Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Chris Murray and Paul Waugh

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Murray]

Q I would like to ask about the impact that you think the legislation will have on events. My constituency is in Edinburgh. We have the Edinburgh festival in August, where suddenly we have 5,000 events taking place in one month and 50,000 tickets being sold in venues across the city. How do you think this legislation will help cities like Edinburgh, where we have large-scale events—especially when they are distributed? I should also say that Edinburgh city council is very supportive of this legislation. It recognises its power.

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 Thank you, Andy, and thanks also to Figen and Brendan. You all make a really powerful case for why strengthening security actually helps business—it is not just helping the public, but helping businesses to thrive because then they can attract people in a secure, safe environment. However, at the same time, some smaller, independent, live concert promoters, very small-scale people, are worried about the impact on them.

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.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Chris Murray and Paul Waugh

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[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”.

--- 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.