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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
The missing link in the grooming gangs report: cousin marriage
When the US Department of Defence set up an interrogation unit at Guantanamo Bay after 9/11, it conducted a detailed study on the suspected terrorists it held. Agents wanted to understand the links between them, the way they had worked together, the better to infiltrate their wider networks. They found nothing. Diddly squat. They conducted audits, led themselves on a merry dance, but achieved zilch. • 'Wrongly prosecuted' grooming gang victims denied compensation Then they hired someone who understood the culture of the people they'd apprehended; someone steeped in Arabic mores. She instantly spotted a pattern in the names of the suspects. A startlingly high proportion were from two clans: the Qahtani and the Utaybi. When she mentioned this to her DoD colleagues, their first question was: what the hell is a clan? Only after she explained the significance of these social institutions, the subtle pattern of names that indicate clan affiliations and the codes of honour and secrecy that make them powerful vehicles for group action did they see the point. The agents were then able to infiltrate the networks and prevent future atrocities. Why am I telling you this? Well, because I read Baroness Casey of Blackstock's report on the rape gangs scandal with rising levels of frustration — indeed much the same emotion with which I read her 2016 report on social integration. I don't doubt Casey's work rate or integrity. But I think that, somewhat like the DoD at Guantanamo, she couldn't see what was before her eyes because she lacked the appropriate analytical lens. • 'Whitehall tried to block Rotherham grooming scandal exposé' You see, to understand many of the most urgent failures of integration, you need to understand the clan. These groups are held together not just by ideology or religion; they are cemented by cousin marriage, a common practice in Arabic cultures and, in the UK, many Pakistani immigrant communities, particularly those hailing from Kashmir. By marrying within small, tightknit groups, they ensure everything is kept within the baradari, or brotherhood — property, secrets, loyalty — binding clan members closer together while sequestering them from wider society. In her 2016 report Casey rightly talked about the failure to speak English, honour beatings and the like, but she missed the point that many of these problems are a function of marriage practices that isolate communities. The academic Patrick Nash of the Pharos Foundation has written of baradari life 'concentrated in small geographical areas spread across a few streets or nearby neighbourhoods where there is little need or opportunity to have much to do with wider society or practise the English language'. To write a report on failures of integration without seeing the link with cousin marriage is, I suggest, like writing on the power grid without noting the significance of electricity. • How the grooming gang report detailed abusers' ethnicity Casey's report on the rape gang scandal was flawed for the same reason. It was a strange experience to read her words as she edged ever closer to grasping the point without quite getting there. She noted that the problem is disproportionately concentrated among British Pakistanis. She even noted that 'two thirds of suspects offended within groups' that were 'based on pre-existing relationships — mainly brothers and cousins'. But then, stunningly, she suggested that these links were 'unsophisticated' and 'informal'. Anyone who studies these things — one thinks of Michael Muthukrishna at LSE — could have told her that this is the unmistakable pattern of clan-based crime: groups whose links are anything but informal and unsophisticated. Charlie Peters, who has investigated this problem for GB News, told me: 'The deeper you probe, the more you see the presence of clans. We know that such communities are more likely to see others as outsiders, of less moral value and, when it comes to young white girls, fair game. The perpetrators also knew that they could commit crimes without getting dobbed in since loyalty is owed to the clan but not victims. In some cases, abusers were aided by relatives in authority.' Nash put it this way: 'Cousin marriage sustains close-kin networks which incentivise clan members both to dehumanise out-group victims and to suppress knowledge of criminal activity to preserve family honour.' • Grooming gangs 'still at large, and the victims aren't believed' A couple of examples. Last year, Shaha Amran Miah, 48, Shaha Alman Miah, 47, and Shaha Joman Miah, 38, were convicted at Preston crown court of horrific abuse perpetrated in Barrow-in-Furness and Leeds. Yes, these were Pakistani men, but they were also brothers within an overarching baradari. In Rotherham in 2016, Arshid, Basharat and Bannaras Hussain groomed and raped children for nearly 20 years while Qurban Ali was found guilty of conspiracy to rape. Three of these men are brothers and Ali is their uncle. I have long advocated a ban on cousin marriage but should perhaps say that I've never regarded it as a panacea. Improving integration requires so much more: ending mass uncontrolled immigration, amending legal frameworks to stop the boats, deporting foreign criminals, not to mention other policies supported by large majorities but serially ducked by politicians. A ban on consanguinity would, though, be of huge value. American states with bans tend to be more prosperous and faster-growing. Nations with bans are richer and more integrated, with less corruption and lower rates of crime. A ban would also reduce the prevalence of the congenital diseases causing untold suffering in Kashmiri immigrant communities from Bradford to Luton. The good news is that Kemi Badenoch has adopted this as Tory policy after campaigning by her colleague Richard Holden, and a poll for YouGov last month showed that 77 per cent of the British people are in favour of a ban (only 9 per cent oppose it). But here's what astounds me: Labour remains against prohibition, despite (I am told) having read the evidence. Why? How? Permit me to suggest that I glimpse through the façade of prevarication a party still terrified of criticising any cultural practice out of fear of appearing racist. Isn't that why it was mute for so long on female genital mutilation and honour beatings and still can't bring itself to describe the burqa as a pernicious symbol of institutional misogyny? In other words, the reason the grooming scandal was not confronted for so long by both main parties (not to mention the police and social services) — namely, the fear of seeming bigoted for investigating ethnic minorities, even while they were gang-raping young girls — is still alive and well in the British government. As the son of a Pakistani immigrant who integrated into this nation (not least by marrying my mum) and came to love it, I find this sickening. One can perhaps forgive Casey for missing the significance of cousin marriage, given that it is a custom with which she is unfamiliar (although, frankly, she should have done her homework), but there can be no excuse for politicians who put cultural sensitivities before basic decency. So I say to Starmer, Hermer, Cooper et al: examine your consciences. Did you really go into politics to be apologists for the worst kind of moral relativism, to acquiesce in the nihilistic pretence that all cultural practices are of equal value, when they emphatically are not? If not, find your backbone, confront the Muslim bloc vote and ban cousin marriage. The alternative is betrayal of the most heinous kind. For here's a thought to focus minds: girls today, even as you read these words, are being abused by ethnic clans operating in this country. Fail to act now, and this is on you.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: Dogma cares little for the state of Britain's economy
This country's economy is now in serious peril. This is not only because the Government is nudging at the very outer limits of what it can raise in tax and borrowing – though it is. It is also because that government is increasingly driven by ferocious dogma which cares little for such concerns. It may be that some in the Cabinet can see the danger, yet others do not even view it as a danger, but as an opportunity for yet more upheaval and dramatic change. The extraordinary developments of last week, in which the current very large Labour majority in Parliament brought about revolutions in abortion law and in assisted dying, are a warning that we are now in uncharted waters. It may possibly be that we have never had a government whose parliamentary forces are so radical. And the uncrowned queen of those forces is the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, increasingly influential and remarkably effective in the Commons and in Whitehall. It is true that there has always been a role for disruptive and troublemaking men and women near the top of the Labour Party. In the Tony Blair years, a similar position was filled by the late John Prescott, a majestic steam-powered Dreadnought originating in the (now remote) days of real class war. Let nobody underestimate Lord Prescott's considerable influence on the government he served. But Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the apparatus of New Labour kept him under control. In this case, it looks very much as if a confident and popular Ms Rayner has slipped free of any restraint by the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer. Her Employment Rights Bill, which is alarming businesses all over the country, would have been strangled at birth in the days of Blairism. The unions would have been told – rightly – that the public had grown heartily sick of their overmighty antics in the past, and did not want to see them given back the unrestrained power they had rightly lost. And while Sir Keir and his Chancellor Rachel Reeves must know this, they seem either powerless to act, or surprisingly untroubled by the danger of it. Speaking to The Mail on Sunday last week, Ms Reeves simply evaded the question of Ms Rayner's plans. When a successful businessman such as Sir James Dyson accuses you of being 'vindictive' and of 'waging a war on aspiration', you really ought to listen. It is on the success of such businessmen that any future economic growth must be based. Without that growth, where are the taxes to come from to pay for the advanced welfare state in which we live? So we must applaud the open letter to British businessmen sent out by Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith, in which he does what Sir Keir and Ms Reeves will not do, and makes it plain just how dangerous Ms Rayner's plans are. He warns those business chiefs that they are being sleepwalked into disaster, that the Rayner Bill will fundamentally change the balance of power in workplaces, at huge cost. Coming after the idiocy of the National Insurance increase, this a grave threat to the jobs of trade union members, as well as to the economy as a whole. We can only hope that the Prime Minister and his Chancellor will listen and act, for the nation's sake as well as their own.
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Windrush campaigners urge the Government to save Notting Hill Carnival
The west London carnival is in jeopardy, its chairman Ian Comfort said in a letter on Wednesday, when he asked Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy to provide urgent funding to save the event. Jacqueline McKenzie, a campaigner and human rights lawyer who helped victims of the Windrush scandal, said the carnival holds 'huge national and international significance'. 'The Government needs to recognise this and act urgently to protect it,' Ms McKenzie said. In the late 1950s, Notting Hill became home to many people from the Caribbean who arrived in Britain on Windrush and accompanying ships, and the carnival was founded by pioneers of that generation. Ms McKenzie said the carnival being at risk 'adds insult to injury' for victims of the Windrush scandal. 'It should not be lost on us that these funding concerns coincide with Windrush Day on Sunday,' she said. 'To see this celebration in jeopardy whilst so many of the Windrush generation continue to fight for justice following the Home Office scandal only adds insult to injury. 'Carnival embodies the fundamental role of Black and Caribbean communities in Britain, and the Government should be upholding the Windrush legacy instead of undermining it.' The carnival attracts around two million people over the August bank holiday, and Susan Hall, leader of the Conservatives on the London Assembly, previously said the event was a 'victim of its own success' and a 'disaster waiting to happen' because of the large number of attendees. City Hall said it has been working with partners to ensure the safety of carnival-goers, which it described as 'paramount'. Professor Patrick Vernon, a cultural historian and Windrush campaigner, said: 'Notting Hill Carnival is far more than a street event — it is a vital cultural institution with both national and international significance. 'As the second-largest carnival in the world, second only to Rio de Janeiro, it underscores London's position as a leading global capital of diversity, creativity and cultural exchange.' Professor Vernon campaigned for a national Windrush Day following the 2018 scandal when it was revealed thousands of British people, mainly of Caribbean origin, were wrongly classed as illegal immigrants – with many deported while others faced difficulty securing work, accessing healthcare or housing. 'The injustice faced by the Windrush Generation in recent years makes the threat to Notting Hill Carnival all the more painful,' Professor Vernon said. 'It is a celebration born of resistance, resilience, and unity – a legacy that should be upheld, not undermined. To allow this cornerstone of Black British identity to fall into jeopardy is to further betray the communities who have already given so much. 'As we approach the 70th anniversary of this extraordinary event, we are reminded that Notting Hill Carnival represents the very best of Britain: unity in diversity, creativity in adversity, and joy in community. Now more than ever, these are values worth defending.' Glenda Caesar, director of the Windrush National Organisation, also urged the Government to step in to save the event, adding: 'In the face of historical and ongoing injustices experienced by people of colour, the carnival stands not only as a celebration of resilience, heritage and identity but also as a powerful symbol of unity and inclusion. 'Supporting this event affirms the UK's commitment to embracing diversity, acknowledging its multicultural roots, and fostering a society where all communities feel seen, valued and empowered.' The Department of Culture, Media and Sport has been contacted for comment.
