Counter Terror Business - Martyn's Law/Protect Duty

What Martyn’s Law means for you

Polly Jones — Tue, 17 Feb 2026 15:25:56 +0000

After receiving Royal Assent in April 2025, Martyn’s Law is now entering its implementation phase, with the Security Industry Authority preparing to regulate thousands of UK venues and events. A new tiered framework will require operators to adopt proportionate security measures, backed by expanded SIA teams, digital systems, and forthcoming �鶹�� Office guidance.

At the beginning of April 2025, after six years of campaigns and almost eight years after the Manchester Arena attack, Martyn’s Law received Royal Assent.

Martyn’s Law is named after Martyn Hett, who was killed in the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017.

Officially titled the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, the law will make it a legal requirement for public places to strengthen their security measures. It will improve protective security and organisational preparedness across the UK by requiring that those responsible for certain premises and events consider how they would respond to a terrorist attack.

It will take a tiered approach. Venues with a capacity of 200 to 800 people will be required to put in place measures aimed at reducing harm to the public in the event of an attack. This could include training staff to lock doors, close shutters, and identify safe routes to shelter.

Larger venues, with a capacity of over 800 people, will fall under an enhanced tier. These venues will be required to implement more robust security measures, such as employing security staff and installing CCTV systems.

Premises within scope
Premises fall within the scope of the Act if they meet four key criteria. First, there must be at least one building on the premises, or the premises must be located within a building. Second, the premises must be wholly or mainly used for one or more of the purposes listed in Schedule 1 of the Act, such as a restaurant or a shop. Third, it must be reasonable to expect that at least 200 individuals may be present on the premises at least occasionally. Finally, the premises must not be excluded under Schedule 2 of the Act. If it is reasonable to expect that 800 or more individuals may be present at the premises at the same time, the premises will be considered enhanced duty premises, unless the Act specifies otherwise.

Events within scope
An event falls within the scope of the Act if several conditions are met. The event must take place at premises covered by section 3(1)(a) of the Act, which may include open land without buildings, provided the premises are not designated as enhanced duty premises or part of such premises. The premises must be accessible to members of the public for the purpose of attending the event. It must also be reasonable to expect that at least 800 individuals will be present at one time during the event. In addition, there must be measures in place to check that entry conditions are met, such as ticket checks. The event must also not fall under any exclusions listed in Schedule 2 of the Act.

Who is considered the responsible person for qualifying premises?
For premises that fall within the scope of the Act, the responsible person is the individual who has control over the premises in relation to its relevant use as defined in Schedule 1 – for example, operating a venue as a sports ground or a hotel. If the premises are used for more than one Schedule 1 purpose, such as a church that also operates a crèche, the responsible person will be the one in control of the premises in connection with whichever use is considered the primary or principal activity.

Who is considered the responsible person for qualifying events?
For qualifying events, the responsible person is the individual or organisation that has control of the premises where the event is being held, specifically for the purposes of the event. Determining who this is will depend on the specific circumstances of the event.
For instance, if a company organises a concert in a public park and takes control of a designated area for the duration of the event, then that company would be considered the responsible person. On the other hand, if a stately home hosts a concert on its own grounds and retains overall control of the site for the event, the stately home itself would be the responsible person, even if it contracts out certain aspects of the event, such as ticketing or security.

What are the requirements for standard duty premises?
Standard duty premises are typically locations where it is reasonable to expect between 200 and 799 people, including staff, to be present at the same time on at least an occasional basis. For such premises, the responsible person must meet two key requirements: they must notify the Security Industry Authority (SIA) of their premises, and they must have appropriate public protection procedures in place, so far as is reasonably practicable. The obligations for standard duty premises are designed to be simple and low-cost, with the main requirement being time and planning rather than physical security installations. There is no requirement under this duty to implement structural or physical security measures. These procedures are intended to guide staff in the event of a terrorist incident occurring at or near the premises. They should focus on reducing the risk of physical harm and may include steps for evacuating the building, moving people to a safer area within the premises (invacuation), locking down parts of the premises, and communicating effectively with those on site during an emergency.

What are the requirements for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events?
Enhanced duty premises and qualifying events are those where it is reasonable to expect that 800 or more individuals, including staff, may be present at the same time or attend the event at least occasionally. In addition to the requirements for standard duty premises, the responsible person for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events must meet the following additional obligations. Firstly, they must have, so far as reasonably practicable, appropriate public protection measures in place. These measures should aim to reduce both the vulnerability of the premises or event to terrorism and the risk of physical harm to individuals in the event of an attack, either at the premises or in the surrounding area. For example, enhanced duty premises should implement measures, to the extent practicable, for monitoring the premises and their immediate vicinity. Secondly, the responsible person must document the public protection procedures and measures that are in place or planned, and submit this document to the Security Industry Authority (SIA). This document should include an assessment of how the procedures and measures will help reduce vulnerability and/or the risk of harm. Finally, if the responsible person is an organisation rather than an individual, they must designate a senior person to ensure that the responsible person complies with these requirements.

The SIA
While, we are still waiting for a few more details, in November, Michelle Russell, chief executive of the SIA published an updated on the SIA’s work on Martyn’s Law. Once Martyn’s Law received Royal Assent, and the Security Industry Authority (SIA) was confirmed as the new regulator, work began immediately to prepare for go-live. Go-live will occur when Parliament, through statutory instruments, commences Martyn’s Law and the SIA’s role as regulator. While the timing of commencement is a decision for Parliament, preparations are being made for Spring 2027. Russell explained the SIA’s role as regulator, which she said is to regulate against Martyn’s Law, and the legal requirements and framework Parliament has set out in the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025. These requirements are set to be clarified by the �鶹�� Office’s statutory section 27 guidance about the requirements.

The SIA has the responsibility of determining whether a premises or event is in compliance with those requirements as well as the responsibility to provide advice and guidance to them. Since April 2025, the SIA has been attending events and conferences across the UK. Once the guidance is published by the �鶹�� Office, the SIA will say more. Meanwhile, though, the Agency has been working at pace, building capability and capacity and exploring and testing with depth the things that need to be done in advance of go-live.
The SIA has been agreeing new, separate grant funding to be provided direct by the �鶹�� Office to the SIA to fund the SIA’s new Martyn’s Law work. This means the work will not be funded by SIA licence holders’ fees.
A new director will start in January and a blueprint design has been created for new functions and teams.

There will be over 100 new operational posts created in the SIA’s Martyn’s Law team, working on guidance and other educational and outreach work; the formal notifications that premises and events in scope of Martyn’s Law will make; desk-based casework on compliance issues, as well as scrutiny and assessment of compliance documents and plans submitted by enhanced tier premises; and inspections and formal investigations into concerns about non-compliance and follow up enforcement work.
Inspectors and inspection teams will be based regionally and locally across the UK. Other office-based roles will be mostly in a new SIA location in Manchester.

The SIA is currently working on draft section 12 guidance about how the Agency proposes to exercise its functions particularly the investigatory powers. A consultation will be launched on this, once �鶹�� Office guidance is published in 2026.
Joint engagements and events are being held with the �鶹�� Office to raise awareness of the new law and the SIA’s role. A new risk framework is being developed to ensure the SIA has clear priorities and to apply a consistent approach to decisions.
The SIA teams are actively progressing work on a new regulatory model, business plan, and internal processes and procedures. A critical focus is the development, implementation, and testing of the digital and caseworking systems required to support future casework. This programme involves extensive planning and design, alongside a robust procurement exercise that will take time to complete.

Russell said that the SIA’s role as regulator will be primarily advisory from the start to give venues and events in scope the opportunity to get compliance right first. The SIA expects to find and highlight positive good practice and identify and advise those who are not doing enough.

Martyn’s Law, formally the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, establishes a tiered legal framework requiring venues and events to adopt proportionate security measures based on capacity. Standard duty premises must notify the Security Industry Authority (SIA) and maintain basic protective procedures, while enhanced duty premises and qualifying events must implement more robust measures, document their plans, and submit them to the regulator. The SIA has begun building capacity for its new role, with full commencement expected in Spring 2027. While enforcement will evolve over time, the law represents a structured response to the Manchester Arena attack, embedding preparedness and public protection into the operation of UK venues and events.

Martyn's Law: what it means for schools

Polly Jones — Tue, 16 Sep 2025 16:01:08 +0000

Martyn's Law/Protect Duty

As Martyn’s Law receives Royal Assent, publicly accessible premises will be required to strengthen their preparedness for potential terrorist threats. So what does this new legislation mean for schools?

In April 2025, nearly eight years after the Manchester Arena bombing claimed the lives of 22 people, including 29-year-old Martyn Hett, a significant milestone in UK public safety legislation was reached. Commonly known as Martyn’s Law, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill received Royal Assent, cementing new legal duties for publicly accessible premises to strengthen their preparedness for potential terrorist threats.

The new law applies to educational establishments, with schools, colleges, early years providers and further education settings legally required to implement practical safety measures that reduce the risk of harm in the event of an attack.There is a 24-month implementation period following Royal Assent, which gives time for guidance to be published and for schools to prepare.

What are schools required to do?

The new law requires schools to ensure they are prepared for a potential terrorist attack. Every school must now appoint a designated responsible person who will oversee the implementation of protection procedures. These procedures must be “so far as is reasonably practicable” aimed at mitigating the risk of physical harm to pupils, staff, and visitors. As part of their compliance, schools must conduct regular risk assessments to identify .

While the requirements are comprehensive, they remain proportionate. Martyn’s Law does not demand that schools undergo specialist terrorism training potential vulnerabilities. These assessments will inform safety plans and help to guide decision-making around physical security and response protocols.

For schools wondering what Martyn’s Law should look like on the ground, the law outlines four types of procedures that must be in place. These include evacuation, where staff move individuals safely out of the building or premises; invacuation, where people are brought into safer internal areas to protect them from external threats; and lockdown, which involves securing the site – particularly classrooms – by locking doors and preventing movement.The fourth requirement is communication: alerting everyone on site that there is danger. This could involve the use of public address systems, alarms, or other technology that enables swift communication during a crisis. Even in the absence of advanced technology, communication must be timely, clear, and effective under pressure.

Schools that do not have electronically controlled access points are still expected to implement a single integrated procedure for invacuation and lockdown. The emphasis should be on what is practical and appropriate for their specific site – securing classroom doors and managing access routes without necessarily needing to invest in costly infrastructure. While the requirements are comprehensive, they remain proportionate. Martyn’s Law does not demand that schools undergo specialist terrorism training or complete detailed threat evaluations. Instead, staff must be aware of the safety procedures in place and receive relevant guidance based on their roles. Free continuing professional development (CPD) training is available via ProtectUK, a government-supported platform offering resources tailored to schools and other public venues.

The tiered approach

The legislation introduces a tiered framework for public venues, determined primarily by capacity: standard tier is for venues with 200–799 capacity and enhanced tier is for over 800 capacity.

However, educational settings are treated differently. Regardless of capacity, all schools fall under the standard tier. This reflects the recognition that schools already operate with robust safeguarding and health and safety procedures. Therefore, even large-scale schools or academies with over 800 students are not expected to adopt the more stringent enhanced tier requirements. These are reserved for large venues such as concert halls and sporting arenas, which may be required to employ dedicated security staff, install CCTV systems, and develop more complex operational security plans.

Clarifying event obligations

A persistent concern among education leaders has been whether school-hosted events – such as concerts, summer fairs, or sports days with over 800 attendees – might trigger Enhanced Tier responsibilities. However, educational premises are excluded from the definition of “qualifying events.” This means that even if a school event draws a large crowd, it remains covered under Standard Tier requirements. Schools do not need to introduce specialist security or undergo additional event-specific planning as a result of high attendance alone.

The origins of Martyn’s Law

Martyn’s Law is rooted in a deeply personal campaign. Named after Martyn Hett, who died in the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, the law is the result of tireless campaigning by his mother, Figen Murray. In partnership with former counter-terrorism national coordinator Nick Aldworth, she began advocating in 2019 for greater protective measures in public spaces. Their campaign, which began as a grassroots effort, gathered significant momentum. The original proposals included five central principles: providing free staff training, conducting vulnerability assessments, mitigating identified risks, developing counter-terrorism plans, and promoting local authority planning.

In May 2024, Figen and her fellow campaigners walked from Manchester to London to raise awareness. Their efforts culminated in a meeting with then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and opposition leader Keir Starmer, who later became Prime Minister. Within months, Martyn’s Law had passed through Parliament and was signed into law.
Speaking on the day the bill received Royal Assent, Prime Minister Starmer called it a “landmark moment” and praised the courage of campaigners: “Security is the foundation of our Plan for Change and the first duty of any government. Martyn’s Law will ensure everyone can enjoy public events more safely and ensure venues across the country have clear, practical measures in place to protect people.”

Figen Murray added: “Over the implementation period it is vital that the government and Security Industry Authority provide all that is necessary for publicly accessible locations to implement Martyn’s Law.”

An enhancement of school safety

Martyn’s Law is not designed to create fear in schools, but rather to embed a culture of preparedness. It reinforces the importance of clear planning, staff readiness, and secure environments – complementing, rather than replacing, the safeguarding principles schools already uphold.

The government says that guidance will be provided “in due course” to assist those responsible to understand the requirements set out in the legislation.

Understanding Martyn’s Law – and impact on venues and events

Polly Jones — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 14:57:25 +0000

Martyn's Law/Protect Duty

Ahead of the implementation of the so-called Martyn’s Law, Krishna Pancholi, Associate at UK and Ireland law firm Browne Jacobson, explains what it involves and considerations for emergency planning.

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, known more commonly as Martyn’s Law, was introduced following the 2017 Manchester Arena attack and named after Martyn Hett, one of the victims.

The attack exposed serious failings in venue security and emergency planning. At the time, there were no legal requirements for premises to assess the risk of a terrorist attack or plan accordingly. Martyn’s Law was introduced to close this gap.
Martyn’s Law is now on the statute books after receiving royal assent in April 2025, but is not yet in force. The government has indicated at least a 24-month implementation period for establishments to prepare for compliance and put appropriate plans in place.

Preparing now is best advised to ensure compliance by the time the Act is in force. Once the Act takes effect, the Security Industry Authority (SIA) will be responsible for enforcement of the legislation.

The proactive approach mandated by the Act aims to prevent future attacks by ensuring venues are well-prepared and can effectively respond to terrorist incidents.

Premises and events affected by Martyn’s Law
The Act imposes a duty to improve physical security measures and organisational preparedness. Premises are considered under tiers.

Standard tier – involves qualifying premises (explained further below) or events holding a capacity of 200-799 individuals, although the government’s terrorism threat level could lead to a reduction in the threshold to 100 people. The standard duty holder is responsible for ensuring public protection procedures are in place to reduce and mitigate the risk of harm to people attending the premises should a terrorist act occur. Procedures are seen as reactive to an attack.

Enhanced tier – involves venues and events anticipating over 800 individuals and requires a more robust approach to security. It imposes the duties expected of a standard duty holder, with the addition of further requirements to assess, implement and review appropriate public protection measures. Enhanced measures will be proactive and preventative, designed to mitigate the risk of a terrorist attack, reducing the risk of harm to people attending the premises or in the immediate vicinity. Immediate vicinity must be included in any measures implemented.

The Act mandates who is responsible for identifying the risk from terrorism and the subsequent response. The regime will be enforced by the SIA, using the two-year implementation period to allow time to become familiar with the new obligations and plan compliance accordingly. It is acknowledged that while awaiting official guidance, there may be some uncertainty on what compliance for your establishment means and the associated costs implications. The appropriateness of any measures will be determined by the premises concerned, the event and the capacity.

Qualifying premises, which are contained within Schedule 1 of the Act, could include retail, food and drink vendors, entertainment venues, sports and recreation grounds, leisure centres, libraries, museums, galleries, hotels, holiday parks, hospitals, educational establishments, places of worship and public buildings.

Excluded premises, contained within Schedule 2, include Parliament and transport premises, such as ports, airports, railway and underground services.

Who is the responsible person?
The responsible person (RP) will be the person (an individual or corporate entity) with overall control of the premises for the purposes of the qualifying use.
This will not necessarily be the building owner, who will not have responsibility under the Act if they are not involved in the running of the premises.

The appropriate RP may be, for example, the premises operator or event organiser. The RP has a duty to notify the SIA they are responsible for that premises, and must document the proposals or public protection measures in place.

The Act imposes a statutory duty of co-ordination to ensure compliance where more than one person (or organisation) has responsibility for a qualifying premises or event – recognising the various ways in which co-ordination may be required.

This also includes where one part of a premises forms part of another qualifying premises, such as a department store within a retail complex. In such cases, both the store and the complex owner must co-ordinate as far as is reasonably practicable.

Martyn’s Law requires RPs to take action that is “reasonably practicable”. This means balancing the measure in reducing the risk against the effort it takes to do so. What is appropriate and reasonably practicable depends on the individual circumstances of each premises – what might work for one premises may not necessarily work for another.

Public protection procedures
The RP must ensure that public protection procedures are implemented to reduce the risk of harm to individuals if an act of terrorism were to occur on the premises or the immediate vicinity.

The following types of procedure are identified as appropriate and reasonably practicable. They are designed to be pragmatic, focusing on getting people to safety and mitigating the risk.

Evacuation: Safely removing people from the premises.

Invacuation: Moving people to a secure area inside the premises.

Lockdown: Locking down or securing the premises.

Communication: Alerting staff and pupils quickly.

Enforcement
The SIA’s enforcement powers include:
Compliance or restriction notices: These have the effect of limiting numbers at premises or the time at which an event can take place. Appeals to notices are by way of tribunal.

Financial penalties: The maximum non-compliance penalty for standard tier premises is £10,000. Enhanced tier premises can attract a maximum penalty of £18m or 5 per cent of worldwide turnover – whichever is higher. Daily penalties can apply for each day the contravention continues after the date the non-compliance penalty is due.

Closing down of premises.

What preparations should I consider for my premises?
1. Pay early consideration to whether the new Act applies to your premises and whether you fall within the standard or enhanced tier.

2. Identify the RP(s) and whether the co-ordination element within the Act requires consideration.

3. Evaluate whether your existing safety policies can act as a platform on which to build further arrangements to comply.

4. Consult ProtectUK for the latest guidance ahead of implementation.

Martyn's Law becomes �鶹��

Polly Jones — Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:17:36 +0000

Martyn's Law/Protect Duty

At the beginning of April, after six years of campaigns and almost eight years after the Manchester Arena attack, Martyn’s Law received Royal Assent.

Martyn's Law is named after Martyn Hett, who was killed in the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017.

Prime minister Keir Starmer said: "Today is a landmark moment for our security as my government delivers on its promise to introduce Martyn’s Law and better protect the public from terrorism.

"Figen’s courage and determination in the face of such unimaginable loss is truly humbling and it is thanks to her campaigning that Martyn’s Law means her son’s legacy will live on forever.

"Security is the foundation of our Plan for Change and the first duty of any government. Martyn’s Law will ensure everyone can enjoy public events more safely and ensure venues across the country have clear, practical measures in place to protect people."

Martyn's mother, Figen Murray, the leading campaigner for the legislation met the Prime Minister in Downing Street to mark the occasion. She said: "I am grateful to the Prime Minister, the Security Minister and Lord Hanson for how quickly they’ve progressed Martyn’s Law through parliament. But this would not have happened without the tireless support of my co-campaigners Nick Aldworth, Brendan Cox, Nathan Emmerich, my husband Stuart, and my children.

"Over the implementation period it is vital that the government and Security Industry Authority provide all that is necessary for publicly accessible locations to implement Martyn’s Law."

Grassroots campaign
Martyn’s Law began as a grassroots effort led by Martyn’s mother, Figen Murray, who partnered with counter-terrorism expert Nick Aldworth in 2019 to push for stronger protections in public venues.

Initial proposals for Martyn’s Law included five main requirements: free staff training, vulnerability assessments, mitigation of identified risks, creation of counter-terrorism plans by venues, and planning at the local authority level.

In May last year, Figen and Nick, joined by others, walked from Manchester to London to raise awareness of the law. On a very wet day, they met with then-PM Rishi Sunak and future PM Keir Starmer. Later that day, Sunak called a general election.

Regulation
A new regulator, operating within the Security Industry Authority (SIA), will oversee implementation, working alongside national security bodies to ensure venues meet the required standards.

In a statement, the SIA welcomed the decision and said they fully appreciate the significance of Martyn’s Law and the important role the Martyn’s Law Regulator will have.

The statement highlighted that the new responsibility will be separately funded and emphasised that it must not compromise the SIA's existing regulatory role in public protection licensing regulated private security roles.

The Government plans to introduce an implementation period of at least 24 months before the Act is enforced. This timeframe will allow the SIA to establish its new responsibilities and give those in charge of relevant venues and events enough time to fully understand their obligations, ensuring they can plan and prepare effectively.

The �鶹�� Office has said: “Whilst those that fall within scope of the Act may wish to begin considering the requirements, they should note that guidance will be published in due course. This guidance will assist in understanding the requirements set out in the legislation. The guidance is being designed to be easy to follow, needing neither particular expertise nor the use of third-party products or services.”

Premises within scope

Premises fall within the scope of the Act if they meet four key criteria. First, there must be at least one building on the premises, or the premises must be located within a building. Second, the premises must be wholly or mainly used for one or more of the purposes listed in Schedule 1 of the Act, such as a restaurant or a shop. Third, it must be reasonable to expect that at least 200 individuals may be present on the premises at least occasionally. Finally, the premises must not be excluded under Schedule 2 of the Act.

If it is reasonable to expect that 800 or more individuals may be present at the premises at the same time, the premises will be considered enhanced duty premises, unless the Act specifies otherwise.

Events within scope

An event falls within the scope of the Act if several conditions are met. The event must take place at premises covered by section 3(1)(a) of the Act, which may include open land without buildings, provided the premises are not designated as enhanced duty premises or part of such premises. The premises must be accessible to members of the public for the purpose of attending the event. It must also be reasonable to expect that at least 800 individuals will be present at one time during the event.

In addition, there must be measures in place to check that entry conditions are met, such as ticket checks. The event must also not fall under any exclusions listed in Schedule 2 of the Act.

Who is considered the responsible person for qualifying premises?

For premises that fall within the scope of the Act, the responsible person is the individual who has control over the premises in relation to its relevant use as defined in Schedule 1 – for example, operating a venue as a sports ground or a hotel. If the premises are used for more than one Schedule 1 purpose, such as a church that also operates a crèche, the responsible person will be the one in control of the premises in connection with whichever use is considered the primary or principal activity.

Who is considered the responsible person for qualifying events?

For qualifying events, the responsible person is the individual or organisation that has control of the premises where the event is being held, specifically for the purposes of the event. Determining who this is will depend on the specific circumstances of the event.

For instance, if a company organises a concert in a public park and takes control of a designated area for the duration of the event, then that company would be considered the responsible person. On the other hand, if a stately home hosts a concert on its own grounds and retains overall control of the site for the event, the stately home itself would be the responsible person, even if it contracts out certain aspects of the event, such as ticketing or security.

What are the requirements for standard duty premises?

Standard duty premises are typically locations where it is reasonable to expect between 200 and 799 people, including staff, to be present at the same time on at least an occasional basis. For such premises, the responsible person must meet two key requirements: they must notify the Security Industry Authority (SIA) of their premises, and they must have appropriate public protection procedures in place, so far as is reasonably practicable.

The obligations for standard duty premises are designed to be simple and low-cost, with the main requirement being time and planning rather than physical security installations. There is no requirement under this duty to implement structural or physical security measures.

These procedures are intended to guide staff in the event of a terrorist incident occurring at or near the premises. They should focus on reducing the risk of physical harm and may include steps for evacuating the building, moving people to a safer area within the premises (invacuation), locking down parts of the premises, and communicating effectively with those on site during an emergency.

What are the requirements for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events?

Enhanced duty premises and qualifying events are those where it is reasonable to expect that 800 or more individuals, including staff, may be present at the same time or attend the event at least occasionally. In addition to the requirements for standard duty premises, the responsible person for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events must meet the following additional obligations:

Firstly, they must have, so far as reasonably practicable, appropriate public protection measures in place. These measures should aim to reduce both the vulnerability of the premises or event to terrorism and the risk of physical harm to individuals in the event of an attack, either at the premises or in the surrounding area. For example, enhanced duty premises should implement measures, to the extent practicable, for monitoring the premises and their immediate vicinity.

Secondly, the responsible person must document the public protection procedures and measures that are in place or planned, and submit this document to the Security Industry Authority (SIA). This document should include an assessment of how the procedures and measures will help reduce vulnerability and/or the risk of harm.

Finally, if the responsible person is an organisation rather than an individual, they must designate a senior person to ensure that the responsible person complies with these requirements.

Figen Murray said: "My son Martyn Hett was murdered alongside 21 innocent victims in the Manchester Arena terror attack on 22 May 2017, and whilst nothing will bring Martyn back, I am determined to ensure nobody endures what my family has experienced.

"For the last 6 years I have campaigned to introduce measures that will improve security at public venues and how they respond to a terror attack - Martyn’s Law.”

Writing for CTB at the end of 2024, Nick Aldworth said: “Of course, we have all come to know that Figen Murray is no ordinary private citizen. The indomitable spirit of a mother, grieving for a lost son, has a power like no other and there are five Prime Ministers, six home secretaries, and seven security ministers in her wake to testify to that.

Martyn's Law around the world

Meghan Shaw — Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:41:26 +0000

Martyn's Law/Protect Duty

With the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill just having had its second reading in parliament, Jake Deadman looks at similar legislation/ regulations around the world, to see what level of equivalence, and importance, overseas governments put on protecting crowded spaces from the threat of terrorist attacks and asks whether Martyn's Law would be a relevant, and beneficial, piece of legislation in countries that have experienced terrorist attacks in the last decade.

Several countries have introduced laws and regulations that are similar in nature to the UK’s forthcoming Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, also known as Martyn’s Law, which aims to improve security measures in crowded spaces and Publicly Accessible Locations (PALs) to mitigate the risk of terrorist attacks. These laws often focus on public safety, counter-terrorism measures, and enhancing preparedness for attacks, particularly in places that attract large crowds.

Starting in January 2015, we highlight global terrorist attacks that have shaped our worldview, and the legislation to mitigate against further attacks. Here are some key examples of similar legislation or regulations in other countries:

France – Vigipirate Plan (Plan Vigipirate)

Overview: France’s Vigipirate Plan is a national security measure that combines permanent vigilance, prevention, and protection efforts to combat the risk of terrorist attacks. It mandates increased security measures for public venues, including transportation hubs, cultural sites, and large events.

Focus: The plan applies to public and private organisations, and it requires them to enhance preparedness, strengthen access controls, and train staff in identifying suspicious behaviour.

Relevance: Like Martyn’s Law, Vigipirate emphasises safeguarding publicly accessible locations and encouraging public vigilance against terrorism.

United States – Protective Security Measures (DHS/NIPP)

Overview: In the U.S., the Department of �鶹��land Security (DHS), through the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), provides guidelines and frameworks to secure public spaces and critical infrastructure, including commercial facilities, public venues, and mass gatherings.

Focus: The DHS issues guidelines for managing security risks at public venues, large-scale events, and places with high foot traffic. Venue owners are encouraged to adopt risk management strategies, including threat assessments and emergency preparedness.

Relevance: Although there is no single law directly equivalent to Martyn’s Law, the NIPP provides a comprehensive framework that encourages private and public collaboration in enhancing security at Publicly Accessible Locations.

Australia – Australia’s Strategy for Protecting Crowded Places from Terrorism

Overview: Australia has implemented a national strategy specifically designed to protect crowded places, such as shopping centres, stadiums, and tourist sites, from potential terrorist attacks. This strategy was developed in partnership with law enforcement agencies, industry, and private sector stakeholders.

Focus: The strategy focuses on sharing intelligence, providing protective security advice, and encouraging businesses and local governments to adopt protective security measures, such as installing physical barriers and conducting vulnerability assessments.

Relevance: Like Martyn’s Law, this strategy aims to ensure that owners and operators of crowded places take responsibility for enhancing their security measures to protect the public.

Germany – Video Surveillance Improvement Act (Videoüberwachungsverbesserungsgesetz)

Overview: Germany’s 2017 Video Surveillance Improvement Act encourages the increased use of video surveillance in public spaces, particularly in areas where terrorist attacks are deemed more likely, such as public transportation hubs, shopping centres, and stadiums.

Focus: While not directly focused on the same areas as Martyn’s Law, it emphasises heightened security in publicly accessible locations, promoting increased use of video surveillance as a preventive measure.

Relevance: Although narrower in scope, the Act shares the objective of increasing security in public places, particularly areas that may be vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

Canada – Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (CIPA)

Overview: Canada’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (CIPA) aims to safeguard key infrastructure and publicly accessible areas, including event spaces and venues, from terrorism. The act encourages the development of security and resilience strategies for these areas.

Focus: The legislation focuses on conducting threat assessments, sharing intelligence, and enhancing the preparedness of venues that may be targeted by terrorists.

Relevance: Similar to Martyn’s Law, this Act mandates a collaborative approach to protecting critical infrastructure and public spaces from potential terrorist attacks.

European Union – Directive on the Protection of Critical Infrastructure

Overview: The EU has established several directives concerning the protection of critical infrastructure, which include Directive 2008/114/EC (No longer in force, Date of end of validity: 17/10/2024;) on the identification and designation of European Critical Infrastructure and Directive 2022/2557 on the resilience of critical entities.

Focus: These directives require member states to assess and improve the resilience of publicly accessible locations and infrastructure against various threats, including terrorism. They mandate preparedness and risk management procedures for operators of such venues.

Relevance: Although focused on critical infrastructure, many of these directives also apply to Publicly Accessible Locations (PALs), mandating similar protective measures to those in Martyn’s Law.

New Zealand – National Security System Handbook

Overview: New Zealand’s National Security System Handbook outlines how the government, in partnership with local authorities and businesses, should approach counter-terrorism efforts and risk management for public venues and events.

Focus: It includes preparedness measures, risk assessments, and emergency response planning for crowded places and high-risk public venues.

Relevance: While not legislated in the same way as Martyn’s Law, New Zealand’s approach involves similar risk mitigation and preparedness strategies aimed at protecting Publicly Accessible Locations.

Singapore

Singapore has robust counter-terrorism measures in place, although it does not have a direct equivalent to the UK’s forthcoming Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. However, Singapore’s counter-terrorism framework includes several key laws and initiatives that aim to protect the public from terrorist threats, particularly in crowded or publicly accessible areas.

Infrastructure Protection Act (IPA) 2017:

Overview: Singapore’s Infrastructure Protection Act (IPA) is the closest equivalent to Martyn’s Law. It mandates protective security measures for critical infrastructure and certain large, publicly accessible buildings. The IPA requires building owners to incorporate security measures into the design of new developments deemed to be at risk of terrorism, something that the current draft version of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill does not.

Focus: The Act applies to a wide range of infrastructures, including transport hubs, government buildings, and large commercial premises. It mandates that developers conduct security-by-design assessments, which are reviewed by government authorities, and implement physical security measures such as barriers, surveillance, and controlled access.

Relevance: Similar to Martyn’s Law, the IPA focuses on preventing attacks in crowded places and ensuring that public areas are better protected against terrorism. It also addresses the need for building resilience to potential attacks.

Public Order Act (POA)

Overview: The Public Order Act (POA) in Singapore gives the authorities the power to regulate and control public assemblies and events, especially those that may be potential targets for terrorist activity. This includes large-scale gatherings and events in public spaces.

Focus: The Act enables the police to impose conditions on event organisers, including requiring them to implement security measures like bag checks, crowd control barriers, and vehicle mitigation solutions.

Relevance: The POA plays a role in protecting public spaces and large events from potential terrorist threats, which aligns with the objectives of Martyn’s Law in safeguarding PALs.

Counter-Terrorism Measures and Initiatives

SGSecure Initiative: This public awareness programme launched by the Singapore government is designed to engage the community in counter-terrorism efforts – much like the UK’s Protect UK site. It encourages businesses, event organisers, and the public to adopt security measures, including the reporting of suspicious behaviour, conducting drills, and preparing response plans for terrorist incidents.

Security Screening and Access Control: Singapore mandates security screening and vehicle checks at sensitive and high-traffic locations, such as shopping malls, transport hubs, and tourist attractions, to prevent potential attacks.

While Singapore’s Infrastructure Protection Act (IPA) is not an exact replica of Martyn’s Law, it shares the goal of protecting PALs from terrorist threats, but it goes further by mandating proactive security measures incorporated into building design. Alongside other initiatives like the Public Order Act and SGSecure, Singapore has a comprehensive counter-terrorism framework that reflects a strong commitment to public safety and protection from terrorism, similar to the intent behind the UK’s forthcoming Martyn’s Law.

While Martyn’s Law is a unique legislative proposal tailored to the UK context following the 2017 Manchester Arena attack, several other countries have implemented comparable frameworks or laws aimed at protecting public spaces from terrorism. These laws focus on risk assessment, preparedness, and the implementation of security measures in public venues to reduce the risk of mass casualties in the event of a terrorist attack. Each country’s approach reflects its unique security landscape, but the overarching goal of protecting the public from vehicular and other forms of attacks remains consistent across these nations.

Figen Murray, mother of Martyn Hett, after who the law is named, observed: “Terrorism is a global blight, and it is therefore good to see that so many countries worldwide already have various legislative measures in place. This detailed analysis of security legislation across the nations shows how each country could benefit from the introduction of Martyn’s Law or some aspects of it to enhance existing measures. As a global community we need to work together to get the best outcome for all nations to keep their citizens safe.”

The introduction of Martyn’s Law in other countries — such as those previously discussed (France, the United States, Australia, Germany, Canada, Singapore, etc.) — would indeed offer significant benefits, although some already have robust frameworks for counter-terrorism and public safety.

We have carried out a detailed analysis of whether Martyn’s Law would be relevant, necessary, and beneficial in these nations, and whether their existing legislation is sufficient to mitigate terrorist attacks in crowded spaces and provide an education framework for event organisers.

France – Vigipirate Plan

Relevance of Martyn’s Law: France has been a frequent target of terrorist attacks, particularly in public spaces. The Vigipirate Plan provides a comprehensive approach to preventing such attacks and maintaining vigilance across the country, but Martyn’s Law would enhance this framework by specifically mandating that venue owners and event organisers take direct responsibility for assessing and managing threats. France’s current framework is heavily centralised and led by government directives, whereas Martyn’s Law empowers local authorities and private entities to take more ownership.

Benefit: Introducing Martyn’s Law would further empower venue managers and event organisers to adopt a more structured, legal obligation toward enhancing preparedness for high-risk areas such as tourist attractions and sports venues. It would also embed ongoing public education and training into law.

Existing legislation sufficiency: While Vigipirate is strong, it could benefit from Martyn’s Law’s focus on decentralising responsibility, providing more targeted, site-specific assessments.

United States – National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP)

Relevance: The U.S. has a broad framework for protecting public spaces and critical infrastructure, but this is often voluntary for private entities and largely focuses on federal or state-led initiatives. Martyn’s Law would be highly relevant as it would mandate venue operators to assess risks and implement Hostile Vehicle Mitigation (HVM) solutions (where necessary) and emergency response planning for Publicly Accessible Locations and crowded places.

Benefit: Introducing Martyn’s Law would provide a more cohesive, national mandate for securing public venues, particularly during large events, and would extend the burden of responsibility beyond federal guidelines to state, and locally owned, operated and organised events. It would offer a standardised framework for assessments and preparedness measures, which could bolster existing practices.

Existing legislation sufficiency: While the NIPP is comprehensive, its voluntary nature means gaps in compliance exist. Martyn’s Law would close these gaps, making security measures mandatory and providing an educational framework to ensure organisers are well-prepared.

Australia – Strategy for Protecting Crowded Places

Relevance: Australia’s strategy is already quite aligned with the principles of Martyn’s Law, with strong government emphasis on protecting crowded places from terrorist attacks. However, Martyn’s Law would be relevant in formalising the legal responsibilities of those in charge of publicly accessible locations and ensuring that regular, mandatory training and risk assessments are conducted.

Benefit: Martyn’s Law would provide a more formalised structure for venue owners and event organisers to follow, ensuring that threat and vulnerability assessments become standard practice. Additionally, it would establish a clear legal requirement for public education and proactive safety measures, thereby improving accountability.

Existing legislation sufficiency: Australia has a solid framework, but Martyn’s Law could reinforce it by embedding legal mandates for risk assessment, security training, and public preparedness, rather than relying on voluntary compliance.

European attacks featured again, before the focus moved eastward to the Middle East, then Pakistan.

Germany – Video Surveillance Improvement Act

Relevance: Germany has focused on enhancing video surveillance and securing public areas, but Martyn’s Law would broaden the scope by requiring venue operators to actively assess and manage threats, beyond just surveillance. Martyn’s Law’s focus on public education and regular drills would be a highly relevant addition to Germany’s existing measures.

Benefit: Implementing Martyn’s Law in Germany would provide a more holistic approach to public safety, moving beyond surveillance to more active threat management and resilience-building strategies. It would also mandate that event organisers undergo training and ensure that emergency planning is embedded in public venues.

Existing legislation sufficiency: Germany’s current laws are strong but could benefit from the broader preventative measures Martyn’s Law offers. Introducing more proactive, rather than reactive, security strategies would strengthen Germany’s approach to counter-terrorism in public spaces.

Nick Aldworth, Martyn’s Law campaigner commented: “The UK has led the way in mobilising the public to fight against terrorism for many years. The creation of the crowded places model in the early 2000’s was the first systemised attempt to align protective security against threat.

“The world had moved on and the many initiatives that globally reflect what we’ve been doing in the UK for decades can only make it harder for terrorists to operate across, and within, borders.

“I’m delighted that Martyn’s Law is making progress through Parliament; it still has a long way to go, and we all need to stay focused on the core message of public protection. “

Canada – Critical Infrastructure Protection Act (CIPA)

Relevance: Canada’s CIPA is focused on critical infrastructure but does not explicitly mandate risk assessments or security measures for all publicly accessible locations. Martyn’s Law would be highly relevant here, particularly in ensuring that crowded spaces and venues for public events are safeguarded.

Benefit: Martyn’s Law would formalise a public safety responsibility framework for venue owners and event organisers, requiring public safety training in high-risk locations. It would ensure consistency across the country in how public spaces are secured.

Existing legislation sufficiency: While CIPA covers critical infrastructure, it does not mandate the same level of public venue protection that Martyn’s Law would provide. Hence, the addition of Martyn’s Law would fill this gap, especially for event organisers and venue managers.

Singapore – Infrastructure Protection Act (IPA)

Relevance: Singapore’s Infrastructure Protection Act (IPA) already mandates security-by-design for critical infrastructure and crowded places, so Martyn’s Law is less immediately necessary here. However, Martyn’s Law could still bring added value by ensuring regular, comprehensive training for event organisers and venue managers and embedding legal requirements for public education.

Benefit: While Singapore’s IPA is robust, Martyn’s Law would offer more structured guidance for non-infrastructure-based events, such as public gatherings in parks, festivals, and other open-air venues. Martyn’s Law’s focus on public safety awareness, and education would complement the existing measures.

Existing legislation sufficiency: Singapore’s legislation is generally sufficient, but Martyn’s Law could enhance public engagement and education efforts and formalise a broader risk management framework for temporary public events.

Conclusion

Martyn’s Law would bring added value in most of the countries discussed by standardising public safety responsibilities, ensuring that risk assessments, public training, and preventive security measures become a legal mandate rather than an optional practice. In places like the United States, France, and Germany, Martyn’s Law could strengthen existing frameworks by ensuring that local authorities, venue owners, and event organisers take more ownership of public safety.

Martyn's Law 2024

Meghan Shaw — Mon, 06 Jan 2025 15:22:24 +0000

Martyn's Law/Protect Duty

Nick Aldworth, director and founder of CT Project Ltd, and co-campaigner for Martyn's Law with Figen Murray reflects on the journey to Martyn's Law.

When Figen Murray walked into my office at New Scotland Yard, nearly six years ago, to tell me about her concerns for security at publicly accessible venues, little did I know I was meeting a new friend, a co-campaigner, or what the future would for us both. I certainly never thought I’d walk from Manchester to London!

Our meeting in 2019, and subsequent journey together, with Brendan Cox, is publicly recorded, and I’ll not recount it here, but I was never in doubt that this time would come. This time being when Martyn’s Law, or the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill as it is formally known, has had its second reading in the House of Commons and has started its journey to becoming part of the United Kingdom’s law.

The white paper that we published as the foundation for Martyn’s Law proposed that there should be five strands of activity: a requirement for those that operate publicly accessible locations to undertake free awareness training; a requirement for publicly accessible locations to conduct vulnerability assessments; a requirement for those places to mitigate the risks created by those vulnerabilities; a requirement for those places to have a counter-terrorism plan; and a requirement for local authorities to have a counter terrorism plan.

The bill

While the bill that is in parliament now looks quite different to those proposals, the core intention of mobilising society to protect itself against terrorism remains firmly intact.

The bill currently requires these functions to be wrapped up into protective security procedures for smaller premises, and for premises with greater numbers of people expected to be using them, measures that will reduce the likelihood of terrorism happening at those premises.

Standard duty

What is now called the Standard Duty proposes that premises where there are likely to be between 200 and 799 people present at the same time and from time to time, should have a plan. That plan, as a minimum, should incorporate the following with the intent of reducing the consequences of a terrorist attack: a plan to evacuate the premises; a plan to invacuate people into the premises; a plan to lockdown all or parts of the premises and the ability to communicate the plan before and during an incident.

The standard duty is a pragmatic and workable approach to mobilising society to be more resilient in the face of terrorist attacks. Throughout my career, I saw that having a plan made the difference between success and failure.

I am however disappointed that the threshold for being included in the legislation has changed from 100 to 200. I think that is a mistake by government because that one change removes about 100,000 premises from being in-scope of the legislation. It was unfortunate that a few ill-informed lobby groups were able to secure such leverage over government thinking and suggest that a simple plan was burdensome. I hope those people don’t end up carrying the burden of knowing their campaigning led to loss of life by signposting a weakness in our collective defence.

I respect the need for ministers to respond to political pressure and I simply hope that there are no more concessions on the threshold. That would undermine the legislation to the point of ineffectiveness. The best we can hope for is a mechanism in the legislation that permits the home secretary to keep that number under review, and change it according to prevailing circumstances.

Larger venues

Larger premises where 800 or more people are likely to be on the premises at the same time, from time to time, are required to meet all the conditions of the standard duty, plus take the following measures to reduce the risk of terrorism: monitor the premises or event, and their immediate vicinity; control the movement of individuals into, out of, and within the premises; provide physical security of the premises; and secure information which may assist in the planning, preparation, and execution of acts of terrorism.

The same standards are applied to public events of 800 or more, but only if the event is not taking place on premises already covered by the legislation, and where there is a degree of control over access. This certainly implies that events will only be covered if there is a secure boundary that excludes people who are simply going about their daily business in the area.

The government has announced that there will be a regulator and that regulator will sit within the SIA, and will have a range of, mostly civil, powers. Unsurprisingly, this announcement was met with a degree of disparagement from several quarters, including within parliament’s 2nd hearing. There are many things that need to be defined with this arrangement including the division of funding and resources which will presumably now originate from separate funding streams.

Regulator

The Martyn’s Law regulator will first and foremost be an educator and that implies a need for collaboration with both National CT Security Office (NaCTSO) and the National Protective Security Authority (NPSA). That is likely to require a cultural shift by all parties to ensure that competing priorities can be aligned into a single delivery model. There are already existing relationships between NaCTSO and the SIA and I envisage this will run smoothly.

This has been a quick canter through recent developments. There is much more to say, especially about the changes in how thresholds might be calculated and demonstrated in law. A more complicated approach than using simple floor-area calculations, akin to fire safety regulations will, I believe, create loopholes and uncertainty. However, all these matters are now before a committee that will look at the bill, line-by-line, and take expert evidence to help it refine the law to be the best it can be.

It won’t be long now, before Martyn’s Law is on the statute books. Just writing those words sends shivers down my spine: it’s a really big deal, and an incredible achievement for a private citizen to bring about.

Of course, we have all come to know that Figen Murray is no ordinary private citizen. The indomitable spirit of a mother, grieving for a lost son, has a power like no other and there are five Prime Ministers, six home secretaries, and seven security ministers in her wake to testify to that.

Figen Murray said: “There is a degree of anxiety around for me as the debates on the legislation continue. I hope that MPs will make good decisions over the coming months to close all possible loopholes and to make this legislation as efficient as possible. MPs should have at the forefront of their minds that this legislation will save lives and at the end of the day one of the most important tasks of any government is the safety of its citizens. I look forward to the day Martyn’s Law enters the statute book.”

New hope for Martyn's Law?

Robyn Quick — Fri, 16 Aug 2024 14:24:17 +0000

Martyn's Law/Protect Duty

Back in May, dozens of campaigners completed the last leg of the Manchester to London walk for Martyn’s Law. Upon completion, Figen Murray met with then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak who committed to Martyn’s Law. Later that day, he called the general election.

Figen Murray, the mother of Martyn Hett, who was killed at the attack, and after whom the law is named, and others began the walk at Manchester Arena on 7 May. Two weeks later, scores of people joined the campaigners for the final leg from Marble Arch to Downing Street in the rain.

Upon arrival at Downing Street, Murray and her family met with then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. At the time, Sunak promised her he would introduce the law to parliament before the summer recess. Within hours, Sunak had called the general election, leading many to question his sincerity and integrity.

Speaking to the BBC, Murray said: “I was exhausted after walking 200 miles from Manchester to London, I was upset by the anniversary and then I felt misled by the Prime Minister.

“Martyn’s Law was a commitment for the last Parliament, not the next one, and I feel let down by all the promises that were made and broken.

“National security is too important to be so low a priority. I hope whoever wins the next election will act immediately to make this right.”

Labour

On the same day as the meeting with Sunak, Murray also met with then leader of the opposition, now prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, who also outlined a commitment to the legislation.

Prior to the general election, Starmer wrote to Murray promising to introduce Martyn’s Law at the earliest possible opportunity. In the letter, he said: “Having met with you and many of the other survivors of terror attacks, I know how personal and deeply felt this campaign is.

“The bravery and dedication you have shown in campaigning for changes to the law, so that others do not have to go through what you have, is incredible.

“Labour have been consistent in supporting the government in bringing forward Martyn’s Law. So it is shameful that, five years on from the legislation first being proposed, it has still not been brought forward."

He continued: “I promised you when we met that I would make good on my commitment that a Labour Government will introduce Martyn’s Law at the earliest possible opportunity. I meant that and I will honour that promise.

“This is a manifesto commitment and a personal pledge from me.”

Since then, Labour have won a general election, Starmer is prime minister and Sunak is leader of the opposition.

General election

Martyn’s Law was mentioned in the King’s Speech as the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill and it will require venues to put measures in place to deal with the threat of terrorism. The King said the legislation would be introduced to improve the safety and security of public venues to ‘keep the British public safe from terrorism’.

National and international security

Elsewhere in national and international security, police and politicians have a wide range of issues to tackle, with just the first few weeks of the new government seeing violent murders, riots across the country, fears of war spreading the Middle East; and calls to do more to tackle male violence and violence against women and girls.

The campaign for Martyn's law

Robyn Quick — Wed, 01 May 2024 15:53:09 +0000

Martyn's Law/Protect Duty

Figen Murray, mother of Martyn Hett, who died at the Manchester Arena attack, and after whom the law is named, is to walk from Manchester to Downing Street to raise awareness of Martyn’s Law.

She will begin the walk at Manchester Arena on 7 May and will arrive at Downing Street on 22 May, the seventh anniversary of the attack.

Murray will be joined by other campaigners, including Brendan Cox, whose wife Jo Cox was murdered in 2016. The campaigners will stop at the sites of other terrorist attacks en route.

Martyn's Law

Martyn’s Law will impose requirements in relation to certain premises and events to increase their preparedness for, and protection from, a terrorist attack by requiring them to take proportionate steps, depending on the size and nature of the activities that take place at the premises.

The proposed requirements would apply to those responsible for qualifying public premises and qualifying public events. They might be individuals but, in most cases, would be a business or other organisation.

The proposals set out different requirements for standard tier premises, which would have a capacity of 100-799 individuals and enhanced tier premises and qualifying public events, both of which have a capacity of 800 individuals or more.

A consultation on Martyn’s Law closed in March and the results are currently being considered by the government.The consultation was aimed at organisations, businesses, local and public authorities, and individuals who own or operate publicly accessible premises or events that the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill will potentially affect.

The consultation sought views from those responsible for smaller premises which would fall within the standard tier. The government committed to Martyn’s Law in the 2019 manifesto and the 2022 Queen’s speech. However, there is no update on when it will become law.

Speaking to the BBC, Ms Murray said: “Almost five years on from their first commitment, the draft legislation still hasn’t been tabled.

“No parent should have to experience the pain and loss I’ve felt.

“I truly believe we have an opportunity to make public spaces safer and more secure by introducing Martyn’s Law.”

Mr Cox added: “Martyn’s mum shouldn’t be having to walk from Manchester to London to put pressure on the government to do something it has promised multiple times.”

The urgent call for Martyn’s Law: a cross-party mission to enhance national security

Polly Jones — Thu, 23 Nov 2023 09:44:11 +0000

Martyn's Law/Protect Duty

A feature by the PSSA

As the United Kingdom stands on the edge of a pivotal legislative moment with the Government’s Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, also known as #MartynsLaw, it is imperative to understand the journey ahead. This bill, inspired by the tragic events at the Manchester Arena in 2017 and the tireless advocacy of Figen Murray OBE, is more than a piece of legislation; it’s a symbol of our nation's resolve to combat terrorism.

Paul Jeffrey, chairman of the Perimeter Security Suppliers Association (PSSA) commented, “This legislation is not just another item on the parliamentary agenda; it represents a fundamental shift in our nation's approach to public safety and counter-terrorism.”

Jeffrey and PSSA members have been vocal advocates for this critical piece of legislation. Jeffrey’s dedication saw him and Figen Murray, a central figure behind the bill, standing at the steps of 10 Downing Street, delivering letters of petition that encapsulated the collective plea of thousands. These letters weren’t just sheets of paper; they were the echoes of a nation still grappling with the aftermath of the 2017 Manchester Arena attack, an event that tragically claimed the life of Murray’s son, Martyn Hett, and others.

Diane Johnson, Labour MP for Hull North and chair of the �鶹�� Affairs Select Committee emphasised the bill's significance during a recent session in the Houses of Parliament. “I want to specifically refer to the government draft Terrorism (Protection of Premises) bill also known as Martyn's Law," she stated. Johnson highlighted the bill's roots in the Manchester tragedy and its potential to prevent similar atrocities. Her words serve as a poignant reminder of the bill's origins and its deeper purpose – a commitment to ensuring that such a devastating loss of life never occurs again on British soil.

Figen Murray, whose tireless campaigning has been instrumental in bringing the issue to national attention, emphasised the urgency and necessity of this legislation. "This legislation is urgently needed and I hope it will not be watered down too much, putting people at risk," Murray said. Her call to action resonates with a clear message: the law must be robust and uncompromising in its mission to protect the public.

The government’s intention to pass the new law was further signified in the King’s Speech 2023, marking a pivotal step towards realising this goal. But, the journey is far from over. The bill now faces the intricate process of parliamentary scrutiny, requiring approval from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. This process, while necessary for ensuring the bill's thoroughness and effectiveness, is also a race against time.

The PSSA, under Jeffrey's leadership, has been unyielding in its advocacy for understanding and mitigating risks associated with terrorism. The association highlights the importance of readiness at every level, from conducting risk assessments to training staff. These are measures that, while seemingly straightforward, can make a significant difference in preventing and responding to terror attacks.

Jeffrey's upcoming meetings with a number of MPs are crucial in this context. These discussions are more than mere formalities; they are opportunities to influence the bill's trajectory and ensure its alignment with the highest standards of national security.

The statistics are alarming: since 2014, vehicles have been used in over 140 attacks globally, with a majority occurring in places lacking adequate security measures. This data is a stark reminder of the evolving nature of terror threats and the need for proactive legislation like Martyn's Law.

The road ahead for Martyn's Law is challenging but necessary. Its passage will not only be a testament to the resilience and determination of campaigners like Murray and Jeffrey but also a significant stride in safeguarding our nation against the scourge of terrorism. The urgency is clear, and the call to action is loud: it is time for Parliament to move swiftly and decisively in enacting this vital legislation.

As the nation watches, the hope is that Martyn's Law will not only honour the memory of those lost but will also mark a new era of heightened security and vigilance in the United Kingdom. The message from the PSSA, campaigners, and the public is unequivocal: the time for Martyn's Law is now.

Protecting people at all venues

Freya — Tue, 03 Oct 2023 13:20:33 +0000

Martyn's Law/Protect Duty

Figen Murray, campaigner and mother of Martyn Hett, after whom the legislation is named, explains why it is important that Martyn’s Law applies to small venues as well

I was thrilled to see that the prime minister presented the draft bill for Martyn’s Law on 2nd May. Although it was an important step, I appreciated the long journey that still lay ahead. Rishi Sunak explained it at great length during our telephone conversation on 15th December. I knew that the next big step would be the two-month period of scrutiny led by the �鶹�� Affairs Select Committee, standard procedure for proposed legislation to undergo.

This process started on 6th June, and I was allowed the privilege to give evidence alongside Nick Aldworth as the first two witnesses to appear. Since I started this journey, nerves never came into play, yet I suddenly felt very anxious about this day. What finally hit me after all these months of campaigning and speaking about the legislation was the realisation that what we are working on is so important. At one point I had a “What have I started” moment. The enormity of the responsibility suddenly hit me, the importance of the legislation dawned on me, and I knew how exceptionally difficult it would be sitting in that room. There was a lot of kindness and care in the room towards me, the grieving mother. But then other witnesses appeared, and a healthy debate ensued. Martyn’s Law clearly was not popular amongst all people present in the room.

The final day of evidence led me to go on another trip to London on 20th June. I did not want to miss this significant day, needed to hear what people were asked and what answers would be given. But this day felt very different. Scrutiny was harsh and relentless! Misunderstanding hung in the room and led to confusion, maybe even irritation for some. It was very difficult to sit, yet not being able to speak, object or explain.

What’s next?
The committee has just delivered its report to be presented to the �鶹�� Office. I guess thereafter the �鶹�� Office will take the comments on board and adapt the legislation before government goes into summer recess.

My guess is that in the autumn, after the party-political conferences have concluded, the two houses will debate the legislation. Hopefully, King Charles will mention the legislation in the King’s Speech. This will bring the year to an end, and it is anticipated that the legislation will get royal assent, ideally before the 7th anniversary of the attack. A lot of the families who lost loved ones and people who were injured at the Arena attack are waiting for the legislation to be passed and at the end of the inquiry a few weeks ago some wished me good luck and thanked me for the effort to try and keep the rest of their families safe.

village halls
At the end of the day that is what this law is about. It will save lives! It will send a strong message out to terrorists that venues will not allow them in, that as a society we will not allow them to destroy our way of life. However, during the home affairs select committee process, it became clear to me that not everyone is thrilled with the legislation. It is of course important to have a healthy debate and things should never be one-sided, however, going very public with a negative mindset when the legislation is not yet fully understood endangers lives. A recent article in the Daily Mail and subsequent further articles on other platforms are trying to discredit the validity of Martyn’s Law for village halls and are spreading doom and gloom unnecessarily. The article smacks very much of “This will not happen here”. It is deemed that terrorists are not interested in attacking local yoga classes.

When I first read the article a few things went through my mind – why did the newspaper not contact us for a response to make for a more balanced argument? It was disappointing to say the least. However, more importantly, it reminded me of the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester where on 22nd May 2017 our son Martyn and 21 others were murdered by a terrorist. The concert was deemed as not at risk of an attack as it was seen as a children’s concert due to the audience demographic. For some reason nobody thought the opposite – a children’s concert being targeted would bring the terrorist the most ultimate notoriety as children would be slaughtered. The shock effect of so many young lives being wiped out would be a perfect win for Daesh. Nobody thought of that.

Non-obvious tarGETS
When the Christchurch (New Zealand) shooter decided on which target to attack, the sleepy town of Christchurch was not his first choice, but he decided to go for it in the end to show the world that terrorists do not just go for the obvious.

My husband and I went to visit families from the two mosques three months after their attack. We arrived late Sunday night and were invited at 9 am Monday to the bigger of the two mosques. We walked during rush hour yet there was very little traffic. As we walked towards the mosque, we realised it was situated right opposite a big park. The mosque was amidst a row of houses in a quiet residential area. It seemed unfathomable that anyone would just walk in and shoot 51 people dead. The picture just did not seem to fit, yet it happened.

A few days later we visited the second much smaller mosque. Our journey led us to the outskirts of town, an area where poverty was very evident. We eventually arrived at a dirt track and saw a tiny house at the end of the drive. It was the size of a small bungalow. Seven people were shot dead and had no chance of escape.

It was quite hard to do this trip and see how vulnerable the people at both mosques were. So, when I see comments about village halls hardly likely to become a target I am taken aback at the short-sightedness and the ignorance of such remarks.

Whatever the legislation will look like once it has been scrutinised, I can only hope that people are able to consider that terrorism may eventually go the same way as county lines. Terrorists may well start going for softer targets and village halls definitely count as such.