A new counter-terrorism law drawn up by the Home Office in the wake of the Manchester Arena attack will put people of different ethnicity at risk of discrimination and impose disproportionate costs on businesses, a watchdog has warned MPs.
Jonathan Hall KC said that Martyn’s Law – which will require all venues catering for more than 100 people to take “mitigation” measures to protect against a possible terror attack – will also require precautions to be taken in areas where there is minimal threat and be contrary to the normal approach of not allowing the British way of life to be changed by extremists.
Instead, he said it was “completely the reverse” and would lead to a “dramatic” and “very big change to the general posture in this country” that was “actually mandating a change in the way in which we lead our lives” that he did not see was required.
Ministers have prepared the draft legislation in response to findings that inadequate precautions and major failings after the attack contributed to the death of 22 victims in the 2017 bombing of the Manchester Arena by Salman Abedi.
The planned new law is officially known as the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill but is referred to as Martyn’s Law after Martyn Hett, one of the attack victims, whose mother Figen Murray has campaigned for the change.
But Mr Hall, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, told the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, that he feared the new law would risk discrimination by imposing counter-terrorism duties on poorly or untrained people.
“In an area that is often quite political and sensitive, and religious and racially sensitive, this Bill is inviting all sorts of members of the public to become counter-terrorism specialists,” he said.
“If there is an attack and it is by someone from a particular ethnicity, when you charge members of the public to become like counter-terrorism officers or to have a counter-terrorism posture, there is a risk that people are going to start saying, “Well, I’m not going to have someone with that ethnicity coming in,” or, “I’m going to do extra searches for people who look like they come from that sort of background.” Once you throw out a counterterrorism duty to hundreds of thousands of citizens, the risks of unintended consequences are quite high.”
Mr Hall suggested that there was also no logic to imposing duties and costs on venues regardless of their location or on the basis that they catered for 100 people and that “in cold, hard reality, there is no evidence base for saying that this would make a difference” to preventing a terror attack.
He added: “After attacks government ministers and the police, quite rightly, go on television and say, ‘Terrorists are not going to win. This is not going to change the way in which we live our lives.’
“This Bill seems to be completely the reverse: it is actually mandating a change to the way in which we live our lives, and I am not quite sure why this change is now being mandated and is now being required. That is a very big change to the general posture in this country, which is that attacks do happen.
“Basically, the public gets on with their lives and doesn’t have to think too much about it. This seems to reverse that in a very dramatic way.”
The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee will publish its conclusions on the proposed legislation tomorrow [Thursday]. Ministers will consider its recommendations and are expected to press ahead with the new law once Parliament returns.
