Managing Editor, IFSEC Insider

Author Bio ▼

James Moore is the Managing Editor of IFSEC Insider, the leading online publication for security and fire news in the industry. James writes, commissions, edits and produces content for IFSEC Insider, including articles, breaking news stories and exclusive industry reports. He liaises and speaks with leading industry figures, vendors and associations to ensure security and fire professionals remain abreast of all the latest developments in the sector.
June 6, 2023

Sign up to free email newsletters


The Video Surveillance Report 2022

Martyn’s Law Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill – Latest updates after publication of draft legislation

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill – otherwise known as Martyn’s Law – moved ahead another step in the legislative process on 2 May as long-awaited draft legislation was published by the Home Office. IFSEC Insider will seek to keep security professionals with all the latest as the Bill moves through the parliamentary process. 

The legislation has also been known as the Protect Duty in the build up to it being released. It forms part of the Government’s response to the Manchester Arena Inquiry Volume 1, which recommended the introduction of legislation to improve the safety and security of public venues.

The UK Home Office says:

“The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill will help keep people safe and enhance national security by ensuring preparedness for, and protection from, terrorist attacks. Proportionate new security requirements will be introduced for certain public venues and locations.”

The vast majority of the Bill will be applicable across the United Kingdom, covering England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The 56-page Bill covers a range of measures, from what premises and events will qualify as in scope and their registration, through to the evaluation of terrorism risk and the provision of terrorism protection training. Key takeaways from the first draft include:

  • The introduction of a Regulator, which will have powers of inspection and enforcement
  • Identifies the qualifying premises, what parts of this premises, and types of events which will fall under scope – those with capacity for more than 100 individuals. Enhanced duties will be required from those which have a public capacity of 800 individuals or more, called ‘enhanced premises’
  • Notes that a responsible person must ensure that the qualifying premises is registered with the regulator
  • Outlines the minimum requirements expected of responsible persons for the evaluation and assessment of terrorism risk, such as a standard terrorism evaluation, with further measures expected of ‘enhanced premises’ (or events) such as a terrorism risk assessment
  • Outlines a requirement for terrorism protection training for relevant workers at qualifying premises
  • The requirement for updated security plans for enhanced premises or qualifying public events
  • Provision of powers to the regulator to issue a contravention notice to those person(s) who may be failing to comply. Restriction notices (for an initial period of up to six months) may also be issued to those responsible for enhanced duty premises or qualifying public events
  • Provision of powers to the regulator to issue ‘appropriate and proportionate’ penalty financial notices to those deemed not in compliance. The maximum amount for standard duty premises will be up to £10,000. The maximum amount for an enhanced premises will be whichever is greater of £18 million or 5% of its qualifying worldwide revenue

The Bill also notes that the Secretary of State must issue guidance regarding the discharge of requirements placed upon persons under the Bill.

With regards to the financial implications of the Bill, the Government has identified the need for a regulator to be put in place as its main requirement. It expects this cost to be between £89 million to £178 million as an estimate at this stage. It also acknowledges there will be additional costs to local authorities.

Read the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Draft Bill in full here >>


Latest news on the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

The release of draft legislation on 2 May 2023 is an important moment for the bill, which has been beset by delays in recent years for several reasons.

In October, Figen Murray, mother of Martyn Hett who died in the Manchester Arena attack, personally called upon the new UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to keep the Protect Duty on the legislative agenda. The news of the Bill being planned for spring was first announced in mid-December by Home Secretary, Suella Braverman.

The bill had also been referenced in the Queen’s Speech in May 2022, where Prince Charles said that measures would be introduced “to support the security services and ensure the safety of its people”, while it was later confirmed in the full document (page 89).

Updates since the draft legislation has been released are as follows:

  • 02/06/23: Draft Standard Terrorism Evaluation and a corresponding guidance document was published.
  • 06/06/23: Home Affairs Committee on Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Draft Bill



Register – Webinar: Preparing for the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) bill & the role of critical communications

Sign up to our upcoming webinar, taking place on 15 June at 11AM, where we’ll be exploring the key expectations of the draft Bill and what impact critical communication platforms may have in enabling organisations to meet requirements. Register here >>

Background to the Terrorism Bill (Previously the Protect Duty)

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, otherwise known as ‘Martyn’s Law’ or the Protect Duty, will be a new piece of anti-terrorism legislation, designed to ensure the public is better protected from a “multifaceted, diverse and continually evolving” terror threat. Its purpose has been outlined as to “keep people safe by introducing new security requirements for certain public locations and venues to ensure preparedness for and protection from terrorist attacks”.

It follows a campaign from Figen Murray, the mother of Martyn Hett who sadly lost his life in the Manchester Arena terrorist attack in May 2017, who has highlighted the need to improve security standards in crowded public spaces and venues.

An Inquiry into the Manchester Arena attack finished in March 2023, with three reports published by the Chairman, Sir John Saunders:

  1. Manchester Arena Inquiry Volume 1: Security for the Arena (focusing on the security arrangements at the Manchester Arena and missed opportunities to stop the bomber)
  2. Manchester Arena Inquiry Volume 2: Emergency Response (examining the response of the emergency services, which was deemed to be ‘uncoordinated and risk averse’)
  3. Manchester Arena Inquiry Volume 3: Radicalisation and Preventability (focusing on the radicalisation of the bomber and preventability of the attack by the security services)

The Protect Duty will extend and apply across the UK and will now go through the various stages of the legislative process, including readings in the House of Commons and House of Lords before it becomes law. As above, the Draft Bill was published on 2 May 2023.

It will require venues and local authorities to draw up preventative plans against terror attacks, following a tiered model that will be linked to the activity that takes place at a particular venue. A standard tier will apply to venues with maximum capacities of 100 and above, while an enhanced tier will be applied to those venues considered to be high-capacity locations and events – 800 or more.

Figen Murray spoke at IFSEC in May 2022, having earlier presented to a group of security professionals responsible for protecting publicly accessible locations across the country. Watch her interview with IFSEC Global from the show, below.

The main elements of the draft bill are:

  • Establishing a new requirements framework which requires those in control of certain public locations and venues to consider the threat from terrorism and implement appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures
  • Delivering an inspection and enforcement regime, which will seek to educate, advise, and ensure compliance with the Duty.

In late 2022, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said: “The way the city of Manchester came together as a community in the wake of the cowardly Manchester Arena attack, and the amazing work of campaigners like Figen Murray who have dedicated their lives to making us safer and promoting kindness and tolerance, is an inspiration to us all.

“I am committed to working with Figen to improve security measures at public venues and spaces and to delivering this vital legislation to honour Martyn’s memory and all of those affected by terrorism.”

Protect Duty consultation

Throughout the process, the Government has said it is “committed to improving the safety and security of public venues”. A consultation was run in 2021 to consider how to “develop proportionate security measures to improve public security”.

Read the full Government response to the Protect Duty consultation >>

The initial Protect Duty consultation opened to the public and industry in February 2021, and was targeted at all those who own or operate publicly accessible locations that a ‘Protect Duty’ would potentially affect, including:

  • Venues
  • Organisations
  • Businesses
  • Local authorities
  • Public authorities
  • Individuals

In total, the consultation received 2755 responses through a variety of organisations, sectors and campaigners, with the majority supporting the Government’s proposals to introduce stronger measures, including a legal requirement to ensure preparedness for and protection from terrorist attacks. Currently, there is no legislative requirement for organisations to consider security measures at the vast majority of public places. It was found that 50% of those who responded to the consultation currently undertake a risk assessment for terrorism.

Crucially, the aim is to implement security measures, but without placing “undue burden” on smaller businesses, and to identify what support would be required from government.

Key findings of the Protect Duty consultation included:

  • 70% of respondents agreed that those responsible for publicly accessible locations should take measures to protect the public – including ensuring staff were trained appropriately
  • Strong views were expressed regarding accountability, such as the need for clear roles and responsibilities – particularly amongst event organisers and owners
  • Half the respondents were in favour of an inspectorate that would identify key vulnerabilities and areas for improvement, as well as share best practice
  • 66% of respondents disagreed with the Government’s cost and benefit estimates, citing additional costs such as added policing requirements, potential business closures of small businesses due to extra costs and insurance premiums.
  • Respondents noted that guidance to support businesses in complying would be required, with emphasis on clarity, ensuring guidance was specific to different applications, guidance on physical security measures such as CCTV and support with risk assessments, amongst others.

Then-Home Secretary, Priti Patel, said: “Following the tragic attack at the Manchester Arena, we have worked closely with Figen Murray, victims’ groups and partners to develop proposals to improve protective security around the country. I am grateful for their tireless commitment to the duty and those who responded to the consultation; the majority of whom agreed tougher measures are needed to protect the public from harm.”

“We will never allow terrorists to restrict our freedoms and way of life, which is why we are committed to bringing forward legislation this year, that will strike the right balance between public safety, whilst not placing excessive burden on small businesses.”

In the ministerial foreword to the Government’s response, Damian Hinds MP, Minister for Security and Borders, noted: “The Protect Duty would be one means by which we seek to further enhance public security, sitting alongside our existing and ongoing work programmes to achieve this aim. I have noted the strength of views expressed in response to several consultation questions, that it is right that those responsible for public places should take measures to protect the public and to prepare their staff to respond appropriately.

“In short, taking measures to ensure that there is an appropriate and consistent approach to protective security and preparedness at public places is a reasonable ask. However, the responses also highlighted the challenge of which organisations should be in the scope, and what would constitute proportionate security measures. This includes ensuring that there is not an undue burden on organisations, particularly those which are smaller in size or staffed by volunteers, such as places of worship. These are issues I am considering carefully.

“The Government’s impact assessment for the Duty and its requirements will also robustly assess the question of costs and burdens further.”

What do we mean by ‘publicly accessible location’? And what’s the scope being considered?

A publicly accessible location has been defined by the Government as: “Any place which the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission”. This includes a wide range of venues, such as sports stadiums, festivals, hotels, pubs, casinos, high streets, retail centres, schools & universities, places of worship, parks, transport hubs and many more.

Considerations for the scope include legislating for publicly accessible venues to legally require robust security risk assessments and to act on those findings, to better protect the public.

Both venues and events will fall in scope. A standard duty will apply to those venues of a capacity of 100 people or more, while an enhanced duty will apply to those with a capacity of 800 or more.

The consultation document outlined four key questions that respondents and stakeholders need to consider, which are:

  1. Who (or where) should legislation apply to?
  2. What should the requirements be for those parties within the scope?
  3. How should compliance work?
  4. How should government best support and work with partners?

In the ministerial foreword for the consultation, the late James Brokenshire, then-Security Minister, said: “There is much good work already being done by many organisations, and I welcome these ongoing efforts. However, in the absence of a legislative requirement, there is no certainty that considerations of security are undertaken by those operating the wide variety of sites and places open to the public, or, where they are undertaken, what outcomes are achieved. This consultation considers how we could improve this position, through reasonable and not overly burdensome security measures.”

To further support the public and private sector, the Home Office is collaborating with the National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO) and Pool Reinsurance to develop a new interactive online platform, which will provide advice, guidance, e-learning and other helpful content. In the consultation, 74% of respondents felt that a single, digital service to access relevant material, advice and training would be useful in assisting compliance.

Read IFSEC Global’s related articles concerning the Protect Duty and Martyn’s Law for further debate:


Keep up with the access control market

The physical access control market is moving fast. Find out where you stand with the latest edition of IFSEC Insider's comprehensive 2022 State of Physical Access Control trend report, covering all the latest developments within the market. We assess the current technology in use, upgrade plans and challenges, and major trends on the horizon after receiving the views of over 1000 security, facilities and IT professionals.

Get your copy for free today.

Related Topics

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments