A top government official was grilled at the Manchester Arena bombing inquiry about the apparent slow pace of bringing in new legislation to impose a legal duty on venues to prepare for acts of terrorism, known as 'Martyn's Law'.
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 campaign by Figen Murray, whose 29-year-old son Martyn Hett died in the Manchester Arena bombing in May 2017, among 22 who died when suicide bomber Salman Abedi detonated a huge device in his backpack.
READ MORE: Serving GMP officer had sexual relationship with alleged rape victim, trial hears
A public consultation into proposed 'protect duty' has concluded and yesterday the government published what it termed its 'response'.
But as the public inquiry into the atrocity resumed today (Tuesday), it emerged some of the families bereaved in the attack believe it was not a proper response at all, that it contained no information about how ministers proposed to shape the legislation and nor any timetable.
A government official, Shaun Hipgrave, director of 'protect and prepare' for the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, said he could not promise draft legislation would be published by May, which will be the fifth anniversary of the atrocity.
Giving evidence to the inquiry for the third time, Mr Hipgrave was pressed on the 'protect duty', which the inquiry chairman Sir John Saunders recommended should be enshrined in law in his report into security at the arena which was published in the summer.
Pete Weatherby QC, representing one group of families, questioned the the government's response to the consultation, pointing out it had appeared it had not accepted or rejected specific points raised in the consultation.
As Martyn Hett's mother Figen Murray watched from the public gallery, Mr Hipgrave said: "There's no lack of activity around training and driving this forward at pace, either from the civil service or ministers."
The witness said he 'understands the frustration felt by all' and went on that it was 'equally important to me that this legislation is taken forward'.
He went on: "I know the Home Secretary is on the same page but we are trying to drive this forward but it's a complex time for this country with Covid."
Mr Weatherby pressed Mr Hipgrave further, saying the families wanted to 'understand the roadmap' towards legislation.
The witness said: "The Home Secretary made it clear in her press statements this week, as soon as legislative time allows to take it forward, yes."
The QC pressed further and said there was not even any draft legislation yet.
"It's very difficult for me to answer questions on future legislation," said Mr Hipgrave.
Asked if there would be legislation this parliament, there was a long pause before the witness added only that the Home Secretary had made a 'significant statement around getting legislation', adding this would be achieved 'as Parliamentary time allows'.
The QC said the apparent delay had left the families 'perplexed at the lack of any timetable going forward'.
Mr Hipgrave agreed to take the families' concerns back to the Home Secretary, Priti Patel.
John Cooper QC, representing another group of families, asked why the government appeared not to have 'committed themselves to the process'.
Mr Hipgrave said the 'shape of the legislation' that is to be brought forward would be for ministers to decide.
"To release anything without final agreement from ministers may mislead the public," he said.
The chairman, Sir John, also suggested the title of the government's response may have misled the public.
Mr Cooper asked the witness whether the legislation was not being progressed 'because ministers are not looking at it'.
Mr Hipgrave insisted ministers 'are looking at it'.
The QC asked Mr Hipgrave whether 'this will be dealt with' by the fifth anniversary of the arena attack.
The witness said he could not answer the question.
"I understand the feelings of the families. I do engage with them," he said.
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.
Inquiry chair Sir John has suggested legislation concerning larger venues, such as Manchester Arena, could be introduced before secondary legislation covering smaller locations was brought forward.
Mr Hipgrave said there was concern about potential 'unintended consequences' on smaller venues which may entail 'unnecessary restrictions' on smaller businesses.
Later in the inquiry, Mr Hipgrave denied a suggestion from Mr Cooper that Martyn's Law would be introduced next year rather than this year.
When it was suggested this would be 'intolerable', the witness said it his understanding that it would be introduced as soon as possible.
Mr Hipgrave said the Home Secretary was 'fully committed' to delivering the legislation 'as soon as reasonably practical'.
Sir John thanked the witness for his evidence and commented: "It may be easy for politicians to make certain promises of the speed at which things can be done without necessarily having a full understanding of the realities of the situation."
