Martyn's Law 2024

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.”