Manchester Arena attack: PM urged not to delay Martyn's Law

Seven ex-home secretaries have written to the Prime Minister urging him to bring in a law to tighten security at venues after the Manchester Arena bomb.

Plans for the law, known as Protect Duty or Martyn's Law, were announced in May but the bill has yet to be tabled.

It would require venues and councils to have plans against terror attacks and was named after Martyn Hett, who was among 22 people killed in the attack.

The letter said the PM should act as he was "responsible for public safety".

A government spokesman said its "commitment" to the bill "remains".

Mr Hett's mother Figen Murray has long championed the legislation and she told BBC Breakfast she hopes the letter "adds a bit of weight" to the campaign.

"I didn't realise bringing legislation into action is such a complicated process", she said, adding she put the delay down to Covid and the change in prime minster.

"Now the new government is in and has been in for a few weeks, I'm thinking it should move now, but I haven't heard anything yet about it moving forward," she said.

"It's a bit disappointing.

"It's really important to get this over the line. The longer the government waits, the more there is a chance of another attack and people dying."

She added: "As Martyn's mum I will see this through until it's done however long it takes."

The letter comes days after senior police officers wrote to the prime minister, making the same plea, while families of the victims and survivors have spoken of their frustration at the hold up.

Former Labour home secretaries Jack Straw, David Blunkett, Charles Clarke and Jacqui Smith, and ex-Conservative home secretaries Amber Rudd, Sajid Javid and Priti Patel wrote the letter to Rishi Sunak to urge him to bring forward the legislation without delay.

The letter read: "The most important job of any government is to ensure the safety of its citizens.

"As former home secretaries we know how hard that is when there are individuals willing to attack unarmed civilians for their twisted idea of a cause.

"We also know that no matter the resources and bravery of our security forces there will always sadly be some terrorists who slip through the net and are able to carry out their attacks."

They said that as well as supporting the security services "we also need to make public spaces harder to attack and more able to cope with an attack if one happens" and they welcomed the government's plan to introduce the bill.

"The law now has all-party support and was announced as part of the last Queen's speech," the letter said.

"In recent days we have read that our security services fear that the bill could be delayed or watered down to cover only the largest venues.

"We urge you to listen to their concerns and bring forward the strong measures that will make this legislation most effective."

They urged the PM "to personally step in and ensure that the bill is implemented in full and its passage completed during this Parliament".

"After all, it is the Prime Minister who is ultimately responsible for public safety."

Ms Smith told BBC Breakfast: "What's being proposed is yes a responsibility on those businesses to protect people that come there, but a government commitment to making sure that there is the training and other support in place to enable them to do that.

"It strikes me and other home secretaries that's a sensible way for us to work together to keep people safe."

Lord Blunkett told the upper house they had written the letter to ask "for this matter to be taken expeditiously, given that it's 18 months since the end of the consultation".

He then asked Home Office minister Lord Sharpe if he would ensure Mr Sunak got the letter, to which he replied: "I will certainly make sure that the Prime Minister is aware."

Former victims' commissioner Baroness Newlove criticised the delay in getting the legislation through.

The Conservative peer said: "I've met Figen [Murray] and other campaigners and I think five years for the government to not have any legislation in place is absolutely inhumane to the families, who are grieving, who are fighting to make other venues safe."

Labour peer Lord Harris of Haringey said: "Had there been at that time a Protect Duty in place then, 22 people might not have died.

"The Home Office has moved with extraordinary sloth since the principle was accepted, they have consulted at length on this, they have responded to the consultation, we were promised it in the Queen's Speech.

"When will this happen, or do we have to wait for another atrocity?"

Lord Sharpe acknowledged the issue was in his party's 2019 election manifesto, explaining the consultation was delayed due to Covid-19 and so did not take place until 2021.

He reiterated the legislation would be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allowed, emphasising he could not "improve on that answer".

Labour frontbencher Lord Coaker said they would not let the minister "off the hook" with that answer, saying: "It's not good enough."

A government spokesperson said: 'The commitment made to the Protect Duty in the Queen's Speech and the 2019 manifesto remains and we are working hard to bring forward this important piece of legislation as soon as possible."

Why not follow BBC North West on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram? You can also send story ideas to [email protected]