More than seven years have passed since the harrowing Manchester Arena incident shook the UK. The attack, which took the lives of 22 people, exposed significant gaps in security and emergency preparedness.
In response, the UK government introduced the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill – commonly known as Martyn’s Law – in honour of one of the victims, Martyn Hett. This landmark counter-terrorism legislation, driven by the tireless efforts of Martyn’s mother, Figen Murray, aims to enhance the security of publicly accessible venues across the country.
While much discussion has centred on the implications for businesses and public spaces, the higher education sector faces unique challenges and opportunities under this new legal framework, slated to take effect as a priority after the election.
The bill has widespread, cross-party support so it is highly likely to become law, regardless of who wins the election. That makes understanding how it will work in conjunction with existing health and safety regulation essential for higher education providers.
A tiered approach to security
Martyn’s Law will introduce a two-tiered system of security requirements based on venue capacity. The “standard tier” applies to venues with a capacity of 100 to 799 individuals, while the “enhanced tier” encompasses larger venues with a capacity of 800 or more. For the education sector, the distinction between under-18 and over-18 education is crucial. Institutions catering to under-18 students, regardless of size, will fall under the standard tier.
However, the vast majority of universities, primarily serving young adults, will fall into the enhanced tier due to their large student populations and extensive campus facilities.
Universities are uniquely complex environments, comprising various buildings, student accommodations, and open spaces, often spanning large urban or rural areas. The enhanced tier requirements mean that universities must conduct comprehensive risk assessments, develop and implement detailed response plans, and ensure all staff and students are adequately trained to respond to potential terrorist incidents. This is a significant undertaking, especially for institutions that may not have extensive experience or resources dedicated to counter-terrorism measures.
Financial and reputational implications
One of the primary concerns expressed by university administrators is the need for external expertise to develop and execute these response plans effectively. The specialised knowledge required to assess risks accurately, devise appropriate security measures, and train personnel is not typically found within educational institutions. Consequently, universities will likely need to engage with security consultants and experts in counter-terrorism to meet the legislative requirements.
Non-compliance with Martyn’s Law carries substantial financial and reputational risks. For standard-tier venues, fines can reach up to £10,000 per premises, while enhanced-tier venues face penalties of up to five per cent of their qualifying global revenue – potentially amounting to millions of pounds. For universities, which already operate under tight budgets, these fines could have severe financial consequences, impacting their ability to deliver educational services and support to students.
Beyond financial penalties, the reputational damage from failing to comply with Martyn’s Law could be profound. Universities are trusted institutions, and any perceived negligence in ensuring the safety and security of students and staff could lead to a loss of trust from the public, prospective students, and parents. At a time when the higher education sector is already navigating numerous challenges, from funding cuts to the pressures of a competitive global education market, maintaining a strong reputation for safety and security is more critical than ever.
Redefining campus security and culture
Martyn’s Law represents a significant shift in how universities approach security and emergency preparedness. Traditionally, universities have focused on creating open, accessible environments that foster learning and collaboration. However, the increasing threat of terrorism necessitates a re-evaluation of this approach. Institutions must now balance openness with the need for stringent security measures.
Implementing Martyn’s Law will require universities to implement procedures to reduce harm in the event of a terrorist attack. These procedures include evacuation, “invacuation”, lockdown, and effective communication, focusing on outcomes rather than the need to make any physical alterations to buildings or campuses.
Campuses may implement security measures such as enhanced surveillance and controlled access to buildings, along with comprehensive training programs for staff and students. Awareness campaigns, regular drills, and clear communication channels will be essential to ensure everyone on campus knows how to respond in the event of a terrorist incident.
Given that students and staff are likely spread across various locations, guiding and communicating with everyone during an emergency is challenging. Using advancements in technology to ensure campus-wide communication systems can help, offering features such as broadcasting alerts for different situations and notifying key individuals via calls, messages or text alerts. Digital platforms can also facilitate the delivery of training and communication, ensuring that all members of the university community are well-informed and prepared, while maintaining the open, collaborative spirit that defines academic life.
The journey toward compliance with Martyn’s Law offers an opportunity for universities to review their security practices, enhance their preparedness for emergencies, and ultimately, provide a safer environment for learning and growth. As institutions of higher learning, universities have a responsibility to lead by example, demonstrating a commitment to the safety and well-being of their communities. In doing so, they honour the memory of Martyn Hett and all victims of terrorism, contributing to a safer, more secure future for all.
well worth a read.
This
…is a good, balanced article. In my opinion, Martyn’s Law has never been about building bigger walls and locks making Universities impenetrable – quite the opposite. Training to provide situational awareness of what to do if you see something that looks suspicious to avoid major incidents from occurring in the first place. If you’re not able to prevent an incident from occurring, at least being able to limit the consequences of such an attack through key organisational capabilities such as agile critical incident response, dynamic decision making, coordination of responders and mass-communications to your University community.
Shame that so many senior leadership team members cannot see the benefit of investing in specialist chemical exposure antidote solutions for Acid attacks and provision of enhanced response kits, including major incident trauma kits with CAT’s etc, our Trades Unions have brought these things up, via many routes, including the local JJNC, only to have it thrown back as something the university won’t even discuss as they don’t see the need. As a former EMT I pushed my department to put multiple ‘publicly accessible’ (meaning staff and students) First Aid Kits around our building 28 years ago, rather than follow the normal practice of issuing a kit to each individual first aider than ends up locked up in an office drawer inaccessible to anyone else, the rest of the university is only now starting to follow our lead, with a single kit in the entrance lobby of most buildings…
One of the primary concerns expressed by university administrators is the need for external expertise to develop and execute these response plans effectively. The specialised knowledge required to assess risks accurately, devise appropriate security measures, and train personnel is not typically found within educational institutions. Consequently, universities will likely need to engage with security consultants and experts in counter-terrorism to meet the legislative requirements.
This paragraph is slightly misleading. The Protect UK website is excellent, with lots of resources to help colleagues work through the various requirements, many of which are or should be in place anyway, regardless of the new legislation. https://www.protectuk.police.uk/
Local Counter Terrorism Security Advisors are best placed to provide guidance on training, best practice and risks. There is no need to procure expensive security consultants and experts, unless you really want to. https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/