The prospects for Martyn’s Law have been transformed in five months, writes Mark Rowe. Now what?
To recap; in May, campaigner Figen Murray felt impelled to march (with husband Stuart and well-wishers) some 200 miles from the Manchester Arena to London (pictured, walking on the last stage towards Downing Street) to make the case yet again to the politicians at Westminster for Martyn’s Law, a legal responsibility on premises to counter terrorism. In September, that law got introduced to the House of Commons, and looks set to become law in 2025. I would like to examine here two things: assuming the law gets passed, the work by several hundred, maybe a few thousand, people at the Security Industry Authority (SIA) and those in the security and counter-terror policing sector that they draw on, to build the framework to turn the legal phrases of Martyn’s Law into something that hundreds of thousands of premises have to comply with, or face punishment; and the yet larger work of compliance, that will land on the desks of perhaps hundreds of thousands of premises managers. That first job of work will take a couple of years; the second, a couple of years more, and indeed the work of complying ought never to finish, for the threat of terrorism is unpredictable, whether the target or the method of attack, and any site’s security measures will need to be kept under review.
I am asking those I meet, security practitioners and even SIA people, a loaded question; do they think that the security sector, let alone wider society, knows what a big deal Martyn’s Law will be, the biggest deal for the security industry since the SIA itself began badging hundreds of thousands of people in the mid-2000s? Many agree that security people, and society, have not grasped it; indeed, many who will have the task of compliance with it, will not have heard of it yet.
While the SIA has in public not made more than the barest comment – as is only proper, because as an arm’s length body of the Home Office, it’s not for the SIA to anticipate the will of Parliament – the project work, or at least the thinking about the project, ought to and has begun. At the Olympia Expo, Home Office official Shaun Hipgrave spoke of a 24-month period of bringing in the law. That sounds barely right for the SIA comparison, as its launch conference was in April 2004, the Private Security Industry Act having been passed at the very end of the 1997 to 2001 first Tony Blair term, and badging of door staff and other licensable sectors came in, in stages and regions, over 2006 and 2007. Add the parts of Martyn’s Law outside the power of the SIA; as the Olympia Expo heard last week, counter-terror police at Nactso are at work on a ‘specialist register’ (to quote the head of Nactso, Supt Amanda King) of consultants and others who show that they are subject matter experts, and have the skills to advise the likely hundreds of thousands of premises how to comply with Martyn’s Law (what pieces of physical kit or document-writing are required; or, that premises are already secured well enough, which shall still require documenting). That register implies Nactso’s second job; a level three qualification aimed at the security practitioner, ‘to provide that confidence that they can assess risk and start looking at how to mitigate’ those risks. Supt King described it as part of Nactso’s ‘protective security change programme’. While affairs of counter-terrorism have to remain opaque for obvious operational reasons, that does mean that the SIA, the security industry and society lack the levers to ask Nactso to hurry up, or the least knowledge about how fast or well Nactso are at work on all this.
It means many consultants having to take an exam; maybe those with security in their title at sites too, whether to satisfy whatever regulations the SIA draws up, or insurers, that security decision-makers for premises are qualified to sign off compliance with Martyn’s Law, like for building fire safety. As for the cost of meeting Martyn’s Law nationally, the highs and lows estimated in the impact assessment published by the Home Office in mid-September are so wide – in the hundreds of millions, one or more billion? – it’s laughable. But you do not turn to the Home Office for any grip on reality. Before the coming of the SIA badge for security officers, a Home Office paper suggested the badge would cost £40. The cost of applying for the badge is at an historic low of £184. In other words; costs (the HS2 project also comes to mind) have a habit of being way higher than those in authority care to say.
In a sense to seek an exact cost is pointless because compliance ought to be a process (as protection against terrorism is this afternoon, and was yesterday) rather than a one-off spend. Supt King in her talk to the Olympia Expo on Wednesday, September 25 spoke of reviewing how to ensure the public feel safe across venues; and Nactso offering digital resources (one more thing that practitioners rely on, from an opaque policing body), ‘particularly for those who are new to this’. Let’s recall here that the impetus for Martyn’s Law was a terror attack in 2017, and attacks, successful and thwarted, have happened since. Among things that venues can and should be doing already, Supt King spoke of ‘security minded communications’ (posters and social media posts and marketing ‘comms’ that don’t give away security secrets, but give the reassuring message to the law-abiding that premises are doing security, that meanwhile plants doubt in the minds of ‘hostiles’), escalation processes (if premises have to lock down, whether due to a terrorist alert, or evacuate for a fire, do staff know what to do, where to go?), ‘being mindful about hostile reconnaissance’. “The counter-terror threat is still here, and here to stay,” she said.
If Martyn’s Law becomes law in 2025, is unveiled as something to comply in 2026, premises managers – theatres, cinemas, pubs and nightclubs, shopping centres – can expect visits from SIA inspectors with the power to enter and ultimately issue fines in …. 2027? 2028?
To return to the question of what a big deal all this is, and whether security people realise this. To keep only to the SIA; it will presumably at least double in size. The prospect is – although Martyn’s Law is explicitly to counter terrorism – of the SIA regime becoming what some wished for 20 years ago; the compulsory regulating of more than security individuals (who, often earning minimum wage, are least able to afford the badge and in effect to fund the SIA). With powers under Martyn’s Law, SIA inspectors will be able to metaphorically or literally point pens while holding clipboards – why is that hole in the fence, where are your documented plans and records of staff taking ACT online training? What will such an inspection feel like, even if (for the larger, ‘enhanced tier’ premises such as a warehouse-size night venue,) only once every several years? Will it put career-threatening fear into the security manager, percolating down through staff, as an Ofsted inspector does in a school head teacher?
Photo by Mark Rowe from the July edition of Professional Security magazine.
