Tim Roca MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin by paying tribute to our rural communities, on this Armistice Day, for their efforts in both the principal wars of the last century. We know that those wars shaped our rural communities. They asked a lot of the countryside, and indeed the farming that we see today was very much impacted and shaped by the events of the conflict at the beginning of the last century. I thank the Government for holding this important debate on rural affairs. As we have heard, there is a rich seam of topics to discuss, including public transport, connectivity, the appalling state of rural NHS dentistry and the depletion of the wildlife in our countryside. Later this evening, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) has an important Adjournment debate on mental health in rural areas, and I congratulate her on securing it. I want to talk briefly about rural crime, because many of us will have constituents who have been affected by it. What I have found most shocking recently, in Macclesfield and in Cheshire as a whole, are the potential links to the war in Ukraine. Since 2022 there has been an increase in, particularly, the theft of GPS units from Cheshire’s farm vehicles by organised gangs from eastern Europe, and the resulting insurance claims for the units increased by 137% last year alone. Each one of those units costs a staggering £20,000. Farmers use them to guide tractors, combine harvesters and other machinery to improve accuracy. It is now feared that they are being stolen and reconfigured as hardware in guidance systems being used in war in the other side of the continent. Cheshire’s police and crime commissioner has specifically drawn attention to the direct correlation between the vast increase in thefts and the start of the war in Ukraine. I commend the Government for instituting a cross-governmental rural crime strategy, but, along with other Members who spoke about this earlier, I call on them to do more to improve the security of essential farm equipment by working with manufacturers, because that is a practical measure that we can take. We need not only immobilisation technology but forensic marking on this gear, so that it can be tracked through the labyrinth of organised criminal gangs. I hope, having drawn attention to this practical and salient issue, that we have a chance not only to stop the rural crime that is damaging our communities and costing them a great deal of money—I believe that more than £4 million was shelled out by National Farmers Union insurers last year—but to stop the illegal flow of systems fuelling a war in another part of our continent.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Uyghur and Turkic Muslims: Forced Labour in China · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) for securing this important debate and for setting the tragic scene so well regarding the appalling human rights abuses occurring in Xinjiang against Uyghur and Turkic peoples. Those abuses have been perpetrated on an unimaginable scale. They are crimes against humanity, which this House clearly resolved form part of a genocide. I pay tribute to hon. Members who have been speaking out and speaking up on this issue and who are suffering the consequences from the Chinese state through sanctions and other effects. Many hon. Members are familiar with the dreadful situation in Xinjiang, but I suspect that very few people outside this place realise how complicit many companies are in their use of supply chains that involve forced labour. Those supply chains touch on many industries, as my hon. Friend pointed out, but I will focus on the automotive industry. The Helena Kennedy centre at Sheffield Hallam University, which I commend, has done lots of research on the matter and has documented clearly the links between automotive industry supply chains and forced labour in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region. Its claim, as profound as it is harrowing, is that anyone in the UK who has bought a new car in the last five years will have benefited from a product that was produced with forced labour. It found that the Chinese Government have deliberately shifted raw materials, mining, processing and auto-parts manufacturing into the region, making international supply chains captive to repressive programmes and systematic forced labour. The investigation found massive and expanding links between western car brands and those abuses in everything from hood decals, car frames, engine casings, interiors and electronics to the raw materials involved. A combination of the weak enforcement of forced labour laws, the Government’s perceived blind eye to environmental standards in China in the past and convoluted supply chains has left the industry reliant on abusive suppliers. Every car brand—Volkswagen, BMW, Honda, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Tesla—is at risk of sourcing from companies linked to those abuses. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is not just cars; the issues permeate many other sectors, with Sheffield Hallam University’s forced labour lab finding links between the cotton garment and solar panel industries and the use of forced labour. There is some light. In September, the Court of Appeal removed certain legal barriers to investigations into businesses suspected of profiting from alleged forced labour in China, but that was after the National Crime Agency formally declined to investigate companies accused of importing cotton into the UK that might have benefited from forced labour. That is just the tip of the iceberg. We have to go further. Companies themselves need to conduct thorough reviews of supply chains with their procurement teams, down to the raw materials, and suppliers should remove themselves from contracts with companies that have engaged in the use of forced labour. The only way to ensure that a company is not sourcing goods made with forced labour is not to buy anything from suppliers that are willing to use forced labour anywhere in their operations and to take a risk-averse approach where there is any chance that that might be the case. The Government should consider enacting and implementing mandatory human rights due diligence laws—we have heard about legislation and regulation being passed in the United States—in recognition of the fact that abuses can be easily distanced from direct suppliers under state-controlled economic systems. Forced labour import bans are a necessary complement to mandatory human rights due diligence, especially where state-sponsored repression effectively prevents companies from conducting the on-the-ground assessments that they would usually do of forced labour risks. If companies and the Government adopt robust and thorough mechanisms to look at their supply chains, we will eventually see divestment from firms that endorse state-sponsored repression, and send a clear message to the Chinese Communist Government that their treatment of Uyghurs and Turkic peoples is wholly unacceptable. It has been pointed out that we play a key role in the international community: we are a leading industrialised country and a member of the G7, and people will look to us to set an example in how we approach these affairs. In the best British tradition, we should be upholding human rights in every sphere that we can.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Peak Forest and Macclesfield Canals · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for your service in the Chair today, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for securing this important debate on a valued public amenity. The Macclesfield and Peak Forest canals both mean a lot to me, not just because they are in my constituency, but because I am familiar with them from childhood—from walking my first dog down by the Peak Forest canal in Disley, plugged into my Walkman and listening to the Spice Girls, to using it now for rest and relaxation after a trying week here in Westminster. It matters to many of my constituents as well. A third of Macclesfield sits within the Peak District national park, and the canals that run through our countryside add to the beauty of the area that I represent. The Macclesfield canal is the first in the world to receive the coveted Green Flag award under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s scheme to recognise and reward well-managed parks and green spaces. The award is judged on eight strict criteria, including environmental standards, cleanliness, sustainability and community involvement. It is no wonder that the Macclesfield canal has hit that high standard, especially considering the tireless hours that volunteers put into maintaining it. I pay tribute to the volunteers involved in maintaining our wonderful canals. The beauty of the canal is further enhanced by the impressive and historical buildings and places of interest located alongside it. The hon. Member mentioned some of them, but I draw attention to those in my neck of the woods, including the Clarence and Adelphi mills in Bollington and the famous Hovis mill in Macclesfield, and my mum would be disappointed if I did not mention her home, which sits alongside the Peak Forest canal. Our canals are not only beautiful green spaces; their significance as a network that provides jobs, homes, transportation and a thriving habitat for wildlife cannot be overestimated. What is especially heartbreaking is the threat that our canals face because of the ongoing financial strain on the Canal and River Trust, which is a legacy of the last Conservative Government. Cuts to CRT funding by 2027 will amount to more than £300 million. That is against a backdrop of mixed performance and some boater dissatisfaction with the CRT. Boaters in my constituency have raised real concerns with me. They deserve to be treated fairly and to receive the services they need. The increase in the cost of boat licences and surcharges for those without a fixed home mooring risks a way of life that thousands have chosen. Continuous cruisers often have the lowest incomes, but are being asked to pay more. I am sympathetic, as I know other hon. Members are, because the costs that the CRT is passing on are a result of austerity. Sadly, as we have been discovering since the election in July, there are pressures across many aspects of public life that are a consequence of the inheritance from the last Government. I am pleased to have been appointed last month to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which had its first meeting yesterday. I know that canals are high on the Committee’s agenda and that we will be speaking to the CRT in the coming weeks and months. I am grateful to be in a position to advocate for canals and for rural communities, both in general and for my Macclesfield constituents in particular, to ensure that rightful environmental concerns are heard and that we protect our cherished countryside and our amazing canals. I commend the hon. Member for Hazel Grove again for securing the debate.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  The first Labour Budget in 14 years needs us to take a clear-eyed view of what has been inherited. Looking at the Conservative legacy for our country, we see: terrible, almost non-existent, average earnings growth; lower productivity per worker hour than in every G7 country besides Italy; GDP per capita growth stalling for the longest time since the end of the war; record debt; high taxes; and poor public services. The lack of growth in real wages is unprecedented in the last 200 years of British economic history. That is the Conservatives’ record, and that is what they have to face up to. Particularly savage, as hon. Members have pointed out, were the cuts to public investment. The Conservative Government inherited a debt-to-GDP ratio in 2010 of 65%. Ten years later, pre-covid, it was 83%. The Conservative Government promised to eliminate the deficit in 2010; then they promised to eliminate it in the 2015 and 2017 elections; and then they gave up the ghost entirely in the 2019 election. After that dazzling record, we were treated to the Liz Truss magic—Liz, a prophet currently not recognised in her own land. She presented a mini-Budget with £45 billion of unfunded tax cuts. There were no forecasts—the Conservatives like the Office for Budget Responsibility today, but they did not like OBR then—and we know what happened. We saw Tory chaos, and we can never go back to that. When my right hon. Friend came to office as Chancellor of the Exchequer and looked under the hood, what did she find? More chaos: unfunded policy decisions; undisclosed pressures; and overspends. The OBR listed them. The previous Government promised but did not allocate a penny for the £10 billion infected blood compensation scheme. They promised but did not budget for the £2 billion Horizon Post Office scandal. I am glad to see stability and common sense finally return. There are fiscal rules that make sense and will be adhered to; we are bringing the current budget into balance, so that we do not borrow to fund day-to-day spending; and we are moving to a proper recognition of net financial debt that takes into account investment that delivers. Those sound, sensible decisions put us on a sustainable path. Compare that to a Conservative party that would rather we continued “to founder under old habits, rotting institutions,” and that is content for Britain’s hull to be “encrusted with nostalgia”, and for us to drift off into the 21st century.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I will not; I have only 25 seconds left. That is the story of national decline that the Conservative party was writing for our country. We will not stand for it. We are going to build a better, greener, fairer future for our country.

• 5 Nov 2024 · NHS Dentistry: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I share the astonishment of other Members that not a single Conservative Member is here, in a debate on NHS dentistry in rural areas. I am a bit old-fashioned and I want a functioning Opposition. It is sad that they are not here to take part in this debate. When I contacted surgeries in Macclesfield to find out the state of play, 15 said that they do not accept NHS patients at all. That is the legacy that the Conservatives have left us. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will move urgently and quickly on NHS dentistry reform?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Fair enough. But I will speak to clause 1 of the Bill. I will focus on small businesses, because we heard a lot in the evidence session about the impact on them. They are the lifeblood of our economy and key contributors to keeping our high streets vital and thriving. It is important to reflect on the evidence we heard about the impact that the Bill will have on small businesses, particularly what Mayor Andy Burnham said about the experience they have had in Greater Manchester already. The city council in Manchester held partnership sessions with large and small businesses alike—over 2,000 people across 10 sessions representing 700 businesses. They then held the tabletop discussions that Figen Murray talked about, including with large spaces such as the Printworks, all the way down to small independent restaurants. The response of those businesses was clear. They believe that there is a need for the legislation, and they do not believe that the provisions are prohibitively onerous. They believe that, at most, it would cost them two hours of staff time. I will quote from Gareth Worthington, the night time economy officer at CityCo and Manchester business improvement district, which I am happy to place in the Library: “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.” Businesses recognise that their first duty is to keep their patrons safe, and that sensible practical measures can be taken to reduce the chance of harm. Businesses are aware of the threats out there. The Minister alluded to those when he spoke: 43 late-stage terrorist plots foiled, and in the last year the number of state-threat investigations launched by the security services increased by 48%. The practical measures in the Bill are necessary, reasonable and proportionate. Finally, I want to talk about Figen Murray, as she is one of my constituents. I cannot put it better than the way Mayor Andy Burnham phrased it: “Figen responded to an awful, evil act of hate, with love…Everything she has done since losing her son has been about making the world a better place in his memory.” He also said: “Through her work with young people and her campaign for Martyn’s Law, she is helping to prevent future tragedies and give every parent peace of mind. She is a real icon of Greater Manchester.” I am proud that she is one of my constituents.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge is withdrawing his amendment.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to speak briefly to the point about thresholds, which has just been discussed. The consultations prior to the Bill were based on a threshold of 100 at the standard tier, and I welcome the ability the Bill gives the Secretary of State to reduce the threshold back to that, should the evidence warrant that. I think Members will be reassured by some of the safeguards the Minister has just talked about, which would have to be in place before any such change happened. In the protect duty public consultation, half of respondents thought that the threshold should be 100. Moving it to 200 has already taken 100,000 premises out of the scope of the legislation, leaving 180,000 within it. Raising the threshold to 300 would in effect remove the standard tier altogether. Figen has been very clear on this point: “Raising the threshold of 200 even higher would mean that proportionality would no longer exist”. She has also pointed out that in her small town of Poynton, in my constituency, a threshold of 200 would already mean that not a single venue is covered by this legislation. A move to 300 would therefore be a mistake and fatal to the purpose of the Bill.

• 31 Oct 2024 · LGBT Veterans Independent Review · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) for securing this debate. He is proving himself to be a powerful advocate for his constituency. May I also welcome my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister to his place, and thank him for all the work he does? He is a credit to the Government. Finally, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to speak this afternoon. The very fact that we have to hold this debate is a reminder that there was once a time when a person’s ability to serve was questioned because of the person they loved. Discrimination against any LGBT person is of course appalling, but it takes a special kind of cynicism and bigotry to punish, denigrate and demean volunteer servicemen and women—soldiers who served willingly, fought beside their peers willingly, and in some cases died or were injured in the line of duty—because of their sexuality. There was never any excuse for the laws being what they were. There was no justification on account of ability in combat, no rationale based on individual discipline, and no standards that those servicemen and women could not and did not reach. The laws existed simply because of a fear of difference, and an intolerance of LGBT people. It was inexcusable. It is worth reflecting on the sad truth that there used to be consensus about those laws. Shamefully, in 1996—quite recently—a cross-party Select Committee rejected calls for the removal of the ban, but it is important to note that 30 years on, there is a new consensus. Before, brave individuals such as naval officer Duncan Lustig-Prean, RAF sergeant Graeme Grady, RAF nurse Jeanette Smith and Navy weapons engineer John Beckett had to stand alone, but now this place is united in condemnation of that policy and—alongside the phenomenal charities that have been referenced, such as Fighting With Pride—supports the thousands of LGBT soldiers, sailors and airmen in our armed forces. I am pleased to say that a member of my new team here in Parliament is an Army reservist and has seen in his own military career an improvement in attitudes towards himself and other LGBT+ colleagues. It is a journey, but it is worth acknowledging that things are improving. Instead of being seen as a threat and a source of disruption, difference is seen as an advantage. Celebrating difference and diversity of thought, avoiding group-think and fostering a “thinking soldier” environment are parts of a wider conceptual component that gives our military an edge. It is not enough simply to say that we tolerate LGBT people in our military or our society. We value their unique contribution to our forces. However, even though we are far beyond the ban of the ’90s, we need to support those whom we let down. I am worried, as other hon. Members are, that a cap was placed on the compensation scheme for the 4,000 veterans that lost their careers because of institutional bigotry by the British state. I agree with my hon. Friends: how can £12,400 be deemed sufficient compensation for someone’s own chaplain initiating an investigation and subsequent interrogation of them by the Special Investigation Branch? The British state treated many thousands of people with contempt in exchange for their willingness to serve. It exposed them to state-sanctioned, institutionalised homophobia and to discharge, leaving them isolated from their friends and family. I am glad that we are building a new consensus, but let us go a step further and make sure that those 4,000 brave, selfless servicemen and women get the compensation and redress that they deserve. And they are only the ones we know about. How many more managed by hiding their true selves? How many more denied their true self to themselves? We must do right by these people. Finally, as we approach Remembrance Day, I hope that we can all add to our reflections a moment for LGBT veterans specifically. I will be thinking of Edward Brittain. Edward was born in Macclesfield, my constituency. At 21, as a temporary lieutenant in the Sherwood Foresters, Edward fought in the battle of the Somme. He was injured twice, shot in the arm and then in the right thigh on 1 June 1916. His gallantry won him the Military Cross, just as the Minister’s did. Edward’s citation was precise and understated: “For conspicuous gallantry and leadership during an attack. He was severely wounded, but continued to lead his men with great bravery and coolness until a second wound disabled him.” On returning to the front, he was tipped off by his commanding officer that he would face a court martial when he came out of the line, as Army censors had read in his personal correspondence that he had had an intimate relationship with a man in his company. On 15 June 1918, as Edward led his company on a counter-attack on the Asagio plateau to recapture a trench and stop an enemy advance, he was shot and killed by an enemy sniper. He was 22 years old. Whether he deliberately put himself in a position to be killed, as his sister and his CO believed, is unknowable, but what is knowable is that had Edward come out of the line alive between 15 June 1918 and 12 January 2000, he would have been court-martialled and shamed by the country he had shed blood for. Edward had a Military Cross. He was shot twice at the Battle of the Somme, but returned to the front and led his men with bravery. However, none of that mattered—he would have been considered a disruption to the unit. Let me be the first person in this place to thank Captain Edward Brittain MC for his service. He deserved better from his country.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is really helpful. Thank you.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It does. Thank you.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I guess that in universities, lots of student unions run venues. Student unions are separate from, but part of, universities. What conversations have you had, or not had, with student union colleagues to make sure that they are aware of the legislation and its impact? Gary Stephen: To give some context around that question, many higher education organisations are in a town and gown setting where the university is a small town in itself that is integrated into a busy part of the city. There are challenges of having multiple buildings with thousands of staff, students and tenants—elite sports clubs or teams; nightclubs, which you are referring to, which is where the GUU, the student union, comes into it; or commercial properties and theatres within the campus footprint. There could be confusion as to who is responsible for those buildings. The conversations we have had initially are that they are looking to us for guidance. Most higher education organisations own the buildings and then lease them out to the smaller organisations. On the discussions we have had with them, the more premises around our institutions comply with the legislation, especially the smaller hospitality venues, the more protected our students and staff will be, both in and out of the academic setting. With that in mind, the original standard tier threshold of 100 people would be more beneficial for the Bill in my opinion. That would bring a lot more of those premises into scope and more venues would be prepared to deal with incidents. Does that answer your question?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry, Ms McDonagh—I was going to ask a question.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q No, it is my fault. I wanted to just ask a quick question about penalties. Do our witnesses have any views on what is outlined around penalties? Kate Nicholls: We do have some concerns about what is outlined around penalties. There are some gaps in the legislation. We know there will be secondary regulations and that there will be detail coming through in the guidance about the remit of the inspectors and the enforcement powers contained in the Bill, the level of fines and the powers available to people. We recognise this is a very serious situation, but there is an interrelationship between the Licensing Act, where you can have accelerated closure powers that could remove a licence entirely, and this piece of legislation, as well as the very high fines that could come through for the enhanced tier, particularly for those who are globally-based businesses. They are quite—eye-watering, shall we say? There is a need to work with the industry. We appreciate that the Bill team and Ministers have worked with us to make some flexibility changes to the legislation as it has come through. We would also welcome the opportunity to work on this area, particularly around fines and the scaling of fines, the penalties that could be imposed, the way powers could be used, and the checks and balances around that enforcement mechanism, particularly to do with appeals and the ability to trade pending appeal, because there is a significant impact on a business if it is closed.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr Frost, can I ask you to talk a little bit about what the day-to-day impact would be on the stores that you are responsible for, in practical terms? John Frost: In our organisation, regardless of any capacities, we would adopt an approach across all of our locations. The rationale for that would be that, having suffered incidents of this nature in sites, stores or premises that are below the threshold that has been set out, we would feel that there would be a moral obligation, as well as the legislative obligation, to equip all of our stores. Therefore, we will have our own inspectorate across stores in the enhanced tiers, but we will ensure that our management teams are trained, engaged, educated and equipped proportionately to respond to acts of this nature in every site that we operate in.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I worked in higher education, so I know that there are quite a lot of regulators already knocking around. I wondered what your view was about the SIA being designated as the regulator, as far as the legislation is concerned. Gary Stephen: I am aware that in some parts of the security industry, the SIA has a poor reputation when it comes to the enforcement of licensed premises. But from the information provided to me, and with the creation of a separate entity within the SIA to manage the enforcement of new legislation, it is comforting. Looking at the alternatives, it seems like the most practical and logical appointment on the face of it.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to ask specifically about compliance notices. Why does the offence of failing to comply with a compliance notice apply only to enhanced-duty premises? Debbie Bartlett: Again, that goes back to the proportionality aspect of the legislation and what we are actually asking of standard-tier premises. For standard-tier premises what the Bill requires is around putting in place protective security procedures. It is not asking as much as it is of enhanced-tier premises. We did not feel that it was appropriate to put in place restriction notices that could be conceived of as being more burdensome for those smaller businesses and smaller premises.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you for your evidence. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, said of the 2023 draft Bill that “careful attention” needs to be given to the risk of “displacing attacks from locations within scope of the Bill to a location out of scope”. Do you want to comment on that? Then I will invite you to talk about thresholds, since you said that you had some thoughts on that. Matt Jukes: Without making assumptions about terrorist intent, we know that there are some very enduring themes about attacks on public locations, major events and crowded places. Disrupting that through better protective measures or through better informed responses will remain an enduring feature, even if there is absolutely at the margins displacement. We see from our casework that there is evidence that better-protected targets sometimes do deflect terrorists to other targets or locations for their intent. We have seen some evidence of that. The relevance of this Bill—I have already touched on it—serves to shift the whole of societal awareness in terms of vigilance and preparedness and increase protection overall. If there is displacement from one place to another, it is more likely still as a result of this—if this Bill were to pass and be enacted—that there will be a state of readiness, preparedness and deterrent in those other places. Tragically, the kinds of sectors and sites that have been in the sights of terrorists are much more susceptible to their ideology and their intent than they are to the shape of a particular Bill or legislation. Sadly, for example, places of worship will endure as a potential target. For those who are fixated on targeting places of worship, it is more likely that they might desist from a particular attack or that that venue would be better prepared. There are examples from around the world. We have lots of practice in the UK where security at places of worship actually has saved lives. So I recognise Jonathan Hall’s reflections. Any sense of a rising tide of awareness and preparedness will serve to secure communities. I suspect that displacement is something that we can have in view and will continue to work at, but not something we should be preoccupied by. I would say, because it goes to thresholds, if I may bridge to that point, that there is an area of attention we need to apply to those places that are filled with smaller venues, but create big spaces. If you think of the big public squares in London, they may be surrounded by premises with a capacity of 100, but overall they create spaces that are very significant and iconic. For that reason, going into the earlier evidence, we felt that the thresholds proposed previously were helpful, as they capture the scale of the premises that can be taken together. I could reel off the names of those squares; you would know which ones they are. I do not really want to give a target list to terrorists, but it is fairly obvious that there is a set of places across major cities in particular and towns where premises of 100 sit alongside each other and build up quite substantial public crowded places. For that reason, we felt that 100 was a sensible place to start. You have to draw the line somewhere, and that felt like it. If we are to move upwards, we lose some of those premises, such as the bars, clubs and restaurants that would have been in Borough market, which might have been captured and therefore contributed to overall safety in that environment and may be missed. On thresholds, we are anxious about the effective moving further upwards and if there was any further consideration would have preferred that to move back down to where the earlier drafts had started.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr Leggett, could you give your views on the change of the venue capacity threshold from 100 to 200? Jeremy Leggett: Yes. We welcome the threshold’s being raised, but I should go into a little bit of technical detail. When the threshold was set at 100, it would have included pretty much all the 10,000 or so village halls in England. That is largely to do with the village hall dimensions you need for short mat bowls and a badminton court, which give you a theatre-style capacity of a little over a hundred. Whether that capacity is ever used in that way is very questionable. So, certainly following the introduction of the Bill after the supplementary consultation on the standard tier, we welcomed the threshold’s being raised, but more because it took a lot of those village halls where the legislation would be most problematic out of scope. I am more than happy to go further into why it is problematic for them if you wish.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The Home Office’s estimated costs are just over £3,000 for the standard tier. We heard this morning from a number of witnesses about the exercises that Manchester has done with a really wide range of businesses there, all the way from Depot Mayfield, which has a capacity of more than 30,000, to small and medium-sized nightclubs, such as Matt and Phred’s, Band on the Wall and hotels. I was struck by the information I saw from Manchester city council saying that in those desktop exercises, it was unanimous that the financial impact and operational issues were not actually that onerous in the view of the people attending those sessions. I would say that that sounds quite positive. Can you comment on that? Jon Collins: I think that is a by-product of the fact that we operate with licences and have partnerships with local authorities that go back decades. The variable that we do not want to introduce is for an inspector to come to a venue or festival and insert new requirements with no appeal, which they can do at the moment on the balance of probabilities, and disrupt that well-established way of working between the venue and the regulator. On the Home Office’s costs, the difference between the low-end cost and the high-end cost for the total bill is eightfold—it is around £593 million and up to £4 billion. That tells you just how open-ended a lot of this legislation is at the moment. Trying to work out compliance costs and so on can therefore be a challenge, but the Manchester experience is common to our work with local authorities up and down the country.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q That is from the point of view of your industry, but we are also talking about places of worship, schools and other places. Melvin Benn: Obviously, I am speaking from the point of view of my industry. But it is an industry that is quite grown up and has an incredibly good safety record. In our view, adding to what already exists would have been in some ways a simpler route. There would then be something separate for unlicensed premises. The fact that the Bill almost ignores the existence of licensed premises is a little bit of a failure. That is where we see conflict—and we do see conflict—not with the overall aim, of course, but there are two jockeys on the horse at some points. That is where you are going to get to, and when there are two jockeys on a horse, that horse never wins. At least, I have never backed one that won.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Investor Confidence · Hansard source

  More

  9. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of recent fiscal events on investor confidence in the UK.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Investor Confidence · Hansard source

  More

  When does the Chancellor think that the Conservative party lost its fiscal credibility? Was it with the Liz Truss mini-Budget? [ Interruption. ] Was it when national debt rose from 65% to nearly 100% of GDP? Or was it when they made the farcical promise to abolish national insurance?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I reiterate your comments, Dame Siobhain, about the admiration we all hold for Figen and Brendan and for the campaigning that they have done. Figen is a constituent of mine and I know we are all very proud of her in Macclesfield. May I ask you, Figen, what you think is the most important element of this Bill? Figen Murray: I think it is that as many places as possible are covered. We as a campaign team are concerned about the threshold, if I am honest. I live in a small town —more like a village—and with the original 100 threshold, quite a few of the restaurants as well as the little theatre we have and the pubs would have been covered under the law. With the change in the threshold, my little town is now not coming into scope at all and is completely not secure under Martyn’s law. It concerns me. The change from the 100 threshold to 200 will exclude about 100,000 premises. It feels like quite a lot now no longer need to be within that scope. It worries me.