Agenda item

The Chair introduced the report which covered the government’s published consultation document on a new Protect duty, aimed at helping to protect public venues and spaces from terrorist attacks.

The Chair invited Debbie Bartlett Deputy Director, Home Office and Georgia Jackson Publicly Accessible Locations – Strategy and Engagement, Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, Home Office, to present an overview of the Protect Duty proposals.

Georgia introduced the presentation and highlighted that attacks in recent years have demonstrated the continued threat the UK faces from terrorism. In February 2020, the Minister for Security first announced plans to consult on a protect duty but due to the COVID-19 pandemic this was temporarily paused and relaunched in February 2021 with an 18-week consultation period.

Georgia emphasised that the consultation sought views of organisations across four key themes:

·       Scope – who a duty would apply to?

o   The duty would apply to public venue owners and operators of venues with a capacity of 100 personsor more

o   Large organisations employing 250 staff or more

o   There is also consideration of responsibilities at public spaces that have no clear boundaries or well-defined entrance or exit points, e.g. city centre squares, bridges, parks and beaches; it was recognised that there are more issues to discuss in relation to these places, including overlapping ownership.

·       Impact – what would stakeholders be required to do?

o   Consider terrorist threats and methodologies

o   Assess the potential impact to the public and staff

o   Consider and take forward ‘reasonably practicable’ and appropriate protective security and organisational preparedness measures. 

o   It was noted that this wouldn’t always be about costly physical measures, although they may be required for larger venues – how would government support those affected by duty?

o   Through providing a significant amount of advice and guidance on, e.g. terrorist threat and attack methodologies, risk assessment, reasonably practicable mitigating measures, and security processes.

o   Developing something that can be built into existing mechanisms and is easy to understand and implement. Inspection and enforcement – how would compliance work?

o   The health and safety regime offers a good model, with HSE setting out core principles but additional sector specific guidance available too.

o   Primary aim for an inspection and enforcement regime is to advise and educate on improving security systems, processes and culture

o   Sanctions will be deployed for repeated non-compliance

o   Consideration of an inspection and enforcement regime and who would enforce this.

Georgia then addressed the key issues which were:

·       Getting scope, criteria and threshold right

·       Consideration of public spaces element

·       How the Protect Duty would work in practice

·       Developing requirements and guidance

·       Development of Inspection and enforcement regime and delivery resource.

·       She emphasised that there will be several impacts for councils as large organisations with public buildings, spaces and events. As public spaces will be the most complex issue the Government is keen to hear from councils, so Georgia encouraged members to promote the consultation.

Following the discussion, Members made the following comments:

·       Concerns were raised around the responsibilities that could fall on smaller venues managed by local charities and volunteers. Debbie responded that they were aware of the concerns raised around smaller venues but were looking to make the protect duty proportionate.

·       The term ‘reasonably practicable’ did not address the fact that local authorities would not have the capacity to monitor all public spaces and venues to ensure that procedures were being followed and met. Debbie responded that venues currently undertake health and safety and fire regulations which could align with the protect duty requirements.

·       Members asked how this would be inspected, recognising that licensing and planning have lots of experience but this would be an additional burden to enforce and would need to be funded. It was noted that numerous temporary events notices for one off events in open spaces are granted by local authorities daily. How would the protect duty impact this and what would be the expectations as it would pose a considerable burden on multiple events, e.g. Community fun days. Debbie replied that as part of enforcement it was important to educate people before penalising as this was a new structure being put in place. The protect duty would seek partnership work with local police to help people understand the nature of threat and risk and what could be done to mitigate this. For many venues, the impact would mainly be at the lower end of the scale, in terms of understanding and awareness.

·       Privately owned public spaces were more prevalent now than ever before, e.g. shopping centres, gardens and squares. These are open to the public but not managed by local authorities.

·       Members recognised the overlaps with other issues of interest to the Board, including counter extremism and funding of the SIGCE and responsibilities for beach ownership and oversight.

·       Debbie confirmed that no organisation was the obvious choice for inspection and enforcement, and that this would be informed by the consultation.

The Chair thanked Debbie and Georgia for their thorough and detailed presentation on the consultation document of the new Protect duty.

            Decision:

Members of the Safer and Stronger Communities Board noted the report.

Action:

·       Officers to consider comments made by members to feed into the development of the LGA’s consultation response.