Parliamentary activity

Answering body: Department of Health and Social Care

The Department will consider the availability and access to Public Access Trauma Kits as on-going work across the health sector on the implementation of the recommendations from the Manchester Arena Inquiry.

Answering body: Home Office

Today I am pleased to announce the foundational policy elements that will form the basis of this Government’s upcoming Protect Duty Bill, also known as Martyn’s Law. These proposals have been developed in response to feedback received to the Government’s 2021 consultation on policy, where seven in ten respondents supported the concept that businesses should protect the public, and in partnership with key stakeholders. Government will continue to work closely with business stakeholders to ensure that guidance and support is bespoke, accessible and easy to understand, enabling Martyn’s Law to be implemented successfully in an effective and proportionate manner.

As you will be aware, the Chair of the Manchester Arena Inquiry recommended the introduction of a Duty in June 2021. This was further to the 2017 London Bridge Prevention of Future Deaths Report, which recommended introduction of legislation setting out the duties of public authorities. Martyn’s Law has been championed by the Martyn’s Law Campaign (led by Figen Murray, the mother of Martyn Hett killed in the Manchester attack) and the Survivors Against Terror network, whom I would like to pay tribute to today. It is also supported by expert security partners such as the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI) and the National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO) within Counter Terrorism Policing.

Overview

The proposed Martyn’s Law will seek to improve the safety and security of our citizens so they can enjoy public premises without fear of terrorism by improving protective security and organisational preparedness at a wide range of locations across the UK. It is emphatically in the public interest for the Government and business to work together to ensure people are protected when visiting venues, retail areas, and other publicly accessible venues without introducing undue burden. Those responsible will be required to consider the threat from terrorism and implement appropriate, proportionate mitigation measures. The two primary objectives for Martyn’s Law will be to i) clarify who is responsible for security activity at locations in scope, thereby increasing accountability; and ii) improve outcomes UK-wide so that security activity is delivered to a consistent level. An inspection and enforcement regime will seek to educate, advise, and ensure compliance with Martyn’s Law.

Proportionate requirements

In developing Martyn’s Law policy, I have been clear that proportionality and clarity are fundamental to successful delivery. Legislation will therefore establish a tiered model, introducing a requirements framework that is linked to the type of activity that takes place at eligible locations and the number of people (occupancy) that the location can safety accommodate at any time. Wherever possible and appropriate the policy has been aligned to wider regimes designed to keep the public safe (e.g., Health and Safety and Fire Safety) to increase ease of understanding. The distinct requirements for each tier are:

Standard- will drive good preparedness outcomes. Locations with a maximum occupancy of greater than 100 people at any time will be required to undertake low-cost, simple yet effective activities to improve protective security and preparedness. This will be achieved by accessing free awareness raising materials and development of a basic preparedness plan considering how best a location can respond to a terrorist event in their locale.

Enhanced- focussed on high-capacity locations in recognition of the potential consequences of a successful attack. Locations with an occupancy of 800+ at any time will additionally be required to take forward a risk assessment and subsequently develop and implement a security plan. Enhanced Duty holders will be required to meet a reasonably practicable test.

Locations with a maximum occupancy at any time of less than 100 will fall out of scope, however, they will be encouraged to adopt good security practices on a voluntary basis. This will be supported by free guidance and training materials. To ensure that Martyn’s Law is agile and responsive, Government will have the ability to adjust capacity thresholds in response to changes in the nature of the terrorist threat.

Definitions

Premises will fall within scope of Martyn’s Law where “qualifying activities” take place. This will include activities such as entertainment and leisure, retail, food and drink, museums and galleries, sports grounds, public areas of local and central Government buildings (e.g., town halls), visitor attractions, temporary events, Places of Worship, health, and education. It is proposed that Martyn’s Law will apply to eligible locations which are either: a building (including collections of buildings used for the same purposes, e.g., a campus); or location/event (including a temporary event) that has a defined boundary, allowing capacity to be known. Eligible locations whose maximum occupancy meets the above specified thresholds will be then drawn into the relevant tier. This would include, for example, music festivals, where there are known and controlled boundaries in place.

Responsible Parties

To deliver clarity of responsibility and accountability, Martyn’s Law will define parties obliged to meet its requirements. This will be a simple formulation to establish persons in control of a premise. Where there are multiple parties at a location, Martyn’s Law will primarily place obligations on a lead party whilst placing requirements on others to co-operate with that party, such as in the development of risk assessments and security plans. Martyn’s Law Guidance will detail how and where it would be envisaged that parties will need to co-ordinate on assessments and plans and provide examples of good practice.

Exemptions

I intend that there will be some limited exclusions and exemptions from the Duty. This includes locations where transport security regulations already apply; and those that are vacant over a reasonable period or are permanently closed. Those with a large floor space and low occupancy in practice (e.g., warehouses and storage facilities) as well as offices and private residential locations, will not be in scope.

As a unique cohort, Places of Worship (PoW) will receive bespoke treatment under Martyn’s Law. All PoW will be placed into the standard tier, with a small cohort of locations that charge for entry placed into the enhanced tier. Similarly, given the existing safety and safeguarding policies in place at under 18 educational settings, such sites will be placed into the standard tier regardless of their occupancy. However, due to the accessible nature of higher educational settings I consider there is no case for any special treatment. I also consider that given their iconic status, with many locations operating as high-footfall visitor attractions, there is no case to provide any exemption for publicly accessible Defence, Royal and Crown Estate sites.

Regulation

To limit burdens on the Criminal Justice System (CJS), avoiding unnecessary criminalisation of individuals, enforcement will predominantly be delivered via a civil sanctions regime (to a civil standard). In all but the most serious cases a civil monetary penalty is likely to be issued to provide a backstop to the civil sanctions. However, in the case of the most egregious breaches a limited number of criminal offences will be available. It is not my intention for a failure to comply with standard Martyn’s Law requirements to result in criminal prosecution. In line with recent, comparable regimes, to disincentivise financial benefit from non-compliance, variable monetary penalties will be available. A maximum penalty of up to £18m or 5% of worldwide turnover will be available for Enhanced sites. Standard locations will be subject to a maximum £10,000 penalty. Civil liability for failure to comply with the requirements will be precluded by way of express provision for all duty holders.

Sensitive Information in Licensing Applications (SILA)

I intend to introduce the Sensitive Information in Licensing Applications (SILA) protocol (by way of an amendment to the Licensing Act 2003 (LA2003)) to align to the similar system already in place within planning legislation (Sensitive Information in Planning Applications (SIPA)), to reduce the risk of misuse of sensitive information in the public domain.

Bill preparation and Government support

I am pleased to have set out the above elements of Martyn’s Law, on the basis of which Government will introduce measures to the House as soon as parliamentary time allows. Statutory guidance to support duty holders in fulfilling Martyn’s Law requirements will also be developed. This will encourage a culture of continuous improvement. In addition, a range of initiatives are already in train to support understanding of Martyn’s Law and its requirements. ProtectUK will be a key tool for the effective delivery of support to all owners and operators of PALs, providing guidance and advice, training options and, engagement opportunities through webinars and forums.

An impact assessment has been developed to robustly assess the expected impact on organisations in scope.

Answering body: Home Office

Today the Manchester Arena Inquiry has published Volume 2 of its report, which has been laid before the House. The report can be found at www.manchesterarenainquiry.org.uk and on GOV.UK. The third and final volume of the Inquiry’s report will be published at a later date.

This report relates to the emergency response into the Manchester Arena attack. I am grateful for the strength and courage of the victims’ families and the survivors, and the engagement of all those who have shared their experiences to ensure the Inquiry can deliver its vital work. I am grateful too for the bravery of the emergency services who responded to the attack.

Steps have already been taken to implement learning from the attack to improve joint working between the emergency services when responding to terrorist attacks. The Government will review this report and consider where further improvements can be made and will respond to its content in due course.

I would also like to thank Sir John Saunders for his continued and considerable efforts in ensuring that the Inquiry is a success and that lessons are learned for the future from this tragic attack.

Answering body: Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office does not comment on matters of national security.

The first volume of the Chair's findings of the Manchester Arena Inquiry was published in June 2021, with volumes 2 and 3 scheduled for publication later in 2022. Further information can be found on the Inquiry's website: manchesterarenainquiry.org.uk

Answering body: Home Office

There are a wide range of reasons that police may stop individuals travelling through ports. Under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, Counter-Terrorism Police officers can stop and examine members of the public travelling through ports to determine their involvement in terrorist activity. The Home Office does not routinely comment on individual cases, and decisions on who to examine under Schedule 7 are made independently of government by the police.

I would refer the Honourable Member to the first volume of the Chair’s findings of the Manchester Arena Inquiry, which was published in June 2021. Volumes 2 and 3 of the findings are scheduled for publication later in 2022, and further information can be found on the Inquiry’s website: manchesterarenainquiry.org.uk

Answering body: Home Office

In line with long-standing Home Office policy, it would not be appropriate to comment on individual cases.

The first volume of the Chair’s findings of the Manchester Arena Inquiry was published in June 2021, with volumes 2 and 3 scheduled for publication later in 2022. Further information can be found on the Inquiry’s website: manchesterarenainquiry.org.uk

Answering body: Home Office

The Manchester Arena Inquiry is a statutory independent Inquiry and decisions as to how to deliver its terms of reference are a matter for the Chair.

The Inquiry heard evidence on what steps had been taken to ensure Ismail Abedi appeared at the Inquiry on 21 October. The transcript for the hearing is published in full: https://files.manchesterarenainquiry.org.uk/live/uploads/2021/10/21201337/MAI-Day-165_Redacted.pdf

Greater Manchester Police provided evidence to the Inquiry on Ismail Abedi’s departure from the UK which is published on the Manchester Arena Inquiry website: https://files.manchesterarenainquiry.org.uk/live/uploads/2021/12/21144111/INQ042319.pdf

Answering body: Home Office

A summary of the relevant report was provided to the Manchester Arena Inquiry. This followed a thorough process overseen by the Inquiry Chair and his legal team as to what content could be disclosed without damaging national security.

Regrettably disclosing the report would cause damage to national security.

Answering body: Department of Health and Social Care

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates the independent ambulance sector with exemptions, where some activities fall outside of its scope. This includes transport and treatment services provided solely within the confines of an event site. However, there are a small number of providers which are regulated where no such exemption exists, primarily those which also offer diagnostic and screening procedures. This activity is therefore regulated.

While it does not have regulatory oversight of such providers, the CQC has evidence of patient safety and quality issues and wrote to the sector in March 2017 and November 2018 and stated these concerns in its ‘State of care in independent ambulance services’ report in March 2019. The CQC’s then Chief Inspector of Hospitals also raised similar concerns to the Manchester Arena Inquiry in January 2022.

To bring medical services provided at events into the CQC’s scope of regulation requires an amendment in the Regulated Activity of the Treatment of Disease, Disorder and Injury. The Department is currently undertaking a post implementation review to ascertain whether the current Regulated Activities achieved the intended policy objective. Once the post implementation review report has been completed, the Department will work with the CQC on how the Regulated Activity can be updated as part of a review of the CQC’s regulations.

Answering body: Department of Health and Social Care

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates the independent ambulance sector with exemptions, where some activities fall outside of its scope. This includes transport and treatment services provided solely within the confines of an event site. However, there are a small number of providers which are regulated where no such exemption exists, primarily those which also offer diagnostic and screening procedures. This activity is therefore regulated.

While it does not have regulatory oversight of such providers, the CQC has evidence of patient safety and quality issues and wrote to the sector in March 2017 and November 2018 and stated these concerns in its ‘State of care in independent ambulance services’ report in March 2019. The CQC’s then Chief Inspector of Hospitals also raised similar concerns to the Manchester Arena Inquiry in January 2022.

To bring medical services provided at events into the CQC’s scope of regulation requires an amendment in the Regulated Activity of the Treatment of Disease, Disorder and Injury. The Department is currently undertaking a post implementation review to ascertain whether the current Regulated Activities achieved the intended policy objective. Once the post implementation review report has been completed, the Department will work with the CQC on how the Regulated Activity can be updated as part of a review of the CQC’s regulations.

Answering body: Home Office

The third edition of the JESIP Joint Doctrine was published on 11 October 2021. The refreshed Doctrine incorporates learning from evidence heard during the Manchester Arena Inquiry. It has also incorporated key learning from the other terrorist attacks, and the Grenfell Tower fire.

The Joint Doctrine is updated as a process of continuous improvement and learning from the Inquiry’s Phase 2 report will be taken into consideration as part of this process.

Answering body: Home Office

Today the Manchester Arena Inquiry has published Volume 1 of its report, which has been laid before the House. The report can be found at www.manchesterarenainquiry.org.uk and on GOV.UK.  Further volumes of the report will be published at a later date.

This report relates in particular to its investigation into the Manchester Arena complex and security arrangements. I am grateful for the strength and courage of the victims’ families and the survivors, and the engagement of all those who have shared their experiences to ensure the Inquiry can deliver its vital work.

Government will review this report and consider how to respond to its content in due course.

I would also like to thank Sir Jonathan Saunders for his ongoing work to uncover the lessons to be learned for the future from this tragic attack.

Answering body: Home Office

On 22 October 2019 I announced an independent public inquiry to investigate the deaths of the victims of the 2017 Manchester Arena terror attack, and the Terms of Reference for that Inquiry.

I have now received a request from the Inquiry’s Chair, Sir John Saunders, to make a small addition to the Terms of Reference. The additional text was not explicitly included in the original Terms of Reference due to the risk of prejudicing a future trial. That trial has now completed and therefore I have agreed that it is in the public interest that the Terms of Reference should more fully reflect the scope of the Inquiry’s investigations.

Therefore the following text will be added to section 1(ii): “whether Prevent referrals should have been made in respect of Salman Abedi and/or any of his family members”.

The updated Terms of Reference can be found on the Inquiry’s website at www.manchesterarenainquiry.org.uk.

I would like to thank Sir John Saunders for his continued work, and I pay tribute to the strength and courage of all those who will be sharing their experiences to ensure the Inquiry can deliver its vital work.