Sign up for IQ Index
The latest industry news to your inbox.
A Bill on proposed new anti-terror measures for UK venues was discussed by MPs in the House of Commons this week
By James Hanley on 15 Oct 2024
Live organisations in the UK have responded to a parliamentary debate on proposed new anti-terror measures for venues.
Dubbed ‘Martyn’s Law’ in tribute to Martyn Hett, who was killed alongside 21 others in the 2017 Manchester bombing, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill received its second reading in the House of Commons yesterday (14 October).
Also known as Protect Duty, it calls for mandatory anti-terror training for staff and tighter event security at venues, with the intention of helping protect the public from potential attacks.
However, trade body LIVE has previously called for the legislation to be revised, claiming it had been “rushed through the pre-legislative scrutiny stage and lacks any thorough impact assessment”, while the Home Affairs Committee raised concerns it would “place a significant and disproportionate burden on smaller venues” in its current form.
Introducing Martyn’s Law in parliament, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said there had been 15 domestic terror attacks since March 2017, while MI5 and the police had disrupted 43 late-stage terror plots in that period.
“The first responsibility of any government is to keep the public safe,” she said. “That is, and will always be, our No. 1 priority.”
“In recognition of the potentially greater impact of an attack on larger premises, those in the enhanced tier will be subject to additional requirements”
Under the Bill, which Cooper said had the “wholehearted support” of both Prime Minister Keir Starmer and leader of the opposition Rishi Sunak, venues would be placed into two categories depending on size: those of between 200 and 800 capacity would fall into a standard tier, while those of 800-capacity and over would be placed into an enhanced tier.
“Those responsible for premises in the standard tier will be required to notify the regulator and have in place public protection procedures to reduce the risk of harm to individuals in the event of an act of terrorism,” she said. “It is important that those procedures are designed to be very simple and low cost. There will be no requirement to put in place physical measures in the standard tier.
“In recognition of the potentially greater impact of an attack on larger premises, those in the enhanced tier will be subject to additional requirements or public protection measures: monitoring for risks and indicators; security measures for individuals, which might mean search and screening processes; physical safety measures, where relevant, such as safety glass; and securing information to make it harder for people to plan, prepare or execute acts of terrorism.”
She cautioned: “We are being clear that it is not for the government to specify precise arrangements for every venue. I do not think it would be appropriate to do so. Arrangements will vary according to the event. We know that many large venues already have procedures to search bags or conduct those sorts of checks. We are clear that this needs to be done proportionately, and according to the size of the venue and the arrangements in place.”
Shadow Home Secretary James Cleverly warned against imposing “a cost so high that venues are unable to comply and therefore fail to reduce the risk”.
“It is appropriate that we look at the impact assessment produced by the government, and recognise that the new regulations will affect an estimated 155,000 small businesses with a venue capacity of between 200 and 799 people,” he said. “That will impose an average cost on them of around £330 a year. The regulations will also impact around 24,000 larger venues with a capacity of 800 and above, imposing an average cost of around £5,000 each year.
“When I was the Home Secretary, I looked at ways of reducing the burden on the industry as much as possible, while ensuring that those with the broadest shoulders, as it were, could bear the largest load, protecting smaller venues. I therefore welcome the lighter-touch approach that has been put forward, particularly in the standard tier.”
He added: “Including the standard tier, we are looking at nearly 200,000 venues. We want to ensure that the legislation is effective, and not just on the statute book gathering dust.”
“We will be working with MPs on the Bill committee and the Home Office team to try and strengthen this legislation wherever possible”
LIVE CEO Jon Collins welcomed the direction of the debate but pointed out the impact of the proposals was not limited to venues.
“LIVE is pleased to see recognition of the impact this legislation could have on venues though we would note that those concerns should extend across to independent festivals,” says Collins in a statement to IQ. “The minister made clear that we have time to ensure the provisions in this Bill land properly. We will be working with MPs on the Bill committee and the Home Office team to try and strengthen this legislation wherever possible.”
Elsewhere, Michael Kill, CEO of the Night Time Industries Association, hailed the second reading as a “significant milestone”.
“This bill is not only pivotal for enhancing public safety but also represents a collective commitment from the night-time economy to ensure that our venues and public spaces are as secure as possible,” he says. “We commend the government for its willingness to listen and adapt the bill’s approach to ensure proportionality and flexibility, especially concerning training requirements. This balanced perspective acknowledges the diverse landscape of our industry, accommodating both lower and higher-tier businesses while providing structured support to those at the upper end.”
It is understood the Bill now faces six to nine months more scrutiny to come, with around two years of work to get ready for the implementation of the new legislation, meaning it would not come into force until mid to late 2027 at the earliest.
The Manchester Arena Inquiry, led by chairman Sir John Saunders, published the final of three reports about the bombing last year, concluding that security services missed a “significant” opportunity to take action that could have prevented the attack.
The second inquiry into the attack, published in November 2022, made a series of recommendations for events after identifying numerous failings by the emergency services, while the first report, published in June 2021, which found there were multiple “missed opportunities” to prevent or minimise the impact of the bombing.
Get more stories like this in your inbox by signing up for IQ Index, IQ’s free email digest of essential live music industry news.