Protect Duty consultation response must be robust
On the publication of the results of an 18-week consultation into the proposed Protect Duty legislation , the Government announced plans to introduce legislation to mandate the inclusion of anti-terrorism measures at all UK venues with a capacity of more than 100 . The call for such legislation has been led by Figen Murray , mother of Martyn Hett who was one of 22 people who died in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack . Here she emphasises the importance of the legislation being robust , standalone , and not tagged on to any licensing or health and safety law .
The long-awaited response from the public consultation on ‘ Martyn ’ s Law ’ was finally published early in January and the first reaction on social media platforms across the board was that it was not a response at all ! Puzzled at first , I realised that the 40-page document was indeed a summary of the findings rather than a response .
It nevertheless made interesting reading as it gave an overview of the response , highlighting some of the strengths and weaknesses of what is proposed . The fact that 2,755 stakeholders engaged with the consultation was very encouraging . It was also great to see seven out of 10 participants agreeing that this legislation is needed and that venues should prepare for a possible attack . Although there was a discussion around capacity and thresholds , it was interesting to see that 58 % of people felt that no publicly accessible location should be exempt from the duty .
I was shocked when I saw that only 50 % of participants carried out risk assessments . As a mother having lost her son to a terrorist attack , I found this figure incredibly disheartening . However , Nick Aldworth – one of my co-campaigners and a very counter-terrorism-savvy colleague – was impressed by the fact that 50 % of participants already engage in risk assessments without being obliged to do so yet .
How compliance around the Protect Duty should work is understandably widely seen as a concern . Stakeholders are worried about the financial impact the duty would have . Some were
Figen Murray
dubious about penalties enforced if people did not adhere to new regulations . Some of the more constructive responders felt the introduction of an inspectorate would help identify work that may still need to happen to bed the legislation in properly . They clearly saw the benefits of an inspectorate , whereas others saw the very same inspectorate as Big Brother watching them .
An inspectorate could be the ideal entity to identify areas for improvement , help deliver key objectives of the Duty and act as a platform for sharing best practice . Just over 50 % of respondents felt that issuing fines for noncompliance would serve to guarantee organisational buy-in , compliance and accountability .
As far as financial impact is concerned , clearly proportionality comes to play here . A small 100-person capacity cinema would not require a metal detector arch , but it may simply require bag searches or a new back door lock . It may require a risk assessment with all exit doors being secure but with a solid counter-terrorism action plan and free-of-charge counter terrorism awareness training so that staff are clear what to do in an attack .
It is important that the Government response resulting from this consultation is robust , crystal clear , straightforward , and strong . It would be a great disappointment after all the campaigning we did if the Government decided to use soft touch language within the proposed legislation . Words such as ‘ optional ’, ‘ guidance ’ or ‘ recommendation ’ would be a disaster and would have the potential for the legislation not being taken seriously enough .
Terrorist attacks destroy lives . It is now up to the Government to introduce a sound piece of legislation to deliver its promise to the people – keeping the public safe from harm is meant to be the Government ’ s top priority .
10