Peers debate Martyn’s Law at second reading in the House of Lords
By Nathan Emmerich
Over the past week, the contentious intervention of the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, has stoked the flames of intolerance and hatred by spreading misinformation on Twitter – all done with a complete disregard of the impact on the victims of the crimes, the communities who will be targeted, or the consequences for politicians, such as Labour MP Jess Phillips.
Online activity can result in real life consequences. This point was highlighted by the former Head of Counter Terrorism Policing when referencing the Finsbury Park terror attack at a mosque in 2017.
In recent years we’ve seen a shift in attack methods by terrorists, from homemade IED’s to low-sophistication attacks where a vehicle or a kitchen knife is used. This change in methodology requires vigilance from all sections of society.
Importantly, it also requires venues to mitigate risk by implementing robust plans and training to ensure the public are better protected in the instance of a terror attack – this is what Martyn’s Law seeks to achieve.
Yesterday we witnessed politics and democracy at its best as cross-party Peers debated the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, informally known as Martyn’s Law, in the House of Lords.
Whilst the bill and its intentions are supported by the majority of Peers – as is the case in the Commons – there was respectful debate about the impact of measures set out under the current scope on smaller businesses that fall within the standard tier requirements (capacity of 200 to 799), the suitability of the Security Industry Authority to regulate the implementation of the legislation, and discretionary powers granted to the Secretary of State to change the threshold.
More than three hours of contributions from Peers, each with their own expertise and experiences working in national security, highlighted the vital role and responsibility the Government has when it comes to protecting UK citizens. As Lord Hanson and Lord Murray rightly stated, the UK Government’s first duty is to protect its citizens. The bill will deliver this.
In short, Martyn’s Law creates a tiered system of proportionate requirements for public venues with a capacity greater than 200, such as restaurants, theatres, and arenas to ensure they can effectively protect the public in the event of a terror attack.
It is positively reassuring to hear consensus about the urgent need to introduce Martyn’s Law, to strengthen the UK’s counter terrorism response. The bill has now passed through the second reading stage and will undergo multiple days of scrutiny at the Committee stage – it is likely that amendments will be made to strengthen the bill.
As was highlighted during the debate, the campaign to introduce Martyn’s Law followed the tragic circumstances of the Manchester Arena terror attack on 22 May 2017, where 22 innocent victims were brutally murdered.
Poignantly, the debate took place on the 10th anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo terror attack in Paris, where 12 people were murdered, and followed the deadly terror attacks in Magdeburg, Germany, and in New Orleans .
Terrorism does not discriminate and the threats we face in the UK persist. The Director General of MI5, Sir Ken McCallam, provided an update in October 2024 stating that since March 2017, there have been 15 terror attacks in the UK and the UK’s security services have stopped 43 late-stage terror attacks. Matt Jukes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing, also said in his latest briefing that “it’s hard to remember a more unstable dangerous and uncertain world.”
Martyn’s Law will strengthen the UK’s counter terrorism response, but yesterday’s debate highlighted the complexity and broad efforts needed to prevent and protect the public.