Martyn’s Law set to protect events from terror attacks as Lords give green light

Peers have backed a proposed law that aims to help prevent and reduce the harm of terror attacks at event venues, such as nightclubs, concert halls and churches.

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill has passed report stage in the House of Lords and is ready for its third reading, the final stage in its parliamentary journey before the King gives royal assent.

Known as Martyn’s Law, the legislation will compel all UK venues that expect 200 or more people to be on site to prepare for the event of a terror attack, such as establishing evacuation plans.

It will also require larger venues that expect 800 or more people to attend to take steps to reduce their vulnerability to an attack.

The law is named after Martyn Hett, a 29-year-old man who was killed, along with 21 other people, in the Manchester Arena bombing at the end of an Ariana Grande concert in May 2027.

The Government saw off Conservative attempts to amend the bill at report stage in the Lords to increase the capacity thresholds for which these venues will be required to comply with the measures in the Bill from 200 to 500 people for the lower threshold, and from 800 to 1000 people for the higher threshold.

Tory peers raised concerns over the financial and administrative burdens these requirements would place on smaller venues, especially those run by volunteers.

Lord Udny-Lister, former Downing Street Chief of Staff for Boris Johnson, argued that a capacity threshold of 200 people “captures far too many small businesses, community venues and organisations that simply do not have the resources to comply effectively with the security measures in this legislation”.

Former Tory Home Office minister Lord Murray of Blidworth said: “I worry greatly that one of the unintended consequences of this Bill will be to drive such small business and community facilities, which are presently just about managing and just about balancing the books, out of business, with the consequent massive impact on our communities and our high streets.

“If this happens, the terrorists will have won.”

However, Home Office minister Lord Hanson of Flint said that the requirements on venues captured by the lower threshold are “not what I would term onerous; they are good practice, they are things that a good employer should do, they are things that good volunteers should do”.

He added that raising the lower threshold up to venues with 500 or more people would mean just 4% of premises would be subject to the measures in the Bill.

Conservative peer Lord De Mauley argued that the higher threshold should be raised from those expecting 800 or more people to those expecting 1,000 or more people to attend, arguing that the requirements could negatively impact “small ticketed charitable events”.

However, Lord Hanson insisted that the 800 people figure was decided after significant consultation, adding: “In the event of a terrorist attack, which we will try to prevent downstream, the measures in this Bill may help save a life and, had they been in place at the Manchester Arena when the attack took place there, lives may have been saved.”

Peers voted against both these thresholds moving, rejecting by 248 votes to 214, majority 34, the lower threshold rising from 200 to 500 people, and rejecting by 249 votes to 213, majority 36, the higher threshold rising from 800 to 1,000 people.

Ministers also saw off a bid that would allow venues to apply for an exemption from putting in place public protection procedures.

Lord De Mauley argued that this would allow security measures to be “appropriately targeted”, allowing exemptions where venues can “clearly demonstrate that it doesn’t meet a reasonable threshold of risk” based on their size, location, historical risk data and the nature of the events they host.

However, Lord Hanson argued that setting up the bureaucracy to manage the influx of exemption applications would be “a major task” and would “create confusion”.

Peers voted by 236 votes to 200, majority 36, against allowing venues to apply for an exemption.

The Bill will now proceed to its third reading.