TER0050
Written evidence submitted by SIDOS UK
Contents
References within the draft bill to ‘reasonable’ and ‘require’ need clarification.
Defined perimeter or zone - grey space/uncontrolled space
Planning and placing of items on the highway or public space
SIDOS UK Ltd is a highly experienced security consultancy having staff who have specialised in the field of security in design for many years. Counter-terrorism security is a fundamental consideration by the company when engaged to advise on the design of publicly accessible locations across the UK.
Nobody would deny that the security of people going about their lawful business or activities is important and should not be understated. However, security must be Justifiable Appropriate Sustainable Proportionate Achievable and Reasonable. There is a real unease that the Act is going to change the approach for pragmatic security to one of fortification driven by an adverse approach to risk management.
Not every act of violence or vehicle involved in a collision with a pedestrian or building is a terrorist act. Equally, neither is every security breach defendable and certainly not by extreme, unjustifiable security measures. Similarly, not every road traffic collision is avoidable, accidents happen unintentionally and even as a result of unforeseen happenings such as a medical emergency.
Threats and Risks exist as they always have; they cannot be eradicated. Residual risk endures, even with mitigation and reduction measures. Acceptance of every one of these facts is essential, particularly when considering terrorism, where potential threats will always exist.
Acts of terrorism thankfully occur rarely and certainly cannot be eliminated from occurring even if the proposed legislation were to be implemented. It will not stop incidents of terrorism from occurring but will improve the quality of security personnel and reaction if one occurs.
Many aspects of the proposed legislation will be for the better, although almost all could have been implemented with minor amendments to the Health and Safety Act. That said, there are concerns within the draft bill that raise questions, which are detailed below.
The Act only truly addresses publicly accessible space within the event legal perimeter. Beyond that legal boundary is a critical aspect of event security. A question which has always existed is how far from the perimeter should be considered and who holds responsibility.
The Act has the potential to move the question of liability, which needs to be explored and understood, particularly by any persons within the ‘Competent Persons’ category.
There is no intention of deciphering the draft bill, and for ease, the aspects raised are followed by the suggested points to raise or questions in highlighted italics.
Under Health and Safety legislation, the owner decides what is reasonably practicable; the impression of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Draft Bill is that the person assessing makes that decision.
In the case of Enhanced Duty Premises or Qualifying public events, this assessment would be completed by a ‘Competent Person’. In some instances, this will be a third party. Third parties have a vested interest in ensuring they are not holding liability or responsibility. Accordingly, there is a real belief that security requirements will end up being excessive.
Any physical security measures have associated costs and often planning requirements. It cannot be up to a third party to decide what is reasonable on behalf of the asset owner or organiser of events. If this were to be the case:
How can that third party define and state what is ‘reasonable’?
It is suggested that the aspect of ‘reasonably practicable’ be defined in the Act.
The Act should either remove the word ‘require’ or define the actual responsibility clearly within the legislation for the reasons above.
From the asset management perspective, what are the implications of following only some of the requirements to the letter if they deem the requirements to be unreasonable?
Does the ‘competent person’ have the responsibility and, therefore, liability if requirements have been implemented as required, yet, an incident occurs resulting in the loss of life within the premises or defined event zone?
Is the asset or event management resolved of liability if all requirements are implemented?
Having been involved in the security in the design of premises for more than two decades, I can state and confirm that in many cases, the recommendations which would under the legislation become requirements are excessive and can cost between 12 and 20 per cent of a construction project. This directly impacts the Impact Assessment where the anticipated costs are considered considerably underestimated for physical security measures. An example would be security-rated glazing which can exceed £2,000 per metre squared, which is often recommended but would become a requirement.
It is suggested that the potential costs to businesses in the Enhanced Duty Premises be reviewed.
A premises perimeter is defined by land registry records, and insurers use this information to provide liability cover; the same applies to temporary event licence boundaries. It has long been acknowledged that people attending events migrate in large numbers and often queue on lands outside of the actual defined area and, therefore, outside of the control, direction or responsibility of the said event.
The Act expects parties which in many instances will be councils responsible for the public space, to communicate with event organisers to consider security. This cannot be identified as dealing with the risk but instead deflecting to a public area rather than the defined premise.
The Act has the potential to deflect the incident from within to outside the defined space, which would, in such a circumstance, result in loss of life in a queuing or crowded space, often referred to as ‘grey space’ or ‘uncontrolled space’. The Act does not, as it cannot remove the risks as perpetrators carry this out either as individuals or as a group. It merely moves it to another place where response resources would not be best placed to react.
The Act should consider how managing grey space/uncontrolled space can be incorporated into the legislation.
How far beyond the event perimeter should security be considered?
Who is responsible for the security of this grey space delivery?
There appears to have yet to be consultation with council planning departments. The Act does not require planning officers to allow permanent or temporary physical security measures placed on highways, footpaths or public spaces.
Planning is an ability for local considerations to be included and is a fundamental part of the control of environments across the UK. Physical security measures in public domains are often bollards and they have sprung up outside numerous buildings and used to close multiple streets across cities and towns. The requirement to implement physical security measures could see this become the norm moving the UK towards a fortress approach to security, reducing aesthetics and increasing street clutter with the increased risk to sight-impaired persons. Therefore, how can this be addressed before it gets out of hand?
A council can issue a licence through an application process for a public house or restaurant to place seats etc., in the public space. Physical security measures do not have to go through this licensing which under Highways legislation would appear to be amiss and potentially unlawful.
Will planning officers and councils be obliged to allow any application requesting physical security measures in public space without a choice?
What recourse would an event organiser or premises owner have in the event that planning permission was to be refused?
Planning permission is a protracted process with a number of consultees, consultation periods and committee timetables before a decision is made. How would this correspond particularly with events?
Where does the liability lie if a council refuses planning permission?
What steps does the Act intend or is able to address these planning issues?
When physical security measures are placed in public spaces, there are risks associated with slips, trips and falls as well as accidental collisions; where does liability lie, is it with the council, event or company placing the item?
Would the ‘competent person’ have any liability if they have required physical security measures be placed in public space?
June 2023