Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (First sitting) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office
None Portrait The Chair
- Hansard -

Shadow Minister, do you have any questions?

Tom Tugendhat Portrait Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
- Hansard - -

I have had the great privilege of meeting Figen and Brendan over many months on this, so I have no questions.

Tim Roca Portrait Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Q I reiterate your comments, Dame Siobhain, about the admiration we all hold for Figen and Brendan and for the campaigning that they have done. Figen is a constituent of mine and I know we are all very proud of her in Macclesfield. May I ask you, Figen, what you think is the most important element of this Bill?

Figen Murray: I think it is that as many places as possible are covered. We as a campaign team are concerned about the threshold, if I am honest. I live in a small town —more like a village—and with the original 100 threshold, quite a few of the restaurants as well as the little theatre we have and the pubs would have been covered under the law. With the change in the threshold, my little town is now not coming into scope at all and is completely not secure under Martyn’s law. It concerns me. The change from the 100 threshold to 200 will exclude about 100,000 premises. It feels like quite a lot now no longer need to be within that scope. It worries me.