8 minute read
Protecting Public Venues: Martyn’s Law under scrutiny
Just weeks after being presented in the UK parliament, hard questions are being asked about the potential impact of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill on small businesses and voluntary organisations, writes chief editor Nicholas Dynon.
In June’s NZSM we reported on the new draft legislation released by the UK government requiring venues to be prepared for and ready to respond in the event of an attack
The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill sets out the requirements that venues and other organisations in the United Kingdom will have to meet to ensure public safety on their premises. It’s the culmination of several years of campaigning for ‘Martyn’s Law’, named after Martyn Hett who was killed alongside 21 others in the Manchester Arena terrorist attack in 2017.
In December 2022, it was announced that Martyn’s Law would introduce a tiered model for certain locations depending on the capacity of the premises or event and the activity taking place, in order to prevent unnecessary burden to business, particularly the many thousands of smaller retail businesses subject to the new requirements of the legislation.
According to a Home Affairs Select Committee conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of the Draft Bill, requirements proposed by the new law “will capture some small and micro-sized businesses, and community-run and voluntary groups, [and] could be disproportionate and burdensome.”
The new requirements: A recap
Under the legislation proposed to Parliament, a person responsible for a ‘qualifying public premises or event’ will be subject to a range of terrorism protection. “Qualifying public premises” include shops, restaurants, cafes and bars, nightclubs, premises used for entertainment activities, sports grounds, libraries, museums, galleries, exhibition halls, visitor attractions, hotels, places of worship, healthcare facilities, bus and railway stations, aerodromes, childcare facilities, schools, training establishments, and tertiary education facilities.
A tiered approach means that qualifying premises will fall under either a ‘standard’ or an ‘enhanced’ tier. The standard tier will apply to public premises with a maximum capacity of 100 or more people, while the enhanced tier would apply to premises and events with a maximum capacity of 800 or more.
Limited exemptions to the capacity requirements apply to education establishments and places of worship, and guidance and training materials will be available to premises with a capacity of under 100, should they want it.
Standard tier premises will be required to undertake basic, lowcost activities to improve their preparedness, including terrorism protection training and evaluating the best procedures to put in place in order to minimise impact.
Persons responsible for enhanced premises or events must implement “reasonably practicable security measures” to reduce the risk of, and harm caused by, terrorist acts occurring at or near the premises or event.
An inspection and enforcement regime is expected to promote the requirements for each tier. In the event of non-compliance, sanctions and ultimately penalties will be issued to premises.
The enforcement regime will include the issuing of contravention and restriction notices and financial penalties. For standard duty properties, this means fixed penalties up to a maximum of GBP 10,000, and for enhanced duty properties a maximum fixed penalty of the higher of GBP 18m or 5% of worldwide revenue.
Concerns raised
In May 2023, the Government invited the Home Affairs Select Committee to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny of the Draft Bill before it is formally introduced in Parliament later this year. On 27 July, the Select Committee published its report.
“Whilst we welcome the Government’s overall intention behind the Draft Bill, we have some serious concerns about the proportionality of the Bill, especially in relation to the impact on smaller businesses, voluntary and community-run organisations in the standard tier premises, where there is a lack of evidence that the Bill will adequately reduce the threat of terrorism for smaller organisations,” states the report.
“We also have some concerns about the unfinished provisions in the Draft Bill, the purpose of the Bill, the regulator and some of the duties required. There are a number of other areas in which we feel that the Draft Bill could be improved upon, including introducing a provision for mandatory life-saving training and statutory standards for the design of new buildings.”
In particular, concern was raised over the lack of rationale or any evidence for why capacity figures of 100 and 800 for standard and enhanced tier premises have been chosen, and why certain types of premises are excluded entirely.
“We wholly agree that larger venues—such as Manchester Arena— should be required to undertake the sort of measures set out in the Draft Bill. However, we are concerned that the capacity figure of 100 for standard tier premises, which will capture some small and micro-sized businesses, and community-run and voluntary groups, could be disproportionate and burdensome.
According to the Select Committee, this category is particularly troubling because it would include many smaller venues that may not have sufficient resources to cover costs of what is proposed.
“This category is particularly troubling because it would include many smaller venues that may not have sufficient resources to cover costs of what is proposed. It would also cover village halls, places of worship and similar amenities that provide vital community support, often on low budgets. If such places are forced to close down, this represents a win for terrorism, rather than an effective means of combatting it.”
One area of the draft legislation in particular that is identified as potentially problematic for religious and community organisations is the training requirement. According to the Bill, standard duty premises would be obliged to provide training to anyone who works at those premises, including volunteers and part-time workers.
“Both oral and written evidence raised concerns about the requirement for training set out in the Draft Bill,” stated the Select Committee report. “The Churches’ Legislation and Advisory Service and Cytun argued that the provision of training is “unlikely to be as straightforward in volunteer run premises, such as a church, as in premises where most workers are paid staff”.
According to the Select Committee, the Government should give further consideration to how voluntary run organisations might be impacted by the requirement to provide training and work with the sector to find a more suitable alternative to the current system of training outlined in the Draft Bill.
Staged implementation
Concurring with feedback provided by the Local Government Association, the Select Committee stated that the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill should be implemented in stages, starting with enhanced tier premises, and that extension of the law to cover standard tier premises should be made only after research suggests it’s warranted.
“A review should be conducted yearly and every time there is a terrorist attack to assess how well the legislation has worked in protecting against, preparing for and dealing with the attack. Research should also be undertaken on the threat of terrorism to small and micro-sized businesses. Should that research suggest there is sufficient benefit of extending the legislation to standard tier premises, then provision should be made to introduce the duties to those premises at the earliest opportunity.”
It is also recommended that the Government should consider what financial assistance may be necessary to support small and micro-businesses whose premises fall within the enhanced tier before introducing the Draft Bill to Parliament.
Another area of concern for the Select Committee is in relation to outdoor events. Open-air events such as Christmas markets, farmers markets and events that do not require express permission to attend but could be regular outdoor events attracting large crowds, appear to be excluded from the draft legislation.
“We note that terrorist attacks in recent years have included attacks on outdoor events, such as the terrorist attack in Berlin in 2016,” states the report. “On that occasion a terrorist hijacked and drove a truck into a Christmas market at Breitscheidplatz killing twelve people and injuring many others.”
All publicly accessible outdoor events are a prime target for terrorists, whether or not express permission is needed to enter. The Government should consider expanding the scope of the Draft Bill to include those outdoor events with a capacity of over 800 and where express permission and payment is not required to enter.
As it stands, the Select Committee is in agreement with a rating of the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill by the Regulatory Policy Committee (the UK Government’s independent regulatory scrutiny body) as “not fit for purpose”. “We draw this conclusion as the RPC does, because of the absence of evidence “that the proposal would reduce terrorism for small venues”.
