in time. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) pointed out, the legislation is more about what happens after the event. However, it is not only about what happens after the event. The legislation puts obligations on people before they make a decision to undertake an event. Some of the wording in the Bill raises concerns.
Chris Murray
To clarify, I was not saying the legislation was only of value after an event. I said that part of its value was the impact it had on planning for the period after an event. On the burden the right hon. Gentleman talks about on people making preparations, does he accept that it is important that they consider the potential impact of events and think in advance about that in taking those decisions? That is how we will avoid the kind of atrocities we have seen.
Sammy Wilson
Let us look at some of the language and the requirements in the Bill that are totally reasonable. For example, the Bill sets out that people who are organising events should have plans
“for evacuating individuals from the premises”.
As far as I know, that already happens. At many of the events I attend, before the event even starts, somebody stands up and says, “Here are some house rules: in the event of a fire, the exits are here, here and here. Leave in an orderly way. When you get outside, meet at a certain point, so we can check everybody is out of the area.” There are measures in the Bill that are reasonable and that I would assume people are already doing. If they are not doing them, then it is not onerous on them to start saying that at the beginning of an event.
However, the Bill applies to retail as well. It is easy to communicate that kind of information to people if they are in a theatre or at some kind of concert, but it is a bit more difficult to communicate that to individuals when they are moving in and out of retail premises. We have to be careful about the practicalities of what we ask people to do.
Let me set out some of the things I have concerns about, which I believe are unreasonable to require of organisations. First, “public protection procedures” have to be
“followed by individuals working on the premises or at the event if there is reason to suspect that an act of terrorism is occurring, or is about to occur, on the premises”.
I suppose it is fairly obvious if something is “occurring” —we know if something is happening—but what if it is likely or “about to occur”? Are organisers meant to liaise with the police and get intelligence from them—intelligence that the police may not be able to divulge, or may not even have? What onus does it put on individuals in terms of preparation, given the random nature of terrorism? We have seen somebody go into a pre-school class with a knife. Nobody could have anticipated that.
Furthermore, when an event is occurring, or might be about to occur, the organiser has to prevent individuals from entering the premises. If I were organising an event, I would want to know what kind of security requirement that puts on me as the organiser. Am I meant to ensure that a security presence is there? What kind of security presence? We have talked quite a lot tonight about the fact that many events of 200 people could be organised by ordinary community groups. I think of theatre groups in my constituency. The only interest that people who organise such events have is acting. They do not have any of the skills that might be required to prevent people from entering the premises, so do they need to have security apparatus, such as security people?
The next measure about which there is a degree of ambiguity is the requirement that organisers do not divulge security information relating to the premises or event. I understand that they should not send out plans of the building in which they will be operating, showing the doors through which people can come in and get out, and the easy and hard ways into the premises. However, the Bill goes further than that. The organisers cannot give information about the event. The whole purpose of an event is to publicise it. Where will it be held? At what time will it be held? How many people can be facilitated? How do people get tickets? The point that I am trying to make is that there is language in the Bill about which I would have a lot of questions, were I an individual who was subject to it, because if I did not get it right, there would be a fine of up to £5,000 or £10,000.
Ben Maguire
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is making a compelling case to support new clause 2, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would provide for training to address some of the ambiguity that he describes?
Sammy Wilson
I do not believe that training would address the ambiguity, because the ambiguity is in the wording of the legislation with which people will be required to comply. We all know what happens with training schools. As soon as training is mentioned, people start rubbing their hands and thinking how much they will charge for it. We are talking about training for a one-off event.
When we introduce such legislation, we have to be careful not to put a burden on people. I know that Members have said that this is not a burden, but I hope that I have explained why I believe the Bill puts a burden on people whose main job is not security. I understand common-sense requirements being made of event organisers, but if someone’s main job is not security at such events, they are more likely simply to drop the event.
I also support the amendments about the ability of the Secretary of State to change regulations, because that ability relates to not just the size of the premises, which can be decreased, but the purpose for which the premises will be used, the people who can be held responsible, and the scope of the premises that can be covered. The powers in clause 32 to amend the legislation are fairly extensive, and if the Secretary of State decides that there are to be changes in those four areas, the legislation that we approve tonight could be radically different in a year’s time, because the review depends upon whether there is a need to reduce the vulnerability of events, as per clause 6(5).
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I pay tribute to Figen Murray and her campaign team. That she has somehow been able to channel personal grief into a fierce determination to change the law is beyond inspiring. We should be clear that we would not be here tonight without her campaigning efforts. The whole House owes her a debt of gratitude.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today. As ever, I will endeavour to respond to the points that have been raised. I am particularly grateful for the constructive approach that has been taken to considering the Bill, today and at previous stages. I place on the record my thanks to the Opposition for the constructive way in which they have approached the Bill throughout its passage. It is time that this cross-party commitment to improving the safety and security of venues is delivered without further delay, and I am proud that we are moving one step closer tonight.
As hon. Members have heard during the passage of the Bill, the threat picture is complex, evolving and enduring. Since 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots, and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks. In October, we heard from the director general of MI5 that the country is subject to the most interconnected threat environment that we have ever seen. Sadly, terrorists can seek to target a variety of locations. The examples of terrorist attacks that have been raised during the passage of the Bill are a sombre reminder of that. I pay tribute again to all victims and survivors of past attacks, as well as their loved ones, and all those affected. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting anyone affected by a terrorist attack.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister and, indeed, the Opposition on the Bill. Of course, all hon. Members hope that future attacks will be prevented by the Bill, but, as has been mentioned, it is also about planning to ensure increased survivability for those impacted by an attack. With that comes the need to ensure that the support we provide to victims is fit for purpose. What efforts will the Minister make to improve support for victims of terrorism?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the most humbling parts of this job is meeting those who have been the victims of terrorism and their families. I think of people like Figen Murray, Brendan Cox, Travis Frain, Dr Cath Hill—all people I have spoken to recently. We are working across Government to progress this important work, and I intend to meet victims and survivors in the new year to hear more about their experiences and say more about what we will do as a Government to support them.
The Bill will improve protective security and organisational preparedness across the UK, making us safer. We heard about the excellent work that many businesses and organisations already do to improve their security and preparedness. However, without a legislative requirement, there is no consistency. The Bill seeks to address that gap and complement the outstanding work that the police, the security services and other partners continue to do to combat the terror threat. As a result, qualifying premises and events should be better prepared to respond and to reduce harm in the event of a terrorist attack. Additionally, certain larger premises and events will have to take steps to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
The public have a right to feel safe, and that is what this legislation seeks to deliver. I am grateful for the considered way in which the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) approached the debate. It is clear that the focus of the Opposition’s amendments and concerns is on, among other things, the impact on business and smaller organisations. I assure him that that has been a central consideration for the Government, informed by extensive engagement, as well as pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee and two public consultations under the previous Government. As a result, the version of the Bill that this Government have brought forward includes important changes to ensure that we can achieve public protection outcomes and that there are no undue burdens on businesses and other organisations.
The Government have, of course, raised the standard tier threshold from 100 to 200, which creates a more appropriate scope. We have also added a reasonably practicable standard of requirements for the procedures required under both tiers. That concept is in line with other regulatory regimes, such as health and safety, and is designed to allow procedures and measures to be tailored to the specific circumstances of a premises or event.
Sir John Hayes
Mindful of what the Minister said about consulting and acting in accordance with the consultation, and of what I said earlier about the changing character of the threat, I ask him to commit from the Dispatch Box to considering, as the legislation begins to have effect, changing the guidance and improving regulation where necessary, sensitive to those circumstances.
Dan Jarvis
If the right hon. Gentleman bears with me for a moment, I intend to say more on the matter, but I assure him that if he is not satisfied, I will give way to him again.
We have introduced a fairer basis for calculating whether a premises or event is in scope. Replacing capacity with the “reasonable expectation” of the number of people who may be present will reflect the actual usage of premises or attendance at events. I am confident that this version of the Bill strikes precisely the right balance.
I turn to amendments 25 and 26 tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West for the Opposition. Clause 32 will allow the Secretary of State to increase or decrease the qualifying threshold for either tier. We anticipate that the thresholds would be reduced to either floor only in very limited circumstances, such as if the nature of the threat from terrorism were to change significantly. That will enable the regime to maintain an appropriate balance between being able to protect the public and managing the burden on those responsible for premises and events. The amendments proposed would remove that ability.
Furthermore, the power is narrowly drafted, and regulations made under it will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In requiring the approval of both Houses before they are made, parliamentarians will be able to scrutinise any proposed changes. The Government therefore do not support the amendments.
I thank the hon. Member for amendment 27. I thought he made his points in a reasonable way, as he often does. While I understand the sentiment, the Government do not support the amendment, but let me explain why. It is intended that the Security Industry Authority will rely on advice and guidance in the first instance. However, a credible enforcement regime with suitable monetary penalties is necessary to ensure that the regulator can secure compliance, particularly where the regulator identifies serious or persistent non-compliance.
The maximum daily penalty amounts are set at a level to counter financial gain from non-compliance, recognising the breadth of organisations in scope as well as the potentially more serious consequences at larger venues. It is important that the Secretary of State has the power, by regulation, to change those maximum amounts, including to increase them if necessary—for example, if the amounts were to prove ineffective in ensuring compliance, or the figures needed updating to reflect changes in economic circumstances in the longer term.
Critically, when determining penalty amounts, the Bill requires the SIA to take into account a range of factors, including the seriousness of the contravention, any action taken to remedy or mitigate its effects, and an organisation’s ability to pay. That will ensure the penalties are effective but proportionate. I reassure Members that changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure, unless they are simply to reflect inflation.
The hon. Member raised concerns over the role of the SIA as the regulator, which I believe is the motivation for tabling new clause 1. There are several reasons why the Government do not support the new clause. The Government are confident that the SIA is the right delivery option for the Martyn’s law regulator, owing to its years of experience in increasing security standards and ensuring public protection. It already plays an important role in safeguarding the public through its work regulating the private security industry. The SIA has long-established inspection and enforcement functions that ensure compliance with its licensing regime, and it already works with security partners to promote best practice around counter-terrorism protective security.
Dan Jarvis
If the hon. Member will bear with me, I am going to address some of the points he raised.
Furthermore, it will take at least 24 months following Royal Assent for the SIA to begin undertaking its enforcement duties. It would not be fair of us, nor indeed possible, to judge its performance before it has begun carrying out its new functions, which seems to be the effect of the new clause.
Dan Jarvis
I will make a bit of progress.
I can also assure the House that the Bill already contains provisions to ensure the appropriate oversight of the SIA. Ultimately, the Bill gives the SIA the tools that it will need to deliver its new enforcement functions successfully. We are committed to exploring wider opportunities to strengthen the SIA so that it can carry out its public protection role and deliver the Government’s ambitious agenda.
I turn to the amendments on training provision tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire). I thank him again for his interest in that important issue. As he knows, the Bill has been developed to ensure that those working at premises and events are better prepared to respond quickly to evolving situations in the event of a terrorist attack occurring or being suspected. Those workers make rapid decisions and take actions that could save lives. There is no specific training requirement in the Bill, but it is essential that workers with responsibility for carrying out public protection procedures are adequately instructed—and, where appropriate, trained—to do so. Training and instruction will be tailored to the premises and events in question, and to the procedures that they have developed, rather than our using a one-size-fits-all approach.
Dan Jarvis
I will make a bit more progress.
The Government think that the focus of premises and events should be on how to ensure that their people can effectively carry out their roles, rather than requiring the completion of generic modules or courses. We understand the importance of training, and so have committed to publishing free dedicated guidance and support. That guidance will ensure that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have the information required to understand and identify training needs. The Government also intend to signpost a range of training offers, including the significant support that we offer in the shape of access to expert advice and training on ProtectUK, which already includes free access to the “Action Counters Terrorism” and “See, Check and Notify” training packages. Furthermore, following Royal Assent, the Government intend for there to be an implementation period of at least 24 months before the legislation’s commencement. We are confident that that will allow sufficient time to understand the new obligations and to plan and prepare accordingly, including by training staff where necessary.
I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to respond to points made by a number of hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) made important points about the threat of terrorism. He also rightly paid tribute to Manchester city council for its work with local businesses. What he said about proportionality should reassure any businesses that might have concerns.
As a former police officer, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) speaks with great authority on these matters, and I pay tribute to him for his service. He rightly made the point that the Bill is not just about securing physical premises but has a wider value, and that protecting the public is not just a matter for Government; others also have an important responsibility in that area.
Let me turn to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been very patient. I have to say, I am a little mystified that he is not on the Opposition Front Bench. He seems an effective performer and responded well on Second Reading. [Interruption.] I am not sure that I am helping him, but I thought he made a strong contribution again tonight, and I found his words about Martyn’s legacy particularly moving. I am grateful for his constructive approach this evening and previously. He helpfully highlighted concerns about smaller venues, particularly small theatres. I assure him that there has been extensive consultation with smaller venues, although I am sorry that it did not include the constituency venue that he mentioned.
All hon. Members have village halls, churches and community halls in our constituencies, and we all recognise the hugely important role that volunteers play. The Government raised the standard tier threshold from 100 to 200 people specifically in response to the feedback, including from those operating smaller venues similar to ones that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley mentioned. We assess that that has resulted in a reduction in the proportion of village halls in scope of the Bill’s requirements from 56% under the original proposals to 13% now. I assure him that we will continue to work closely with smaller venues to ensure the easiest transition to the new arrangements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) said that the nature of terrorism is constantly evolving, and that we need to plan to protect against it. He pointed out that the Bill contains straightforward measures—prompts, essentially—that are light touch and proportionate. He also very helpfully referenced the Edinburgh example. I hope that that provides positive evidence of the potential benefits to businesses of the measures.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was constructive, as he always is. He speaks with great experience and authority on matters relating to terrorism, so I always listen carefully to what he has to say, and often find it profoundly moving, as I have again tonight. He mentioned churches, which he has raised with me before. The Government acknowledge that places of worship have a unique and important role in communities right across the country, and have considered them very carefully in the context of this legislation. We have consulted extensively with churches and with places of worship more generally, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to work closely with them to ensure that they have the support and guidance they need. That is a commitment that I make to him.
Dan Jarvis
I am conscious of time, so I will keep going, not least because I want to briefly reflect on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp). He spoke with personal conviction and experience, and I know that he understands the importance of preparation and planning—I will not say the second bit of that phrase. He also rightly paid tribute to our intelligence services, and I echo that tribute.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) spoke with authority, not just as a Member of this House but as a church warden, and made a really interesting point about critical challenge. I hope he will appreciate this point: the Bill is the result of two very extensive public consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny. It is forged from all that work. That is why I am confident that the measures in the Bill are proportionate and reasonable. However, I was grateful for the constructive challenge he offered.
The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made a number of constructive points about thresholds. I hope the responses I have already given have provided him and the venue in his constituency with the reassurance they want. Finally, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) spoke with passion, as he always does, and raised a number of entirely reasonable concerns. I am afraid that we will not agree on every aspect of them this evening, but I hope that he will at least acknowledge that the Government have worked incredibly hard to ensure that the Bill is proportionate and not unreasonable, given the nature of the threat we face.
I will touch briefly on the Government amendments, which make only very minor and technical changes to the Bill to ensure that its purpose and intent is clear. They include small drafting changes for consistency, to remove unnecessary text, and to clarify technical detail.
In closing, I again pay tribute to Figen Murray and her campaign team, and thank them. Their campaigning for this legislation has been an inspiration to us all. Figen’s son Martyn lost his life in the Manchester bombing. As the Home Secretary said on Second Reading,
“To suffer such a horrendous loss and somehow find the strength to fight for changes…is heroic.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 624.]
This is a vitally important Bill. The public deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events. It is therefore right that appropriate and reasonably practical steps be taken to protect staff and the public from the impact of terrorism. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. Security will always be the foundation on which everything else is built, and for this Government, nothing will matter more. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Matt Vickers
I thank the Minister for his considered response to the debate. However, while entirely supporting the objectives of the Bill, we do not see why the Government cannot commit to a review of the effectiveness of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator, given that the Bill places an entirely new set of requirements on venues and an entirely new set of responsibilities on the SIA, so we will press new clause 1 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dan Jarvis
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I start by thanking everyone across the House who has contributed to the debates on the Bill for their incisive and necessary contributions and their considered scrutiny. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather) who has done such an excellent job in whipping the Bill through. I also thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for their work on the Opposition Front Bench during the earlier stages of the Bill and the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for taking over so ably on Report. I look forward to continuing to work with him in his new role.
Hon. Members will be aware of the Bill’s history, coming as it does out of the tragic events of the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017. I take this opportunity once more to pay tribute to the 22 victims of the horrific Manchester Arena attack, and to Figen Murray, mother of one of the victims, Martyn Hett. Her campaigning has been crucial in driving the Bill forward. We would simply not be here debating this legislation without her.
During these debates, I have been particularly moved by the contributions of hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of constituents who have been affected by the attacks in Manchester, Borough Market and elsewhere, and the important reflections and lessons we can learn from recent history in Northern Ireland. The Bill is one part of our already extensive efforts across Government, including those of the police and security services, to combat the threat of terrorism. I take the opportunity to thank them for their vital work in keeping our country safe; we owe them a debt of gratitude.
As hon. Members have heard me say more than once in this place, the first responsibility of any Government is to keep the public safe. This cross-party commitment to improve the safety and security of venues in the wake of the Manchester Arena attack must be delivered without further delay. The Bill was a manifesto commitment, and I am proud that we have been able to introduce it so early in the Session. I thank colleagues from across the House for their support for the Bill, which has enabled it to progress through its stages in this place so smoothly. I am also grateful to the previous members of the Home Affairs Committee for their report; its recommendations have been crucial in shaping the Bill.
I also take the opportunity to say an enormous thank you to the following people: Ella Terry in my private office; the Bill team of Tom Ball, Chloe White, James Fair and Izzy Hancock; Michelle Chapman and the policy team; Kris Lee and his legal team; Joel Wolchover and Tim McAtackney at the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel; and Debbie Bartlett and Shaun Hipgrave, whose leadership over several years has been exemplary. I also thank all the many civil servants, including those in the Home Office analysis and insight and comms teams, who have worked on the Bill with great diligence and professionalism. Many of them have done so for several years. Finally, I thank the fantastic staff of this place for their work in supporting the Bill’s logistics, in particular the Doorkeepers and the parliamentary Clerks’ team.
I finish with a gentle word of encouragement to colleagues in the other place. It has been wonderful to have seen consensus on the Bill in this place. I hope that they will agree with us on the importance of the Bill and that this manifesto commitment can proceed as smoothly through the other place as it has done here. After several years, and as Figen has said, it is time to get this done.
Matt Vickers
Recent years have seen too many tragedies and too many precious lives taken by terrorist attacks—hurt that will never truly heal. Despite those tragedies, inspirational people such as Figen Murray and Survivors Against Terror have shown us that good can come from bad, and that the power is in our hands to act, even in the shadow of grief. Martyn’s law and everyone who has worked to make it a reality are an embodiment of that spirit.
Implementing this legislation will require us all to work together. National security is a collective endeavour. Organisations affected by the changes are acutely aware of their responsibility. They understand the importance of protecting their customers from terror, and are committed to ensuring that people can attend concerts, exhibitions and performances with the confidence that they are safe. That spirit of collaboration and mutual responsibility ultimately will make the provisions in Martyn’s law a success.
The responsibility goes both ways. Just as we expect venues to take the necessary steps in the Bill, they expect the Government to approach its implementation in a measured and sensible manner. I want to finish by thanking the Government for continuing the important work on the Bill, and to reiterate to the Minister my willingness to work with him on its passing and implementation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 December 2024 - (9 Dec 2024)