Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting)

Chris Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Dan Jarvis]

Q Good afternoon to you both, and thank you for appearing in front of the Committee. It is much appreciated. My question is for Mr Collins. First, thank you for your consistent and constructive approach throughout this process, which has been appreciated. On the basis that I suspect you might be asked some more general questions, I wanted to ask you a specific one: how do you see the legislation interacting with the events sector’s already established security procedures?

Jon Collins: Thank you for those comments. We are attempting to be a critical friend to strengthen the Bill as it moves through the House. The first recognition is the role of licensing in our industry. Every one of the venues and festivals I have talked about will have a premises licence, be that for the event or for the venue. There are four objectives under that piece of legislation that relate to public safety, the prevention of crime and disorder and so on. We have concerns about how the requirements under this legislation will or will not align with the licence conditions that our venues and festivals will be operating within.

There is a risk of some potential conflict—particularly as the licensing process is often a multi-year process, where the local authority gets to understand the venue and the festival and comes back year in, year out. There will be the development of security advisory group sessions and the development of an event management plan. That is a long, well-developed process, but now an inspector could potentially visit just before the event and say, “I am not satisfied with all of this; you need to take these steps.” The first thing we would note is that there is no requirement for them to be reasonably practicable in the Bill, whereas the requirement for operators is to take reasonably practicable steps. We think an amendment that adds that expectation to the inspectorate would be useful.

Beyond that, could the guidance for this legislation be mirrored in the section 182 guidance for the Licensing Act 2003 in England and Wales, and its equivalents in other countries and regions? Could we have something in the legislation to say that a requirement from the inspectorate cannot conflict with a licence condition? If there was conflict, if something happened and we had to get into the whys and wherefores, there would potentially be legal considerations there: “Well, I was compliant with this legislation, but you’re saying I am not compliant over here.” There are some challenges there that we think can be addressed as the Bill moves forward and the guidance is created.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

Q Can I follow up on that? That is very interesting —what would drive that kind of conflict? I am Scottish and represent a Scottish constituency, and sometimes some elements are devolved and some are not, so I know it can be difficult for organisations with a footprint across the UK to follow different regulations. Is that the level of conflict you are talking about, or is it more that they would be speaking at cross purposes and there needs to be harmonisation?

Jon Collins: The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 is similar to the 2003 Act in its provisions. It could be, for example, a venue having a condition that says they will search everybody on entry. That will necessarily create a queue outside the premises, but it might be that from a counter-terrorism perspective you need to get everybody inside the premises as quickly as possible. Then you have a direct conflict, and the operator is trying to square that circle.

Melvin Benn: As Jon said, the two licensing Acts in England and Wales and in Scotland are very similar. In Scotland, particularly for outdoor events, licences are done on an annual basis, as opposed to a permanent premises licence as it is in England and Wales.

However, there is potential for conflict where a venue, an annual festival or an annual series of concerts has been in monthly meetings with safety advisory groups and has done all the preparation on the basis of the advice from the safety advisory group—who of course take advice from the local police force and the local CT SecCo, or counter-terrorism security co-ordinator, and so on—and the organisers will have their plan for the evening, or the festival, the weekend, or the next month or six months of the venue, all costed and budgeted, and then the regulator’s representative may come in and say, “I fundamentally disagree with that, and I need you to do this.” It appears that they have supreme powers. Certainly, in the way it is written, as Jon said, there is no factor of reasonableness in it, which we have to have. Parliament expects us to be reasonable in our endeavours, in our searching and so on. This does not have that factor of reasonableness, and it could cause conflict. It could be that the regulator and the safety advisory group have differences of opinion and we get caught in between, with what could be very significant financial penalties, not knowing quite which way to go.

[Chris Murray]

Q But the Bill does not introduce that conflict. If there was a conflict between getting people through the door very quickly or having them queueing outside—in a festival trying to make a decision —that sort of thought process already exists.

Melvin Benn: The Bill certainly introduces conflict outside of the venue. Without question, it introduces conflict outside of the venue.

Venues are licensed premises, and we abide by licence conditions. That is how we survive in business. We work very hard to keep our customers safe, but we only have responsibility and jurisdiction over our licensed premises. We can have no jurisdiction or responsibility outside of the licensed premises, particularly when that is on the public highway. Once it is on the public highway, it is the responsibility of law enforcement. The Bill is actually trying to introduce a responsibility in something called “the vicinity”, which is very ill-defined—exceptionally ill-defined; we do not know what the vicinity is. Sometimes it is referred to as the grey space, but it is defined as “the vicinity” in the Bill, where we somehow have to take responsibility for safety.

We cannot undertake safety in a public space, because we have no legal right to affect what the public are doing in a public space. Actually, the British public, in the main, know that the only people that can charge them or direct them to do something different to what they are doing on a public highway are the police forces. So, if our security personnel, for example, are directing a crowd that do not want to be directed, to do something, they have every right—we have lots of video evidence of this in various locations—to stand their ground and say, “You have no right to tell us to do that—only the police can do that.”

The Bill is actually trying to tell us to do something that legally we are not allowed to do, and that is a very significant conflict. Even if the concept of vicinity was defined, we still have the problem of external to the licensed premises, which is very defined, where we have that responsibility. So there is conflict there.

Obviously, in terms of the general essence of the Bill, we are massively in support of its direction and desire; we are doing that, day in, day out. The Licensing Act is a really good basis for keeping customers safe—incredibly good. It is standing the test of time really well. This introduces conflict to that, unfortunately.

[Paul Waugh]

Q I asked Andy Burnham this morning what protections there would be for smaller, live music venues, and to seek some reassurance about what happened in Manchester. He said that in Manchester, voluntary measures have worked very well. His solution is to hug people close, in terms of small venues—listen to them, ask them what they want and how they can make it viable, for both the public and the venues. He said that there would be low to zero costs for smaller venues of between 200 and 400 capacity. What is your assessment of that?

Jon Collins: Our member, the Music Venue Trust, reckons that about 17% of their 800 members—so 140 or 150-odd—sit between 200 and 300. Fifty per cent. sit below 200 and the remainder above 300. There are a lot of small music venues out there. We heard talk about whether the threshold should be for the standard tier; there is an argument to move the threshold to 300, particularly for licensed premises, because all those venues already have the requirements of the Licensing Act, as Melvin put it.

The trust’s view is that, if this is introduced in a way that is integrated into operating practices under the licensing legislation, it does not need to be overly burdensome. It would actually align quite nicely with the standard operating practices, particularly if an organisation such as the MVT was able to develop sector-specific training, which it could then cascade out to its members. Part of the challenge in trying to understand the cost and implications of this legislation is that the tiers and the scope of the Bill are so broad, particularly—wandering off your question a bit—as the enhanced tier goes from 800-capacity venues up to 175,000-capacity festivals.

Melvin Benn: Some are even bigger than that, yes. As drafted, it literally ranges from 800 to an unlimited number. The largest festivals in the UK are for over 200,000 people, for example. Again, this is a complicated one, because safety applies to everyone, regardless of the size of space.

Jon and I have talked about this a little, particularly in respect of the previous witness, whom I only caught the end of, but if you are putting on an event in an unlicensed premise—a church hall, a community hall or something of that sort—and if it is for up to 499 people, you do not need a premises licence, but can apply for a temporary event notice. That is a licensing cut-off, in that sense. From 500 onwards, you need to have a premises licence. It would seem sensible for the Bill to mirror that to a certain extent, because once you get into the premises licensing, you get into safety advisory group meetings and sitting in front of local authority committees to get the premises licence to do everything properly.

There is that element of crossover that I think should be thought about a little. But there is that point that Jon makes, that you then go from 800 to 200,000 or greater. Should there be a different onus on a different event? The Reading festival, for example, is 105,000 people. Clearly, the intensity of planning and thought and so on, around a large event like that—the 105,000 people are all camping as well—is probably under greater scrutiny than, say, a 5,000 independent festival by the Association of Independent Festivals. That is somewhat under the radar to the world, in a way.

There is that discussion. We all accept, of course, that safety is paramount. As I mentioned, that is how we keep in business, in that sense. You just mentioned Andy’s example, and we work closely with all local authorities in Manchester and everywhere we go. It is a joint arm around each other, because with these events, local communities value the music spaces that they have, which are great for the local economy and so on. There is an element of partnership work with the smaller and larger venues. It is our business and it is what we do, but of course it must be partnership work. In our experience, the more partnership work there is in legislation, the more coherent and better it will be. At this point in time, it feels like the way in which it is written and planned is a little dictatorial and not in partnership. It is a little bit “you must do”, rather than “you must consider and take Government advice and so on”.

[Tim Roca]

Q The Home Office’s estimated costs are just over £3,000 for the standard tier. We heard this morning from a number of witnesses about the exercises that Manchester has done with a really wide range of businesses there, all the way from Depot Mayfield, which has a capacity of more than 30,000, to small and medium-sized nightclubs, such as Matt and Phred’s, Band on the Wall and hotels. I was struck by the information I saw from Manchester city council saying that in those desktop exercises, it was unanimous that the financial impact and operational issues were not actually that onerous in the view of the people attending those sessions. I would say that that sounds quite positive. Can you comment on that?

Jon Collins: I think that is a by-product of the fact that we operate with licences and have partnerships with local authorities that go back decades. The variable that we do not want to introduce is for an inspector to come to a venue or festival and insert new requirements with no appeal, which they can do at the moment on the balance of probabilities, and disrupt that well-established way of working between the venue and the regulator.

On the Home Office’s costs, the difference between the low-end cost and the high-end cost for the total bill is eightfold—it is around £593 million and up to £4 billion. That tells you just how open-ended a lot of this legislation is at the moment. Trying to work out compliance costs and so on can therefore be a challenge, but the Manchester experience is common to our work with local authorities up and down the country.

[Chris Murray]

Q You are making a really interesting point. To follow up on that, do you accept that there are two categories of organisations? There will be some where the inspector will find that they are doing everything that they should be, so their costs will be low, but there will be some that are not—otherwise, there would be no need at all for this legislation—and costs will be involved there. That is the open-ended component.

Jon Collins: I will make one quick point before Melvin comes in. Because we operate with a licence, we are already considering counterterrorism safety and security in how we run the premises. The issue is the new variable. I do not see that there are two classes of venue; the Licensing Act takes care of that. If you are not meeting your obligations under that Act, your licence is at risk and can be removed. The fact that this can be imposed without appeal on a balance of probabilities, and disrupt what can be a decades-old relationship between the venue and the local authority, is the concern.

Melvin Benn: It is exactly as Jon said. Because there is an entertainment licence, the granter of the entertainment licence—be it a premises licence in England and Wales, or a yearly licence in Scotland, for example—has assessed that what the operator is doing is safe and makes the customer safe. In that sense, one could argue that there is no need for the legislation.

I think the industry generally would say that adding an additional safety piece about counterterrorism into the four pillars of the Licensing Act would have been a better route than creating an additional piece of legislation. We are not in charge of that, and we will go whichever way it is. We are fully supporting the direction of this. The simpler way would have been to add to what already exists, rather than to create something separate.

[Tim Roca]

Q That is from the point of view of your industry, but we are also talking about places of worship, schools and other places.

Melvin Benn: Obviously, I am speaking from the point of view of my industry. But it is an industry that is quite grown up and has an incredibly good safety record. In our view, adding to what already exists would have been in some ways a simpler route. There would then be something separate for unlicensed premises. The fact that the Bill almost ignores the existence of licensed premises is a little bit of a failure. That is where we see conflict—and we do see conflict—not with the overall aim, of course, but there are two jockeys on the horse at some points. That is where you are going to get to, and when there are two jockeys on a horse, that horse never wins. At least, I have never backed one that won.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca]

Q I worked in higher education, so I know that there are quite a lot of regulators already knocking around. I wondered what your view was about the SIA being designated as the regulator, as far as the legislation is concerned.

Gary Stephen: I am aware that in some parts of the security industry, the SIA has a poor reputation when it comes to the enforcement of licensed premises. But from the information provided to me, and with the creation of a separate entity within the SIA to manage the enforcement of new legislation, it is comforting. Looking at the alternatives, it seems like the most practical and logical appointment on the face of it.

[Chris Murray]

Q What is your view on what the Bill would look like in practice? Could you give us a bit of an overview of the reality of what it would look like on the ground for your sector, and how you judge the level of compliance and compliance risk you would be taking on board?

Gary Stephen: The majority of higher education organisations will be in the enhanced tier with public protection measures. I strongly believe that most of my peers have significant experience in dealing with counter-terrorism risk assessments and security plans, and I would be disappointed if that was not already a priority for most of them in the planning and preparation of events. However, I am aware that not every organisation has an experienced security professional to manage events on campus.

With that in mind, we created the special interest group CONTEST to share best practice and signpost to our members what good looks like. Most organisations have very good relationships with local counter-terrorism security advisers, and due to specialist research being carried out on many sites, the security posture is normally of a good standard. So I would be conscious to make sure that vice-chancellors and COOs are aware of their obligation under the new legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Waugh]

Q Minister, can you explain to us why you increased the standard tier capacity from 100 to 200? Can you answer some of the concerns raised this morning by both Figen Murray and Andy Burnham on that point?

Dan Jarvis: Yes, I am happy to do that. But with Dame Siobhain’s indulgence, perhaps you will let me say a few words about the sessions that we have had today. I hope that this has been a really useful opportunity for members of the Committee to hear from a range of authoritative stakeholders about the Bill. That, certainly from my perspective, has been incredibly useful in informing our collective understanding as the Bill moves forward in its passage through the House of Commons.

It would also be remiss of me not to reiterate the comments that I made earlier on about Figen Murray. I think that her contribution, and the contribution of the team that has supported her, has been outstanding and inspiring. We frankly would not be at this place without the incredible work that she has done over some time now. I think that that is worthy of recognition by the Committee this afternoon.

I also want to briefly reflect on the testimony that we heard from Assistant Commissioner Matt Jukes, because I think that that was significant. He very helpfully outlined the nature of the terrorist threat that our country faces, and it is reassuring to know that the analysis from him and his team is that the Bill is both proportionate and effective.

I was also struck by the very positive testimony that we heard from Mayor Andy Burnham on the Greater Manchester experience. I think that, for those who have had some concerns about proportionality and about the impact that this Bill could have on certain sectors of the business community—and the hospitality sector in particular—it was reassuring to hear the very positive experience from Greater Manchester.

Also, before turning to the substance of your question, Mr Waugh, I just want to reiterate the importance of the cross-party support that we have been able to build for this Bill. This is legislation that began its life in the previous Parliament under the previous Government, with important pre-legislative processes taking place. All that has been incredibly helpful in terms of informing the process and ensuring that the Bill is as fit for purpose as it possibly can be. I am very grateful to all of those who went before and for the contributions that they made.

I turn to the substance of your question; I will bring in Debbie in just a moment because she has dealt with the detail of this for longer than me. I think that the heart of your question is about issues of proportionality. I am struck by the fact that we have had a useful conversation today about where the threshold of the standard tier should lie. I am quite confident that if a decision had been taken to place that threshold in a different place, we would still have had a discussion about whether it was in the right place and whether the decision to have it at a lower level would have excluded some even smaller premises. We have to be realistic that whenever you are dealing with legislation that requires a threshold, there will always be a debate—it has been in that sense a very constructive one—about where that particular threshold sits.

We have got to where we are based on extensive consultation. There was the pre-legislative process that took place in the previous Parliament. There have been two quite extensive public consultations and a significant amount of contact with a range of different stakeholders who would be affected by the legislation. In the end, Government have to take a view about what is the most appropriate threshold and that is what we have done. We think that that is the right judgment, but clearly there is still a debate to be had around that. After significant consultation and consideration, that is where we have got to and as the Minister, I think that is the right judgment.

It is also worth making the point that other changes have been made to the legislation since the earlier iteration, not least the inclusion of the “reasonably practicable” test, as well as the points around reasonable expectation. I hope they go some considerable way to reassuring the concerns expressed about the impact the legislation would have on smaller venues and premises. Debbie, if there anything you want to add to that, you are welcome to do so.

Debbie Bartlett: In terms of reflecting on the change from 100 to 200, one of the clear voices we heard through the consultation and the pre-legislative scrutiny process was around those voluntary organisations and premises. Moving from a 100 to a 200 threshold reduces coverage of those village halls from 54% at the 100 threshold to just 13% at the 200 threshold, which feels more proportionate given some of the feedback we received through the pre-legislative and the consultation process.

[Chris Murray]

Q Thank you for what you have set out. We have heard in the sessions about how some wanted to be at a lower threshold and some at a higher one. I can understand that you have to pick a number somewhere in between, so it makes sense in how you have set that out.

On compliance and how you are dealing with organisations that do not comply, obviously the hope would be that as many organisations as you come across are complying and doing this kind of thinking already. We have heard about how things like licensing regimes pretty much encourage a lot of organisations to do compliance. Can you talk about why you have set the threshold for non-compliance at that maximum and what the process was in deciding that?

Debbie Bartlett: In setting out the compliance and sanctions regime, the decision was taken—looking at the heart of the Bill, which is proportionality—to have a primarily civil sanctions regime in place. The key role for the regulator, as has been discussed today, is around educating, bringing people up to standard and improving protective security and organisational preparedness across the country. Obviously, to enable that regime to have teeth, there needs to be some kind of compliance and sanctions regime in place. The sanctions regime allows for flexibility. We have heard from significant witnesses today that this cannot be about one size fits all. We are talking about an extensive number of sectors with different operating models, different ways of working, different staff ratios and so on. There has to be flexibility in all parts of the Bill, including compliance.

Setting the compliance regime where we have, at the £10,000 maximum for the standard tier and the £18 million or 5% of worldwide revenue for the enhanced tier, mirrors some regulatory regimes in this space, so it is not unheard of. It also gives us the flexibility because when you consider the enhanced regime in particular, you are looking at venues that could go from 800-person capacity right through to 100,000-person capacity. That is quite unique in terms of what their revenue structures and so on will be in terms of how they will differ.

The regulator will have the ability to consider what is best when thinking about compliance and what can be imposed on a venue or an event. One of the things that they can take into consideration is the ability of the responsible person to pay the revenue costs. That will have to be considered. It is about giving us maximum flexibility because, as we have said, one of the challenges around this legislation is the uniqueness and the number of venues and the number of operating models that we are trying to consider.

[Kirith Entwistle]

Q How are the Government working with bodies within the scope of the Bill to plan and prepare for its implementation, and will there be enough time for organisations to prepare?

Dan Jarvis: Yes, we are confident that there will be enough time. Following Royal Assent, we expect the implementation period to be at least 24 months, and given the extensive consultation with stakeholders that has already taken place, that is very much a live process. It is not a process that will come to an end; it will continue throughout.

Having looked at this very carefully, the Home Secretary is particularly keen to ensure that we have an implementation period that will allow ample time for those businesses that will be affected to prepare properly. Yes, we are confident that all of the relevant safeguards are in place, but it is important that we continue to engage with businesses and other stakeholders.

That has been a productive process. As I have said, there have been two public consultations and I think there have been more than 100 stakeholder engagement events, with hundreds of businesses being engaged throughout that process. That will continue and we will make sure that all those businesses have the information that they require to implement the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Chris Murray.

[Chris Murray]

Q You talked about the proposal for the SIA to be the regulator. Why did you choose the SIA as the regulator? How should an organisation respond when it perceives that there is a conflict between what the SIA is asking it to do and what other legal rules, such as licensing, ask it to do?

Dan Jarvis: Let me pick up on the first bit of your question, then I will hand over to Debbie for the second bit. Clearly, this is an important role for the regulator, and there has been an ongoing debate for some time about how best to provide that regulatory authority. A number of options were considered by both the previous Government and this Government, and there were other ways of providing that regulatory authority. Clearly, we were mindful of the Cabinet Office guidance about how best to proceed in terms of the creation of new regulatory authorities, which is not recommended. We looked carefully at the current role and responsibility of the SIA, and the judgment taken was that it has or will have the necessary experience and skillset to provide that regulatory function. This is an important role, and Ministers will ultimately be accountable to Parliament for the performance of the regulator.

This is an important piece of regulation that does require that regulatory function. We as Ministers clearly wanted to satisfy ourselves that that is the most appropriate solution. Clearly, we have to consider other factors as well, such as cost. Having considered all those factors and looked clearly at the capacity and capability within the SIA, the judgment was made that it is the most appropriate body to take on this regulatory function, but it is important to say that clearly there will be ministerial oversight over that process. Ministers will be accountable to Parliament for the performance of the regulator, and this is a crucial part of the legislation.

I have to say that the feedback has been largely positive about the decision. There was a period of time initially when there was not clarity about the regulatory functions and who would provide that particular arms’-length-body regulatory function. The Government took the decision that the SIA was best placed to do that, and we think that that is the right solution.

Debbie Bartlett: We are absolutely alive to the fact that the SIA will have to align and work closely with a number of regulatory bodies, including those responsible for fire safety, licensing—as we heard from the gentleman before us—and health and safety, and with our other operational partners in this space, including the police, and industry themselves. There will be a lot of work to ensure that those regimes are complementary. We heard clearly from the gentleman about the concern of duplication. I do not think that is the case; it is actually about aligning. The licence regime is limited. That is why we felt this legislation was necessary over and above what is already out there.

Many of our venues and premises are already be aligned to things like health and safety and fire safety. Where possible, we have sought in the legislation to try to align and complement as much as possible. What we are asking of people should not be a huge surprise in terms of what has already been asked under those other regimes. They absolutely will have to align and, indeed, within the legislation, we are giving the SIA the powers to share information with other bodies as necessary in the delivery of their duties and those of other public bodies.

[Katie Lam]

Q I want to follow up on thresholds. If I understand this correctly, there was previously this idea of capacity, and that has been changed to this idea of reasonable expectation. If I ran a venue that had a capacity of 220 people, could I decide to only ever sell 195 tickets and I am not caught? Is that how this will work?

Debbie Bartlett: That is correct. As long as you do not expect to have more than 190 individuals at your premises, you will not be considered in scope of the standard tier. Obviously, the regulator—the SIA—will have the powers to seek information that will justify some of that decision making. For some, and we have set this out in fact sheets, depending on how you justify that decision, it could be historical attendance data or your fire safety capacity data—it depends what you use—you will then have to present to justify that decision making.