Ready for action

Anthony Coo, Head of Product Marketing, UK & Ireland Quadient says organisations need to move beyond awareness and into action to prepare for Martyn’s Law

Martyn’s Law, named after Martyn Hett, one of the 22 people killed in the Manchester Arena attack in 2017 will require public venues across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland to conduct security assessments and implement necessary measures to mitigate potential risks to the public.

With April 2027 currently planned as the point of implementation, organisations should already be moving beyond awareness and into action. That means treating compliance as a live operational discipline now, not a future deadline.

Although the legislation is now law, the finer details of compliance are still being worked through. That makes this implementation period particularly important, giving organisations time to understand what will be required and prepare in a practical, proportionate way.

COMPLIANCE POLICY TO PRACTICE

Organisations must ensure they’re using this time to become genuinely prepared, by testing the practical realities of each site: where vulnerabilities lie, which areas are most exposed to unauthorised access, how people move through the venue, where pressure builds at high-traffic areas, and who has responsibility for key decisions when something suspicious is identified.

Good security is not measured by whether a policy exists on paper. It’s measured by whether a venue can respond in practice to suspicious activity or packages, prohibited items, and whether its procedures would hold up under pressure. If one part of that response is weak, the whole system becomes more vulnerable.

For FM teams, that means looking at buildings as operating environments, not just assets. Entrances, exits, foyers, loading bays, service corridors and public-facing reception areas all matter, because these are the points where security either works in practice or starts to break down.

SCREENING DESIGN

A lot of the discussion around Martyn’s Law focuses on screening. Measures such as bag checks, metal detectors and x-ray scanners can play an important role in helping venues detect weapons or other dangerous items before they enter the building.

But screening only works when it’s part of a well-designed operating model. It needs to be proportionate, properly staffed and designed around how the venue operates. Too often, organisations think about screening as equipment first and process second, when the reverse should be true.

Before investing in tools, teams need to be clear about what they’re trying to detect, who needs to be screened, where that screening should take place and how the process will hold up under pressure. That includes preparing for practical challenges and unexpected scenarios, such as bottlenecks, bad weather, a suspicious package or even a suspect vehicle on site.

If those questions have not been thought through in advance, screening can quickly become a weakness rather than a safeguard. That’s why entry management needs to be treated as both a facilities issue and a security issue. If visitors are not told in advance what to expect, or staff are not trained to manage the process confidently, even sensible measures can become operational problems.

SUSPICIOUS PACKAGES

Suspicious packages and unattended items still deserve attention in venue security. That’s why preparedness cannot focus only on the people entering a venue. It also must account for what may already be on site, or what could be left there unnoticed.

In practice, that means carrying out regular site searches in vulnerable areas, especially high-footfall zones such as foyers, car parks and loading areas. It also relies on teams understanding the difference between routine cleaning and a proper security search. Clear, consistent procedures matter, and every member of staff should understand the same golden rule: if a suspicious item is found, it should not be touched or moved.

Staff need the confidence to report anything that feels out of place. A strong security culture depends on vigilance being normalised across the organisation. People should feel able to flag an unusual package, suspicious behaviour or an unsecured area without worrying that they are overreacting. In these situations, a false alarm is far easier to manage than a missed warning sign.

REHEARSE, REHEARSE, REHEARSE

Compliance runs through every route in and out of the building. Access and egress planning is one of the strongest tests of whether a venue is genuinely prepared. Teams should be confident that they know every public and private entry point, whether doors can be secured quickly if the situation changes and whether parts of the building can be isolated without causing unnecessary confusion elsewhere.

Lockdown should not be treated as an abstract concept. Its purpose is to create time and distance between a threat and the people inside the building. But that only works if the process has been thought through and, crucially, practised. The more regularly teams rehearse lockdown procedures, the more likely they are to react quickly and confidently in a real incident. 

Regular drills are also vital. Everyone involved, from security and facilities teams to front-of-house staff and contractors, needs to understand their role. Communications need to be clear and consistent, and where appropriate, buildings should be thought about in sectors rather than as one single space. That makes partial lockdown or phased evacuation far more realistic if an incident develops quickly. 

The same principle applies to visibility during an incident. Clear camera coverage, strong communications and realistic response planning all make a difference to how safely people can be moved, and which exits remain viable.

SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS

A shopping centre, education campus, hospital or arena all operate differently, which is exactly why preparedness needs to be proportionate rather than generic.

For some sites, preparing for the legislation may mean stronger screening or access control. For others, the immediate priority may be staff training, site-search routines, better incident communications or more realistic lockdown planning. In most cases, it will be a combination.

What matters most is whether the measures chosen would work under pressure. Can staff use them confidently during an incident? Are responsibilities clear? Have scenarios been tested thoroughly? Do procedures reflect how the building operates on a busy day, not just how it looks in a policy document?

One year on from Royal Assent, those responsible for venues should already be pressure-testing those questions. When preparedness is built into the day-to-day management of a building, compliance becomes more than a legal obligation. It becomes part of how safer, more resilient spaces are run.