Martyn’s Law should be ‘good and effective, but not overly onerous’, the House of Commons heard. That comment was made yesterday evening by the former Home Secretary James Cleverly, during the second reading of the proposed Martyn’s law, which is now going in front of a committee of MPs for detailed scrutiny.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper opened the second reading debate with a tribute to the campaigner Figen Murray, who was in the public gallery. Yvette Cooper called her ‘a true inspiration’ and referred to how the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill has been taken up as ‘Martyn’s law’, named after Figen’s son Martyn Hett, who was among those who died in the Manchester Arena suicide bombing of May 22, 2017.
Yvette Cooper described the purpose of the Bill as requiring premises to take ‘proper measures’ to counter terrorism. She was interrupted by SNP MP Pete Wishart, who raised ‘concerns from the live music sector’ about the cost of meeting the law. Yvette Cooper acknowledged that, and that ‘there will be many detailed discussions on that in Committee’, the next stage of Parliament going over the proposed law.
The Conservative MP Sir Julian Lewis asked how the proposed law would have had an effect on the Arena bombing; the Home Secretary deflected that by replying ‘it is not for the Government to specify precise arrangements for every venue’.
Neil Coyle, the Bermondsey, south London MP whose constituency includes Borough Market, the site of a June 2017 marauding terrorist attack, also raised costs; and specifically the ‘practical difficulties in designing and installing the permanent barriers’ around the multi-occupancy site. The Home Secretary went on to say that ‘premises and events in the enhanced tier [places with a capacity of 800 or more] will be required to provide the regulator with a document that sets out all the public protection measures and procedures they have, and how they expect those processes to reduce their vulnerability and risk of harm from terrorism’. As for any enforcement regime, she added that ‘penalties will be used only to address the most serious or repeated failings’. Also to assuage parliamentarian concerns, she spoke of the ‘need to get the proper balance and detail right’, and that since the first draft of the law was published in 2023 (and savaged by the Home Affairs Committee of MPs), the threshold of the lower tier of places that will come under the law has been raised from 100 to 200.
Replying for the Conservatives, Shadow Home Secretary James Cleverly confirmed that the Bill enjoys cross-party support. He warned that ‘the Government have to think very carefully when regulating in this way, to ensure that we recognise that we cannot regulate away all risks’. On the cost of businesses meeting the proposed law, Mr Cleverly welcomed ‘the lighter-touch approach’, ‘particularly in the standard tier’ of smaller premises. He asked about the readiness of the proposed regulator, the Security Industry Authority (SIA), given that ‘nearly 200,000 venues’ will come under the proposals. He raised the risk that plans for premises to comply with the law, and ‘best practice made public’, might be used by would-be attackers. He also warned against the SIA ‘looking for opportunities to rush in with fining powers’. On timing of the law once passed actually coming into effect, Mr Cleverly noted that it was unlikely to be in force for 24 months after Royal Assent. Also touched on by him was that voluntary and community venues, such as churches or places of worship, might find the law a burden; and that as terror threats evolve, so the regulations will have to.
A Labour Member of Parliament for Manchester, Connor Rand, paid tribute to Figen Murray and spoke of ‘an urgent need for this overdue Bill’, and stressed ‘how common-sense it all is’. For the Liberal Democrats, Lisa Smart said her party supports Martyn’s law. The former Home Secretary Priti Patel, who first took up the then proposed Protect Duty in 2021, paid tribute to the Conservative MP Sir David Amess, murdered at a constituency surgery in Southend in 2021; and Jo Cox, the Labour MP murdered in 2016. She recalled that as Home Secretary she set up the Manchester Arena Inquiry, ‘and many of the findings of the important work of [Inquiry chair] Sir John Saunders were absolutely shocking’. Like other MPs, Priti Patel raised the concern of ‘additional burdens on businesses’ to meet regulation, set against the need for public safety, like fire safety, and health and safety.
Some maiden speeches by MPs followed, including by Forest of Dean Labour MP Matt Bishop, who recalled that when a Met Police officer he was on July 7, 2005, ‘one of the first officers on the scene at the Tavistock Square bus bombing’, one of the 7-7 acts of terrorism. Later speakers continued to urge scrutiny and planning around the law, due to the ‘significant requirements it places on the events, entertainment, and hospitality industries’, in the words of Birmingham Conservative MP Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst. Unionist Antrim MP Jim Allister spoke of ‘potential overreach’, that might affect small schools and churches. He complained that in Northern Ireland the SIA ‘has been found wanting’ and described it as ‘not a body that is a ready recipient for extra powers’.
Winding up the debate, junior Home Office minister Dan Jarvis confirmed that after Royal Assent, ‘there will be time to understand and, where necessary, act upon the new requirements before they come into force’. He spoke of an ‘implementation period’ of at least 24 months to allow for the set-up of the regulator, ‘and we will continue to engage and communicate with industry and other stakeholders during this period, including in the live music sector’. He said that ‘the primary role of the Security Industry Authority will be to provide advice, guidance and support’, while the law will give the SIA ‘the necessary enforcement and investigation powers’. Specifically on churches, Dan Jarvis confirmed that all places of worship will be included in the standard tier (that is, with less required for compliance than larger, 800-plus capacity, places).
For the full debate, read Hansard on the UK Parliament website.
