Security Industry Act - New clause 2, Amendments 25-28

Intervened to express concern that without clear regulations and guidelines, businesses may face heavy fines due to uncertainty. Suggested the amendment helps cement clarity.

Welcomed the Minister to his place and thanked him for courtesy. Noted that other measures burden small businesses, and argued this amendment allows venues to plan and ensure not too much money goes out. Raised concern about the 'responsible person' element creating unnecessary bureaucracy.

Agreed that proportionality is important, stating it's inappropriate for small community venues to worry about cost and bureaucracy involved. Argued the amendment should be supported.

Argued that the Bill’s provisions are appropriate for venues below the enhanced tier, stating they are proportionate, low-cost, not onerous, and prompt organisations to think about preventing attacks.

Expressed concern that the 'responsible person' element spreads fear among volunteers in small parish churches. Noted the risk of unintended consequences leading to closure of community infrastructure spaces.

Welcomed the fact that the Bill increases capacity from 100 to 200, noting the previous limit set by his government.

Suggested increased scrutiny through new clause 1 is right to ensure review and evidence gathering. Emphasised that this would help know if the legislation is correct.

Argued that while cross-party work should be cognisant of small businesses, adopting the shadow Minister’s amendments might cause disproportionate impacts and reduce proportionality.

Met hospitality business representatives concerned about clarity and uncertainty. Noted the importance of an 18-month review to assess whether legislation is making venues safer.

Welcomes progress of the Bill, citing recent terror attacks and late-stage plots foiled by security services. Acknowledges the need for businesses to keep people safe through sensible measures. Highlights positive feedback from Manchester city council exercises involving 700 businesses and 2,000 people who supported the measures as proportionate and non-onerous. Emphasises the importance of training and evacuation procedures, quoting Gareth Worthington's views on venue operator responsibilities. Supports thresholds set in the Bill, considering them reasonable and any tweaks a watering down of provisions. Praises Figen Murray for her advocacy.

Supports new clause 2, which addresses the issue of inadequate training at smaller venues and would ensure staff are prepared to keep the public safe. He acknowledges concerns about financial impact but proposes a practical training plan to minimise it. Requests clarity on requirements for outdoor events and training costs.

Questions whether volunteers in small venues would be put off by the thought of having to go through a training course, implementing a training plan and other aspects of new clause 2. Suggests that such measures may not be desirable for small venues.

Expresses concern about funding the training required by new clause 2, noting that small venues like village halls struggle to make a couple of hundred pounds a year. Wonders how such venues could afford further training.

Questions whether the hon. Member should have an idea of financial and other implications for organisations that would have to comply with new clause 2 since he proposed it.

Concerned about cumulative impact of additional duties on volunteers who are already burdened by significant training requirements for safeguarding roles. Expresses doubt that volunteers can handle further costs and responsibilities.

The Bill will ensure that venues, businesses, local authorities and communities work together to create a robust front against terrorism. It is important for public safety and security, fostering trust in places where people gather, work, and celebrate. The legislation addresses evolving terrorist threats and ensures consistent, comprehensive security practices across sectors. I support the amendment as it formalises efforts already undertaken by various organisations.

[Intervention] The hon. Friend's speech is excellent, particularly regarding venue manager responsibilities in outdoor public spaces under the new regulatory framework.

[Intervention] While supporting the Bill's proposals, I am concerned about the need to ensure Prevent is targeted at real threats. The decrease in Prevent referrals for Islamist radicalisation raises questions about effectiveness.

[Intervention] While supporting shared responsibility, I am worried that untrained people might take matters into their own hands, potentially leading to vigilantism.

Holmes supports new clause 1 and amendments 25 and 27, expressing concerns about regulatory burdens on small venues such as community theatres and charities. He emphasises the need for a review process to ensure that the SIA operates effectively and proportionately without overburdening smaller organisations with limited resources.

Spencer interjects, expressing concern about the situation facing small football clubs that operate on tiny budgets. He suggests these clubs will be adversely affected by some of the provisions in the Bill.

Cross interjects, agreeing with Holmes that new clause 1 is about ensuring the proposals work correctly. She emphasises the importance of proper regulation to ensure the Bill's effective implementation.

Evans interjects, questioning Holmes about resources available in the new SIA regulator for assessments. He highlights the importance of ensuring the regulator is staffed and funded appropriately to ensure accountability.

Murray supports the Bill due to its ability to prevent terrorist attacks, minimise casualties post-attack, and provide a light-touch burden for smaller venues. He emphasises the importance of pre-attack planning and preparation, highlighting the need for small venues to be included in security measures. Murray argues that the Bill is proportionate and beneficial as it equips event organisers with necessary tools to manage potential attacks.

Farnsworth agrees with Murray’s assessment of the Bill's proportionality. She cites Andy Burnham’s evidence that the burden caused by a terrorist attack far outweighs any additional administrative load imposed by the legislation.

Timothy raises concerns about the asylum system, suggesting reforms to prevent individuals with potential criminal backgrounds from entering and being granted asylum, highlighting the case of Salman Abedi who was responsible for the Manchester bombing.

Evans suggests that smaller venues can work together to share best practices on security, which could strengthen overall safety measures during events such as those in Edinburgh.

Wilson argues that the Bill places an excessive burden on event organizers by creating a security obligation before and during events, rather than just after incidents have occurred.

Supports the legislation and acknowledges its importance in preventing terrorist attacks. Emphasises that churches, charities, and community groups should have a plan to deal with potential threats but highlights the need for these organisations to be provided with support and training to ensure they can comply without fear. Concerned about the impact on smaller churches outside mainstream denominations which may lack organisational structures to help them implement necessary measures.

The Bill is a fitting tribute to victims of terrorist attacks, particularly Martyn Hett. It aims to make public spaces safer by requiring practical steps for preparedness against terrorism. Since 2017, there have been 43 late-stage attacks disrupted but also 15 domestic terror attacks highlighting the ongoing threat. The Bill is about supporting our intelligence services and ensuring proportionate measures are in place.

Supports cross-party consensus but raises concerns over the initial proposal for a capacity threshold of 100 people, which he argues would have disproportionate impacts on community buildings. Commends the Government for raising this to 200 but is concerned about future regulations allowing it to revert to 100 without reason. Proposes setting minimum thresholds of 200 and 500 respectively.

Mike Wood supports new clauses 25 and 26, which aim to maintain appropriate thresholds for venues affected by terrorism prevention measures. He cites an example of Brierley Hill Civic in Dudley, a medium-sized venue run by volunteers that typically hosts events with fewer than 800 attendees. Concerns are raised about the potential financial and practical burden on volunteer-run organisations if the threshold is lowered to 500 people. Wood argues for sticking to the current thresholds as set out in the Bill, emphasising the need to avoid unnecessary burdens on venues that do not require them.

Supports new clause 1 but has concerns about its practicality and impact. Believes legislation may deter people from participating in community events due to increased regulations and potential financial burdens. Argues for monitoring the effects over time before fully implementing strict measures.

Congratulated the Minister on the Bill, highlighting its role in planning increased survivability for those impacted by an attack. Asked what efforts will be made to improve support for victims of terrorism.

Asked the Minister to commit to considering changes in guidance and regulation as necessary, sensitive to changing threat circumstances.

Expressed concerns over the role of the Security Industry Authority as a regulator and pressed new clause 1 to a Division despite supporting the objectives of the Bill.

Vickers acknowledges the tragic events of recent years but highlights the positive work done by people like Figen Murray to enact change. He supports the implementation of 'Martyn's law' and emphasises the need for collaboration between venues, organisations, and the Government in ensuring safety. Vickers expresses a willingness to work with the government on passing and implementing the bill.