Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Dan Jarvis and Chris Murray

Committee stage
Thursday 31st October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Dan Jarvis and Chris Murray

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.