MPs say Martyn’s Law anti-terror legislation ‘not fit for purpose’

Proposed anti-terror legislation, known as Martyn’s Law, is ‘not fit for purpose’, the Home Affairs Committee has said.

 

The cross-party committee has made a number of recommendations including that the scope of venues included be expanded to include some with capacity of less than 100 and that further consideration be given to the cost implications for small businesses.

 

The legislation, named after 29-year-old Martyn Hett who was one of 22 people killed in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack, would require venues and local authorities to draw up plans to prevent and respond to terrorist acts.

 

However in evidence given to the committee Jonathan Hall, the UK’s reviewer of terrorism legislation, said the majority of terrorism attacks since 2010 would have fallen outside the scope of the proposed Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, something MPs said they were “concerned to learn”.

 

The committee also said it had “serious concerns about the proportionality of the bill, especially in relation to the impact on smaller businesses, voluntary and community-run organisations”.

 

The draft version of the bill sets out two tiers for premises. Those with a capacity of 100-799 would fall into the standard duty tier, while those with a capacity of more than 800 would fall into the enhanced duty tier.

 

The cost of implementing the proposals for standard tier premises was estimated to be £2,160 over a ten-year period, while the cost for an enhanced premises could cost £82,325 over ten years.

 

However, Michael Kill from the Night Time Industries Association said in his evidence to the committee that he believed these costs had been “hugely underestimated”.

 

Committee chair Dame Diana Johnson said: “The money and time required under the bill could place smaller businesses and voluntary organisations at risk."

 

UKHospitality chief executive Kate Nicholls has welcomed the committees comments. She said: “We welcome the Select Committee report, which among its recommendations highlights concerns around the cost burden on ‘standard’ and ‘enhanced tier’ premises of implementing these proposals, which risks being disproportionate to the level of threat. This is particularly acute for smaller and medium-sized premises.

 

“UKHospitality and our members have been engaging with the Home Office to ensure that Martyn’s Law can be achieved in a way that is proportionate and practical for venues and does not cut across the existing effective work that businesses are doing in this area. Getting the balance of practicality and safety is crucial, and we hope the Home Office takes on board the recommendations from the committee to achieve this.

 

The committee also raised questions about the scope of venues included in the bill. “Certain venues with a capacity of fewer than 100 may be more at risk of attack, and better able to resource the cost of protective measures, than larger venues; why should a village hall have to comply, but not a restaurant? Offices and factories may also be at risk of attack”, the report stated.

 

Johnson expanded: “We must do all we can to ensure venues are equipped to react to terror threats. But the government must ensure that [laws] are based on an accurate assessment of risk and not arbitrary capacity figures.”

 

The exclusion of unticketed outdoor events has also been questioned and the report added: “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.”

 

Questions were also raised about the effectiveness of the proposals, the training businesses would need to provide to staff and how the legislation would be regulated.

 

Image: Shutterstock