ES: It should and, in some ways, it might already have been possible for it to have done so. We have challenges ahead in terms of defining a ‘Publicly Accessible Location’, a ‘Competent Person Scheme’ to assess and implement the changes needed and who monitors and enforces any breaches. To assess the risk of a threat, mitigate it to its lowest reasonably acceptable level, train those who need to be trained and constantly monitor our performance and try to improve, along with having punishments for companies and individuals who fail to do so, sounds very much like the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Perhaps, had that been amended to include Counter Terrorism Measures as another risk we need to cater for, it might already have been enacted as amended legislation. It feels a little like trying to invent a wheel that is already working pretty well. That legislation, occasionally amended, has stood the test of time pretty well. The greatest challenge in many ways is the lack of training, experience and knowledge outside the police and security services, along with the likelihood that those expected to undertake the tasks (and those expected to monitor and enforce failures), will never have the intelligence picture that the authorities will have, so delivery will be challenging.
As to the second part? Yes, I think it will. UK ‘Common Law’ features in many countries around the world and much of our legislation is emulated elsewhere. If we get Protect right, others will follow suit although I suspect most will wait and see if we can deliver it first.