FMJ Facilities Management magazine providing industry-specific intelligence to FM and property professionals
By Brodies LLP, a leading UK law firm
The proposed Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (commonly known as “Martyn’s Law” in tribute to Martyn Hett who was killed in the Manchester Arena terrorist attack in 2017) continues to be a significant topic of interest for those operating publicly accessible premises. The legislation aims to enhance the preparedness and protection of venues against terrorist threats. A recent consultation by the Government on its proposals has provided new insights that are crucial for facilities management (FM) providers and their clients in preparing for what is coming down the line.
RECAP OF KEY POINTS FROM OUR PREVIOUS BLOG
In our previous article on page 6 of the September 2024 issue of the FMJ, we discussed the potential impact of Martyn’s Law on FM contracts, highlighting the potential impacts for horizon scanning, specification changes, and considerations around relief events and force majeure. We also touched on the importance of reviewing general service obligations and the liability and indemnity provisions within contracts to ensure compliance with the upcoming legislation.
CONSULTATION OVERVIEW
The Home Office conducted a consultation to gather feedback on the previous Conservative government’s proposed requirements for ‘standard tier’ premises, defined as those with a capacity of 100-799 individuals. The consultation received 1,981 responses, primarily from owners and operators of premises, security consultants, and individuals responsible for security at events. The responses revealed a mix of support and concern regarding the proposed measures.
KEY FINDINGS FROM THE CONSULTATION
Support for Legal Obligations: Approximately 48 per cent of respondents agreed that those responsible for standard tier premises should have a legal obligation to prepare for a terrorist attack. Support varied significantly across sectors, with stronger support among those operating premises offering healthcare, public transport, and public services (81 per cent) compared to those operating places of worship (30 per cent) and village halls/community centres (33 per cent).
Implementation Challenges: Nearly half (46 per cent) of respondents believed that the revised requirements would be difficult to implement, citing concerns about the administrative and financial burden. Smaller venues, such as village halls and places of worship, expressed most concern, with over half indicating that the requirements would be challenging to meet.
Financial Concerns: Over half (54 per cent) of standard tier premises operators were concerned that the cost of compliance would impact their financial viability. This concern was most pronounced (58 per cent) among smaller venues, i.e. those with a capacity of 100-299.
Training Burden: While 42 per cent of respondents felt that the revised training requirements had lessened the burden on organisations when compared to the original proposals, a significant minority (22 per cent) believed the burden had increased. Concerns were particularly focused on the impact on staff and volunteers, the additional time and effort required, and the resulting financial costs.
CONCLUSION
The consultation outcomes highlight the difficulty in striking the correct balance for standard tier premises. It will be interesting to see where the new Government seeks to set that balance based on the consultation results. For FM providers and their clients, staying informed through the legislative process will be key to planning for the changes ahead as Martyn’s Law progresses through Parliament.
