Tory shadow minister slammed for calling Manchester Arena attack anti-terror act her ‘most hated law’
Conservative shadow minister Katie Lam has been criticised after calling Martyn’s Law her “most hated law” and describing it as an “absurd set of regulations” at a local party meeting. Figen Murray, whose son Martyn Hett was killed in the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, said Lam’s remarks showed a serious misunderstanding of the law, which was introduced following the attack.
The law requires venues hosting 200 or more people to make basic plans for emergencies such as evacuation, lockdown and communicating with those present. Venues expecting 800 or more people must take additional steps, which may include CCTV or bag checks; the government describes the lower-tier measures as simple and low-cost. Contrary to Lam’s account, village halls do not need ambulance service approval for their plans, and the requirements are expected to take effect in spring 2027.
- Katie Lam called Martyn’s Law an “absurd set of regulations”.
- Figen Murray said the comments showed a misunderstanding of the law.
- The requirements are expected to take effect in spring 2027.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of Martyn’s Law can argue that venues should take reasonable steps to prepare for emergencies, especially after an attack exposed the consequences of inadequate planning. Basic evacuation, lockdown and communication plans may help protect the public, while stronger duties for larger venues reflect the greater numbers at risk.
The case against
Critics can argue that even well-intentioned safety rules impose costs and administrative work on venues, including smaller organisations with limited resources. They may question whether the requirements are proportionate and effective, and argue that guidance and support should help venues comply without imposing unnecessary burdens.