Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting)

Kirith Entwistle Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

Q24 Assistant Commissioner, good afternoon. Thank you for appearing in front of the Committee today and more generally, thank you to you and your officers for the incredibly important work that you do to keep the public safe. It is hugely appreciated.

I am conscious that some, but not all, members of the Committee have spent quite a lot of time thinking about the nature of the threat that we face. You are supremely well placed, given your experience, to talk about the nature of the threat. I know that there will be limitations on what you can say. However, it would be incredibly helpful for the Committee if, based on your extensive experience of policing, you were able to say something about the nature of the terrorist threat that we face today and how that compares with, say, 10 years ago. Can you also say something about your assessment of the legislation we are dealing with and its benefits?

Matt Jukes: Thank you very much, Minister, and I thank the Committee for the opportunity. Before I move on to the threat, I would like to acknowledge all those who have been directly affected by the reality of terrorism in the UK and particularly to remember the victims of the attacks that have given rise to the movement towards the Bill. I pay particular tribute to Figen Murray for her tireless campaigning to bring us to this point.

The terrorist threat in the UK remains substantial and across the years that I have been involved, we have moved from a situation where people once needed to travel to acquire terrorist training, methodologies and equipment to now being able to carry out that kind of research and reconnaissance and acquire terrorist knowledge from their bedrooms, increasingly driven by the internet. The most pronounced feature of our work of late has been low sophistication actors who are self-initiated. They are sometimes called lone wolves or lone actors, but are in fact often connected to small groups of individuals online and often inspired by terrorist rhetoric, which endures from decades of presence of that kind of material, now in the online space.

We see three principal forms of ideology driving radicalisation and risk. First, there is those who have been inspired by or are directly connected to organisations such as Daesh/ISIS or al-Qaeda—so-called Islamist extremist terrorism. Secondly, we have seen over recent years the growing presence of extreme right-wing terrorism in our casework. Thirdly, there is an increasing number of cases of individuals who are mixed, unclear or unstable in their ideology and who seek inspiration in the material online from a range of different sources, sometimes mixing and moving across those ideologies.

In contrast to the previous decade, where we saw the rise of the Syrian caliphate and travel overseas, in recent years we have seen less travel overseas to carry out acts of terrorism and we have worked incredibly hard internationally and in partnership to reduce the movement of terrorist foreign fighters. One consequence of that has been that all the major terrorist organisations, which seem at times very remote from the UK, speak in terms of attacks being carried out where you are—effectively, if you cannot travel, then you might consider an attack where you are—and we have seen examples of that ideology following through.

The major terrorist organisations, which have been significantly degraded since 2014 and the rise and fall of the Syrian caliphate, should be acknowledged, as the director general of MI5 has said, as being down but not out. Although I have spoken about the numerous, dispersed individuals who are inspired to act on self-initiation, we are seeing signals of growing and re-emerging sophistication in international terrorism. The most obvious instance of that was the Crocus City Hall attack in Moscow earlier this year.

I will finish by scaling all of that. I am fortunate to work with a range of partners, communities, victims and survivors. Our core teams in counter-terrorism policing are currently investigating, in 800 separate cases, thousands of individuals who have expressed some intent to pursue a terrorist cause. Every year, 6,000 to 7,000 people are added to the roster of those who have been referred into the prevention of violent extremism casework through the Prevent lens.

All of that takes us to the question of how to mitigate those threats. We mitigate them through the pursuit of those who are already on our radar effectively, working closely with MI5. We mitigate those risks by trying to get ahead of them, with the prevention of violent extremism through the Prevent programme and elements of deradicalisation. It is absolutely critical that, in the conditions I have just described, we are able to protect the potential targets of terrorism and prepare communities, businesses and society to respond when terrorist events take place.

The terrorist threat now is harder to spot and harder to stop than it has ever been. Therefore, however effective our investigations are, we have to be ready to prepare and protect the potential targets of terrorism. To do that, we think that the proposed measures in the Bill—Martyn’s law—are proportionate, and highly likely to be effective.

We enjoy extremely positive relationships with a range of sectors—they are giving evidence this afternoon—but the measures will move us forward from a mode of co-operation, encouragement and collaboration, to giving communities, customers and society the confidence that there is a base level of preparedness and protection in place in the venues captured by the Bill. While we have enjoyed those relationships, we know there is a great deal of inconsistency around the country, and we would not want to see in any sense a postcode lottery for those who deserve protection.

I will finish with a small illustration. You have probably already heard, and will continue to hear, fear and concerns about the proportionality, cost and scale of the impact of the Bill. Given the terrible events of 2017, it is worth remembering that in Borough market during the London Bridge attack, the simple act of encouraging customers to remain in a premises and locking the door saved lives. At the level of intervention that is proposed in the majority of premises, the simple preparedness of staff to take low-cost or no-cost interventions can absolutely contribute to saving lives in the UK. For that reason, counter-terrorism is full square behind the Bill.

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for your remarks, which are useful to hear. Out of interest, looking back at terrorist attacks that have happened over the years, do you think the Bill could have made a difference if it had been in place?

Matt Jukes: The foundational incident for these conversations is the attack on Manchester Arena in May 2017. The evidence of the inquiry was clear that with a better prepared environment there, responders and those working on the premises could have changed the outcomes, whether by preventing an attack that evening, or mitigating its effects. One factor that has been discussed is that we will only capture a range of premises. We might touch on thresholds, but we might capture a range of premises and not all public spaces. One thing I felt quite confident in judging is that preparing businesses in these different tiers to be more security-minded, preparing people who work in those businesses to be more security aware and planful around the prospects of safety will raise overall the readiness of communities for attack.

Even though some of the attacks that we have seen over recent years have taken place in public spaces in open areas and would not be captured by this legislation, we might have seen trauma kits more readily accessible in adjacent premises. We might have seen people who were travelling to or from work who were more ready to play their part in responding as part of the community response to those incidents, and we might have been able to mitigate some of the risks of the spread of those attacks in the way I described in London bridge.

We know that where it has worked best, a combination of vigilance, preparedness and physical security can all play their part. We absolutely see both deterrent and mitigation of risk. Based on our experience of attacks over recent years, it would have to include those at major events. You are going to hear some more evidence about that. We know that in an enduring sense, major and public events remain a focus of terrorist planning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sonia Kumar]

Q Kind of. My question is more about the customer experience. You have spoken about the retailer point of view, but do you think there will be an effect on customer experience for those retailers, including small retailers, that do not have visible security measures?

Mike Pearce: The one thing that every sector in the UK has in common is that we rely on customers to drive the economic engine. We rely on them coming back to our venues, our hotels, our shopping centres and our supermarkets. If they do not feel safe and if they do not understand what their responsibilities are in order to keep their families safe, they probably will not come back in the same numbers as before if there is a major event at one of those venues. We do not take that for granted.

For example, over 32 million people transit through Saint David’s Dewi Sant in Cardiff, a Landsec property that is right at the heart of the community. That is a huge number of people in a very vibrant city that we sit in the middle of, and the customer experience is everything to us. They understand—we hope, because we message our customers, including brand partners like John and others, as well as smaller brand partners and the general public—our expectations; for instance, they understand what we expect them to do if they see something suspicious. The “run, hide, tell” message has not gone away yet. We have seen examples at some of our sites—at Bluewater, particularly—that people will move quickly if they see a threat. That has taken years to bed into the public consciousness.

The experience for the public should be welcoming: “Come on in. You’re safe. Come and enjoy the venue. Come and enjoy the hotel. We’ll worry about security for you, mainly, but you have a responsibility, if you see something, to notify us—and working together, we will do something about it.”

[Kirith Entwistle]

Q I echo the Minister’s comments and thank you for coming today; I really value the input of businesses. The Home Affairs Committee argued that the capacity figure of 100 for standard duty premises was “disproportionate” and “burdensome”. What impact do you think the new capacity—of 200, at the moment—will have on small businesses and micro-sized businesses? That question is for anyone.

Neil Sharpley: Is that for me? Are you asking about the impact of the current threshold?

[Kirith Entwistle]

Yes.

Neil Sharpley: Within the standard tier, the impact might not be as much as one needs to worry about. For those smaller businesses that fall within the enhanced tier, there is a real risk that substantial costs will be incurred in compliance. One problem is that if you fall towards the bottom end of the enhanced tier, you may not be able to pass on the full costs to your customers and there may therefore be an effect on profitability. It will vary because there are an enormous variety of different types of businesses and premises, and different types of staff who need training. One size definitely does not fit all.

It is crucial that there is flexibility in how this provision is regulated. The consultation in respect of the regulatory aspects which are to follow will be quite important to establish some sensible and reasonable rules to accommodate all different types of business. That is very important. It is absolutely essential that the guidance is clear and comprehensive, and that it includes examples that are not limited to one type of business. In terms of regulation in relation to capacity, we do need clarity—we need to know whether we are looking at standing people or sitting people, and whether we are looking at theoretical maxima, or the actual experience of the number of people who are accommodated. It is not necessarily the only criteria for risk, as I have already said, but we do need to have clarity as to how it should be applied so that businesses know where they are.

In terms of other costs, if I can briefly speak to enforcement, it is absolutely essential—as with all legislation —that it is a collaborative, rather than a punitive, approach, and that it is an education-first approach. We all want businesses to be educated as to how they can ameliorate these risks.

John Frost: Just to build on the point about impact —working alongside Cabinet Office, the National Preparedness Committee, and the local authority, there is an aspiration to improve and enhance societal resilience in the UK. This legislation will do that, but how we do it is crucial. At the moment, we do not have the guidance or the understanding of the inspectorate, but if—during the grace period—we can work together on what that guidance looks and feels like, and if we can work alongside business to shape it, of course it will be better adopted. If we can understand the framework of inspection and contribute, that will give us a much greater and much better opportunity to win together, and agree a way forward that is proportionate for everybody.

If we reflect on Mr Jukes’s comments, by raising it from 100 to 200, we have excluded an enormous amount of sites—particularly on high streets, which will have no obligation to do anything, when actually they have experienced attacks in those very sites where colleagues and customers have been injured, and where we were able to respond using low-cost evacuation and lockdown procedures and grab bags. There is a missed opportunity if there is no obligation to do anything in those sites.

There is also a little bit of a question mark over training. In the standard tier it says that it will not be obligatory, but there are enough free products to have enough engagement and education for even the smallest of organisations to be equipped to proportionately respond for no cost or low cost.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence, and we will move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witnesses

Cameron Yorston and Max Nicholls gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sonia Kumar]

Q What unique challenges do you foresee for community-based sports venues, such as the community boxing club in Dudley, in conducting and obtaining regular risk assessments, given the varied events types, participants and demographics?

Max Nicholls: I will make an opening point generally on community sports venues and organisations. Across the country, we have roughly 100,000 grassroots sports clubs; as many on the Committee will be aware, these are predominantly volunteer-run, and do important work in the community to get people active and deliver community cohesion, as well as delivering all these other social benefits driven by participation in sport and physical activity.

We know that there are lots of challenges around recruiting and retaining volunteers, specifically post-covid. One common thing our members tell us is that volunteer recruitment is one of the key barriers to delivering more sport and physical activity. As Cameron alluded to, something we are keen to work with the Committee and Government on, through to the production of guidance, is supporting those volunteers in community-based organisations; we want to understand what their environment requirements are and give them as much information and guidance as possible to support them in the undertaking of their requirements.

As you say, that will look very different in different parts of the country. We represent a huge plethora of sports and recreational activities where the clubs and activities are very different. Having the flexibility to understand what is appropriate and practicable for those different organisations is important.

Cameron Yorston: To add to that briefly, and to reiterate the earlier point, we want to avoid unintended consequences. It is quite hard as at now to envisage all the specific impacts that might emerge from the legislation, given there is clearly a need for greater clarity and guidance.

The overarching point is that we do not want to impose any potentially prohibitive burdens or requirements on volunteers who are already very stretched, as that risks reducing the provision of sport, physical activity and recreation against the backdrop of the country’s wider challenges, such as issues with public health and a struggling NHS. What we do not want to do is inadvertently reduce people’s ability to participate in sport, recreation and physical activity, because there are adverse unintended consequences to that.

[Kirith Entwistle]

Q Where premises are in the scope of the Bill, is it clear to you who the person responsible would be?

Max Nicholls: There are some areas in which further guidance would be welcome. In a sporting context, we often have tournaments or events that are held in different venues every year: the Open golf tournament is held in a different golf club each year, for example. The interaction between the organiser of the event and the premises at which it is held is important not only from a responsible person perspective, but in terms of the requirements for the duration of the event and the rest of the year.

We would like to see flexibility where premises host an event that is classed as a qualifying event but are otherwise standard-tier premises for the rest of the year—where they understand their requirements under the obligations on standard-tier premises, but for the duration of the event only they must meet the enhanced requirements for a qualifying event. There is still some slight uncertainty about how that would work in practice, so we would welcome further engagement and clarification in the guidance.

A venue such as the Nottingham tennis centre hosts a one-week tournament with 5,000 people on site, but for the rest of the year it is a community facility with a couple of hundred people on site. We think that those are two different uses and should be treated as such, but we would welcome further engagement and clarification.

[The Chair]

As there are no further questions from Committee members, let me thank the witnesses for their evidence.

Examination of Witnesses

Kate Nicholls OBE and Mike Kill gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Waugh]

Q So is it fair to say that, because you are satisfied with the increase from 100 to 200, a lot of those concerns have fallen away?

Jeremy Leggett: Indeed. It was troubling this morning to hear quite so much pressure being placed on the Committee to bring the threshold back down, because that would bring a lot of those organisations we are most concerned about back into scope.

[Kirith Entwistle]

Q During its scrutiny of the previous draft Bill, the Home Affairs Committee argued that the purpose of the draft Bill was not clear. In your opinion, how clear is the purpose of the Bill in its current form?

Jeremy Leggett: We feel that the Bill is better drafted now than the draft Bill that was consulted over last summer. As was said this morning, I think by the National Association of Local Councils, a lot of work will need to be done on the guidance and regulation process to make clear exactly how the responsibilities fall between premises’ owners and managers on the one hand and events organisers on the other. That guidance and those regulations will have to be tailored in a way that works for the situation as I have described it, with halls that are run by volunteers who are not on the premises.

[Kirith Entwistle]

Q On the point you made earlier about those volunteer-led organisations being safe 365 days a year, how confident are you that those volunteers and community venues would be sufficiently prepared in the event of an attack? I am thinking about the recent horrible attacks that we saw in Southport, and what would have happened if there were mechanisms in place then. How confident are you, in your experience of those venues, that they would be prepared and equipped in the event of a similar horrific incident?

Jeremy Leggett: It is a very good question. Over the last 10 or 15 years, the standard by which voluntary, village hall, and community centre trustees have come up to the mark on things such as fire safety, food, and health and safety is remarkable. There has been quite a major change over the last 10 or 15 years. So when it comes to the physical preparedness of the building, I have absolutely no concerns about them coming up to that mark quite quickly.

I think the issue is the integration between what is physically there and the procedures and training for what people actually do when something happens. It is quite easy to talk about making a quick decision to lock in when something happens; as even a relatively small business, with a core staff who are trained to understand which way to jump when something happens, you could probably be confident of that. In the case of a village hall, the people who are on site running an event may not have had that training. Either that, or we are getting ourselves into a position where the village hall’s conditions of hire will have to say, “You are not going to be able to hire this building unless you have done that preparedness training.” That opens up a wider sweep of preparedness among other kinds of organisations, which I am not really qualified to talk about.

[The Chair]

Thank you. If there are no further questions, I thank the witness for his evidence and his flexibility.

Examination of Witnesses

Jon Collins and Melvin Benn gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirith Entwistle]

Q In your view, does the Bill make it clear where the liabilities may lie between premises owners and event organisers?

Gary Stephen: For me, the difference between who is responsible for the premises—the organisation—and the event—the person—is clear. However, in the discussions I have had with my peers, we believe it is important that there is a clear understanding between the organisation and the event organiser about who exactly is responsible for what. We would hope that would be done by having the correct risk assessments and security plans in place and sharing them appropriately. On the face of it, it looks clear to us that the organisation is responsible for the premises and a person for the event. We are quite comfortable with that.

[Tim Roca]

Q I guess that in universities, lots of student unions run venues. Student unions are separate from, but part of, universities. What conversations have you had, or not had, with student union colleagues to make sure that they are aware of the legislation and its impact?

Gary Stephen: To give some context around that question, many higher education organisations are in a town and gown setting where the university is a small town in itself that is integrated into a busy part of the city. There are challenges of having multiple buildings with thousands of staff, students and tenants—elite sports clubs or teams; nightclubs, which you are referring to, which is where the GUU, the student union, comes into it; or commercial properties and theatres within the campus footprint. There could be confusion as to who is responsible for those buildings. The conversations we have had initially are that they are looking to us for guidance.

Most higher education organisations own the buildings and then lease them out to the smaller organisations. On the discussions we have had with them, the more premises around our institutions comply with the legislation, especially the smaller hospitality venues, the more protected our students and staff will be, both in and out of the academic setting. With that in mind, the original standard tier threshold of 100 people would be more beneficial for the Bill in my opinion. That would bring a lot more of those premises into scope and more venues would be prepared to deal with incidents. Does that answer your question?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Katie Lam]

Q Can I ask a bit more about “from time to time” and what we consider that to mean? I am thinking specifically about the fact that I have a few large churches in my constituency that might have one or two events a year when they might have 200 people present. Are they included or excluded?

Debbie Bartlett: To clarify how we are treating places of worship within the legislation, they are being treated slightly differently. Regardless of their capacity, if they are over the 200 limit, regardless of whether they are over 800 or not, they will all be considered within the standard tier. That is to reflect the unique role that faith communities play in society.

In terms of “from time to time”, how we are calculating capacity within the legislation goes back again to the point about making it slightly more proportionate and more venue-specific. Venues themselves will have to consider the greatest number of people reasonably expected to be present at the same time. It is about that word, “expected”. If they know that there will be more than 200 people expected at their venue at one time, they will be caught within that.

Where “from time to time” comes from is if there is an unexpected event, which unexpectedly has 200 people, which could not have been considered beforehand. There will not be any sort of automatic “You will now be in enhanced tier”—sorry, the standard tier—or you will not jump to the enhanced tier from time to time. So it is about the expected. If you expect more than 200 people, then you will be in scope of the legislation.