The Home Office has published its draft Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. This is the latest step in the bringing towards law of a Protect Duty, which would place a health and safety-like duty on hundreds of thousands of premises, ‘publicly accessible locations’ (PALs) in the government jargon, to take responsibility for countering terrorism.
As for the cost of the Duty, the Government offers for its own central and local government buildings in the standard tier, which would face lesser demands and changes, ‘a central estimate of £2000 per site’ over ten years, and for an ‘enhanced’ site, £80,000. That would put the overall cost of compliance nationally into the hundreds of millions of pounds at least; not including ‘a central estimate’ of £130m for a regulator.
The publication comes in time for several official workshops, aimed at owners, operators and those in charge of public premises. The dates are London (May 2), Cardiff (4), Birmingham (9), Carlisle (16), Durham (17), Belfast (23) and Edinburgh (30). There you can talk to some of the policy team behind the proposed Duty, also known as Martyn’s Law, after the son of one of those who died in the May 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, Martyn Hett, son of the campaigner for the Duty, Figen Murray.
As featured in the April print edition of Professional Security, PM Rishi Sunak and Home Secretary Stella Braverman publicly committed in December to bringing in the Duty, first taken on by the Home Office in the spring of 2020 when it announced it would go out to consultation. The draft bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Select Committee. The Home Office has been at pains to stress that Martyn’s Law would introduce a tiered model for PALs, depending on the capacity of the premises, or event and the type of event, in the name of preventing unnecessary burden to business. Most, about three-quarters of the places that are due to fall under the Duty are in retail and hospitality. In the consultation, business groups and local government stated their lack of enthusiasm for such a Duty.
As a sign of how business-unfriendly the draft is, in a letter to the chair of the Home Affairs Committee of MPs, Diana Johnson, Security Minister Tom Tugendhat admitted there were ‘still challenges to overcome’ to make the Duty ‘robust yet proportionate’. An impact assessment as part of the Bill has been rated as ‘not fit for purpose’ by the Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) in terms of how it would affect small businesses (and overall), Mr Tugdenhat admitted. He promised that the Home Office would ‘resubmit a revised impact assessment’, ahead of formal introduction of the Bill.
Commenting on the announcement, at the trade association the British Retail Consortium, BRC Assistant Director Graham Wynn, said: “Given the number of retail premises, Martyn’s Law is particularly relevant to retailers. We have appreciated the Home Office’s willingness to make adjustments to the bill – such as the move to make capacity the basis to meet changing needs – as well as make it more practical and proportionate. It will be important to ensure all operational details work effectively – such as how the tiers operate at the margins. After closer examination of the detail, we look forward to the opportunity to provide additional suggestions as appropriate during the Parliamentary process.”
To recap, the draft proposes two tiers – a ‘standard’ tier covering places with a capacity of 100 to 800, that would have to do ‘a standard terrorism evaluation’ and give staff training; and an ‘enhanced tier’ of places holding more than 800, that would have to make ‘an enhanced terrorism risk assessment’ and show ‘reasonably practicable security measures’. In the letter, Mr Tugendhat writes of the ‘wide-ranging scope of the legislation, applying at approximately 300,000 different premises across the UK’.
In the ‘explanatory notes‘ published alongside the draft, the Government says the Duty will have a regulator, without saying whether it’ll be a new body or one already existing (the document speaks only of ‘multiple options’).
For the Home Office, Mr Tugendhat said: “The threat from terrorism is enduring. In recent years, we have seen terrorists target the public at a broad range of locations, causing deaths and casualties amongst innocent people going about their everyday lives. This is a significant step forward for Martyn’s Law and our ability to further protect the public. I welcome the committee’s scrutiny to ensure that this legislation is proportionate while enhancing our national security.”
Figen Murray called it an important step forward to a safer country. “Martyn’s Law will end the ridiculous situation where venues have legal obligations for how many toilets they have but no obligation to keep their customers protected. Of course Martyn’s Law won’t stop all terror attacks, but it will make crowded places better protected and prepared, and make the terrorists’ job that bit harder. Almost six years after the Manchester Arena attack it’s now critical this bill is passed into law as quickly as possible and in the strongest form possible.”
Photo by Mark Rowe; Fishmongers’ Hall by London Bridge, scene of a November 2019 terror attack. As its largest room can seat 350, that would suggest the site falls under the lower, ‘standard’ tier of the proposed Duty.
