Member

That takes me to a concern that I had when we began legislative scrutiny, and on which I was reassured in the Committee evidence session. My concern was that in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, a staff member, an official or somebody responsible for compliance with the Bill might find themselves in the eye of the storm. We know how high emotions run, and about the all-too-human urge to seek someone to blame, even unfairly, in the aftermath of an event, but we heard in evidence from council officials, and from the people who run events and who will be brought into scope, that they did not consider the Bill a burden for them, for several reasons. First, they would already find themselves in that situation. The legislation does not cause that; a terrorist attack causes that. Actually, this legislation makes a terrorist attack less likely. Secondly, they are already in the eye of the storm for other reasons, such as ensuring fire safety and crowd control. Thirdly, they said that this would be good legislation for them because not only are they already affected, but it equips them to deal with terrorism. The Bill does not create the responsibility; it equips them to deal with it. That is why the Bill is proportionate and good.