Martyn’s Law for the education sector

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, known as “Martyn’s Law”, is currently progressing through Parliament and has implications for all educational establishments, with an estimated 22,990 schools affected by it. Although the Bill affects all premises open to the public of a certain size, the Bill contains specific provisions which only relate to schools, colleges and universities. This means that what each of those educational establishments will need to do to comply with the new legislation, when it comes into force, is nuanced.

Qualifying premises

Generally speaking, the Bill will affect all premises to which the public have access, for one of the specified purposes set out in the Bill, where it is reasonable to expect that 200 or more individuals will be present at any one time. Schools, further education establishments and higher education establishments are all included on the list of specified purposes. The other purposes specified in the Bill are wide-ranging and include visitor attractions, shops, restaurants and sports stadiums, to name a few. Dwellings and offices are not within scope.

More specifically, and less obviously, it is important to understand precisely what the term “premises” means and how this affects the assessment of the number of individuals who can reasonably be expected to be present at any one time. Premises may comprise buildings or buildings with land, such as a school and playing fields. Where premises are a building and land, the reasonable expectation of numbers present needs to be assessed over the whole site. Standalone sports pitches and other open-air spaces are not caught, however, unless there are controls on entry to them. Groups of buildings, such as university campuses, are also caught and will comprise one premises for the purposes of the Bill. This means the reasonable expectation of numbers must be assessed on that basis. In the case of higher education establishments only, the definition of “use for the purposes of a higher education institution” will also include situations where residential accommodation is provided for those studying there, where the accommodation is managed by or on behalf of the institution. Of course, such accommodation may be off the main site.

Standard tier or enhanced tier?

The number of individuals who can reasonably be expected to be present at any one time on a premises will determine not just whether premises are in scope but also whether they will be subject to standard or enhanced tier requirements. One of the eight factsheets which accompanies the Bill deals with how to establish reasonable expectation of individuals present. In order to do this, the responsible person can draw from a range of methods to assess numbers, such as safe occupancy calculations for fire safety, historic attendance data, fixed seating, or any other reasonable method. Note that this is different from a premises’ actual capacity. 

Where premises are within scope, the responsible person must ensure that “public protection procedures” stipulated by the Bill are put in place to “reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals if an act of terrorism were to occur on the premises … or in the immediate vicinity”. The Bill sets out an exhaustive list of the procedures, which include provisions for evacuation and invacuation (moving everyone to a safe space within the premises), lockdown and communication.

For premises where there is a reasonable expectation that 800 or more individuals will be present at any one time (which, in view of the rules regarding campuses and accommodation above, may be reasonably common for higher education establishments) they will also need to comply with an “enhanced” duty. The enhanced requirements require additional “public protection measures” to be taken to reduce the vulnerability of the premises to terrorism. The measures include monitoring the premises and ensuring that information that may assist in planning terrorist attacks, such as floor plans, or information showing potential vulnerabilities of the event, is held securely and access restricted to relevant individuals. Compliance with enhanced requirements must be documented and sent to the Security Industry Authority (SIA), the new regulatory body.   

This is where one of the Bill’s nuances comes into play. The Bill specifically provides that in the case of schools and further education establishments, they will only ever be liable to comply with the standard tier requirements – not the enhanced tier requirements – regardless of size. No exception is made for higher education establishments, however, which are treated in the same way as any other premises. 

Qualifying events

One-off events are also within the scope of the Bill, where they are held at premises not already subject to the enhanced duty, and where 800 or more individuals may be present at any one time. A key point here is that events will be within scope even if they are held on open land with no buildings, but only where access to the site is controlled by individuals, whether by tickets or passes, and whether paid for or free. This means that where a (sufficiently large) event is held by a university on open land, which, because there are no buildings on it, would not otherwise come within the definition of premises, it may yet come with the scope of the Bill. Where an event is within scope, the responsible person will need to comply with the enhanced requirements.

Again, the Bill makes an exception for schools and further education establishments, providing that events held on their premises are specifically excluded from the definition of “qualifying events” and so will not need to comply with enhanced requirements. Again, events at higher educational establishments are treated in the same way as any other event.

The responsible person

Under the Bill the duties fall on the “responsible person”: essentially the person in control of the premises or the event. In the case of the education sector, the Bill specifies that the responsible person will generally be the governing body, or if none, the proprietor. And where the responsible person for enhanced duty premises or events is a body of people, a (relevant senior) individual must be designated as the main point of contact and their name supplied to the SIA. It is important to note that in some situations, there could be multiple responsible persons and where there are, there is a duty for them all to cooperate. This might occur in a situation where a university hires out its land for an event, possibly out of term time, and the event is run by a third-party commercial entity. 

When the Bill becomes law, those in the education sector will need to consider carefully how their premises are affected and where the statutory responsibility lies. Where third parties are involved, event licences and other contractual arrangements will need to clarify who is responsible for compliance with the new rules and contain appropriate indemnities and insurance requirements. It is inevitable that the conditions of public liability insurance policies will also evolve to require compliance with Martyn’s Law.  

This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

© Farrer & Co LLP, October 2024