Martyn’s Law, formally the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, will require qualifying premises to have appropriate procedures in place to reduce the risk of physical harm if a terrorist attack occurs, including evacuation, invacuation and lockdown. Implementation is expected from spring 2027 though no exact commencement date has been confirmed.
But once those procedures exist on paper, can a venue actually communicate the right action to the right people when an incident unfolds? That’s the gap worth talking about.
Martyn’s Law (the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025) is a preparedness requirement, not just a technology one. It requires venues to have procedures for evacuation, invacuation and lockdown, but the critical question is whether those procedures can actually be communicated in real time during an incident. Implementation is expected from spring 2027, though no exact commencement date has been confirmed.
Having a procedure is not the same as being able to use it
Most venues that fall within scope of Martyn’s Law will, eventually, write an evacuation plan. They’ll document an invacuation route. They’ll assign roles, run a drill, tick the compliance boxes. And that matters. The law exists for good reason.
But a terrorist incident doesn’t follow a script. It’s fast, it’s chaotic, and the difference between getting people to safety and not often comes down to whether staff on the ground received the right instruction at the right moment, not whether a plan existed in a filing cabinet.
This is the distinction that installers and security integrators should be pressing their clients on. Not “do you have a plan?” but “how would you actually communicate that plan during an incident?”
The Security Industry Authority’s update on Martyn’s Law reinforces that the law is about making premises safer in practice, not just in theory. The SIA has been explicit: where strong protective security measures are already in place, they provide a solid starting point for compliance. The practical implication is clear. Procedures that can’t be activated under pressure are little more than documentation.
Why the communication problem is easy to overlook
It’s understandable that venues focus on drafting procedures first. That’s what the guidance asks them to do. But communication infrastructure is often the afterthought, and it’s one of the harder problems to solve quickly.
Consider the practical reality. A lockdown scenario at a large venue might require staff in different areas, on different floors, or across a campus to receive different instructions simultaneously. Evacuate this zone. Hold in place here. Direct people away from that exit. A basic PA system or a phone call cascade may not be designed to deliver that kind of granular, real-time, differentiated instruction.
Research highlighted by Security Journal UK found that 58% of education sector respondents said their organisations were not prepared for a lockdown or major security incident, even as Martyn’s Law preparedness was front of mind. That’s not a procedure gap. That’s a communication and confidence gap.
And it reflects a wider truth: writing a plan and being ready to execute it are two very different things.
The right conversations to have with clients now
The SIA has confirmed that once the relevant section of the Act commences, qualifying premises will have a three-month window to formally notify. That clock hasn’t started yet, but venues that wait for it to start before thinking seriously about preparedness are leaving themselves very little runway.
For installers and security integrators, this is actually an opportunity. You’re already having conversations about security infrastructure. Martyn’s Law gives those conversations a new and urgent dimension. Here are the questions worth raising:
- “If you needed to trigger a lockdown right now, how would you communicate that to every member of staff simultaneously?” Most clients won’t have a good answer. That’s the opening.
- “Are your emergency communication systems tested regularly, not just your alarm panels, but the actual notification pathways for your people?” Procedures that aren’t practised don’t hold up under stress.
- “Do you have a way to send differentiated instructions, evacuation for one zone, invacuation for another, without relying on a phone tree?” Real incidents rarely allow for that kind of sequential communication.
- “Who is responsible for Martyn’s Law at your premises, and do the people responsible for emergency procedures have direct access to your emergency communication tools?” Those responsible need to be able to put agreed procedures into action when required.
These aren’t sales questions. They’re genuine risk questions. And they position you as a trusted advisor rather than someone who turned up to shift hardware.
To be clear: no specific technology is required for Martyn’s Law compliance. The law doesn’t mandate a particular product or system. What it does mandate is that venues have appropriate measures in place, and that those measures are capable of actually protecting people when it matters.
You can find out more about how AddSecure supports Martyn’s Law preparedness in our dedicated Martyn’s Law whitepaper.
The bottom line for installers
Martyn’s Law will create genuine demand. But the venues that will struggle most aren’t the ones without a compliance checklist, they’re the ones that have never seriously tested whether their emergency communication actually works under pressure.
Your job, as someone who understands security infrastructure, is to help clients close that gap. Not by pushing products, but by asking better questions. The technology follows the conversation. Start the conversation now.
Help your clients close the communication gap before Martyn’s Law comes into force. Explore AddSecure’s Martyn’s Law resources to see how we can support venue preparedness.
Q&A
What does Martyn’s Law actually require venues to do?
Martyn’s Law requires those responsible for qualifying premises to assess the risk of a terrorist attack and implement appropriate protective measures, including procedures for evacuation, invacuation and lockdown. The Home Office has published statutory guidance to help venues determine whether they are in scope and how to comply with their legal duties.
What is the difference between having an emergency procedure and being prepared under Martyn’s Law?
Having a written evacuation or lockdown procedure is necessary but not sufficient. Real preparedness means being able to communicate the right action to the right people in real time during an incident. A plan that cannot be activated quickly and accurately under pressure does not genuinely protect people.
What questions should installers be asking clients about Martyn’s Law?
Installers should ask: How would you trigger a site-wide lockdown instruction simultaneously? Are your emergency notification pathways regularly tested? Can your responsible person access communication tools instantly without relying on a phone chain? Do you have the capability to send differentiated instructions, evacuation for one zone, invacuation for another, in real time?