Martyn’s Law: will this be the turning point for public safety? Unless we impose a minimum training level for stewards, there’s a danger that the new legislation could fall short…

It’s been a sobering couple of weeks.

The horrific violence following the Southport stabbings has been a grim reminder of the threats we face. In response, the Government has rolled out emergency measures, including enhanced police intelligence sharing and a wider deployment of facial recognition technology. We even have a new ‘standing army’ of specialist officers ready to swoop in when needed. These moves come just two weeks after the King’s Speech, in which Sir Keir Starmer outlined separate plans to strengthen criminal legislation. Among them was the highly-anticipated Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, which will enact Martyn’s Law.

Martyn’s Law is designed to ensure venues are better prepared for, and protected against, terrorist attacks. It’s named in honour of Martyn Hett, one of the 22 victims of the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. The plans require those responsible for publicly accessible premises to take certain ‘proportionate measures’, according to their capacity, to reduce the risk of a terrorist attack and help keep the public safe in the event of such an attack.

Sounds great, right? Well, yes and no…

Whilst it’s a positive step, will the new law really be a silver bullet? I certainly hope so. But I’ll be honest, I have my doubts. Why? Because Martyn’s Law only applies to businesses or individuals who are responsible for managing the venue in question. If passed, it won’t impose minimum training requirements on those actually responsible for securing the building or event space. And even if the law did prescribe this, would the level of training even be appropriate? As I discussed in last week’s article, the security industry is plagued by rogue training providers who are putting profits above safety and quality of training…

I’ve seen companies promise to get you SIA certified in half the required time, or offer classroom-based training online. Call me old-fashioned (though, I’d rather you call me ‘particular’), but I’d much rather receive first aid from an officer who’s actually practised on a CPR manikin than someone who’s just clicked through a few online questions! And it gets worse. As reported by the BBC, some SIA training providers are handing out test answers to ensure everyone passes. Unbelievable, right?

But poor training isn’t the only issue…

Current regulations require just one licensed security officer for every five stewards. Sounds reasonable until you realise stewards don’t need to be vetted. A 17yr old kid, fresh out of school, can don a high-vis vest and tick the security box. But can they handle or identify a potential terrorist threat? I doubt it. In the case of the Manchester Arena attack, members of the public reported suspicious behaviour to the stewards before the bomb went off. Yet a lack of training meant that the stewards didn’t act on those reports. This isn’t about pointing fingers, but until steward training laws are tightened, I fear there’s a real danger that nothing will actually change.

At Advantage One, we vet all of our stewards thoroughly and put our licensed security officers through our own rigorous training programme; even if they’ve been certified elsewhere. It’s the only way to ensure they’re up to the job. Sadly, not every provider adopts the same high standards. So, whilst I welcome Martyn’s Law, let’s keep pushing for comprehensive reforms that address the wider problems within the security industry.

Only then can we realistically hope to prevent such tragedies recurring in the future.