Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting)

Paul Waugh Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Katie Lam]

That would be helpful.

Jeremy Leggett: Almost all the village halls of that size in England, Scotland and Wales are run as unincorporated associations. The charity itself is not a legal entity. The responsibilities for managing the charity are held personally and severally by the trustees, of which there might be between six and 10. So all the obligations under the Bill would fall to that group of people. Although the trustees of village halls voluntarily manage the halls for the benefit of their community, they are very seldom on site when it is being hired out. Therefore, the distinction between the people responsible for the building and the people responsible for the events is very clear.

Some of the provisions in the Bill for placing the responsibility on individuals who manage the building do not fit well with the constitutional structure of most village halls, although a small number are now becoming companies limited by guarantee and so on. Once we put in place the briefing, the support, the information and training, there is absolutely no guarantee that the people who have received that will be in the building if something happens. For those reasons, if no other, we have to think quite differently about how this legislation is going to be enacted in voluntarily run organisations.

It is worth saying that many of those we spoke to who responded to the standard tier consultation quite negatively are people who freely volunteer their time and their talents to provide a facility for their community—which they do, safely, 365 days of the year, for no pay. These are volunteers within their community. On speaking to many of them, they felt it was too heavy a stick to make this a legal obligation and that, in fact, rather more carrot would have been helpful in assisting them to do what they wanted to do anyway to keep their communities safe, rather than putting them at the risk of the law instead. That is one of the main reasons why the Home Office received such a negative response from that size and type of charities and buildings when doing the supplementary standard tier consultation.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q What is your view on the enforcement powers of the regulator contained in the Bill?

Jeremy Leggett: I have to say that we have not looked in great detail at that. We have been so concerned about the way the entire Bill will be perceived by volunteers, because of the risk of us losing a lot of village hall trustees—simply because they do not want to see this responsibility falling on them personally—that we have not looked very hard at the exact sanctions that might be placed on them if they do not do it properly.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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”.

[Paul Waugh]

Q May I press you a little further? My question was about Andy Burnham’s assessment that it could be zero to low cost for smaller venues—we are talking about a capacity of 200 to 400. What is the average profit on a concert like that, if there even is any? What is your assessment of what the cost would be under this Bill? Are we talking about individual bag checks that would need to be funded? What are we talking about?

Jon Collins: Most grassroots music venues operate on a 0.5% profit margin, which is not a profit margin, because the people who run those premises are not paying themselves properly. They actually subsidise, because of their passion and love for music.

Something like a bag check could actually create another type of security problem for venues like that. If they are 150 or 200-capacity premises, they might not have the conditions in which you need to search every person on entry, because of the scale of what they do. If that were imposed, there would be an additional cost because you would need to be able to staff that, but more concerningly there would be the creation of a queue outside the premises, which the Music Venue Trust has identified as creating a new risk. That may be addressing a risk that was not there in the first place. I apologise for being vague, but we are trying to pull numbers. Given that we are not entirely sure what the guidance in the final form of the Bill will say, the expectations of the inspectorate in terms of what operators should do are pretty challenging. However, if it is brought in in a way that is aligned with our licence requirements, it can be lower cost to comply.

[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.

--- 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.