The Home Affairs Select Committee of MPs are ‘misguided’, campaigner Figen Murray has said after the committee released a report on the proposed Martyn’s Law, or Protect Duty, that would place a legal requirement on venues and public places to protect against terrorism.
Figen, speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, responded to a point by the MPs that outdoor events such as Christmas markets would not be covered by the proposed law, saying that she and fellow campaigners had wanted such events covered, but that they were not part of he proposed law as set by the Home Office. She said that she wanted the law ASAP: “The longer it’s delayed, the more people are at risk.”
Comment
Another comment has come from Jon Collins, CEO of the live music trade body LIVE, who has warned against a ‘sub-optimal’ law would pose an ‘existential risk’ to the sector, particularly for smaller venues. He said: “We welcome the Home Affairs Select Committee’s report which vindicates our members’ view that the draft Bill is both impractical and, through the excessive penalties it proposes, would create existential risk for live music venues, and could lead to events and festivals leaving the UK. LIVE’s members fully support the original purpose of the Bill to better protect audiences but, in its current form, it will fail to do this while also placing disproportionate burdens on venues of all sizes around the country. The Government must now urgently redesign the Bill to ensure it is workable, allows venues to continue to put on shows, and crucially delivers greater reassurance and safety for concertgoers.”
Figen was among invited witnesses that gave evidence to the MPs in Parliament last month, besides Home Office minister Tom Tugendhat and for the BSIA security trade association Shaun Kennedy of security company Securitas. In their 34-page report as part of their ‘pre-legislative scrutiny’ of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises draft Bill), the cross-party MPs noted as an aside that while security at publicly accessible venues is vital in preventing and handling a terrorist attack, ‘there are some serious concerns about the education and procurement of security officers that the Draft Bill does not attempt to address, despite the fact the Government is “looking at it separately”’.
The report noted that how any law would be regulated would be key; MPs chided the Home Office for not being able to say ‘who the regulator will be, whether it will be independent or not, how it operates and how it should be accountable’. Among possibilities thrown up during the committee’s sessions were the SIA, and (more possible) the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), or some new body.
The MPs asked for ‘concrete proposals on the regulator within the next two months’ and an amendment to that effect to the Draft Bill before introducing the Bill to Parliament. The Government is supposed to respond to the report by September, and all eyes will then be on whether the proposed law is part of the King’s Speech when King Charles opens the next session of Parliament, given that an autumn 2025 election is likely.
On the point of ‘publicly accessible outdoor events’, the MPs stated that they 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’, according to the report.
On other details of the proposed law – the tiers, standard (to apply to public premises with a maximum capacity of 100 or more) and enhanced (capacity of 800-plus), ‘the Government has not provided a 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’, MPs complained. MPs were 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 (such as village halls, a particular concern for MPs when they heard witnesses), could be ‘disproportionate and burdensome’.
The report agreed with a Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) rating of the Government’s impact assessment of the Draft Bill as “not fit for purpose”, stating that the ‘overall objective of the Draft Bill remains opaque’; the Draft Bill would not have made a difference to the vast majority of the terrorist attacks that have happened in the UK in recent years; and the ‘Government has not provided a rationale or any evidence for why capacity figures of 100 and 800 for standard and enhanced tier premises have been chosen’.
Among other points of interest to private security, the report suggested that the Government should include provision in the Bill to require new publicly accessible buildings, which would fall within the category of enhanced tier premises, to consider security in the design of the building. The MPs said they were ‘gravely concerned to hear that the UK security industry has one of the lowest entry thresholds in Europe for training. This is simply unacceptable. If the Government is serious about protecting the public from terrorist attacks, improving the training of those working in the security industry seems like an obvious step.’
The report urged the Government to work with the Security Industry Authority ‘to look to urgently standardise and improve training for security guards’. As featured in the July print edition of Professional Security Magazine, the Home Office has decided against making security business licensing mandatory, which left the SIA ‘disappointed’. Security business licensing was among the ‘monitored recommendations’ of the Manchester Arena Inquiry. The campaign for ‘Martyn’s Law’ arose from the Arena suicide bombing of May 2017, when Figen Murray’s son Martyn Hett was among those who died.
For the Select Committee report visit the Parliament website.
