PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting) - 29 October 2024 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q Assistant Commissioner, thank you. First, I associate myself with the words of the Minister earlier in thanking you and your colleagues in the wider service for your work. What is your view on the investigatory and enforcement powers in the Bill? Do you have any concerns about them?

Matt Jukes: The first thing to say, as I am subject to a few watchdogs myself, is that the best performance of a watchdog is to raise overall standards and improve outcomes for the public. That might seldom be achieved by enforcement and best be achieved by the sharing of practice, the development of understanding and the support of the sectors involved. I do not have extant concerns about the investigatory and compliance powers, but I would expect a regulator and the authority that will come into that space to have their major focus on raising standards and for us all to hold compliance actions as the backstop to the cases that might be required.

I say that based on the fact that you will hear evidence from the Counter Terrorism Business Information Exchange, which we work with closely to work with sectors. We get an enormous amount of leverage from working with sector-specific experts themselves, and I expect that the regulator would want to do that, rather than investigate and enforce in any excessive way. Having said that, the absence of something that is rigorous and provides that backstop would undermine the overall effect of the Bill if it were not present.

Q You mentioned to the Home Affairs Committee that you would like to see a regulator in place that could provide intervention support and improved notices. Do you feel that the Security Industry Authority is the right regulator?

Matt Jukes: That is obviously a proposition that has come through close work by the Home Office and the consideration of others. In essence, just to land on a conclusion, I would definitely say that the SIA is well placed, having played a leading role in regulating security standards. I am into my 30th year of policing, and I can remember the quality of private security provision at night-time economy venues and all sorts of other places going back to the years before the SIA had its very important role, and there is no doubt that it has professionalised and raised standards across the security industry.

As well as the sector-specific support that we would get from networks such as CTBIE, which you will hear from, the SIA is very well placed to sit at the heart not just of this function as a regulator but of the private security industry, which in the end will play an important part in raising standards across the piece. It is a matter for Parliament in due course, and it has been a matter for the Home Office to bring forward its recommendation, but we could certainly support continuing to work in the way that we have with the SIA.

Q Thank you for attending; we are very grateful, not least because I know the Committee is particularly keen to hear from the business community, and your evidence this afternoon will be helpful to us. My question is for Mr Sharpley. I know you have huge experience in this area and that, as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process, you appeared as a witness in front of the Home Affairs Committee back in June 2023. At that point, there were some concerns centred around capacity calculations, thresholds and the identity of the regulator. I am sure you will have seen that there have been extensive changes to the legislation over the intervening period. Has the clarity now in place around the types of procedures and measures that business would be required to implement provided some of the assurance you were seeking back in June 2023?

Neil Sharpley: The simple answer to that is yes. The comments we made previously have been taken into account. We think that for any piece of new legislation that is breaking new ground, which we of course support and our own research shows that there is a need for information to be disseminated to businesses about terrorism risk, the threshold has been set at the right level initially. We expect that it will be reviewed in due course as the Bill, or the Act when it becomes that, beds in, but we feel that the parameters have been set correctly at present.

The concerns we expressed previously were about very small venues, community venues, local societies and things of that sort. The one thing that is not touched on in the Bill, which I should perhaps mention initially, is what the role of local authorities should be in helping to achieve the aims of the Bill. We all agree that the aims are to ameliorate the risk as far as terrorism is concerned. I am sure it has been observed before that many open public areas are surrounded by a plethora of smaller businesses, many of which would never be in scope of the Bill but all of which, because of the current threat vectors, might possibly be at risk. My question to you is, should this Bill also contain some provision that requires local authorities to assess the risks of those open areas and to embark on some sort of training exercise in respect of the smaller businesses surrounding them, whether or not they fall within the scope of the Bill in terms of specific obligations? That is something that needs attention and something we have touched on a number of times before, and I think the local authority representative who gave evidence before the Bill was launched also touched on that. It seems to be an area where, especially in smaller towns and cities, a considerable amount of good work could be done to reduce the risk beyond what is currently envisaged within the Bill.

In general terms, we welcome the changes. We think the Bill will take some time to bed in. Businesses will become accustomed to the responsibilities and, in due course, those responsibilities may not be regarded in such an onerous way as they might be regarded now for any new piece of legislation. It may also be possible, with due consultation, to change the parameters, but that is a matter for the future; it is a matter for research and for data, and we need to do what is necessary to ameliorate the risk, not what is unnecessary but looks good in regulatory terms. We need to address the specific risks—the real risks—themselves, rather than create a system that does not target those risks as extensively as I think could be done.

Q That is okay, I understood.

How do you anticipate Martyn’s law affecting customer experience, especially for small retailers who may not have visible security measures in place?

Mike Pearce: Shall I answer that?

Yes, that is for all three of you.

Mike Pearce: If I may, can I just set out what the CTBIE does and what we are made up of? I think it is probably quite pertinent to this conversation. The CTBIE has been around for over a decade now, it was sponsored originally by MI5, and sits now within the purview of CT policing. My co-chair is the head of the National Counter Terrorism Security Office, and we have 30 very senior, well-experienced security professionals who sit around the table representing 16 sectors of the United Kingdom. Around that table also sits the SIA—the Security Industry Authority—the Home Office, HSG—the Homeland Security Group—and a number of other acronyms, supporting that group. Each of that group has subgroups. For example, the CTBIE has a hotel subgroup, where it will reach out to the other hotels or smaller bed and breakfasts, so that it is transmitting and amplifying messages both from Government into business and from business back into Government, specifically around countering terrorism.

We have been doing that for 10 years. It is completely voluntary, and these individuals have given up their time, to introduce some significant products into the public space—the “run, hide, tell” messaging and the platforms that we have, which were all developed with John’s help —supporting the Government in getting the message to the widest possible parts of the engine room that is our economy and getting it to businesses in such a way that it makes sense to them.

We expect each of those sector leads to translate the messaging that they need to give to their sectors, because although it is one message when it is received by us, it needs to be adapted to the particular sector that it is being transmitted into. That is part of the complexity of this great Bill, which we support across the CTBIE. We are absolutely for it. We have been in it from the very beginning, as an absolute supporter. CT should bring us together—countering terrorism should bring us together—but the overriding priority for us is that we transmit and get these messages to business in the most effective and efficient way we can.

Let us, at the CTBIE, do that for you. We are very good at doing it and we are very practised at doing it, and we can measure how effective that delivery is. There are, of course, many other groups, and I am not saying you should exclude anybody, but this is a group that has been running—and running very well—for the past 12 years, supporting the messages from Government around countering terrorism. However, it needs leadership. It needs leadership from sectors. It needs us to set examples for the smaller businesses. It needs us to grow confidence in the communities that we seek to protect over the coming years; that is the opportunity. I do not know whether I have answered your question.

Around every CTBIE member, there are small business groups that reach out to us. Only recently, I was in Southampton with the police and crime commissioner, talking to small businesses about how Landsec—as the owner of big shopping centres and so on—supports the smaller businesses. How can we ensure that they understand whether the legislation, when it comes into effect, will affect them? More importantly, what do they need to do now to remain safe and what do they not need to be doing? They do not need to be spending money, asking for advice on legislation that is not yet in place; that is another concern of the CTBIE. All of the necessary authority that we hold as a group is respected within business, and utilising it would be an opportunity to reach out to small businesses very effectively. Does that answer your question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q Good afternoon, and thank you for appearing in front of the Committee; we appreciate it. I have a couple of reasonably specific questions. What are your views on the proposed changes to the Bill, particularly in relation to the change in capacity calculations, where responsible persons are now being asked to identify the number of people reasonably expected to be on the premises at the same time? We hope that you will welcome that.

Secondly, we would like to get a sense of your views on the proposed changes in relation to the addition of the “reasonably practicable” standard. Again, we hope you will welcome that change. Your sense of those two changes would be very much appreciated.

Max Nicholls: I am happy to take that question. We certainly welcome the flexibility introduced by the change around capacity calculations, the ability to look at things such as historic attendance data and a wider range of measures that may impact how many people are on site. We have some sites in the sport and recreation sector that are quite large in their overall footprint, but which in reality have fairly few people in them at any one time. Previously, there was a concern that if a calculation based purely on footprint was to be introduced, lots of those premises could be drawn into the enhanced tier. We certainly welcome that change and the flexibility around how many people are on site based on the different criteria set out in the briefing note.

Cameron Yorston: The answer to the second question on the introduction of the “reasonably practicable” judgment is that we welcome it entirely. I also wanted to kick off a broader point that we, and the sector more broadly, welcome the intention of the Bill, as the gentlemen before us said. I think everyone can be supportive of the principle of trying to make venues in specific sectors more resilient across the country.

I suspect you will also have heard this throughout the day. What is missing—or rather, where we still need further clarity and guidance—is greater clarity on the practical implementation of the Bill and on how, in practice, that “reasonably practicable” judgment will apply. I am more than happy to elaborate and illustrate with specific examples of where it is not clear that the spirit and intention of the Bill, and those exclusions or measures you reference, will bite in the appropriate way. There is a risk of unintended consequences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good afternoon to you both. Thank you very much for appearing before the Committee today: you have a particularly valuable insight and we are looking forward to hearing from you.

We heard earlier from Mayor Andy Burnham, who was very positive about the impact that these measures are already having on the hospitality sector in Greater Manchester. I want to get a sense of whether that accords with your analysis of the impact of these measures on the hospitality sector nationally. It was very positive to hear the good news story from Greater Manchester, with the way it has been embraced by the hospitality businesses there, but it would be good to get your sense of whether there should be the same approach right around the country.

Kate Nicholls: I do not think anybody in the hospitality sector or the wider live music and events sector could have experienced the recent incidents we have had—not just in Manchester, but in London—and just sat back and waited for legislation to ensure that our customers, our public and, most importantly, our staff were safe. Since those events, and since the learnings coming out of the inquiry, we have been working collectively with our members to look at how we could take forward this protect duty within the context of our existing licensing regime—the Licensing Act 2003 puts on us a legal obligation to ensure we take account of public safety. As part of that, businesses in city centre locations, in particular, have worked with their local police forces and counter-terrorism to ensure that steps are already being taken to look at measures that could be encompassed within this duty.

I should also say that we are working to ensure that that is taken right down to the very smallest venues and that lessons are learned there, so that we have a basic level of security within the public realm. While Manchester is leading the way, quite unsurprisingly, we are working hard to make sure that we are doing the same thing and carrying out those lessons and delivering that in practice.

Q How might the increased security requirements impact staffing for night-time venues, particularly with training and retaining part-time or seasonal workers? I think this question might be better for Mike.

Mike Kill: With regard to the businesses that we represent—particularly some of the small and medium-sized enterprises and businesses that are slightly smaller and, as you can appreciate, on the lower tier—there is, without a doubt, a resonating concern around the cost base given the current economic climate.

A key area of concern for us, because the industry has a high turnover of staff, is that that continual training of staff within that high turnover is going to represent a level of cost. When we looked at things like the impact assessment, we felt that without a doubt, given the infrastructure, systems, processes and considerations at either level—whether on the standard or the enhanced tier—there is a concern that this will be onerous cost-wise, particularly around staffing levels. There is also concern with regard to certain shifts around things like the national living wage, which will drive that forward as well.

From the perspective of the industry, there is still a resonating concern that there will be an undue burden on small venues and community groups in particular, which, in the current economic climate, that could lead to further challenging situations. That is not to take away from the importance of safety; however, the reality is that we have to be honest about our position moving forward. So there are resonating concerns, but people are taking positive steps forward.

Just to reiterate and support Kate’s comments, there has been a very positive reaction to the Bill—it is very well supported. I believe the right action to move forward is happening across the sector as a whole at varying levels, but Manchester is without a doubt leading that, given the circumstances represented there.

Dame Siobhain, may I propose that we change the order of the panel of witnesses, while remaining within the provisions of the programme order?

I am happy to pass.

Q We have heard quite a lot today about the fiscal impact on businesses, the training and the timing, but many of the organisations the Bill will catch are run by volunteers. There certainly would have been more caught under the 100 threshold, but I am interested to hear your thoughts about the 200 threshold. What do you think the Bill will mean for those organisations? Do you have a sense of the challenges that might throw up?

Jeremy Leggett: Having sat in on the discussion this morning, I obviously have some anxieties about the possibility of the threshold being dropped back down to 100, as well as about having a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to bring the threshold back down to 100 anyway if that is seen to be required. The village halls that responded to the supplementary consultation on the standard tier did so thinking that the limit was going to be 100. If you recall, the supplementary consultation was carried out before a redraft of the Bill was made public so, as I understand it, there was some concern that a lot of village halls and similar organisations were responding quite negatively to the consultation because they thought the limit was going to be 100. Raising the threshold has taken quite a lot of those out, but it is probably worth at least thinking about why so many volunteer-run premises were so concerned about the standard tier when the lower threshold was 100. I can go further if you would like.

That would be helpful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q Good afternoon to you both, and thank you for appearing in front of the Committee. It is much appreciated. My question is for Mr Collins. First, thank you for your consistent and constructive approach throughout this process, which has been appreciated. On the basis that I suspect you might be asked some more general questions, I wanted to ask you a specific one: how do you see the legislation interacting with the events sector’s already established security procedures?

Jon Collins: Thank you for those comments. We are attempting to be a critical friend to strengthen the Bill as it moves through the House. The first recognition is the role of licensing in our industry. Every one of the venues and festivals I have talked about will have a premises licence, be that for the event or for the venue. There are four objectives under that piece of legislation that relate to public safety, the prevention of crime and disorder and so on. We have concerns about how the requirements under this legislation will or will not align with the licence conditions that our venues and festivals will be operating within.

There is a risk of some potential conflict—particularly as the licensing process is often a multi-year process, where the local authority gets to understand the venue and the festival and comes back year in, year out. There will be the development of security advisory group sessions and the development of an event management plan. That is a long, well-developed process, but now an inspector could potentially visit just before the event and say, “I am not satisfied with all of this; you need to take these steps.” The first thing we would note is that there is no requirement for them to be reasonably practicable in the Bill, whereas the requirement for operators is to take reasonably practicable steps. We think an amendment that adds that expectation to the inspectorate would be useful.

Beyond that, could the guidance for this legislation be mirrored in the section 182 guidance for the Licensing Act 2003 in England and Wales, and its equivalents in other countries and regions? Could we have something in the legislation to say that a requirement from the inspectorate cannot conflict with a licence condition? If there was conflict, if something happened and we had to get into the whys and wherefores, there would potentially be legal considerations there: “Well, I was compliant with this legislation, but you’re saying I am not compliant over here.” There are some challenges there that we think can be addressed as the Bill moves forward and the guidance is created.

Q Can I follow up on that? That is very interesting —what would drive that kind of conflict? I am Scottish and represent a Scottish constituency, and sometimes some elements are devolved and some are not, so I know it can be difficult for organisations with a footprint across the UK to follow different regulations. Is that the level of conflict you are talking about, or is it more that they would be speaking at cross purposes and there needs to be harmonisation?

Jon Collins: The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 is similar to the 2003 Act in its provisions. It could be, for example, a venue having a condition that says they will search everybody on entry. That will necessarily create a queue outside the premises, but it might be that from a counter-terrorism perspective you need to get everybody inside the premises as quickly as possible. Then you have a direct conflict, and the operator is trying to square that circle.

Melvin Benn: As Jon said, the two licensing Acts in England and Wales and in Scotland are very similar. In Scotland, particularly for outdoor events, licences are done on an annual basis, as opposed to a permanent premises licence as it is in England and Wales.

However, there is potential for conflict where a venue, an annual festival or an annual series of concerts has been in monthly meetings with safety advisory groups and has done all the preparation on the basis of the advice from the safety advisory group—who of course take advice from the local police force and the local CT SecCo, or counter-terrorism security co-ordinator, and so on—and the organisers will have their plan for the evening, or the festival, the weekend, or the next month or six months of the venue, all costed and budgeted, and then the regulator’s representative may come in and say, “I fundamentally disagree with that, and I need you to do this.” It appears that they have supreme powers. Certainly, in the way it is written, as Jon said, there is no factor of reasonableness in it, which we have to have. Parliament expects us to be reasonable in our endeavours, in our searching and so on. This does not have that factor of reasonableness, and it could cause conflict. It could be that the regulator and the safety advisory group have differences of opinion and we get caught in between, with what could be very significant financial penalties, not knowing quite which way to go.

Q But the Bill does not introduce that conflict. If there was a conflict between getting people through the door very quickly or having them queueing outside—in a festival trying to make a decision —that sort of thought process already exists.

Melvin Benn: The Bill certainly introduces conflict outside of the venue. Without question, it introduces conflict outside of the venue.

Venues are licensed premises, and we abide by licence conditions. That is how we survive in business. We work very hard to keep our customers safe, but we only have responsibility and jurisdiction over our licensed premises. We can have no jurisdiction or responsibility outside of the licensed premises, particularly when that is on the public highway. Once it is on the public highway, it is the responsibility of law enforcement. The Bill is actually trying to introduce a responsibility in something called “the vicinity”, which is very ill-defined—exceptionally ill-defined; we do not know what the vicinity is. Sometimes it is referred to as the grey space, but it is defined as “the vicinity” in the Bill, where we somehow have to take responsibility for safety.

We cannot undertake safety in a public space, because we have no legal right to affect what the public are doing in a public space. Actually, the British public, in the main, know that the only people that can charge them or direct them to do something different to what they are doing on a public highway are the police forces. So, if our security personnel, for example, are directing a crowd that do not want to be directed, to do something, they have every right—we have lots of video evidence of this in various locations—to stand their ground and say, “You have no right to tell us to do that—only the police can do that.”

The Bill is actually trying to tell us to do something that legally we are not allowed to do, and that is a very significant conflict. Even if the concept of vicinity was defined, we still have the problem of external to the licensed premises, which is very defined, where we have that responsibility. So there is conflict there.

Obviously, in terms of the general essence of the Bill, we are massively in support of its direction and desire; we are doing that, day in, day out. The Licensing Act is a really good basis for keeping customers safe—incredibly good. It is standing the test of time really well. This introduces conflict to that, unfortunately.

Q I asked Andy Burnham this morning what protections there would be for smaller, live music venues, and to seek some reassurance about what happened in Manchester. He said that in Manchester, voluntary measures have worked very well. His solution is to hug people close, in terms of small venues—listen to them, ask them what they want and how they can make it viable, for both the public and the venues. He said that there would be low to zero costs for smaller venues of between 200 and 400 capacity. What is your assessment of that?

Jon Collins: Our member, the Music Venue Trust, reckons that about 17% of their 800 members—so 140 or 150-odd—sit between 200 and 300. Fifty per cent. sit below 200 and the remainder above 300. There are a lot of small music venues out there. We heard talk about whether the threshold should be for the standard tier; there is an argument to move the threshold to 300, particularly for licensed premises, because all those venues already have the requirements of the Licensing Act, as Melvin put it.

The trust’s view is that, if this is introduced in a way that is integrated into operating practices under the licensing legislation, it does not need to be overly burdensome. It would actually align quite nicely with the standard operating practices, particularly if an organisation such as the MVT was able to develop sector-specific training, which it could then cascade out to its members. Part of the challenge in trying to understand the cost and implications of this legislation is that the tiers and the scope of the Bill are so broad, particularly—wandering off your question a bit—as the enhanced tier goes from 800-capacity venues up to 175,000-capacity festivals.

Melvin Benn: Some are even bigger than that, yes. As drafted, it literally ranges from 800 to an unlimited number. The largest festivals in the UK are for over 200,000 people, for example. Again, this is a complicated one, because safety applies to everyone, regardless of the size of space.

Jon and I have talked about this a little, particularly in respect of the previous witness, whom I only caught the end of, but if you are putting on an event in an unlicensed premise—a church hall, a community hall or something of that sort—and if it is for up to 499 people, you do not need a premises licence, but can apply for a temporary event notice. That is a licensing cut-off, in that sense. From 500 onwards, you need to have a premises licence. It would seem sensible for the Bill to mirror that to a certain extent, because once you get into the premises licensing, you get into safety advisory group meetings and sitting in front of local authority committees to get the premises licence to do everything properly.

There is that element of crossover that I think should be thought about a little. But there is that point that Jon makes, that you then go from 800 to 200,000 or greater. Should there be a different onus on a different event? The Reading festival, for example, is 105,000 people. Clearly, the intensity of planning and thought and so on, around a large event like that—the 105,000 people are all camping as well—is probably under greater scrutiny than, say, a 5,000 independent festival by the Association of Independent Festivals. That is somewhat under the radar to the world, in a way.

There is that discussion. We all accept, of course, that safety is paramount. As I mentioned, that is how we keep in business, in that sense. You just mentioned Andy’s example, and we work closely with all local authorities in Manchester and everywhere we go. It is a joint arm around each other, because with these events, local communities value the music spaces that they have, which are great for the local economy and so on. There is an element of partnership work with the smaller and larger venues. It is our business and it is what we do, but of course it must be partnership work. In our experience, the more partnership work there is in legislation, the more coherent and better it will be. At this point in time, it feels like the way in which it is written and planned is a little dictatorial and not in partnership. It is a little bit “you must do”, rather than “you must consider and take Government advice and so on”.

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

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

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

Q You are making a really interesting point. To follow up on that, do you accept that there are two categories of organisations? There will be some where the inspector will find that they are doing everything that they should be, so their costs will be low, but there will be some that are not—otherwise, there would be no need at all for this legislation—and costs will be involved there. That is the open-ended component.

Jon Collins: I will make one quick point before Melvin comes in. Because we operate with a licence, we are already considering counterterrorism safety and security in how we run the premises. The issue is the new variable. I do not see that there are two classes of venue; the Licensing Act takes care of that. If you are not meeting your obligations under that Act, your licence is at risk and can be removed. The fact that this can be imposed without appeal on a balance of probabilities, and disrupt what can be a decades-old relationship between the venue and the local authority, is the concern.

Melvin Benn: It is exactly as Jon said. Because there is an entertainment licence, the granter of the entertainment licence—be it a premises licence in England and Wales, or a yearly licence in Scotland, for example—has assessed that what the operator is doing is safe and makes the customer safe. In that sense, one could argue that there is no need for the legislation.

I think the industry generally would say that adding an additional safety piece about counterterrorism into the four pillars of the Licensing Act would have been a better route than creating an additional piece of legislation. We are not in charge of that, and we will go whichever way it is. We are fully supporting the direction of this. The simpler way would have been to add to what already exists, rather than to create something separate.

I will leave that to others.

Q What is your view on what the Bill would look like in practice? Could you give us a bit of an overview of the reality of what it would look like on the ground for your sector, and how you judge the level of compliance and compliance risk you would be taking on board?

Gary Stephen: The majority of higher education organisations will be in the enhanced tier with public protection measures. I strongly believe that most of my peers have significant experience in dealing with counter-terrorism risk assessments and security plans, and I would be disappointed if that was not already a priority for most of them in the planning and preparation of events. However, I am aware that not every organisation has an experienced security professional to manage events on campus.

With that in mind, we created the special interest group CONTEST to share best practice and signpost to our members what good looks like. Most organisations have very good relationships with local counter-terrorism security advisers, and due to specialist research being carried out on many sites, the security posture is normally of a good standard. So I would be conscious to make sure that vice-chancellors and COOs are aware of their obligation under the new legislation.

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

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

Q Minister, can you explain to us why you increased the standard tier capacity from 100 to 200? Can you answer some of the concerns raised this morning by both Figen Murray and Andy Burnham on that point?

Dan Jarvis: Yes, I am happy to do that. But with Dame Siobhain’s indulgence, perhaps you will let me say a few words about the sessions that we have had today. I hope that this has been a really useful opportunity for members of the Committee to hear from a range of authoritative stakeholders about the Bill. That, certainly from my perspective, has been incredibly useful in informing our collective understanding as the Bill moves forward in its passage through the House of Commons.

It would also be remiss of me not to reiterate the comments that I made earlier on about Figen Murray. I think that her contribution, and the contribution of the team that has supported her, has been outstanding and inspiring. We frankly would not be at this place without the incredible work that she has done over some time now. I think that that is worthy of recognition by the Committee this afternoon.

I also want to briefly reflect on the testimony that we heard from Assistant Commissioner Matt Jukes, because I think that that was significant. He very helpfully outlined the nature of the terrorist threat that our country faces, and it is reassuring to know that the analysis from him and his team is that the Bill is both proportionate and effective.

I was also struck by the very positive testimony that we heard from Mayor Andy Burnham on the Greater Manchester experience. I think that, for those who have had some concerns about proportionality and about the impact that this Bill could have on certain sectors of the business community—and the hospitality sector in particular—it was reassuring to hear the very positive experience from Greater Manchester.

Also, before turning to the substance of your question, Mr Waugh, I just want to reiterate the importance of the cross-party support that we have been able to build for this Bill. This is legislation that began its life in the previous Parliament under the previous Government, with important pre-legislative processes taking place. All that has been incredibly helpful in terms of informing the process and ensuring that the Bill is as fit for purpose as it possibly can be. I am very grateful to all of those who went before and for the contributions that they made.

I turn to the substance of your question; I will bring in Debbie in just a moment because she has dealt with the detail of this for longer than me. I think that the heart of your question is about issues of proportionality. I am struck by the fact that we have had a useful conversation today about where the threshold of the standard tier should lie. I am quite confident that if a decision had been taken to place that threshold in a different place, we would still have had a discussion about whether it was in the right place and whether the decision to have it at a lower level would have excluded some even smaller premises. We have to be realistic that whenever you are dealing with legislation that requires a threshold, there will always be a debate—it has been in that sense a very constructive one—about where that particular threshold sits.

We have got to where we are based on extensive consultation. There was the pre-legislative process that took place in the previous Parliament. There have been two quite extensive public consultations and a significant amount of contact with a range of different stakeholders who would be affected by the legislation. In the end, Government have to take a view about what is the most appropriate threshold and that is what we have done. We think that that is the right judgment, but clearly there is still a debate to be had around that. After significant consultation and consideration, that is where we have got to and as the Minister, I think that is the right judgment.

It is also worth making the point that other changes have been made to the legislation since the earlier iteration, not least the inclusion of the “reasonably practicable” test, as well as the points around reasonable expectation. I hope they go some considerable way to reassuring the concerns expressed about the impact the legislation would have on smaller venues and premises. Debbie, if there anything you want to add to that, you are welcome to do so.

Debbie Bartlett: In terms of reflecting on the change from 100 to 200, one of the clear voices we heard through the consultation and the pre-legislative scrutiny process was around those voluntary organisations and premises. Moving from a 100 to a 200 threshold reduces coverage of those village halls from 54% at the 100 threshold to just 13% at the 200 threshold, which feels more proportionate given some of the feedback we received through the pre-legislative and the consultation process.

Q Thank you for what you have set out. We have heard in the sessions about how some wanted to be at a lower threshold and some at a higher one. I can understand that you have to pick a number somewhere in between, so it makes sense in how you have set that out.

On compliance and how you are dealing with organisations that do not comply, obviously the hope would be that as many organisations as you come across are complying and doing this kind of thinking already. We have heard about how things like licensing regimes pretty much encourage a lot of organisations to do compliance. Can you talk about why you have set the threshold for non-compliance at that maximum and what the process was in deciding that?

Debbie Bartlett: In setting out the compliance and sanctions regime, the decision was taken—looking at the heart of the Bill, which is proportionality—to have a primarily civil sanctions regime in place. The key role for the regulator, as has been discussed today, is around educating, bringing people up to standard and improving protective security and organisational preparedness across the country. Obviously, to enable that regime to have teeth, there needs to be some kind of compliance and sanctions regime in place. The sanctions regime allows for flexibility. We have heard from significant witnesses today that this cannot be about one size fits all. We are talking about an extensive number of sectors with different operating models, different ways of working, different staff ratios and so on. There has to be flexibility in all parts of the Bill, including compliance.

Setting the compliance regime where we have, at the £10,000 maximum for the standard tier and the £18 million or 5% of worldwide revenue for the enhanced tier, mirrors some regulatory regimes in this space, so it is not unheard of. It also gives us the flexibility because when you consider the enhanced regime in particular, you are looking at venues that could go from 800-person capacity right through to 100,000-person capacity. That is quite unique in terms of what their revenue structures and so on will be in terms of how they will differ.

The regulator will have the ability to consider what is best when thinking about compliance and what can be imposed on a venue or an event. One of the things that they can take into consideration is the ability of the responsible person to pay the revenue costs. That will have to be considered. It is about giving us maximum flexibility because, as we have said, one of the challenges around this legislation is the uniqueness and the number of venues and the number of operating models that we are trying to consider.

Q How are the Government working with bodies within the scope of the Bill to plan and prepare for its implementation, and will there be enough time for organisations to prepare?

Dan Jarvis: Yes, we are confident that there will be enough time. Following Royal Assent, we expect the implementation period to be at least 24 months, and given the extensive consultation with stakeholders that has already taken place, that is very much a live process. It is not a process that will come to an end; it will continue throughout.

Having looked at this very carefully, the Home Secretary is particularly keen to ensure that we have an implementation period that will allow ample time for those businesses that will be affected to prepare properly. Yes, we are confident that all of the relevant safeguards are in place, but it is important that we continue to engage with businesses and other stakeholders.

That has been a productive process. As I have said, there have been two public consultations and I think there have been more than 100 stakeholder engagement events, with hundreds of businesses being engaged throughout that process. That will continue and we will make sure that all those businesses have the information that they require to implement the legislation.

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

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

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

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

No thank you, Dame Siobhain.

Q You talked about the proposal for the SIA to be the regulator. Why did you choose the SIA as the regulator? How should an organisation respond when it perceives that there is a conflict between what the SIA is asking it to do and what other legal rules, such as licensing, ask it to do?

Dan Jarvis: Let me pick up on the first bit of your question, then I will hand over to Debbie for the second bit. Clearly, this is an important role for the regulator, and there has been an ongoing debate for some time about how best to provide that regulatory authority. A number of options were considered by both the previous Government and this Government, and there were other ways of providing that regulatory authority. Clearly, we were mindful of the Cabinet Office guidance about how best to proceed in terms of the creation of new regulatory authorities, which is not recommended. We looked carefully at the current role and responsibility of the SIA, and the judgment taken was that it has or will have the necessary experience and skillset to provide that regulatory function. This is an important role, and Ministers will ultimately be accountable to Parliament for the performance of the regulator.

This is an important piece of regulation that does require that regulatory function. We as Ministers clearly wanted to satisfy ourselves that that is the most appropriate solution. Clearly, we have to consider other factors as well, such as cost. Having considered all those factors and looked clearly at the capacity and capability within the SIA, the judgment was made that it is the most appropriate body to take on this regulatory function, but it is important to say that clearly there will be ministerial oversight over that process. Ministers will be accountable to Parliament for the performance of the regulator, and this is a crucial part of the legislation.

I have to say that the feedback has been largely positive about the decision. There was a period of time initially when there was not clarity about the regulatory functions and who would provide that particular arms’-length-body regulatory function. The Government took the decision that the SIA was best placed to do that, and we think that that is the right solution.

Debbie Bartlett: We are absolutely alive to the fact that the SIA will have to align and work closely with a number of regulatory bodies, including those responsible for fire safety, licensing—as we heard from the gentleman before us—and health and safety, and with our other operational partners in this space, including the police, and industry themselves. There will be a lot of work to ensure that those regimes are complementary. We heard clearly from the gentleman about the concern of duplication. I do not think that is the case; it is actually about aligning. The licence regime is limited. That is why we felt this legislation was necessary over and above what is already out there.

Many of our venues and premises are already be aligned to things like health and safety and fire safety. Where possible, we have sought in the legislation to try to align and complement as much as possible. What we are asking of people should not be a huge surprise in terms of what has already been asked under those other regimes. They absolutely will have to align and, indeed, within the legislation, we are giving the SIA the powers to share information with other bodies as necessary in the delivery of their duties and those of other public bodies.

Q I want to follow up on thresholds. If I understand this correctly, there was previously this idea of capacity, and that has been changed to this idea of reasonable expectation. If I ran a venue that had a capacity of 220 people, could I decide to only ever sell 195 tickets and I am not caught? Is that how this will work?

Debbie Bartlett: That is correct. As long as you do not expect to have more than 190 individuals at your premises, you will not be considered in scope of the standard tier. Obviously, the regulator—the SIA—will have the powers to seek information that will justify some of that decision making. For some, and we have set this out in fact sheets, depending on how you justify that decision, it could be historical attendance data or your fire safety capacity data—it depends what you use—you will then have to present to justify that decision making.

Q But we have moved away from this literal idea of size and capacity.

Debbie Bartlett: Yes.