Four terror plots foiled in last 12 months as ‘Martyn’s Law’ moves a step closer

Four terror plots have been foiled by the UK security services in the last 12 months, as plans for a ‘Martyn’s Law’ moved one step closer.

The government has announced it is working on legislation, which would see public venues have a legal duty to provide specific security plans for a terror attack.

It follows a long and respected campaign from Figen Murray, whose 29-year-old son Martyn Hett died in the Manchester Arena bombing.

READ MORE: Manchester Arena inquiry LIVE updates with evidence on security and policy changes made

The findings of a consultation on the plans, were published today.

Views were sought on what type of venue should be bound by the so-called ‘Protect Duty’ in the wake of the May 2017 atrocity, in which 22 people were killed after an Ariana Grande concert.

The Home Office said the Government is still developing the plans and proposed legislation, which would be “introduced to Parliament at the earliest opportunity”.

The chairman of the Manchester Arena public inquiry said today said the Home Secretary was expected to make a statement on the plans in due course.

That is now expected in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

Today Martyn Hett’s mother Ms Murray described the development as a ‘ giant leap forward in the right direction.’

“I can see the end result now,” she told BBC Breakfast.

“It is massive because the Government has clearly taken it on board and embraced it.”

She said Government-led changes take a long time but “it would be amazing if this could be passed by the fifth anniversary of the attack in May”, adding: “That would mean so much for me but (also) for the other families as well”.

“Everything I do since Martyn died is purely for the sole purpose to stop other people from experiencing and having to live a life that we are living now” she added.

“The effects of losing someone to a terror attack are life-changing.”

In the foreword to the Government’s response to the consultation, the Minister for Security and Borders, Damian Hinds, reveals that since last February there have been two terror attacks in the UK and four further foiled plots.

This further emphasised the need for constant improvement in counter-terrorism and public security.

And he said requiring public venues to ensure there was an “appropriate and consistent approach” to security was ultimately a “reasonable ask.”

“Since the publication of the Protect Duty consultation document in February, we have seen further terrorist attacks in the UK…” Mr Hinds said.

“Four further plots have been disrupted by UK police and security services.

“Terrorist attacks can potentially occur anywhere, in large or small venues, at a range of locations.

“It is vital that the Government continues to consider how and where improvements can be made to combat the threat of terrorism and further enhance public security.”

Do you support the introduction of a Martyn’s Law? Let us know in the comments below

Adding: “The Protect Duty would be one means by which we seek to further enhance public security, sitting alongside our existing and ongoing work programs to achieve this aim.”

There is no current legal duty for venues to employ security measures at the vast majority of public places.

But seven in 10 of 2,755 respondents to the consultation which ran from February to July last year, agreed publicly accessible locations should take measures to protect people from attacks, including ensuring staff are trained to respond appropriately, according to the Home Office.

Mr Hinds said he had met with Ms Murray and other representatives of the Survivors Against Terror Campaign Team and that “listening to and reflecting on the experience of survivors has reaffirmed my commitment to take forward Protect Duty legislation”.

The ongoing Manchester Arena public inquiry into the atrocity was told a legal duty would be placed on the owners or operators of venues, or public places, to consider terror threats and methodologies, assess the impact attacks could have on them and put in place plans.

Anything from small businesses to ‘bridges in town centres’ would be covered, inquiry chairman Sir John Saunders was told.

The new law “would aim to create a culture of security, with a consistency of application and a greater certainty of effect” the Home Office says.

However, they said there was an understanding that measures should be proportionate to the size of the venue, with a greater onus put on those that are larger and not place an “undue burden” on smaller venues such as places of worship and those staffed by volunteers the department said.

“The Government’s impact assessment for the Duty and its requirements will also robustly assess the question of costs and burdens further” Mr Hinds said.

Home Secretary Priti Patel said yesterday: “Following the tragic attack at the Manchester Arena, we have worked closely with Figen Murray, victims’ groups and partners to develop proposals to improve protective security around the country.

“I am grateful for their tireless commitment to the Duty and those who responded to the consultation, the majority of whom agreed tougher measures are needed to protect the public from harm.

“We will never allow terrorists to restrict our freedoms and way of life, which is why we are committed to bringing forward legislation this year that will strike the right balance between public safety, whilst not placing excessive burden on small businesses.”

The many responses from campaigners and industry figures had shown “a majority support for tougher security measures to ensure that people are better prepared to protect the public from terrorist attacks”, Ms Murray had said.

She added that “a significant number of organisations” were already taking the “practical and proactive steps that will make us all safer when visiting public places”.

According to the Home Office, “very strong views were expressed regarding the need for accountability, such as the need for clear roles and responsibilities, particularly amongst event organisers, and those at senior level within venues and organisations”.

It added: “Half the respondents were in favour of an inspectorate that would identify key vulnerabilities and areas for improvement, as well as share best practice.

“There was also an even split of those who were supportive of the use of civil penalties to ensure compliance to the duty.”

Sign up to the MEN email newsletters to get the latest on sport, news, what’s on and more by following this link