MPs vote to progress Martyn’s Law as Manchester Arena victim’s mother watches on

Martyn’s Law should balance “protection of life (with) protection of our way of life”, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper pledged as MPs backed an anti-terrorism law following the Manchester Arena attack.

Figen Murray – whose 29-year-old son Martyn Hett died in the 2017 bombing – was in the House of Commons gallery when MPs voted to approve the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill at its second reading.

Ms Cooper described Ms Murray as a “true inspiration” in the chamber on Monday, and Conservative shadow home secretary James Cleverly paid tribute to her “tireless campaigning”.

On the seventh anniversary of her son’s death last May, Ms Murray completed a 200-mile walk from Manchester to Downing Street in a bid to secure new rules, which would require entertainment venues to draw up terrorism prevention plans.

Venues with an ordinary capacity of between 200 and 800 would be required to notify the authorities about its public protection procedures, including for evacuations, invacuations to protect attendees from threats outside, lockdowns, and communication.

Ms Cooper said: “I’m sure the whole House will agree when I say to Figen: ‘You are a true inspiration.’

“Officially, we are debating the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, but in essence and in spirit, this is Martyn’s Law.”

The Home Secretary had earlier told MPs: “Seven-and-a-half years ago, on the evening of May 22 2017, thousands of people went to Manchester Arena for a music concert. Many of those in attendance were children and teenagers there to see Ariana Grande, to see their favourite pop star and to dance and sing along to her songs, to soak up the atmosphere with friends, family.

“But as the event drew to a close and people started to leave, terror struck. Scenes of happiness gave way to shock and to trauma, and an enjoyable spring evening was transformed into a nightmare. More than 1,000 people were injured, 22 of them never came home, and nine of those were teenagers.”

Ms Cooper added the Bill considers “how to ensure proper measures are taken to keep us safe, and how to make sure people can get on with their lives; that we make it possible for people to keep enjoying all the things they do – protection of life, protection of our way of life”.

Home Office minister Dan Jarvis described Ms Murray’s campaign as “crucial”, adding: “The Bill seeks to achieve public protection outcomes whilst avoiding undue burdens on business and other organisations.”

Mr Cleverly also paid tribute to Ms Murray, but described a “complex” threat picture which is “evolving”.

He said: “The protection of our way of life is, I suppose, in many ways, just as important as protection of life itself.”

The shadow home secretary continued: “The Government has to think very carefully when regulating in this way to make sure that we recognise you cannot regulate away all risks, and that we should regulate when and where it provides greater safety to the public, but ensuring that we don’t create a false sense of security or impose a cost so high that venues are unable to comply.”

Conservative former home secretary Dame Priti Patel, who set up the Manchester Arena Inquiry, said authorities in the city lacked “integration” in 2017.

She told MPs: “We must ensure that there’s a golden thread going through all the services locally, that they do know how to integrate locally and work together.”

Dame Priti also called for more detail about what could happen to businesses who fall foul of the proposed law, adding: “Penalties are one thing, but actually going to penalties should be the last resort, we need these institutions and organisations to put public safety first, and put practicalities first as well.”

Labour MP Neil Coyle said the Manchester attack was “very different to London Bridge and Borough Market” incidents in 2017, which took place in his Bermondsey and Old Southwark constituency.

“Many more of the recent terror attacks we see involve vehicles, and involve knives, and blades,” he said.

“Vehicle protections are an issue for lots of the venues who will be covered by this (Bill), but they will not be able to act alone in installing protective measures.

“There are authorities like my own that will have more responsibility to deliver this and the cost should not be borne by local taxpayers to provide protective measures to defend everyone who visits those venues. It should be a matter of full cost recovery.”