Martyn's Law given royal assent to officially become statute

Legislation providing greater protection to help prevent and reduce the harm of terror attacks at event venues has officially become law.
The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, known as Martyn's Law, will compel all UK venues expecting 200 or more people to be on site to prepare for the event of a terror attack after it received royal assent on Thursday, the Home Office said.
Larger premises expected to host 800 people or more would also have to take steps to reduce their vulnerability to an assault, such as CCTV, bag searches or vehicle checks.
Figen Murray, who campaigned for the law change in memory of her 29-year-old son Martyn Hett, met with Sir Keir Starmer at Downing Street to mark the occasion as the Prime Minister expressed a 'debt of gratitude' for her work, the Home Office said.
Mr Hett and 21 other people were killed in the Manchester Arena bombing at the end of an Ariana Grande concert in May 2017.
Ms Murray completed a 200-mile walk from Manchester Arena to Downing Street and delivered a letter to then-prime minister Rishi Sunak in May last year as part of her campaign.
The Bill was eventually laid before Parliament in September.
The Prime Minister 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.'
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said: 'Martyn's Law will significantly strengthen public safety across our country, I'd like to thank Figen Murray for her tireless work to make this law a reality.
'This Government is securing Britain's future through the plan for change and, as the eighth anniversary of the attack approaches, this new law delivers upon the lessons from the Manchester Arena Inquiry to keep people safe.'
The Security Industry Authority (SIA) will take on the role as regulator for the legislation, the Home Office said.
The Act will not come into force for at least two years to allow the SIA's new function to be established and give those responsible sufficient time to understand their new obligations and plan ahead.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

an hour ago

• The Hill

Good news: We've already been king-free for 810 years. But there's also bad news.

Resistance to tyranny, suspicion of concentrated power, and a firm belief in the democratic ideals that birthed this republic. It's a noble struggle. But for all their passion and theatrical flair, the historical literacy behind the 'No Kings Since 1776' slogan leaves much to be desired. In fact, the protestors missed the mark by several centuries. Yes, the U.S. declared independence from the British Crown in 1776. But the kind of 'king' these protesters seem to fear had already ceased to exist in Britain long before that. By the time George III ascended the throne, British kings were largely figureheads, bound by constitutional limits and dependent on Parliament to govern. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 had already drastically curtailed the powers of the monarchy. And indeed, if you want to pinpoint when monarchs lost their teeth, you need to look even further back, to 1215, when rebellious English barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. That document didn't create democracy, but it did begin a centuries-long process of transferring power away from the crown and into the hands of parliaments and assemblies. So, by the time the American colonies revolted, they were not really rising up against a tyrannical king, but against an unresponsive and overreaching Parliament. The rallying cry of the American Revolution — 'No taxation without representation' — wasn't an anti-monarchist slogan. It was an anti-parliamentarian slogan. The colonists didn't object to authority per se — they objected to being taxed and ruled by a body in which they had no voice. And they weren't demanding the abolition of kingship. They were demanding accountability, proportionality, and representation. They were asking for a seat at the table. Fast-forward to today, and that slogan might resonate more than ever. We don't live under a king, but we do live under a political system that often behaves as if it's immune to public influence. Our Congress — designed to be the voice of the people and a check on executive power — is frequently in lockstep with the president, regardless of which party is in office. Whether through partisan loyalty or political cowardice, our legislators often abdicate their role as a balancing force. They don't deliberate. They defer. They don't question. They rubber-stamp. The real issue isn't kingship but representation. And in the absence of real legislative independence, the presidency has become more monarchical than anything George III ever imagined. And this didn't start in 2025 or even in 2017. Every American president in modern history has wielded powers the British monarch couldn't have dreamed of: Executive orders, foreign military interventions without Congressional approval, surveillance regimes, and massive influence over the national budget. If protesters truly want to challenge creeping authoritarianism, the more accurate message would be: 'No taxation without genuine representation.' That would strike at the heart of the issue. If Congress does not act independently, if it does not reflect the interests and concerns of the people, then we are not truly being represented. And if we are not being represented, then why are we funding the machine? Of course, no one is seriously proposing that Americans stop paying taxes overnight. Civil disobedience has its limits. But protest must have a point, and slogans must have meaning. A movement that aims to hold power accountable must aim at the right target. 'No Kings' is, at best, historically inaccurate, and at worst, a distraction from the deeply rooted, troubling democratic predicament in which we find ourselves. A government system that would have the Founding Fathers turning in their graves. Imagine if all that energy, creativity, and public spirit were channeled instead into a campaign to restore Congressional independence, to demand term limits, to break the iron grip of lobbyists, to push for electoral reform, or to hold legislators to account for every vote they cast. That would be a revolution worth marching for. So, to the protesters in the streets: your instincts are right. Power must be kept in check. But your history is off, and your slogan is weak. Don't fear a king who never ruled you. Fear a Congress that no longer represents you. Daniel Friedman is professor of political science at Touro University.

Yahoo

2 hours ago

• Yahoo

Why is the Palestine Action group being banned by the UK government?

The home secretary is set to ban the Palestine Action protest group and effectively brand it as a terrorist organisation following a break-in at an RAF base. Yvette Cooper is expected to deliver a ministerial statement to Parliament on Monday, in which she is expected to lay out her plans to proscribe the group. New legislation, which would have to be debated by MPs and peers, will be needed to enact a ban of Palestine Action, whose activists entered the RAF Brize Norton base in Oxfordshire and vandalised two planes. A video of the break-in, shared online by the group on Friday, is being viewed as an embarrassing episode for the Ministry of Defence (MoD), particularly as the two protesters managed to exit the base without being arrested. Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer described the vandalism as "disgraceful" and said it is the government's "responsibility to support those who defend us". But some have questioned whether the damage carried out by Palestine Action should meet the threshold of classing it as a "proscribed organisation". Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action. The decision by the home secretary comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton. One person can be seen riding an electric scooter to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being investigated by counter-terror police and has prompted a review of security at RAF bases. The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. Friday's incident at Brize Norton prompted calls for the group to be banned, but proscription will require Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida. Far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company Wagner Group have also been banned. Another 14 organisations connected with Northern Ireland are also banned under previous legislation, including the IRA and UDA. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Ministers have said a ban is justified, with defence secretary John Healey describing the vandalism of RAF planes as "totally unacceptable". "These aircraft are used by our military personnel to support security and peace around the world," he said. "This action does nothing to support Gaza or our push for peace and stability in the Middle East". Shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said: "There can be no place in a democracy for groups that use violence, sabotage and potential terrorist acts to pursue their political goals. "We've called for these groups to be investigated and banned, those responsible to be prosecuted, and any links to foreign agents to be exposed." Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman said banning the group is "absolutely the correct decision", writing on X: "We must have zero tolerance for terrorism." Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage have also come out in support of a ban. Lord Walney, who served as the government's independent adviser on political violence, told Sky News the move was "long overdue", claiming that the group had acted as "the enemy within". "They have terrorised working people for a number of years and there's a number of serious violent charges that are going through the court system at the moment," he added. Defending its actions, a spokesperson for Palestine Action said: 'When our government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. "The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' The spokesperson accused the UK of failing to meet its obligations to prevent or punish genocide, in relation to Israel's onslaught in Gaza. In a statement on X, the group said: "By making plans to ban us, the British state is effectively saying they value the property used to commit genocide more than the people killed. Saeed Taji Farouky, a spokesperson for the group, told Times Radio: "The idea that Palestine Action could end up on the same list as groups like ISIS is just absolutely absurd. This is a knee jerk reaction." Addressing a crowd of pro-Palestine demonstrators in Whitehall on Saturday, former Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf accused the government of "abusing" anti-terror laws. Human rights group Amnesty International UK said it is "deeply concerned at the use of counter terrorism powers to target protest groups". "Terrorism powers should never have been used to aggravate criminal charges against Palestine Action activists and they certainly shouldn't be used to ban them," it added. Former justice secretary Lord Charlie Falconer said vandalising aircraft at RAF Brize Norton would not solely provide legal justification for proscribing the protest group. Appearing on Sky News' Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips, he said: "I think the question will probably not be what we know about them publicly, but there would need to be something that was known by those who look at these sorts of things that we don't know about. "They got into the air base which might suggest they've got some degree of ability to make them dangerous, I don't know. 'But generally, that sort of demonstration wouldn't justify proscription so there must be something else that I don't know about ." Keir Starmer says Kneecap Glastonbury performance is not 'appropriate' (The Independent) RAF base 'targeted in Iran spy plot' (The Telegraph) Briton arrested for alleged terrorism offences and spying on RAF base in Cyprus (The Guardian)

Yahoo

3 hours ago

• Yahoo

More than 1,000 migrants cross Channel in small boats over two days

More than 1,000 migrants have arrived in the UK over two days having crossed the Channel in small boats, according to Home Office figures. Home Office statistics say 437 people made the crossing on Friday, June 20, in seven boats while on Saturday a further 583 crossed in eight boats bringing the total for the two days to 1,020. This brings the total so far this week to 2,083 and the total for the year so far to 18,400. This compares to 12,644 by the same date in 2024, 10,601 in 2023 and 11,739 in 2022. The latest arrivals come despite the French appearing to take a tougher stance on their beaches. Also Sir Keir Starmer said this week that the situation was 'deteriorating' and threatened a visa crackdown. The Prime Minister signalled that countries which did not do enough to tackle the irregular migration crisis, for example by taking back failed asylum seekers, could face repercussions in the numbers of visas issued to their citizens. Sir Keir's message came as French police were seen to employ more robust tactics on the beaches this week including using teargas. But they were also seen to stand by and watch once migrants had entered the water to board a dinghy in the hope of crossing the English Channel.