 |
Mark Sennett
Managing Editor |
 |
Kelly Rose
Editor |
| Home> | Industry Update | >Company News | >Legal spotlight - November 2024 |
| Home> | Premises | >Security | >Legal spotlight - November 2024 |
Legal spotlight - November 2024
14 October 2024
New anti-terrorism legislation is set to impose significant new obligations to protect against terrorism on those responsible for sports stadia, concert venues, universities and other public premises where people congregate. Kevin Bridges provides an insight.
THE UK’s Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (the Bill), published in September, responds to a commitment made in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena bombing. Known as “Martyn’s Law” after victim, Martyn Hett, the Bill places a statutory duty on those responsible for qualifying premises and events to implement reasonably practicable public protection procedures and/or measures, depending on the capacity of the premises. Differing requirements are imposed depending on whether the premises fall within the definition of standard tier or are enhanced tier premises or “qualifying events”.
The new duty will apply to “qualifying premises” and “qualifying events”. Qualifying premises are essentially buildings with a capacity of 200 or more to which the public have access and are primarily used for specified purposes. Those uses are widely defined by reference to a schedule to the Bill and include entertainment venues, nightclubs, leisure, retail, food and drink venues, hotels, museums, sports grounds, public areas of government buildings, temporary events, places of worship, health, and education premises. Those responsible for qualifying premises and qualifying events, essentially those with control of such premises, must notify the regulator, the Security Industry Authority, of their responsibility.
Differing requirements apply depending on whether the qualifying premises are considered to fall within the standard or enhanced tier. Premises with a capacity of 200 to 799 are considered to fall within standard tier requirements, whilst enhanced duty premises have a capacity of 800 or over. Some qualifying premises may be treated as standard duty premises when they would otherwise be enhanced duty premises, and vice versa.
Responsibilities are also imposed on those in control of “qualifying events”. These are public events held at premises that are not enhanced duty premises with a capacity of 800 or over, where entry is controlled by payment or invitation/pass.
Standard tier requirements are intended to be proportionate and clear, implementing “appropriate and reasonably practicable” steps to reduce harm and save lives in the event of an attack. Whilst the steps to be taken in each case will depend in the particular premises in question, as well as the different types of terrorism which could be relevant, they are intended to focus on outcomes, rather than processes, and the development of tailored and effective plans and procedures. Guidance on such procedures will be published but the government has indicated that these will include procedures for evacuation, invacuation, lock down and communication.
Workers will need to be sufficiently instructed or trained on relevant measures to carry them out effectively.
Those responsible for enhanced duty premises or a qualifying event must also prepare and maintain measures to reduce the vulnerability of the particular premises or event to acts of terrorism, as well as to reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals there if an act of terrorism takes place. Measures will include monitoring of the premises or event and their immediate vicinity and securing their physical safety and security; controlling the movement of individuals into, out of and within the premises or event and securing sensitive information on the premises or event. A security plan documenting the steps taken, or to be taken, must be prepared, maintained and submitted to the regulator, with an explanation of the reasoning underpinning those steps.
A range of sanctions and penalties for non-compliance is envisaged. Civil penalties may be imposed as an alternative to criminal sanction in appropriate cases. For enhanced duty premises or qualifying events that may be up to £18 million or 5% of the operator’s worldwide revenue. Individual officers may also face sanction where a corporate entity commits an offence and it is shown to have been committed with the consent or connivance of that individual.
The content of promised guidance on key matters in the Bill will be crucial. Risk assessment will be a central requirement but who will carry that out? Will specialist assessment of the potential for attack be required etc? Questions also remain around the interaction of the new duty with existing duties, including the overarching duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Care will be required to avoid duplication and ensure proper coordination amongst the differing regulatory bodies.
The aims of the Bill are to be applauded but clarity is still required.
Kevin Bridges is a partner and head of health and safety at Pinsent Masons. For more information, visit www.pinsentmasons.com
