PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill - 9 December 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Developing and implementing training on public protection procedures—

“(1) The Secretary of State must take steps as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to ensure that—

(a) adequate training provision is made available for persons responsible for qualifying premises or qualifying events in respect of public protection procedures that includes—

(i) the monitoring of premises or events and the immediate vicinity of premises or events;

(ii) evacuation procedures and the movement of individuals into, out of and within a premises or event;

(iii) physical safety and security of occupants in a premises;

(iv) provision of security information to individuals on a premises or at an event; and

(v) other measures related to terrorism protection training;

(b) a training implementation plan is put in place to ensure all organisations and persons to which the provisions of this Act apply are encouraged to undertake training related to public protection procedures.

(2) Functions of the Secretary of State under this section may be exercised by any organisation or persons authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the steps they have taken in relation to subsection (1).”

This new clause, together with Amendment 28, would require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a training plan in respect of qualifying premises and events before Parts 1 and 2 of the Act are commenced.

Government amendments 1 and 2.

Amendment 27, in clause 19, page 15, line 5, leave out “different” and insert “lower”.

This amendment restricts the Secretary of State to lowering the daily penalties rate for non-compliance by regulation.

Government amendments 3 and 4.

Amendment 25, in clause 32, page 22, line 35, leave out “100” and insert “200”.

This amendment sets the floor for standard duty at 200 individuals.

Amendment 26, page 22, line 38, leave out “500” and insert “799”.

This amendment sets the floor for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events at 799 individuals.

Amendment 28, in clause 37, page 25, line 31, leave out from “force” to end of line 36 and insert

“on the day after the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on developing and implementing training on public protection procedures contained within this Act.”This amendment is consequential on NC2.

Government amendments 5 to 24.

I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to the Martyn’s law campaign, the incredible group of individuals who are the Survivors Against Terror, and all the businesses, charities, local authorities, civil servants and security partners that have helped to shape the Bill. Most importantly, I thank the tireless campaigner Figen Murray, and her son Martyn in whose name this Bill has been devised. I would like to reflect for a moment on Martyn and the 21 other innocent victims who were killed in the heinous attack in the Manchester Arena in 2017. The loss of their lives and the pain of their families and friends must never be forgotten.

I pass on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), who is unable to be present today to speak on behalf of the official Opposition.

Martyn’s law was a manifesto pledge for the Conservative party, and we published a version of the legislation in draft during the last Parliament. We took the issue of public protection very seriously when in office. We delivered £1 billion of counter-terrorism funding for 2024-25, so our forces can mount a swift and effective response to any terrorist attack. Funding will total at least £1 billion in 2024-25 as we provided essential support for counter-terrorism policing and ensured the police had the resources they needed to meet and deal with the threat of terrorism. We enshrined our Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 in law, introducing tougher sentences and ending the automatic release of potential terrorist offenders. Those found guilty of serious terror offences will now be handed a minimum 14-year prison term and up to 25 years on licence.

Part of the reason for publishing this legislation in draft was a concern to get the balance right for the different premises to which it applies—their responsibilities, and how feasible it is for them to effectively comply with those responsibilities and with public safety. We are grateful to the Home Affairs Committee, which undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and made valuable recommendations, and to all those who responded to the Home Office consultation. It is because Martyn’s law is so important that it is imperative we get it right in this place. It is in that spirit of support, co-operation and openness that we have suggested small amendments to the Bill.

New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the effectiveness of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator of these new provisions for both this House and other places within 18 months of the passing of the Bill. This is in recognition of the challenges inherent in extending new regulatory powers to an existing body. The report would include a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the SIA’s regulatory functions and an analysis of the implications if those functions were alternatively carried out at the local authority level.

The SIA’s role in this Bill is extensive, and it is our view that a review after the roll-out of the new provisions will provide the Government with the opportunity to take stock and decide whether the existing arrangements are the most effective regulatory framework. If they are a success, that is fantastic, but if there are issues, it is surely best to address them early and, if necessary, make changes then and there. I know there has been some anxiety from organisations about a perceived lack of clarity in how the SIA will approach regulation and whether it has the institutional dexterity to understand such a diverse range of venues.

From my discussions with relevant representative groups, businesses and venue operators around the country, I know there is wide-ranging support for the changes in our amendment from the industry. They want to ensure their venues are as safe as they can be. Indeed, many have already taken steps unilaterally to improve security and are eager to work with the Government on further progress. However, there is a feeling that current advice and guidance is limited, and this lack of information is leading to anxiety, particularly at a time when business confidence is falling and new taxes are incoming. Therefore I ask the Government to ensure that affected venues and industries are given full advice on how to comply with the incoming regulations as soon as possible. By agreeing to a future review of the SIA’s regulatory effectiveness now, the Government can ease those anxieties and ensure that everyone is focused on the most important objectives: delivering the provisions in the Bill and bolstering our collective security. For that reason, I ask the Government to support new clause 1.

We have tabled amendment 27 in a similar spirit of openness and co-operation. It would prevent the Secretary of State from increasing by regulations the daily amount venues can be fined under this legislation. As the Bill stands, places that are classified as standard duty venues can be fined up to £500 a day for violation. For those classed as enhanced duty venues, the fine is £50,000 a day for violation. I know the Minister will have met many of the organisations that are required to make changes under the Bill, and I am sure that he, like me, found them to be actively supportive of the changes and genuinely interested in working collaboratively towards better safety regulations.

Without the regulations and guidelines being set out clearly, there is a risk that businesses will worry about being fined quite heavily just because they do not quite know what they should be doing. Does my hon. Friend agree that this amendment and new clause 1 will help cement that clarity in place?

All the people in the industry are genuinely and wholeheartedly committed to improving the safety of their venues, but there are anxieties and concerns about what that means. The review of who is in charge and who is responsible for ensuring compliance will get rid of those anxieties and foster confidence in the industry and let us move forward together with the industry.

We would like reassurance about how the Government intend to use the powers to increase the rate of daily penalties. The Bill allows the SIA to levy large fines for non- compliance with the requirements of this legislation in addition to the daily penalties. For a sector recovering from covid, those could be difficult to meet, as could a daily penalty of £500 levied on a small organisation run by volunteers.

We have heard from several trade associations about the potential impact. Neil Sharpley, policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, said the FSB is “broadly supportive” of the Bill but added that

“we are concerned about the administrative impact of the burden that will be imposed on smaller businesses, and we are concerned about the costs.”

Michael Kill, CEO of the Night Time Industries Association, said that

“it is crucial to address the proportionality of the proposed measures, within all settings. We must ensure that the balance between heightened security and practical implementation is carefully considered.”

As my hon. Friend knows, I piloted the measure as shadow Minister on Second Reading. I welcome the Minister to his place and thank him for his usual courtesy.

This is genuinely not a political point, but does my hon. Friend agree that, with other measures currently burdening small business such as increases in taxation, business rates and national insurance contributions, this amendment helps because it allows venues to plan and make sure that not too much money is going out? That applies particularly to charities and smaller venues. That is why the remit of the SIA must be checked, and why this amendment should be backed.

I could not agree more. There is huge anxiety among businesses about challenges and pressures—whether the national insurance contribution increases on employers or the huge change to small business rate relief affecting small businesses in leisure, hospitality and retail, slashing it from 75% to 40%. These are challenging times, including for very small family businesses, and also, as my hon. Friend points out, for the voluntary sector and many organisations that prop up our communities and play a central role. By perfecting this Bill, we can relieve those anxieties and allow those organisations to follow on with confidence and comply with the measures in the Bill.

I would appreciate some reassurance from the Minister about how he expects to use the powers to change daily penalties. I hope he will demonstrate that the ethos of the Bill is collaboration between the state and private organisations, not the establishment of an increasingly costly financial penalisation system. We believe that would help to settle any underlying anxieties and allow both the Government and venues to focus on working together to ensure that the roll-out of this Bill is the very best it can be.

Amendments 25 and 26 stop the Secretary of State changing qualifying tier amounts by regulation. They are simply designed to provide future certainty to organisations as they work to become compliant with the Bill. They would remove the power of the Secretary of State to lower the threshold for the standard duty premises and enhanced duty premises from 200 and 799 individuals respectively. The current qualification levels have been determined after consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. These are significant policy choices and I believe the Government have reached this position after listening to that feedback. As I have set out today, the industry and venues are actively supportive of the Bill and actively want to play their part in improving venue security. We worry about the uncertainty caused by the potential of the Secretary of State to change the thresholds for the standard and enhanced duty premises in future. How is that power compatible with allowing the industry to plan long term, in the knowledge that the qualifying criteria for each tier will not change?

We want to ensure that venues have the confidence to commit the required resources to adopting the provisions of the Bill, knowing that the rules will not change suddenly. Impact assessments have shown the challenges that face different types of venues. Smaller venues and lower capacity premises such as places of worship, village halls and community centres showed particular concern about the impact on fellow smaller businesses and their ability to meet the revised requirements within the small resources available to them.

About four in 10—or 39%—of respondents from premises with a capacity of 100 to 299 agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack. Nearly half—46%—disagreed and said that only larger premises should have a legal obligation. About half—51%—reported that revised requirements would be difficult to take forward. Six in 10, or 58%, were at least somewhat concerned that the cost of meeting the standard tier requirements would affect their organisation’s financial ability to continue operating. Among those from places of worship or village halls, only around three in 10 agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack.

More than 54% of those from village halls and community centres, which typically have a smaller capacity than premises across other sectors—72% had a capacity of 100 to 299—disagreed and said only larger premises should have a legal obligation. Over half of those from places of worship and village halls felt the revised requirement would be difficult to take forward, mainly due to the perceived burden in time and effort. I therefore ask the Minister in what circumstances he would envisage needing to lower the floor for either standard or enhanced duty premises and what consultation would take place before the Government did so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that proportionality is particularly important? While clearly venues like the Manchester Arena should have a properly worked out plan, it is inappropriate for village halls and church halls to worry about the cost and bureaucracy involved. Can we have the lightest possible touch for those small community venues?

That is right. The community organisations that are affected, whether parish halls, village halls, churches, or small businesses such as the local pub, are invaluable to, and sit at the heart of, our communities, and it is essential that we protect them. There is a balance between what everyone who supports the Bill wants from these protections, be they on the Opposition or Government Benches, namely to prevent the most horrific atrocities, and ensuring that those businesses and community organisations can continue to exist.

The Bill’s provisions are appropriate for venues below the enhanced tier. They are proportionate, low-cost and not onerous. They are prompts to encourage organisations to do the kind of thinking that they should do anyway to prevent terrorism or any kinds of attack. The measures are not disproportionate at all, and the legislation is appropriate in that respect.

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. An existing regulatory body is being given an additional job; there is no harm in coming back after 18 months to review whether the provisions are working and are fit for purpose. Similarly, there is logic in the House having a say on the fees and penalties that might be applied, rather than that being delegated to the Secretary of State. Those logical changes could relieve some of the anxiety in the sector. Everyone wants the Bill to go forward and fulfil its objective of making our communities safer, but some of the anxieties in the sector about unexpected and unintended consequences for community venues and small businesses are real, so let us relieve some of them by agreeing the amendments.

I hope the shadow Minister will forgive me for intervening once again, but I expressed concern about the “responsible person” element at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading. As he has outlined, smaller charity and voluntary sector bodies, such as theatres and community organisations, welcome the aims of the Bill, as do I, but when voluntary organisations are responsible for allocating someone who will be legally responsible to the Security Industry Authority, that spreads fear among those organisations, given the bureaucracy that they already face. Does he agree that we need to look carefully at how great a burden we put on theatre groups, and in particular on voluntary community associations, which will be subject to the regulations?

We need to reflect, take time, and review the measures in 18 months, including the regulations. Many of our community and voluntary organisations already struggle to find the manpower to fulfil their functions, and this is another function. Its purpose is right, and it is right to take the legislation forward and provide these protections, but we have to consider the wider perspective and the proportionality for smaller venues, given the potential impact on communities.

It is not in my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but I am church warden of a small parish church. Most parish churches would probably come under the 200-person limit, but the vast majority would be caught by 100-plus. Not only is there fear among volunteers who have to take on this responsibility, but significant risk of unintended consequences. Volunteers may not be prepared to take on the responsibility, and as a result, vital community infrastructure spaces may close to the public. Would that not be a terrible unintended consequence of this well-meaning Bill?

My hon. Friend is right. We look at the numbers—100 and 200—and think of organisations we know, and events that we have attended in churches and parish halls. I used to be a Scout leader, and the paperwork, the burden and the challenges used to put us off, in many ways, from fulfilling some of our functions. People who might have come along to help one day get slightly put off by the challenges and responsibilities that come with doing so. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.

Does the shadow Minister not welcome the fact that the Bill increases the capacity from 100 to 200? His Government previously set the limit at 100—the figure that he is so concerned about.

I welcome the revisions; that is why we had scrutiny. The fact that the figures can be determined unilaterally is the concern. There is agreement across the House that it is right to take the Bill forward. We are looking at what we can do at the edges to mitigate the impact for smaller venues, but I agree in principle with what the hon. Member says.

I am particularly concerned about the Secretary of State or Minister having the power to reduce the number from 200 back to 100 by regulation. That is addressed by amendment 25. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the absence of significant evidence or consultation to support such a move, 100 is essentially an arbitrary number? Why 100, and not 125, 150 or 175? Does he agree that we need more evidence to support that regulation-making power being given to the Secretary of State? Does he therefore agree that amendment 25 is a sensible alternative?

I agree entirely. There is no reason why we should not bring that measure to the House for decision. There is no reason to delegate that power to the Secretary of State. It would be sensible to take that delegation out. We have just talked about the fact that some people think the number should be 100, and others think it should be 200. It would be logical to bring the measure back to the House, if required, in due course, and I hope the Minister agrees.

We all hope that the Bill is absolutely right—that is what we want—but there is nothing wrong with increased scrutiny. Would it not be right for the Government to accept new clause 1, so that we can ensure that there is a review? Through that, we can get the evidence, and then we will know whether we have got it right.

That is entirely right. Most of the amendments are about looking at what we can do around the edges of the Bill to mitigate the challenges for small community organisations and small businesses.

We have to be careful. Of course we want to work cross-party, and should be cognisant of small business, but on the other side of the debate, campaigners are worried that the Bill is already leaning too much the other way, and we will start to lose proportionality if we adopt the shadow Minister’s amendments.

I slightly disagree. A body is taking on this regulation. Reviewing this in 18 months to see whether it is working is sensible. Keeping the ability to make decisions on numbers, rather than giving it to the Secretary of State, is a logical way forward. We all want this Bill to work, and we all realise the meaningful and important reasons why the Bill was brought forward, but we are talking about mitigation. All the amendments are fair, logical and sound in how they try to balance the two interests. We want to make all venues safe, whatever their scale or size, but we need to do so in a way that allows businesses and community organisations to carry on delivering, at the heart of our communities.

Last week, along with Opposition colleagues, I met representatives of a number of hospitality businesses across different sectors. Everyone wants to make their venue more secure, and everyone acknowledged the importance of the legislation, but there are points to address on clarity and the uncertainty being caused. We have talked about the responsibility of volunteers, and where it starts and ends. Some venues will have queues outside, and it is not clear how the legislation will work in that case. An 18-month review is important, because it would allow us to look at whether the legislation is making people more safe and secure. Does the shadow Minister agree?

My hon. Friend is right. When it comes to the Bill, the stakes are high for small community organisations and small businesses, so I see no harm in reviewing the regulations after 18 months, and in keeping those powers for the House, rather than delegating them to the Secretary of State. That is logical and makes a lot of sense for many venues. It is the way forward.

Clause 2(2)(c), defining the premises that will be covered by the legislation, states:

“it is reasonable to expect that from time to time 200 or more individuals may be present”.

Under the regulations, that might read “100 or more”. Coming back to my experience as a member of the parish church, I would love there to be 100 or 200 people present, but the congregation is closer to six or seven. However, the capacity of the church—the structure—is sufficient to take in 100 or 200 people. While on the face of it, the legislation seems reasonable, does my hon. Friend share my concern that a facility that could welcome 199 people may not have the structures in place, or physically have the people available, to support the increased burden placed on it by the Bill? That would increase the risks of unintended consequences and closure. That would be dealt with by amendment 25.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. In voluntary organisations, men and women who tend to do something else by day give their time to volunteer in the evening or at the weekend. They have other things going on in their lives. They will not necessarily be expert on the laws surrounding venues and what goes on in them, but from time to time—once a year, or once every two years—they will be expected to know about these regulations and to comply with them. There is logic in keeping the number at the intended 200, as well as in reviewing the regulations. We would allow the regulatory body to come back on that point 18 months, in the review, when we would review those numbers. We are just saying that these things should not be delegated to the Secretary of State at this point.

I welcome the progress of this important Bill. We know the danger of terrorism in this country for the constituents we represent. There have been 15 domestic terror attacks since 2017, as well as the tragic arena bombing. That excludes terrorism in Northern Ireland. There have also been 43 late-stage plots foiled by the security services. We recently heard from the head of the Security Service about a 48% increase in terror investigations in the last year alone, so the threat is absolutely real and it is always changing.

We have had various attacks, including the marauding-style terrorist attacks that we saw so tragically here in London some years ago. The Bill is a crucial to making sure that premises, businesses and venues do what they can to keep people safe. We know from businesses and venues that they understand their obligations to their patrons, whoever they might be, and they want to keep them safe.

We have had a healthy debate about the Bill’s provisions. There has been a sensible, mature, cross-party discussion about what works and what is practicable. I pay tribute to Manchester city council for the exercises it undertook. It worked with businesses to ensure that measures were both sensible and proportionate while keeping people safe. Across I think 10 sessions last year, and having spoken to 700 businesses and 2,000 people, it went through some of the measures in the Bill, and businesses overwhelmingly supported them. They understood the need for them, and that they were not onerous. Those ranged from businesses as large as Printworks, which many people in Manchester will know, down to local restaurants and bars, and the response was incredibly positive.

I say that because I want to reassure hon. Members from across the House about the proportionality of the measures in the Bill. In fact, I will quote Gareth Worthington, the night-time economy officer at the Manchester business improvement district:

“If a venue operator does not know how to evacuate their venue they should not be running that venue and if training can be provided to help make that evacuation safer then venues should grasp it with both hands.”

On the thresholds, we have arrived at a sensible place. We had a healthy debate in the Public Bill Committee on them, and I think they are reasonable. I reiterate that I think campaigners would perceive any tweaking of provisions on the thresholds or delegated powers for the Secretary of State as a watering down of the Bill.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I shall not, because I think we have touched on that point enough.

Finally, I pay tribute to my constituent Figen Murray for her bravery in championing these measures. No parent would ever want to have the name of their child on a law if they could help it, but she has worked tirelessly to push forward these measures. I hope to see them enacted. I recommend the Bill and thank the Minister for his hard work on it.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

On that point, does the hon. Member not think that those volunteers in church halls and other small venues would be put off by the thought of having to go through a training course, implementing a training plan and all the other aspects of new clause 2? While those may be worthy objectives for larger venues, does he really think them desirable for small venues? Does he not perceive the risk that they may put off volunteers who would otherwise freely give of their time?

I think that the volunteer side in particular is concerning a lot of people. One thing that strikes me about new clause 2 is that, given that these are often volunteer organisations, who would fund the training? Has there been thought about who would pay for it and how much it would cost? Small venues like my village halls may struggle to make a couple of hundred pounds a year, let alone be able to afford further training. I wonder if the hon. Member would enlighten me on how that may work.

With due respect, the hon. Gentleman said that the cost was a question for the Minister, but since this is his proposed new clause, surely he should have some idea of the financial and other implications for the organisations that would have to comply with it.

I have already mentioned that I am a church warden of a small parish church, so I have practical experience. I also have other duties—I am the safeguarding officer, because there are insufficient volunteers who are prepared to undergo the quite significant training needed to maintain safeguarding duties in that organisation. I accept that, given the Church of England’s troubled history over the past 20 years, safeguarding is a necessary part of modern life, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the duties imposed on volunteers are cumulative in their impact? I can be a Member of Parliament, a church warden and a safeguarding officer, but can I also be responsible for the additional costs and responsibilities that he has in mind?

I would like to start by expressing my admiration for Figen Murray for her unwavering advocacy of this Bill, in memory of her son, Martyn. Her defiant message to promote peace and positive change in Martyn’s name has been a source of inspiration to us all. Figen’s strength and dedication in pushing for meaningful reforms to prevent such devastating attacks is truly commendable. Her courage and commitment continue to drive this important work, and we are deeply grateful for her contributions.

As a former police officer, I believe that this legislation represents an important step forward in improving our national security framework and in providing our communities with greater protection from the evolving threat of terrorism. The Bill is needed as the level of threat remains complex, evolving and enduring. By implementing stronger security measures, providing clearer responsibilities for venue owners and enhancing co-ordination between relevant agencies, this legislation will help safeguard the public in places where they gather, work and celebrate. In an increasingly unpredictable world, it is vital that we remain proactive to protect our communities and strengthen the resilience of our society. The Bill is a crucial part of that effort.

By designating a person responsible for considering the risks and for planning a response in the event of a terrorist attack, we are taking a proactive and structured approach to security. The role is about not only managing immediate responses, but fostering a culture of vigilance, communication and preparedness within communities and organisations in general. The legislation will ensure that our response is as effective as possible.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I thank him for his service in the police. Three victims of the Manchester Arena bombing were from my constituency —Sorrell Leczkowski, Courtney Boyle and Wendy Fawell —which is why I am so supportive of the Bill. He is talking about the duties of venues and their managers, but does he agree that it would be helpful for the Government to give clear guidance about their responsibilities for outdoor and public spaces when managing the particular regulatory framework that the Bill will create?

I wholeheartedly agree that that is a very important part of the legislation.

What has been striking about the debate so far is the extent of cross-party consensus on this matter. My worry is that the Bill contains a set of proposals that we might be supporting because they are something that we deem possible to do, whereas we may be neglecting some things that are harder to do. In the inquiry into the bombing, several aspects of the story were very concerning, from the way the asylum system worked through to the Prevent programme. While 90% of MI5’s counter-terrorism casework is Islamist, the latest data shows that the number of Prevent referrals for young people suspected of Islamist radicalisation has fallen from 3,706 in 2016-17 to only 781 in 2022-23. As a former police officer, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have to do something to ensure that Prevent is properly targeted at the real threats we face?

I wholeheartedly agree; anything to support Prevent training in schools and education is very important.

The legislation will ensure that our response is as effective as possible and minimise the risks to lives and infrastructure. It is essential that everyone, from leadership to staff members, understands the importance of this role and supports the planning and implementation of all safety protocols.

However, the Bill is not just about securing physical spaces; it is about fostering a sense of security and trust in the places where we work, gather and celebrate. At a time when the threat of terrorism can cause widespread fear and uncertainty, knowing that protective measures are in place allows people to go about their daily lives with greater confidence. It is about protecting not just our buildings, but the social fabric that holds our communities together.

Being a member of the Bill Committee was insightful. It was an opportunity to closely examine the provisions of this important legislation and engage in constructive discussion with my colleagues, other stakeholders and those sadly affected by terrorism. In Committee sittings, I was pleased to hear that various businesses and venues are already implementing the standards of the Bill in their operations, which are intended to ensure that public premises and events are better prepared so that if the unthinkable happens, they are ready to respond.

The response to the Bill highlights the commitment of many organisations to the safety and security of the public, and their recognition of the importance of proactive measures in the face of potential threats. It demonstrates a shared understanding that protecting people from harm is the responsibility of not just the Government, but everybody in our society. The Bill seeks to formalise and build on those efforts, ensuring that security practices are consistent, comprehensive and capable of meeting the evolving nature of the terrorist threat.

I acknowledge the concerns raised during this debate and in Committee, which I believe have been addressed to make the Bill more effective, fair and responsive to the challenges at hand. As we move forward, it is crucial to remember that this is a shared responsibility; as I said, the Government cannot act alone.

The hon. Gentleman talks about shared responsibility, and how it is the responsibility of us all to protect each other. As a former police officer, is he not worried about a degree of vigilantism, with untrained people taking the law into their own hands and doing things that perhaps, as a police officer, he thinks police officers would be best placed to do?

That is a fair point, but I am not worried that the Bill will cause that. I think that the wider general public will allow the police to deal with the matters in hand when they need to, but there may be, as I mentioned, several opportunities to act on this together.

Public venues, businesses, local authorities and communities themselves must all work in tandem to create a robust, unified front against terrorism. By integrating efforts across sectors, we make our society stronger, more resilient and able to respond more effectively to threats while ensuring the safety of every individual.

Terrorism is not a static threat—it constantly involves, and so must our response. The Bill will ensure that we remain ahead of emerging risks. As we have seen in recent years, attacks are becoming more unpredictable, more dispersed and harder to anticipate. The legislation will give us the tools and the framework needed to adapt and respond to those ever-changing threats. The legislation is about more than policy; it is about the future we want to build for our children, our families and our communities. We owe it to future generations to ensure that they inherit a society that values safety, peace and resilience. By taking action now, we lay the foundation for a stronger, safer tomorrow.

I call Paul Holmes.

Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I had to nip upstairs to sit in a Bill Committee programming session.

I am delighted to be here to speak on this legislation. As I mentioned earlier to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I had the privilege of working alongside the Minister when I was the shadow Home Affairs Minister who took the Bill through Second Reading. I say again to the Minister, and to the Home Secretary, that I am a big fan of his, as he knows. That is for genuine purposes: for the way he treated me as the shadow Home Affairs Minister at the time, with informal consultations and phone calls, and for genuinely opening up the spirit of cross-party working on this legislation. I congratulate him and pay tribute to him, his Department and all officials working on the legislation for making sure the Opposition were involved. I am very pleased that he is in his place this evening so that I can thank him for that spirit of co-operation.

We know that the Bill is a key piece of legislation and a commitment that the Conservatives made at the last general election, and I am delighted that the Government have taken it forward. As he will know, I spoke of some concerns on Second Reading that I want to chase the Minister on, if he might be so bold as to try to answer them at the end. I have a number of concerns that I will speak about briefly, as you will be delighted hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot promise to be too brief, but I will be as brief as I can. You will have to excuse me if I am out of breath—I did run upstairs and then back downstairs to get here in time, and I am not the fittest person in the Chamber.

I pay tribute to Figen Murray and Martyn’s family. As I said on Second Reading, it should not require circumstances such as those we have seen to bring about a change in legislation. However, Figen Murray can rest assured that Martyn has played a huge role in changing the law for the good, and Martyn’s family have a right to be proud of that legacy.

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 1 and amendments 25 and 27, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). We all support the aims of the Bill and want to see the legislation succeed. We want to make venues across the country safer and to ensure they have the correct apparatus in place so that people who use hospitality or other venues across the country, of all shapes and sizes, can do so with confidence that a system and a regulatory framework are in place. We want people to be safe when they use those venues. My constituents expect that. I expect that for myself and for my family.

Just last night, my family and I used a hospitality venue for a good couple of pints. That will be one of the venues covered by this regulatory framework. Sitting there, looking forward at the parliamentary agenda, I thought how venues such as that one have a number of concerns. Those are the things I want to talk about this evening. In our constituencies, we have voluntary sector organisations, theatre groups, community centres and charities of all shapes and sizes who volunteer every day to do their best by their community, to represent the community and to work for the community in the best way possible. I remain concerned that, as has been outlined by a number of my hon. Friends, including the shadow Minister, there remains an undue burden that will be placed on those organisations, because of some of the environmental factors—I wondered how to put that, as I do not want this speech to be political at all—that have been placed on them in recent months.

Will my hon. Friend speak for a moment about the situation facing small football clubs? They often have many people turning up week after week to watch their team play and are on a tiny budget with tiny margins, no money to spare and no money available for training. In such circumstances, surely those clubs will be really hard done by under some of the provisions in the Bill.

My hon. Friend is correct. My constituency has a number of small football organisations, some of which are subject to legislation that is currently going through the Lords more slowly than we would necessarily expect a piece of legislation to progress. The income of small football groups will be the focus of that Bill. However, my hon. Friend is right: not only does this Bill cover small football venues and football clubs, but it covers all sorts of organisations, some of which I have mentioned.

There are small community theatres, for example, which are the backbone of many small communities. People want to go to them with their family and watch amateur dramatics. The plays are sometimes better than in the west end—I have seen them—and the scale of some venues means that they will be in the lower tier under the Bill, but they have very small incomes. There are also charities with very small incomes that have been affected by fiscal decisions in the Budget. I assure the Minister that I am not being political, but as the impact assessment shows, and as the constituents I have spoken to have said, many charities will be affected by increased costs through their national insurance contributions and the different taxation that will come in.

From what I have read, the average cost for smaller venues will be £330 a year and the cost for larger organisations will be £5,000 a year. Those are the latest figures that I can find, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that additional cost of £330 a year for smaller venues, because to many organisations, that will place a big burden on them. I met representatives of small theatres recently who were concerned that they have not been invited to a roundtable with the Minister to discuss the implications for the sector. I would be grateful if he outlined whether the Government intend to meet them, based on their concerns about the Bill.

I will bring my comments within the scope of new clause 1. Given the issues that I have outlined, I think the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford to have a review process for the SIA is perfectly sensible. When we set up a new organisation that has some kind of independence, regulatory enforcement capacity or management capacity, it seems purely sensible that after the period set in the new clause, we look to see whether its action has been proportionate, whether there has been overreach and whether it is doing its job properly. Has it taken the full responsibilities outlined in the legislation? Members may not think that it is overworking; it might be that it is underworking and we need to give it more responsibilities in the long run.

It seems perfectly sensible for the Government and the Minister to come to the Floor of the House. They should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. Opposition Front Benchers, me and all my colleagues want the Bill to succeed, but we want it to be proportionate. When we set up an organisation with such responsibilities and an organisational jurisdiction, we want to ensure that it is reviewed, that it is conducting itself and taking its responsibilities seriously, and that the system is working.

Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 1 is not about a presumption of finding fault, but about ensuring that the proposals work correctly? It is so important that the regulator and the regulatory role work perfectly so that the Bill can be implemented in the way that is expected.

My hon. Friend is reasonable and a very good colleague in the way she carries out her duties in this House, so it will come as no surprise to hear that I absolutely agree with her. I do say that about some Government Members, so I am not being partisan—[Interruption.] Most of the time. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point.

That is why the Minister should see new clause 1 in the spirit in which it is intended. We do not want to disrupt the passage of the Bill. We do not want to disrupt the good intentions and the outcomes that everybody, on both sides of the House, wants. As a Conservative, I naturally think that the state should not be big or oversized. When we set up organisations such as this, it is natural that the House and Members will want scrutiny functions to make sure that the organisation acts within the spirit of the law and within its jurisdiction and responsibilities. I think that is perfectly reasonable.

For me, when we think about creating the regulator, it is about ensuring that it is effective. It needs to be staffed and funded appropriately, and we need to ensure that it does the job that the House expects it to do. The idea of having a system to report back is important when we make these provisions. When my hon. Friend was shadow Minister, did he give any thought to how many businesses come within scope, and whether there are resources in the regulator to even provide those assessments, so that we can make sure that it is held accountable and that this is effective legislation?

I would like to say that I have given that great thought, but as hon. Members across the House will know, after we came back in July, my tenure as a shadow Home Affairs Minister was rather short—[Interruption.] I thank the Minister, who said, “Shame”. That was after being shadow Northern Ireland Minister, shadow Foreign Affairs Minister and other Ministers, too. But I took this piece of legislation very seriously. The Government should make that decision, but I hope that the SIA is properly resourced and that it conducts its duties in the right way. That is why I think new clause 1 should be accepted this evening.

I do not want to overstay my welcome, but I will speak briefly about one of the concerns that I raised on Second Reading about the responsible person element of the Bill. I remain seriously concerned about this, and it was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). Although I accept the scope of the Bill and the impact that it will have on the statute book, many organisations, particularly during cost of living crises and at this time of year, rely on their volunteers, and if we place undue and burdensome regulations on them, volunteers will simply not come forward and be in the voluntary sector. Charities are going through a difficult time. I remain concerned that if we tip slightly too much towards being overburdensome on those very small organisations, we will see a dearth of people in the voluntary sector. No one wants to discourage people from volunteering—we do not, and I know the shadow Minister and the Minister do not—but I worry that the thresholds set out in the Bill will have unintended consequences. I ask the Minister to look seriously at new clause 1 and amendments 25 and 26, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford.

Many will be happy to know that I am drawing my comments to a close. However, I am personally delighted that this Bill is before the House in record time, five months after the Government came into office. I hope that the Minister will see that the Opposition are working, and will continue to work, in a constructive way to get this on to the statute book. It is sad that, in order to have a relatively major piece of legislation changed so rapidly, we had to go through the atrocities that we saw in Manchester and terrorist attacks around the United Kingdom. However, I know that the legacy that Martyn leaves is one that his family will be greatly proud of, as this country should be. This is a mainstream, major piece of legislation, and I hope that by working together, we will ensure that people who go to venues for many years to come will be protected, and they will be protected in Martyn’s name.

I welcome the fact that the discussion in the House today shows real cross-party support for the aims, principles and objectives of the Bill, and that the amendments focus only on nuances and more technical aspects. That shows that we are all united in trying to achieve this goal and in preventing tragedies such as that which happened in Manchester from happening again.

In trying to understand those nuances and where the more technical sides should be drawn, it is useful to reflect on the legislation’s key dimensions and advantages. First, obviously, it makes terrorist attacks less likely. The terrorist threat is substantial and we know that it is changing. It has gone from large-scale infrastructure and iconic sites to much more workaday, normal locations.

The most recent terrorist attack that we tragically saw in this country was an attack on a children’s dance class. It is clear that the terror threat is evolving and we must evolve with it, which is why the Bill is important, but it is also important because it minimises the death and destruction that result from a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks may still happen despite our best efforts, and it is important for us to plan for that eventuality and make the right decisions in order to be ready when they do happen.

The former President Obama’s Under-Secretary of State for Homeland Security, the Harvard professor Juliette Kayyem, has talked of the “boom” of a terror moment or crisis, and divides planning into “pre-boom” and “post-boom”. Pre-boom is what must be done to prevent an event from taking place, but it is equally important to plan for the post-boom moment. We must ensure that even those running small venues have done some thinking in advance of an attack. What are the escape routes? Who needs to have the keys? What happens if they send people in this direction rather than that direction?

The Bill incorporates a distinction between enhanced and non-enhanced tiers, and that too is important. In my constituency we put on some of the biggest and best events in the world. I am utterly confident that those in the football and rugby stadiums and theatres who are in charge of security planning do all this thinking anyway, but there are many smaller venues where it has not occurred to people that that is necessarily their role, but which are now in the line of fire. It is important for people to recognise that responsibility, because the public have a right to expect it. The Bill codifies what should be happening anyway. We must bear that in mind as we decide where to set the thresholds, who falls in or outside scope, and what level of burden we expect organisations and venues to face.

In Committee, it was reassuring to hear several of my concerns being allayed. One of them has already been discussed, namely the impact on business and the potential for a burden. There is no denying that something of a burden will be placed on some organisations where no one has done any thinking or preparation for a potential terrorist or other attack, but the Bill contains very proportionate elements that do not impose much of an extra burden. Its requirements are intuitive, they are not onerous, they are straightforward and they are commonsensical. As I said in an intervention earlier, they are essentially prompts for organisations to do the kind of thinking that we would hope they were doing already to avoid an attack. That not only avoids attacks, but mitigates their impact.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the proportionality of the Bill, which we discussed in Committee. The word “burden” has been used a great deal this afternoon. In his evidence to the Committee, Andy Burnham said:

“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.”––[Official Report, Terrorism (Protection of Premises Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2024; c. 16, Q11.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a proportionate Bill, and that the burden of a terrorist attack far outweighs any burden caused by its provisions?

Absolutely. There is a small element of burden in the Bill, but it is light-touch and proportionate, and the alternative scenario is significantly more burdensome. In my own city of Edinburgh, the impact of a terrorist attack and of people not feeling secure in the aftermath could be destructive not just to the lives affected by the attack, but to the whole economy on which our city is based, which is event-focused. It is right for us to draw that distinction, and to seek to get the balance exactly right.

The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent speech about the “protect” element of the counter-terrorism strategy. It is clear from the Manchester attack inquiry report that the asylum system is a big part of the story.

Salman Abedi and his brother Hashem—who planned the attack and prepared the explosives, and was as guilty of the attack as Salman—were born in Britain to Libyan asylum seeker parents. Their father, Ramadan Abedi, was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an Islamist militia. He was granted asylum in this country, but travelled back and forth between Britain and Libya throughout that time, which is a story that we often hear about people who are granted asylum here. Given the number of people who come here illegally and across the channel, whom we have no ability to investigate and on whom we cannot make checks, how does the hon. Gentleman think we might reform the asylum system to prevent such things from happening again?

I am struggling to understand quite how that falls within the scope of this debate, but it is important to discuss the issue of how we deal with terrorism. As we have seen in the history of this country, terrorist attacks can be both foreign and domestic. They can be homegrown, or they can come from overseas. I have talked about the need to prepare for an attack before it happens, so that mitigations can be introduced. They can be long term, which means looking at where the threat is emanating from, or they can be immediately in advance of an attack, which means introducing security measures. My argument, however, is that the benefit of the Bill relates to what happens after the attack has taken place. We need to help the smaller venues that now find themselves within the scope of terrorist attacks to prepare for those attacks. It is not a question of who committed the offence, but a question of how they are prepared to deal with that event.

I was fortunate enough to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s Westminster Hall debate on the Edinburgh fringe and its success around the world. That is a prime example of where the Bill might be helpful. Has the hon. Gentleman given any thought to how those small venues can work together? If they share best practice, that can create an environment of security. I wonder whether the fringe organisations themselves have thought about this, given that they are, by their very nature, likely to be a target. Sharing best practice may help to strengthen the entire environment when people visit it.

That intervention was slightly more in scope and was also about Edinburgh, so I was happier to take it.

The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, in advance of the Bill Committee debate and the debate that we are having now, I spoke to Edinburgh city council and to some of the event organisers, who told me that it is exactly because Edinburgh has become a place where fringe events take place regularly that these considerations have been normalised. Our city has put a lot of the necessary infrastructure in place, along with the thinking and the organisational requirements—and there is also a corporate memory between the small venues—to cope with terrorist events. As Andy Burnham pointed out in his evidence, Edinburgh is one of the national leaders on this front. However, I recognise that not every community has that advantage, which is why the Bill will extend to other communities the measures that already benefit mine.

The hon. Member said earlier that these were “prompts”, and that what we should consider was what happened after an attack. What is worrying is that the Bill goes beyond that. It talks about occasions on which it is suspected that a terrorist offence might take place or is taking place. That is not an “after”. The Bill creates an obligation for those who are in charge of the event in question to prevent individuals from entering. Before an event or while it is happening, there is a security obligation on some of these small groups to prevent people from entering the premises. That is not a prompt; it is a huge burden on the organisers.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Again, having been on the Public Bill Committee, my argument is that the Bill is proportionate.

I look forward to the other contributions to the debate. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, terrorist threats are now a way of life, be they lone-wolf attacks, aggression and poisonings by Russia, attacks by terrorist groups from across the world, or Iranian attacks on those who support a free Iran. Such attacks focus our attention on where we are. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and I look forward to his comments. I wish to be constructive in my comments, and I have a few questions to ask. Hopefully, the Minister can give me some reassurances.

In Northern Ireland, terrorist attacks were the norm for some 30-odd years. I declare an interest: I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for three years, and in the Territorial Army for 11 and a half years. Why is it that when my fellow soldiers in the Ulster Defence Regiment and my part-time colleagues the Territorial Army went to a restaurant or café, they sought out a place where they could watch everything that was happening? They could see who was coming in and who was going out, and they had an escape route, so that they could get out quickly. That was the life that we led. In this debate, we are asking our churches, our charities, our missionary groups and those who run community halls to consider things of which they have no experience. I am not saying that critically; I am saying it observationally, because I want them to be aware.

When the gallant Minister got the call to serve in uniform, he answered it. I put on the record our thanks to him for doing that, which tells us a lot about the Minister and his psyche. I look back at some of the atrocities and I am reminded of the Darkley massacre, in which the Irish National Liberation Army burst into a church and killed a number of people who were attending—innocent people. Had it not been for the bravery of some of the people on the door, more probably would have been killed. I think of Tullyvallen Orange hall, near Newry, where the IRA killed a number of Orangemen, simply because they were Orangemen.

The point I am making is that that was our life in Northern Ireland, and now we are asking our churches, our charities and other groups across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to look at providing better security. We are asking people with no experience to do that—people who have never considered there to be any need to do so—but we are doing it for a purpose.

We all support this legislation. I want to put on the record that I support it, and I understand the reasoning behind it. We were all incredibly concerned about the Manchester atrocity; it is an example of what we have to try to stop.

I completely understand that we are asking people to consider something that they have never experienced or had to consider, but is that not what we do with fire regulations?

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, this is not about fire regulations; it is about making sure that nobody dies, which is different. It is much, much more than fire regulations, which require people to check whether an extinguisher is working. This Bill is about making sure that nobody comes in to kill anybody, so it is a different scenario. I respect the hon. Gentleman, but we have to get a bit of focus.

I am reminded of the community hall where the Rev. Robert Bradford was killed. The caretaker was on the door when the IRA came. They shot the caretaker and the reverend, and his plaque is at the back of this Chamber. I am ever mindful of his courage and the stand that he took. These are the things that we deal with. We are not better than anybody else, but these are the things that we have faced down the years.

I want to focus on churches. On Second Reading, I spoke about Northern Ireland’s unfortunate experience of these matters, and about the need for churches and places of worship to have a plan in place. I made it my business to go and talk to my churches and to get their thoughts. They want to be part of the process, so we need to see how we can help them. I note that a few of my questions have been asked by other hon. Members, so I will restrict my remarks to churches’ questions about their roles and responsibilities. I ask my questions constructively.

On new clause 2, which I understand will not be moved tonight, I have spoken to a number of churches and key holders in my constituency, and they have all told me that they include terrorism plans in their annual child protection training, which they undertake at their own cost. Those are massive steps for people who may have faced some of these things in the past, but who suddenly find themselves thrown into the cauldron because of where they are. One church highlighted that it ran a special awareness event after the Southport atrocity in recognition that the church hall, where most of the adults gather, is a different building from the one used for church events.

I just want to understand how the process will work. This hyper-awareness is good as long as it is not driven by fear. I want to focus on that fear. I think it was the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) who referred to the fear that some people experience on these issues. In church services and meetings, where there are children and elderly people present, or in community group meetings, we do not normally have to deal with these things, but now we have to, because it is important. The legislation is important. That is why the Minister is bringing it forward, and why the House will support it.

We need to ensure that the larger venues and churches have support, so that there is no fear—just a plan of action. People can focus on the fear and become incredibly worried, or they can focus on a plan of action to ensure that if something happens, they can stop it. That is where I wish to focus. I will give the example of Queen’s hall in Newtownards in my constituency, which can hold about 300 people. The events that I have been to there are nearly all charity events. It holds charity events, church events and fundraising events for missionary organisations, and they all galvanise a lot of people and bring them in. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) referred to the onus being on the organisations. I always try to be constructive, and I ask the Minister constructively what that will mean for how such places function, and how they will focus on looking after the people.

I also ask for clarity on the help that churches can expect to receive on training, to ensure that they are compliant with the standard tier expectations. They are not saying that they will not do what the Bill asks. They will; that is not the issue. I am just thinking about how we can help those churches, charity groups and others to gain the experience that they will clearly need. Will funding be made available to the charitable sector for the provision of training and assistance? Will a dedicated professional be available to churches on this issue? Will they check that churches are compliant and have a fit-for-purpose plan of action? That is my request on behalf of the churches that have spoken to me.

We must remember that churches can be largely self-governing, and the smaller churches outside the mainstream of the Presbyterians, the Anglicans, the Methodists and the Roman Catholics do not have bodies to break this down for them. I am asking on behalf of those smaller churches. I attend a smaller church—the Baptist church—but I am also thinking of the Elim church and the Brethren halls, of which my Strangford constituency has a great many, with large congregations. I make these queries in a constructive fashion, and I know that the Minister will give the answers, not just to me but to everyone in the House.

I too have lots of churches in my constituency, and while I fully support the legislation, I do worry about some of the rural churches. There is a risk of a fine, if they are not compliant. Does that mean that there is a risk that those venues, which are already under stress, would not be able to open? I hope that is not the case, and that the Minister can allay some of my fears, but given how the legislation is written, that could be a prospect. That would be very damaging for many of the rural churches in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

The hon. Member has made his point very well, and I am sure that the Minister will answer it. I just want to make sure that the churches, the charities, the missionary groups and the community groups across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are able to meet, and that they get the necessary help to ensure that normal life continues. The churches all need to know what to do and when.

It took me a long time to be able to talk about the Southport stabbings, because they left horrors in the mind of every one of us. They shocked many on the mainland, but in Northern Ireland they recalled to our memories horrific attacks and the days of having men at our doors during a service. Times have changed, and so too have procedures, but we still have enough trauma to recognise the danger. The churches and charity groups tell me that they want to be equipped, and to be able to respond. This legislation calls for the churches and the charities to be equipped. I am asking the Government, and in particular the Minister, to ensure that there is help and support, in case the unthinkable does take place.

This legislation is a fitting tribute to Martyn Hett and the lives of 21 others that were tragically cut short in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack. It is also a testament to the tireless efforts of Martyn’s mother, Figen Murray, who has campaigned with such dignity and determination to ensure that no family endures the pain that hers has suffered. This Bill is about increased resilience for us as a country. It seeks to make our public spaces safer by requiring premises and events to take proportionate, practical steps to prepare for and mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack. It is about ensuring that if the unthinkable happens, lives are saved and harm is reduced. I speak with personal conviction on this matter. Having served in a counter-terror role, I have seen at first hand the devastating consequences of terrorism and the critical importance of the prior preparation that this Bill lays out. It is essential that our laws and systems keep pace with an ever-evolving risk.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Manchester, in a way, stimulated or catalysed this legislation. It is bigger than that, but it is no more tragic, for it could not possibly be, as he has described. He is also right to say that terrorists are becoming more adaptable, so we have to adapt the way we deal with them. Legislation is part of that. It is difficult, because legislation takes a long time to perfect, if properly scrutinised in this House. The amendments that have been tabled today are an attempt to improve the Bill, not to frustrate it. Does he agree that the Minister and the Government will need to regularly review the provisions of the legislation—there is reference in the Bill to reviews, guidance and so on—and that that will become an ongoing part of how we deal with that increasing adaptability on the part of those who seek to do us harm?

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. Any threat that this country faces is continuously reviewed by the Ministry of Defence, MI5, the police and the Government, and we adapt our approaches to suit.

That brings me to the fact that since 2017, MI5 and the police have disrupted 43 late-stage attacks, yet we have seen 15 domestic terror attacks in this country. These incidents underline the ongoing and difficult nature of the threats. I am sure the whole House will agree that we have the finest intelligence services in the world, and we owe it to them to enable their work as much as we possibly can from this place. This Bill is another step towards achieving that. The approach it proposes is both practical and proportionate for small and large venues. I commend the Government for engaging widely in the development of the Bill and for working with businesses, local authorities and security experts to ensure that it is both effective and proportionate. It is right that we in this House support the Bill, and in doing so, we send a clear message that we will not only remember those we have lost but act decisively to protect those we serve.

Mention has been made during the course of this debate of cross-party consensus and what a good thing that is. In some senses that is absolutely right. We should have absolute cross-party consensus on honouring the memory of Martyn Hett and all those who were killed and injured in the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017, but I raise a note of caution because sometimes when we stop being adversarial in this place, we create legislation that is not as good as it could be. That is particularly the case where we have a very emotive issue such as this, and where there is a huge amount of personal sympathy across all the parties in the House. There is a risk that extreme circumstances provoke a natural reaction of saying, “Something must be done. This has to be prevented from ever happening again,” and we end up with bad law.

There is a good example of this risk in the Bill’s progression from its development under the previous Administration, through the election and out the other side. The initial intention of clause 2 was that the standard duty would apply to premises with a capacity to welcome 100-plus people. In my view, this would have had a wholly disproportionate impact on the kind of community buildings that I represent as a church warden, as well as on the village halls that we have already discussed. Pretty much every village hall has the capacity to accommodate 100 people. Every church, bar the very smallest chapels, can expect to welcome 100 people at a wedding or funeral from time to time. There is a tiny, infinitesimally small risk of terrorism in these typically rural areas, yet the previous Administration’s Bill would have imposed very significant costs and time commitments on volunteers. I have already mentioned a couple of times that I am a church warden and, again, I emphasise the risk of unintended consequences when we are all so keen to get on that we do not challenge each other.

To reassure my hon. Friend on that subject, he will understand that those of us who have served on the Intelligence and Security Committee are fearless in holding Ministers to account, as this Minister will no doubt find out, and similarly fearless in challenging the agencies, which do such a wonderful job for us. He is right that the agencies need to be questioned appropriately and scrutinised fully.

On my hon. Friend’s second point, about proportionality, it is, of course, right that our response to risk measures the real character of that risk and is proportionate to it.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention, and I am reassured by his comments.

In a previous life, I was a barrister specialising in health and safety risk and risk management, and I was later the managing director of the leisure company Go Ape—Members might not have heard of it—and was responsible for the risk management of over 1 million customers a year. We could have killed every single one of them, so I am deeply familiar with the appropriate mechanisms for risk management. One risk that has to be taken into account is that, if the response is too great or too onerous for the assessed risk, people might not think it is reasonable, leading to omission.

Effective risk management requires mitigations to be put in place that bear some relation to the severity of the anticipated adverse event multiplied by its likelihood. I am very concerned that the previous Administration’s initial proposal that these duties should apply to premises with a capacity of as few as 100 people would have broken that association between a reasonable response and the assessed risk.

I am therefore grateful and impressed that the Government have listened and changed clause 2(2)(c) to raise the standard duty threshold to a capacity of 200. To my mind, that seems a reasonable compromise to protect smaller facilities, which are, of course, most likely to rely entirely on volunteers, and are unlikely to have the financial capacity to undertake the kind of paid-for training suggested by the Liberal Democrat new clause 2 or to have enough volunteers who are prepared to accept this additional burden on their free time. I think this strikes the right balance. However, I am concerned that paragraph (a) in clause 32 introduces a power, through regulations, to reduce the figure back down to 100 without giving a reason. Why is that?

I therefore support new clauses 25 and 26, which would set minimum thresholds of 200 for the standard duty and 500 for the enhanced duty. A cross-party approach has taken the Bill this far, and it is important that that approach is maintained.

I join other Members in paying tribute to Figen Murray for the tenacity and courage with which she has campaigned—a campaign that has done so much to bring us to this point. Any of us who have been touched, even indirectly, by a terrorist attack know the pain, the loss and the shock. That pain is only made worse if there is a suspicion that anything, no matter how slight, might have been done to have avoided or reduced the harm done. In fighting this campaign, Mrs Murray really has done Martyn’s memory proud.

As has been obvious throughout this debate, there is a huge amount of consensus on the need for the measures in this Bill. It is a good Bill. The draft Bill before the election was a good draft, it was improved by pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Bill that this Government introduced and that has come out of Committee is better. The decision before us tonight is not whether we want these measures, because I think we agree, without exception, that we do. The decision before us is what can be done to make this the very best Bill it can be—one that provides the protections that are so clearly needed, as we heard from witnesses in the Committee’s evidence sessions and throughout the debate around the Bill, both inside and outside this House, without putting an unnecessary burden on those venues that do not need it for the purpose that we seek.

It is precisely because this Bill has broadly struck the right note that I rise to support new clauses 25 and 26, tabled in the names of the shadow Minister and the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) respectively. In doing so, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to hospitality, although I intend to speak primarily not on the hospitality sector, but on the voluntary sector and volunteer-run venues.

I am thinking, in particular, of a venue in the constituency I represented until this year’s general election. The Brierley Hill Civic is a medium-sized venue in the Black Country and, about a decade ago, an asset transfer process was started to transfer it from Dudley council to Dudley council for voluntary service. Over that time, Dudley CVS has done a fantastic job—a really professional job in every sense of the word—in providing a first-class venue for the area. It will typically host a few events each year that top 500 attendees, although they do not reach as high as 800.

The standard duty in this Bill is absolutely appropriate for a venue like Brierley Hill Civic. The concern is about how Dudley CVS, which is primarily run by volunteers, would be able to fulfil the enhanced duties if the threshold were suddenly lowered, taking the venue into the enhanced duty category. That would cause them great difficulty on a practical level as well as a financial level, because as a non-profit-making organisation, they have to balance the books.

I fully understand the reasoning and the demand for a Bill such as this when it became known that, after a terrorist event, lives were lost because of bad organisation. If it is possible to introduce legislation that helps to avoid a situation that we have seen develop in the past, then of course we should do it. However, we have to be cognisant that when we introduce legislation, it has consequences for the people to whom it applies.

As we have heard time and again during the debate, Members believe that this legislation is both proportionate and practical. If Members genuinely believe that that is the case, there is absolutely no reason why new clause 1 should not be supported. We are entering a new field and imposing new regulations on bodies that were not regulated in relation to terrorism before, so surely it is important that we find out whether or not the objective and the intention is actually fulfilled. One way to do that is to monitor the effect over a period of time.

I have some concerns about the legislation, which people have already raised. In many cases, I do not think that the measures are practical. Secondly, I do not believe that they will not have an impact. That is not what Members expected and it is not what they want. Members across the House have said that they think the legislation may put people off engaging in activities that they would have undertaken in the absence of the regulations—activities that make a valuable contribution to their communities.

There is always a danger that people interpret the legislation that comes before the House, and sometimes our own rhetoric encourages them to do so. They may think a result of this legislation will be that it reduces the danger of people suffering a terrorist attack. To be clear, that is not and cannot be the purpose of the Bill. Terrorist attacks can be stopped only if we have intelligence, the security forces can act on that intelligence and we act in time. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) pointed out, the legislation is more about what happens after the event. However, it is not only about what happens after the event. The legislation puts obligations on people before they make a decision to undertake an event. Some of the wording in the Bill raises concerns.

To clarify, I was not saying the legislation was only of value after an event. I said that part of its value was the impact it had on planning for the period after an event. On the burden the right hon. Gentleman talks about on people making preparations, does he accept that it is important that they consider the potential impact of events and think in advance about that in taking those decisions? That is how we will avoid the kind of atrocities we have seen.

Let us look at some of the language and the requirements in the Bill that are totally reasonable. For example, the Bill sets out that people who are organising events should have plans

“for evacuating individuals from the premises”.

As far as I know, that already happens. At many of the events I attend, before the event even starts, somebody stands up and says, “Here are some house rules: in the event of a fire, the exits are here, here and here. Leave in an orderly way. When you get outside, meet at a certain point, so we can check everybody is out of the area.” There are measures in the Bill that are reasonable and that I would assume people are already doing. If they are not doing them, then it is not onerous on them to start saying that at the beginning of an event.

However, the Bill applies to retail as well. It is easy to communicate that kind of information to people if they are in a theatre or at some kind of concert, but it is a bit more difficult to communicate that to individuals when they are moving in and out of retail premises. We have to be careful about the practicalities of what we ask people to do.

Let me set out some of the things I have concerns about, which I believe are unreasonable to require of organisations. First, “public protection procedures” have to be

“followed by individuals working on the premises or at the event if there is reason to suspect that an act of terrorism is occurring, or is about to occur, on the premises”.

I suppose it is fairly obvious if something is “occurring” —we know if something is happening—but what if it is likely or “about to occur”? Are organisers meant to liaise with the police and get intelligence from them—intelligence that the police may not be able to divulge, or may not even have? What onus does it put on individuals in terms of preparation, given the random nature of terrorism? We have seen somebody go into a pre-school class with a knife. Nobody could have anticipated that.

Furthermore, when an event is occurring, or might be about to occur, the organiser has to prevent individuals from entering the premises. If I were organising an event, I would want to know what kind of security requirement that puts on me as the organiser. Am I meant to ensure that a security presence is there? What kind of security presence? We have talked quite a lot tonight about the fact that many events of 200 people could be organised by ordinary community groups. I think of theatre groups in my constituency. The only interest that people who organise such events have is acting. They do not have any of the skills that might be required to prevent people from entering the premises, so do they need to have security apparatus, such as security people?

The next measure about which there is a degree of ambiguity is the requirement that organisers do not divulge security information relating to the premises or event. I understand that they should not send out plans of the building in which they will be operating, showing the doors through which people can come in and get out, and the easy and hard ways into the premises. However, the Bill goes further than that. The organisers cannot give information about the event. The whole purpose of an event is to publicise it. Where will it be held? At what time will it be held? How many people can be facilitated? How do people get tickets? The point that I am trying to make is that there is language in the Bill about which I would have a lot of questions, were I an individual who was subject to it, because if I did not get it right, there would be a fine of up to £5,000 or £10,000.

I do not believe that training would address the ambiguity, because the ambiguity is in the wording of the legislation with which people will be required to comply. We all know what happens with training schools. As soon as training is mentioned, people start rubbing their hands and thinking how much they will charge for it. We are talking about training for a one-off event.

When we introduce such legislation, we have to be careful not to put a burden on people. I know that Members have said that this is not a burden, but I hope that I have explained why I believe the Bill puts a burden on people whose main job is not security. I understand common-sense requirements being made of event organisers, but if someone’s main job is not security at such events, they are more likely simply to drop the event.

I also support the amendments about the ability of the Secretary of State to change regulations, because that ability relates to not just the size of the premises, which can be decreased, but the purpose for which the premises will be used, the people who can be held responsible, and the scope of the premises that can be covered. The powers in clause 32 to amend the legislation are fairly extensive, and if the Secretary of State decides that there are to be changes in those four areas, the legislation that we approve tonight could be radically different in a year’s time, because the review depends upon whether there is a need to reduce the vulnerability of events, as per clause 6(5).

I pay tribute to Figen Murray and her campaign team. That she has somehow been able to channel personal grief into a fierce determination to change the law is beyond inspiring. We should be clear that we would not be here tonight without her campaigning efforts. The whole House owes her a debt of gratitude.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today. As ever, I will endeavour to respond to the points that have been raised. I am particularly grateful for the constructive approach that has been taken to considering the Bill, today and at previous stages. I place on the record my thanks to the Opposition for the constructive way in which they have approached the Bill throughout its passage. It is time that this cross-party commitment to improving the safety and security of venues is delivered without further delay, and I am proud that we are moving one step closer tonight.

As hon. Members have heard during the passage of the Bill, the threat picture is complex, evolving and enduring. Since 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots, and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks. In October, we heard from the director general of MI5 that the country is subject to the most interconnected threat environment that we have ever seen. Sadly, terrorists can seek to target a variety of locations. The examples of terrorist attacks that have been raised during the passage of the Bill are a sombre reminder of that. I pay tribute again to all victims and survivors of past attacks, as well as their loved ones, and all those affected. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting anyone affected by a terrorist attack.

I congratulate the Minister and, indeed, the Opposition on the Bill. Of course, all hon. Members hope that future attacks will be prevented by the Bill, but, as has been mentioned, it is also about planning to ensure increased survivability for those impacted by an attack. With that comes the need to ensure that the support we provide to victims is fit for purpose. What efforts will the Minister make to improve support for victims of terrorism?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the most humbling parts of this job is meeting those who have been the victims of terrorism and their families. I think of people like Figen Murray, Brendan Cox, Travis Frain, Dr Cath Hill—all people I have spoken to recently. We are working across Government to progress this important work, and I intend to meet victims and survivors in the new year to hear more about their experiences and say more about what we will do as a Government to support them.

The Bill will improve protective security and organisational preparedness across the UK, making us safer. We heard about the excellent work that many businesses and organisations already do to improve their security and preparedness. However, without a legislative requirement, there is no consistency. The Bill seeks to address that gap and complement the outstanding work that the police, the security services and other partners continue to do to combat the terror threat. As a result, qualifying premises and events should be better prepared to respond and to reduce harm in the event of a terrorist attack. Additionally, certain larger premises and events will have to take steps to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

The public have a right to feel safe, and that is what this legislation seeks to deliver. I am grateful for the considered way in which the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) approached the debate. It is clear that the focus of the Opposition’s amendments and concerns is on, among other things, the impact on business and smaller organisations. I assure him that that has been a central consideration for the Government, informed by extensive engagement, as well as pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee and two public consultations under the previous Government. As a result, the version of the Bill that this Government have brought forward includes important changes to ensure that we can achieve public protection outcomes and that there are no undue burdens on businesses and other organisations.

The Government have, of course, raised the standard tier threshold from 100 to 200, which creates a more appropriate scope. We have also added a reasonably practicable standard of requirements for the procedures required under both tiers. That concept is in line with other regulatory regimes, such as health and safety, and is designed to allow procedures and measures to be tailored to the specific circumstances of a premises or event.

Mindful of what the Minister said about consulting and acting in accordance with the consultation, and of what I said earlier about the changing character of the threat, I ask him to commit from the Dispatch Box to considering, as the legislation begins to have effect, changing the guidance and improving regulation where necessary, sensitive to those circumstances.

If the right hon. Gentleman bears with me for a moment, I intend to say more on the matter, but I assure him that if he is not satisfied, I will give way to him again.

We have introduced a fairer basis for calculating whether a premises or event is in scope. Replacing capacity with the “reasonable expectation” of the number of people who may be present will reflect the actual usage of premises or attendance at events. I am confident that this version of the Bill strikes precisely the right balance.

I turn to amendments 25 and 26 tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West for the Opposition. Clause 32 will allow the Secretary of State to increase or decrease the qualifying threshold for either tier. We anticipate that the thresholds would be reduced to either floor only in very limited circumstances, such as if the nature of the threat from terrorism were to change significantly. That will enable the regime to maintain an appropriate balance between being able to protect the public and managing the burden on those responsible for premises and events. The amendments proposed would remove that ability.

Furthermore, the power is narrowly drafted, and regulations made under it will be subject to the affirmative procedure. In requiring the approval of both Houses before they are made, parliamentarians will be able to scrutinise any proposed changes. The Government therefore do not support the amendments.

I thank the hon. Member for amendment 27. I thought he made his points in a reasonable way, as he often does. While I understand the sentiment, the Government do not support the amendment, but let me explain why. It is intended that the Security Industry Authority will rely on advice and guidance in the first instance. However, a credible enforcement regime with suitable monetary penalties is necessary to ensure that the regulator can secure compliance, particularly where the regulator identifies serious or persistent non-compliance.

The maximum daily penalty amounts are set at a level to counter financial gain from non-compliance, recognising the breadth of organisations in scope as well as the potentially more serious consequences at larger venues. It is important that the Secretary of State has the power, by regulation, to change those maximum amounts, including to increase them if necessary—for example, if the amounts were to prove ineffective in ensuring compliance, or the figures needed updating to reflect changes in economic circumstances in the longer term.

Critically, when determining penalty amounts, the Bill requires the SIA to take into account a range of factors, including the seriousness of the contravention, any action taken to remedy or mitigate its effects, and an organisation’s ability to pay. That will ensure the penalties are effective but proportionate. I reassure Members that changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure, unless they are simply to reflect inflation.

The hon. Member raised concerns over the role of the SIA as the regulator, which I believe is the motivation for tabling new clause 1. There are several reasons why the Government do not support the new clause. The Government are confident that the SIA is the right delivery option for the Martyn’s law regulator, owing to its years of experience in increasing security standards and ensuring public protection. It already plays an important role in safeguarding the public through its work regulating the private security industry. The SIA has long-established inspection and enforcement functions that ensure compliance with its licensing regime, and it already works with security partners to promote best practice around counter-terrorism protective security.

Will the Minister give way?

If the hon. Member will bear with me, I am going to address some of the points he raised.

Furthermore, it will take at least 24 months following Royal Assent for the SIA to begin undertaking its enforcement duties. It would not be fair of us, nor indeed possible, to judge its performance before it has begun carrying out its new functions, which seems to be the effect of the new clause.

I will make a bit of progress.

I can also assure the House that the Bill already contains provisions to ensure the appropriate oversight of the SIA. Ultimately, the Bill gives the SIA the tools that it will need to deliver its new enforcement functions successfully. We are committed to exploring wider opportunities to strengthen the SIA so that it can carry out its public protection role and deliver the Government’s ambitious agenda.

I turn to the amendments on training provision tabled by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire). I thank him again for his interest in that important issue. As he knows, the Bill has been developed to ensure that those working at premises and events are better prepared to respond quickly to evolving situations in the event of a terrorist attack occurring or being suspected. Those workers make rapid decisions and take actions that could save lives. There is no specific training requirement in the Bill, but it is essential that workers with responsibility for carrying out public protection procedures are adequately instructed—and, where appropriate, trained—to do so. Training and instruction will be tailored to the premises and events in question, and to the procedures that they have developed, rather than our using a one-size-fits-all approach.

I will make a bit more progress.

The Government think that the focus of premises and events should be on how to ensure that their people can effectively carry out their roles, rather than requiring the completion of generic modules or courses. We understand the importance of training, and so have committed to publishing free dedicated guidance and support. That guidance will ensure that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have the information required to understand and identify training needs. The Government also intend to signpost a range of training offers, including the significant support that we offer in the shape of access to expert advice and training on ProtectUK, which already includes free access to the “Action Counters Terrorism” and “See, Check and Notify” training packages. Furthermore, following Royal Assent, the Government intend for there to be an implementation period of at least 24 months before the legislation’s commencement. We are confident that that will allow sufficient time to understand the new obligations and to plan and prepare accordingly, including by training staff where necessary.

I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to respond to points made by a number of hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) made important points about the threat of terrorism. He also rightly paid tribute to Manchester city council for its work with local businesses. What he said about proportionality should reassure any businesses that might have concerns.

As a former police officer, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) speaks with great authority on these matters, and I pay tribute to him for his service. He rightly made the point that the Bill is not just about securing physical premises but has a wider value, and that protecting the public is not just a matter for Government; others also have an important responsibility in that area.

Let me turn to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been very patient. I have to say, I am a little mystified that he is not on the Opposition Front Bench. He seems an effective performer and responded well on Second Reading. [Interruption.] I am not sure that I am helping him, but I thought he made a strong contribution again tonight, and I found his words about Martyn’s legacy particularly moving. I am grateful for his constructive approach this evening and previously. He helpfully highlighted concerns about smaller venues, particularly small theatres. I assure him that there has been extensive consultation with smaller venues, although I am sorry that it did not include the constituency venue that he mentioned.

All hon. Members have village halls, churches and community halls in our constituencies, and we all recognise the hugely important role that volunteers play. The Government raised the standard tier threshold from 100 to 200 people specifically in response to the feedback, including from those operating smaller venues similar to ones that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley mentioned. We assess that that has resulted in a reduction in the proportion of village halls in scope of the Bill’s requirements from 56% under the original proposals to 13% now. I assure him that we will continue to work closely with smaller venues to ensure the easiest transition to the new arrangements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) said that the nature of terrorism is constantly evolving, and that we need to plan to protect against it. He pointed out that the Bill contains straightforward measures—prompts, essentially—that are light touch and proportionate. He also very helpfully referenced the Edinburgh example. I hope that that provides positive evidence of the potential benefits to businesses of the measures.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was constructive, as he always is. He speaks with great experience and authority on matters relating to terrorism, so I always listen carefully to what he has to say, and often find it profoundly moving, as I have again tonight. He mentioned churches, which he has raised with me before. The Government acknowledge that places of worship have a unique and important role in communities right across the country, and have considered them very carefully in the context of this legislation. We have consulted extensively with churches and with places of worship more generally, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to work closely with them to ensure that they have the support and guidance they need. That is a commitment that I make to him.

Will the Minister give way?

I am conscious of time, so I will keep going, not least because I want to briefly reflect on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp). He spoke with personal conviction and experience, and I know that he understands the importance of preparation and planning—I will not say the second bit of that phrase. He also rightly paid tribute to our intelligence services, and I echo that tribute.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) spoke with authority, not just as a Member of this House but as a church warden, and made a really interesting point about critical challenge. I hope he will appreciate this point: the Bill is the result of two very extensive public consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny. It is forged from all that work. That is why I am confident that the measures in the Bill are proportionate and reasonable. However, I was grateful for the constructive challenge he offered.

The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made a number of constructive points about thresholds. I hope the responses I have already given have provided him and the venue in his constituency with the reassurance they want. Finally, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) spoke with passion, as he always does, and raised a number of entirely reasonable concerns. I am afraid that we will not agree on every aspect of them this evening, but I hope that he will at least acknowledge that the Government have worked incredibly hard to ensure that the Bill is proportionate and not unreasonable, given the nature of the threat we face.

I will touch briefly on the Government amendments, which make only very minor and technical changes to the Bill to ensure that its purpose and intent is clear. They include small drafting changes for consistency, to remove unnecessary text, and to clarify technical detail.

In closing, I again pay tribute to Figen Murray and her campaign team, and thank them. Their campaigning for this legislation has been an inspiration to us all. Figen’s son Martyn lost his life in the Manchester bombing. As the Home Secretary said on Second Reading,

“To suffer such a horrendous loss and somehow find the strength to fight for changes…is heroic.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 624.]

This is a vitally important Bill. The public deserve to feel safe when visiting public premises and attending events. It is therefore right that appropriate and reasonably practical steps be taken to protect staff and the public from the impact of terrorism. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. Security will always be the foundation on which everything else is built, and for this Government, nothing will matter more. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Minister for his considered response to the debate. However, while entirely supporting the objectives of the Bill, we do not see why the Government cannot commit to a review of the effectiveness of the Security Industry Authority as the regulator, given that the Bill places an entirely new set of requirements on venues and an entirely new set of responsibilities on the SIA, so we will press new clause 1 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I start by thanking everyone across the House who has contributed to the debates on the Bill for their incisive and necessary contributions and their considered scrutiny. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather) who has done such an excellent job in whipping the Bill through. I also thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for their work on the Opposition Front Bench during the earlier stages of the Bill and the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for taking over so ably on Report. I look forward to continuing to work with him in his new role.

Hon. Members will be aware of the Bill’s history, coming as it does out of the tragic events of the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017. I take this opportunity once more to pay tribute to the 22 victims of the horrific Manchester Arena attack, and to Figen Murray, mother of one of the victims, Martyn Hett. Her campaigning has been crucial in driving the Bill forward. We would simply not be here debating this legislation without her.

During these debates, I have been particularly moved by the contributions of hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of constituents who have been affected by the attacks in Manchester, Borough Market and elsewhere, and the important reflections and lessons we can learn from recent history in Northern Ireland. The Bill is one part of our already extensive efforts across Government, including those of the police and security services, to combat the threat of terrorism. I take the opportunity to thank them for their vital work in keeping our country safe; we owe them a debt of gratitude.

As hon. Members have heard me say more than once in this place, the first responsibility of any Government is to keep the public safe. This cross-party commitment to improve the safety and security of venues in the wake of the Manchester Arena attack must be delivered without further delay. The Bill was a manifesto commitment, and I am proud that we have been able to introduce it so early in the Session. I thank colleagues from across the House for their support for the Bill, which has enabled it to progress through its stages in this place so smoothly. I am also grateful to the previous members of the Home Affairs Committee for their report; its recommendations have been crucial in shaping the Bill.

I also take the opportunity to say an enormous thank you to the following people: Ella Terry in my private office; the Bill team of Tom Ball, Chloe White, James Fair and Izzy Hancock; Michelle Chapman and the policy team; Kris Lee and his legal team; Joel Wolchover and Tim McAtackney at the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel; and Debbie Bartlett and Shaun Hipgrave, whose leadership over several years has been exemplary. I also thank all the many civil servants, including those in the Home Office analysis and insight and comms teams, who have worked on the Bill with great diligence and professionalism. Many of them have done so for several years. Finally, I thank the fantastic staff of this place for their work in supporting the Bill’s logistics, in particular the Doorkeepers and the parliamentary Clerks’ team.

I finish with a gentle word of encouragement to colleagues in the other place. It has been wonderful to have seen consensus on the Bill in this place. I hope that they will agree with us on the importance of the Bill and that this manifesto commitment can proceed as smoothly through the other place as it has done here. After several years, and as Figen has said, it is time to get this done.

Recent years have seen too many tragedies and too many precious lives taken by terrorist attacks—hurt that will never truly heal. Despite those tragedies, inspirational people such as Figen Murray and Survivors Against Terror have shown us that good can come from bad, and that the power is in our hands to act, even in the shadow of grief. Martyn’s law and everyone who has worked to make it a reality are an embodiment of that spirit.

Implementing this legislation will require us all to work together. National security is a collective endeavour. Organisations affected by the changes are acutely aware of their responsibility. They understand the importance of protecting their customers from terror, and are committed to ensuring that people can attend concerts, exhibitions and performances with the confidence that they are safe. That spirit of collaboration and mutual responsibility ultimately will make the provisions in Martyn’s law a success.

The responsibility goes both ways. Just as we expect venues to take the necessary steps in the Bill, they expect the Government to approach its implementation in a measured and sensible manner. I want to finish by thanking the Government for continuing the important work on the Bill, and to reiterate to the Minister my willingness to work with him on its passing and implementation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.