We agree that for many large venues and events, it would be reasonable to look at what more can be done to improve security through effective assessment and mitigation.
4.2 However, we are concerned that the capacity-based approach set out in the consultation is likely to impose an intolerable burden on many smaller venues/events as we elaborate on below, causing them to cease and thereby handing a win to terrorists who wish to disrupt our way of life. An appropriate balance must be achieved between protecting our communities and the places they use as part of their everyday business, and ensuring that the access and enjoyment of those places is not unduly restricted.
Owners/operators of venues
4.3 We agree that any new duty introduced must be proportional and not unduly burdensome for those within scope. We are particularly mindful of the need for local businesses, town centres and local authorities to focus on post-pandemic recovery in the short and medium term, and that the introduction (and cost) of any new measures at this time should be kept to the necessary minimum. Further, as leaders of place, councils are keen to encourage communities to come together, use local facilities, support local businesses and the voluntary sector etc, particularly as we emerge from the pandemic. It must be ensured that a new duty does not prevent this.
4.4 The threshold for falling within scope of the duty as it is set out in the consultation will cover a significant number of venues, including important community facilities. The Government needs to think very carefully about which venues will fall in scope if they proceed with a capacity-based approach (for example would an event in nursing homes, schools, wedding venues be covered?)
4.5 Similarly, local authorities are keen, and have been encouraged, to do what they can to support community events such a church fetes or community fun days through light touch approaches to licensing. It is important that an appropriate balance is achieved that enables events to go ahead, whilst keeping people safe.
4.6 There is a need for greater clarity across the board about where exactly responsibility would sit for fulfilling the duty. This includes “owners and operators” of venues who would be subject to the duty (and enforcement measures), as currently set out in the proposals. The consultation document refers to “the parties responsible for the venue, which would usually be the owners or operators, who have control and ownership of systems and processes” and that “where there is a shared organisational responsibility for a venue within scope, the parties would be required to work together to ensure the Duty requirements were met.” This is likely to raise a number of complexities about who could and should ultimately be responsible for meeting a duty in practice. In cases such as a village hall hired out to different event organisers, any duty that falls on individual organisers is likely to lead to inconsistency and raise competence issues, while it may be impractical to expect the owner to undertake detailed assessments for every event, especially where mitigation has to be implemented by individual organisers. Another example requiring clarity would be a local authority which owns a leisure centre, but where the services are operated by a separate company.
4.7 A further concern is that many organisations potentially within scope of the duty would have little experience or expertise in the counter-terrorism field. We would be particularly concerned, for instance, that if the duty extended to volunteers organising local community events, this would be a substantial deterrent for people to take on a voluntary role and may mean local events - which are the lifeblood of our communities - could be at risk of cancellation.
4.8 The proposals acknowledge that different venues and spaces should not be treated in the same way. However, while very large venues will likely be at increased risk as they provide opportunities for a larger number of potential victims, differentiating between venues according to capacity/size only, as set out in the consultation, provides a blunt instrument that does not necessarily equate to actual risk. For instance, some smaller venues may be more symbolic and therefore more likely to be targeted (eg places of worship); their layout might make them more susceptible to attack or change the potential severity of an attack; and conversely, some larger venues will be less at risk and/or face different levels/types of risks and threats depending on the specific event being hosted at any one time.
4.9 Similarly, the proposals also suggest that organisations employing 250 staff or more will be subject to the duty. However, while some organisations have low numbers of employees, potentially meaning they fall outside of scope, they may have high numbers of customers/public/attendees.
4.10 If the HSWA or similar approach suggested above is not pursued, the Protect duty should enable those responsible to consider the precise level of risk at that particular place/event. We suggest that a risk-based approach to determining which venues/events should fall within scope, that looks at both national and local context, intelligence etc, would offer a more nuanced alternative.
4.11 There also needs to be further clarity about which venues will be designated as “publicly accessible”. For instance, some venues operate conferencing facilities which are strictly “business to business”, and do not take bookings directly from the public. Potentially this may not be covered by the duty as it is currently proposed.
4.12 Managing risks in the spaces outside specific venues also needs to be carefully considered. In some instances it is not always easy to determine exactly who is responsible for the areas outside of venues (“grey spaces”); and what the legal implications might be where mitigation measures for one venue (for instance bag searches) effectively introduces new, or displaced, risks elsewhere (for instance queues in public space outside of venues or muster points). It should be recognised that some events at large venues in particular can create issues for town and city centre spaces far beyond the boundaries of the venue itself.
4.13 Further, it may not always be clear who owns/is therefore responsible for some public places. We are concerned that local authorities could effectively be left to “pick-up” responsibility for fulfilling the duty for many publicly accessible areas where there is ambiguity, with inevitable resource implications.
Parks/public spaces
4.14 The consultation proposals suggest that a new duty should extend to public spaces. Parks and public spaces are a focal point for local community life. They provide precious places for our communities to relax, socialise, and are a critical part of supporting the wellbeing of our residents. It is vital that a proportionate approach to ensuring the safety of these spaces is applied, that does not detract from their core purpose and effectively does more harm than good. We do not think the duty should apply to public spaces as a matter of course, unless that space is being used for specific events.
4.15 Should Government choose to extend the duty to public spaces, how a duty could and should be applied here needs careful consideration. There is little detail in the proposals about what this might look like in practice, however we are particularly concerned about the implications of a broad application to public spaces such as parks and beaches.
4.16 There are a number of practical concerns about extending the duty to public spaces. Many public spaces are open and do not have defined boundaries, and require a different approach to other publicly accessible locations - both in terms of risk assessment and appropriate mitigation.
4.17 Ownership of these spaces is also not always clear. For instance, village greens can belong to the parish council, district or the Highways Authority. There can also be challenges around national parks and beaches and where responsibility for these areas begin and end; similar issues might apply to privately owned public spaces, such as gardens and squares. The 2019 report Review of the legal responsibility for beach safety for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency outlines some of the complexities of imposing duties (and overlapping existing duties) in this space.
4.18 One unintended consequence of introducing a duty for these spaces could be that mitigation measures taken to reduce or funnel access to public spaces, for example by removing non-statutory access staircases to popular beaches, could lead to new potential sources of risk from slips, trips, and falls if visitors create informal paths to access those spaces.
4.19 The wider context for the use of some public spaces should also be considered. For instance, until a field becomes an enclosed space for an event or festival, it is essentially a passageway and unlikely to require the same level of assessment or mitigation. It is also important to understand how the duty will apply where events use a number of public spaces as part of their use (eg parkrun).