Tory shadow minister slammed for calling Manchester Arena attack anti-terror law her ‘most hated’

Become an Independent member to bookmark this article Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Membership today. Join today Already a member? Log in The mother of a man killed in the Manchester Arena attack has criticised a shadow Tory minister who called anti-terror legislation created in the wake of the tragedy her “most hated law”. Martyn’s Law , officially the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, requires UK venues hosting 200 or more people to prepare for a terror attack. In recording of a local Conservative association meeting in June, obtained by The Independent , shadow housing, communities and local government minister Katie Lam could be heard criticising the legislation as an "absurd set of regulations". She told the audience that "every village hall trustee in the country is now legally on the hook if they don't have a plan that's been like signed off by the ambulance service, like they don't have better things to do". Figen Murray OBE, who campaigned for the law change in memory of her 29-year-old son Martyn Hett, criticised the comments, which she said “reveal a profound lack of understanding of the law”. open image in gallery Katie Lam could be heard criticising the legislation, calling it an "absurd set of regulations" ( Getty ) “No one wants to leave their community more exposed to the threat of terrorism, and since my son Martyn was murdered, I've campaigned for basic protections at public venues so that no other family has to live with the pain and loss mine carries every day,” she said. “Martyn's Law is robust and proportionate legislation initiated by the previous Conservative government. It has been shaped by years of consultation and passed with cross-party support. It will save lives by ensuring that public venues implement basic procedures to protect people, the kind the public would expect already exist. “The comments expressed reveal a profound lack of understanding of the law – village halls do not need emergency services to sign off plans – which is why I will be writing to Katie Lam MP to ask for a meeting to help clarify her misunderstandings.” Mr Hett and 21 other people were killed in the bombing at the end of an Ariana Grande concert in May 2017, prompting a campaign to review safety of venues if a terror attack was to occur. The law works on a tiered system, with the lowest tier requiring venues hosting 200 or more people to implement measures relating to evacuation, moving people to a safe place, locking down the premises, and communicating with individuals on the premises. The requirements for the standard tier are described by the government as “simple, low-cost activities with costs relating primarily to time spent”. open image in gallery Martyn Hett and 21 other people were killed in the bombing at the end of an Ariana Grande concert in May 2017, prompting a campaign to review safety of venues if a terror attack was to occur. ( PA Wire ) Larger venues expecting 800 people or more must also take steps such as using CCTV, bag checks or vehicle inspections. It is expected that the measures required by the legislation will come into force in spring 2027, and there is no requirement for plans to be signed off by the ambulance service. A Home Office spokesperson said: “Martyn's Law will help keep the public safe by requiring certain premises and events to introduce clear plans to protect people in the event of a terrorist attack. “The implementation period is ongoing and the requirements are not yet in force. We have published guidance and continue working with those in scope to ensure they have sufficient time to prepare.” A Conservative Party spokesperson said: “The impetus behind Martyn's law to prevent such a horrific tragedy ever occurring again was noble. But we must always make sure that legislation is serving the purpose intended and not having unintended consequences. “As Kemi Badenoch makes clear in the Right Way, just because legislation has good intentions does not automatically mean that legislation is the most effective solution for the problem it seeks to solve.”