The first reading of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill in the House of Commons has been greeted with delight by Martyn’s Law campaigner Figen Murray. That’s the first step on a Bill’s journey through Parliament towards becoming law. As featured in the July edition of Professional Security Magazine, fellow campaigner, the retired senior counter-terror cop Nick Aldworth suggested that as the Home Office had done work on the Bill – publishing a draft last year – the widely anticipated and duly elected labour government might pick it up promptly, while it worked on other, less ready, legislation.
Commenting, Jason Towse, Managing Director, Business Services at the guarding and facilities management services contractor Mitie described the first reading as a promising step forward and testament to the tireless work of Figen Murray OBE and the campaign team, but there remains a long journey ahead, he added. “Everyone should be able to enjoy public spaces without fear of terrorism and we urge the Government to maintain momentum in enacting Martyn’s Law to improve preparedness across the UK and create safer communities.”
The Bill
The Home Office is the government department behind the Bill. After it steadfastly declined to say during the four years of the Conservatives working on Martyn’s Law, who or what body might run the regulation of premises, the Bill sets out that the Security Industry Authority (SIA) will do the inspecting of premises. As for which and what kind of premises will fall under the law, a ‘standard’ tier will cover places with a capacity of more than 200; and an enhanced tier of 800 and more. Covered are ‘premises’ and ‘events’ held on those premises – whether theatres, cinemas, places of worship, shops, hospitals, museums, hotels, bus and railway stations, day care centres, schools and colleges and universities, and nightclubs besides concert venues. If you query whether your premises or events fall under the law, you will be able to go to a tribunal. Not covered will be parks, parliamentary ‘premises’ of the four countries of the UK, nor sports grounds that come under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975; nor airports and ports covered already by aviation and port security law.
The SIA will ‘prepare guidance’ and provide advice for meeting the law, to protect the public from ‘physical harm’. As for enforcement of the rules that the SIA will set, the Authority will be able to issue ‘compliance notices’; or, more seriously, restrict or even prohibit use of premises and events. Again, if you don’t like any of such enforcement, you will be able to go to a tribunal. If the offence is more serious still, the SIA will able to fine offenders (a ‘penalty notice’ in the legal jargon): for smaller, standard tier places, up to £10,000; and for the larger, ‘enhanced’ places, up to £18m, or five per cent of worldwide revenue.
The SIA will have the power to inspect premises and events; and to copy documents. This Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2024 will also make some amendments to the Licensing Act 2003 as it covers premises.
Like any Bill, it now has a second reading in the House of Commons; before it goes through line by line scrutiny by MPs at the committee stage. Then comes report stage and third reading. If and when formal Royal Assent is given, it’s anticipated that the actual regime will take the SIA 12 months or more to bring in (as indeed it took the SIA a year or more to bring in its original door, security guard, CCTV operator and close protection badging in the mid-2000s).
Impact assessment
Meanwhile the Home Office published an impact assessment signed off by junior Home Office minister Dan Jarvis that puts the cost of business meeting the law in the high hundreds of millions or billions of pounds, while admitting that its estimates have made ‘all efforts’ and due to ‘a lack of clear data on the number of events and their size in the UK’, the cost to meeting the law by events (held on premises) is not estimated.
The term ‘Protect Duty’ as used by the Conservative Government as they worked on the consultation and draft law from 2020 has been replaced officially by Martyn’s Law. The document estimates that of the 928,000 or so premises in the UK, this law will cover 178,900. Besides terrorist attacks since 2017, the document notes conviction of terrorist suspects who sought to carry out attacks at iconic locations such as Madame Tussauds (2018) and St Pauls Cathedral (2020).
The SIA
In a brief statement, SIA chair Heather Baily and chief exec Michelle Russell said that being Martyn’s Law Regulator was ‘an important responsibility we will discharge with care and diligence’. They noted that the Home Office had confirmed ‘that this new work will be separately funded. The new responsibilities must not compromise our existing regulatory role in public protection licensing regulated private security roles.’
What they say
Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, said: “Martyn’s Law has been a long time coming. I want to pay tribute to Figen Murray and her campaign team who have tirelessly worked to make this happen. This legislation will strengthen public safety, help protect staff and the public from terrorism and ensure we learn the lessons from the terrible Manchester Arena attack and the inquiry that followed. It is important we now take this forward through Parliament in Martyn’s memory and to help keep people safe.
Figen Murray said: “I want to thank everyone who has played a part in getting the bill to this stage, and especially the Prime Minister, who gave me his word that he would act quickly to introduce Martyn’s Law. He said he would act quickly and he has.” She added that it was ‘also hugely important for my family that Martyn’s Law will be on the statute book ahead of the next anniversary of Martyn’s death’.
Background
The campaign for Martyn’s Law dates from the Manchester Arena suicide bombing of May 22, 2017; Figen’s son Martyn Hett was among those killed. The political backing for such a law dates from Home Secretary Priti Patel in spring 2020; in volume one of the Manchester Arena Inquiry published in June 2021, the Inquiry chair Sir John Saunders wrote about the proposal of a ‘Protect Duty’: “Doing nothing is, in my view, not an option. Equally, the Protect Duty must not be so prescriptive as to prevent people enjoying a normal life.”
More in the October and November editions of Professional Security Magazine.
