Minutes:
Fiona Baker (Met Counter Terrorism Security Advisor) attended and updated the Committee on the new Protect Duty for Bromley.
The Home Office had been consulting on how legislation could be used to enhance the protection of Publicly Accessible Locations (PALS) across the UK from terrorist attacks and to ensure widespread organisational preparedness. There had been 2700 responses to the consultation. At the moment what the Committee was being briefed on was ‘proposals’—a Bill was not yet being considered by Parliament. The aim of the briefing was therefore pre-emptive. The consultation had come about as a result of terrorist attacks in the UK and also as a result of the diligent work of Figen Murray. Figen Murray was the mother of Martyn Hett, who at 29 years of age was tragically killed in the terrorist attack at the Manchester Arena in May 2017.She championed ‘Martyn’s Law’.
The consultation looked at the following areas:
1. Who (or where) should the legislation apply to?
2. What should the requirements be?
3. How should compliance work?
4. How should the Government best support and work with
partners?
In terms of who or where the legislation should apply to the following was noted:
1) Public venue owners and operators with a capacity of
100 persons or more.
2) Large organisations with 250 staff or more who
operate within PALS.
3) Consideration of responsibilities at Public Spaces
A ‘Publicly Accessible Location’ (PALS) was defined as any place to which the public or any section of the public had access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission. It was noted that these areas could be parks, high streets, hospitals, public transport, beaches, festivals and sporting locations.
Those organisations and businesses affected by the proposed legislation would need to consider terrorist threats and methodologies and assess the potential impact of these to the general public and to their staff. They would also need to consider and take forward reasonably practicable and proportionate protective security and organisational preparedness measures.
In terms of compliance to the legislation, it was not clear at this stage if this would come via the Home Office or self-regulation. It was anticipated that financial sanctions would be imposed for repeated non-compliance.
The Government would provide support and guidance in various ways; one of these would be via an online platform called ‘Protect UK’ where amongst other things there would be help with undertaking risk assessments. There was also the option to get advice from private sector sources and also via Counter Terrorism Advisors like Ms Baker.
In January of 2022, the consultation process ended and Homeland Security would look at the results of the consultation as they prepared to draw up legislation to put forward to Parliament in a Bill. It was originally anticipated that this work would be completed by July 2022, but it would probably be delayed because of the effects of Covid.
Ms Baker summarised the benefits of the Protect Duty as follows:
• Public Safety & Security
• Site Preparedness
• Accountability
• Enhancing Public Confidence
• Enterprise Value - reducing economic loss to organisations/GDP
• Empower more staff confidence.
Ms Baker highlighted the economic damage caused by terrorism.
A discussion took place regarding the type of targets and locations that terrorists may or may not be more likely to attack and whether or not an enclosed space would be more attractive as a target than an outdoor open space and whether or not multi-level plans may be required for each venue depending on the threat level.
A Member expressed concern regarding the possible cost to organisers in terms of getting staff retrained. She wondered if organisers would get any financial help for this. Ms Baker responded and said that sites would be able to access free training either in person or online from a variety of sources. Organisers would need to be prepared and part of this would be the ability to implement search regimes as required.
A Member expressed concern at the possible creation of a new private industry sector.
Ms Baker said that she would share a document with Members that would outline where the various sources of training could be accessed.
A Member commented on the economic effects suffered by businesses as a result of the London Bridge attack. He recommended that businesses should take out terrorism insurance which in fact had been available for quite some time. He suggested that it would be a good idea if we had a national terrorist insurance base which would help companies operating on tight financial margins and which could be made compulsory. Reference was made to Pool Re who provided terrorism insurance.
Ms Baker said that she was able to share a link with Members that offered terrorism related guidance that was relevant for Councillors.
The SNB (Safer Neighbourhood Board) Chairman said that most businesses would welcome the legislation and that many businesses had already been working on these matters. The Glades and Biggin Hill already had work going on. There was much training on line and in person that was available. She asked about areas in the public/private domain where there was a geographic crossover with no one person having a specific responsibility for the whole of that area. She wondered how this was going to be managed and implemented from the Council’s perspective.
Ms Baker responded and said that this was a problem that had been acknowledged in the consultation. However, wherever there was a space, someone would be responsible for that space.
A Member asked if organisations could be liable to be sued or subject to legal action if they had not undertaken the correct preventative measures. This was something that had not yet been finalised.
A Member reflected on who would undertake the associated enforcement and expressed the view that it could not be the police.
The Chairman requested that the Emergency Planning Team look into what places or spaces the Council would need to take responsibility for under the new Protect Duty.
The Chairman expressed his thanks to Ms Baker for her presentation.
RESOLVED that:
1) Ms Baker would provide Members with the relevant links for generic online guidance with respect to the Protect Duty, as well as more specific guidance that was for Councillors.
2) The Emergency Planning Team should look into what areas the Council would need to consider with respect to the new Protect Duty.
.