Draft counter-terror legislation “fails to address real risk of attacks”

The draft Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill was introduced by the Government in response to recommendations made as a result of the Public Inquiry into the 2017 Manchester Arena terrorist attack. The document sets out how venues should assess the risk of terror attacks and take measures to mitigate their consequences, with different standards for venues accommodating capacities of over 100 individuals and those playing host to capacities of 800 people and above.

The Home Affairs Committee finds that, in its current form, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill would place a “significant and disproportionate burden” on smaller venues, while failing to ensure adequate safety measures at all public events at risk of terror attacks.

“Thousands of small organisations, many of them reliant on community and volunteer support, would be required to implement potentially costly safety measures without adequate resources to do so. Yet other events and venues with a greater history of terror attacks, or with a higher footfall, such as farmers markets or Christmas markets, fall out of scope.”

Evidence heard over the course of the Public Inquiry indicated that measures outlined in the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill “would not have made a significant difference” in recent terror attacks that have occurred in the UK.

The Home Affairs Committee is also “concerned” that the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill’s objectives are “unclear”, with the document promoted as terror prevention legislation, “while most of its measures relate to mitigating the consequences of attacks”.

Measures in the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill that would improve the response to terror attacks in larger venues are supported by the Home Affairs Committee. It’s now calling on the Government to introduce the legislation in stages, beginning with the larger venues, and also to review its implementation annually in order to assess the degree of impact on the ground.

According to the Home Affairs Committee, the Government should carry out further research to better assess whether the threat posed to small businesses and venues is sufficient to require them to undertake anti-terrorism measures.

Heightened risk

Outdoor events continue to be at heightened risk of terror attacks and, according to the Home Affairs Committee, the Government should also ensure that such gatherings are covered by the legislation.

Further, the Government should ensure that the new duties established by the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill fall on the right people and “co-ordinate effectively” with existing responsibilities. “Training must be of a high quality, have a clear purpose and be carried out to a prescribed standard if it is to have a meaningful impact.”  

Interestingly, the Home Affairs Committee is particularly concerned by what it references as “low training standards” in the security industry and urges the Government to “ensure improved education and standards” in the sector.

The ability of on-site staff to provide immediate medical treatment in the event of a terrorist attack could be the difference between life and death, the Home Affairs Committee finds. The Government should therefore ensure that all premises covered by the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill provide mandatory life safety-focused training for staff as well as medical kits.

“Adequate funding” needs to be in place to enable smaller venues or voluntary organisations to implement the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill’s requirements, and particularly so if they fall within the enhanced tier of venues accommodating capacities of 800 or more. Evidence heard in the Manchester Arena Public Inquiry suggested that companies were “already seeking to exploit uncertainty” around the impact of the proposed legislation by offering expensive consultancy services.

The Home Affairs Committee urges the Government to conduct a comprehensive communications campaign in order to ensure venue management teams know what’s required of them and where they can source additional information.

Despite playing a critical role in how the regulatory framework operates, the Home Affairs Committee suggests that there’s “a lack of clarity” over the role of the regulator. This includes whether the regulator would be independent, to whom it would be accountable and also what investigation and enforcement powers would reside within its gift. The Home Affairs Committee is calling on the Government to ensure that “comprehensive proposals” for the regulator are published in the next two months before the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill returns to Parliament. 

Accurate assessment

Dame Diana Johnson MP, chair of the Home Affairs Committee in Parliament, commented: “The Home Affairs Committee particularly commends the efforts of Figen Murray OBE in campaigning for change in terms of how venues prepare for and also respond to terror incidents. We need to ensure the right initiatives are in place that can ultimately make the difference in saving lives.”

Johnson continued: “The overall intent of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill is right. We must do all we can to ensure that venues are equipped to react to terror threats. However, the Government must ensure that the steps it needs to take are based on an accurate assessment of risk and not arbitrary capacity figures.”

Further, Johnson noted: “We are also concerned that, as currently drafted, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill would fail to make a significant impact in preventing or mitigating the effects of terrorism. For example, in its current form, a local village hall would be required to carry out safety precautions, while a city centre open-air farmers market or Christmas market would not. This makes little sense and takes no account of the actual terrorist threat faced.”

In addition, Johnson observed: “The costs required under the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill in terms of money and time could place the very future of some smaller businesses and voluntary organisations at risk. With many venues already struggling due to the cost-of-living crisis and energy price rises, they are ill-equipped to absorb any more financial pressure. In particular, losing any vital community hubs such as village halls would be a real blow and represent a win for terrorism, not an effective means of combating it.”

*Read the Home Affairs Committee’s report in full and access the Executive Summary

Strong response

Responding to the Home Affairs Committee’s report on LinkedIn, Nick Aldworth (former national co-ordinator of Protect and Prepare at Counter Terrorism Policing) said: “I know that the Home Affairs Committee conducted its work in a hurry. Its conclusions don’t reflect the universal and unpredictable nature of the terrorist threat that was described to its constituent members by other witnesses.”

Aldridge added: “Recommending a single tier and phased implementation will only signpost terrorists to smaller locations and increase the risk posed to those locations. At a time when we’re seeing terrorists shift their focus to these kinds of venues as ‘soft targets’, nowhere is without exposure to terrorism.” 

In conclusion, Aldridge stated: “The Government should take note of the Home Affairs Committee’s point in relation to outdoor venues. However, the wider arguments being put forward are not only wrong, but also dangerous.” 

Figen Murray, of course, is the mother of Martyn Hett who was killed in the Manchester Arena attack. Her gargantuan and tireless efforts on campaigning around the issue of the need for bolstered security measures at venues are the main reason why the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill has come to fruition. 

Commenting on the Home Affairs Committee’s 42-page report and the statement issued, Murray said: “Having lost my son to terrorism, as did so many other parents and families whose loved ones were caught up in the Manchester Arena attack, I find it hard to understand the argument that a few hours of training each year is a disproportionate step for businesses to take. Martyn’s Law is a proportionate response that will keep millions of us much safer. The Government must now press ahead with this legislation.”

Balanced approach

The UK Crowd Management Association has commented: “We have constantly advocated a balanced approach for security and safety, without placing disproportionate burdens on limited resources. Together, we can find viable alternatives and ensure that our venues continue to thrive as centres of culture and community support.”

Jason Towse, managing director for business services at Mitie, explained: “We fully support this crucial piece of legislation, which seeks to impose a ‘Protect Duty’ on qualifying public premises and events in order to help deter and minimise the threat of terrorism. Too many lives have been lost to acts of terrorism across the globe, including that of the man at the heart of this matter, namely Martyn Hett. Each of these tragedies serves as a stark reminder to us all that our collective safety and security is a shared responsibility demanding collaboration from all corners of the world.”

Towse went on to state: “As chair of the Security Industry Skills Board, I fully support the attention being placed on the standardisation and improvement of training for security officers across the UK. In light of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill’s recommendation for the Government to collaborate closely with the Security Industry Authority, the importance of our Board’s work has never been more evident.”

In conclusion, Towse affirmed: “Now is the time for us, as security professionals and industry leaders, to come together and amplify our efforts in shaping and refining the training landscape within the industry. By building on existing partnerships and establishing new networks, we can create an even more robust framework for the continued development of our workforce.”

Live music industry view

Jon Collins, CEO of LIVE (the Trade Association for the live music industry) has also appraised the comments delivered by the Home Affairs Committee.

“We welcome the Home Affairs Committee’s report, which vindicates our members’ view that the draft Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill is both impractical and, through the excessive penalties it proposes, would create existential risk for live music venues. It could lead to events and festivals leaving the UK.”

Collins added: “LIVE’s members fully support the original purpose of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill to better protect audiences but, in its current form, it will fail to do so, while also placing disproportionate burdens on venues of all sizes around the country. The Government must now urgently redesign the proposed legislation to ensure that it’s workable, allows venues to continue to put on shows and, crucially, delivers greater reassurance and safety for concert-goers.”

Three areas of concern that LIVE has identified in the draft Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill are as follows:

*The draft legislation has been “rushed through” the pre-legislative scrutiny stage and lacks any thorough impact assessment, which risks leaving the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill in a “sub-optimal state”

*There is an absence of consideration around the role of the existing licensing regime [ie that which is regulated and administered by the Security Industry Authority] in preventing terrorism and protecting the public

*The powers to serve restriction notices or to impose civil penalties are “not proportionate or necessary” and “pose existential risk” to the sector, particularly so for smaller venues