by Rabhya Sharma
In 2025, Martyn’s Law came into effect in the UK, defining the future of security in the country’s education sector. While it may only be regulation in the UK, its principles have relevance for education settings across the globe.
The UK’s Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, commonly known as Martyn’s Law, came because of the murder of 22 people, including Martyn Hett, in the terror attack at Manchester Arena, where significant failings were found in the preparedness of the venue.
The legislation recognises how those responsible for qualifying premises must consider how they would proactively respond to an attack, clear communication strategies and what reasonable steps can be taken to reduce vulnerability and potential harm.
The Security Challenge
With access requirements varying significantly across an education estate, security systems need to reflect how different areas are used, who needs access and when. For example, an entrance serving a main teaching building has different requirements from student accommodation or a sports facility. A library used by members of the public will need different arrangements from a laboratory containing restricted equipment or sensitive materials.
These differences need to be understood alongside the connections between buildings, and the routes people use to move around a campus.
Patterns of use also change. A building operating with controlled access during teaching hours may host public events in the evening. A campus entrance, which is relatively quiet during term time may experience considerably higher occupancy during graduation ceremonies, open days or sporting events.
These variations affect physical arrangements and the procedures needed to manage them. Facilities managers, security teams, building managers and academic departments all have responsibilities influencing access and emergency response.
Designing-in Security
For new schools, colleges, universities and major estate developments, security can form part of the specification planning and design process rather than being addressed only once buildings are operational. Consider the following:
- The positioning of buildings, entrances, pedestrian routes, vehicle access and shared spaces
- The relationship between public and restricted areas
- Expected occupancy and patterns of use
- how people approach, enter, move through and leave buildings
- Evacuation routes, areas of refuge, lockdown arrangements and the communication of emergency instructions
These should be discussed by design, security, facilities management and health and safety teams before decisions become difficult or expensive to change.
Reviewing and Adapting Existing Buildings
Many education providers operate within estates that have evolved over decades. Buildings may have been extended, repurposed or connected to accommodate changing teaching requirements, increased student numbers or new facilities. Original access arrangements may no longer reflect how the site is used. Consider the following:
- Whether current arrangements provide sufficient oversight of movement
- Whether responsibilities for managing access are clearly established
- Identify entrances that are rarely used
- Examine routes for unintended access to restricted areas
- Locations where changes in occupancy have altered circulation requirements
The findings can inform decisions about whether existing arrangements remain appropriate, whether operational procedures need updating or whether physical changes should be considered.
Balancing Security with Openness
Accessibility and inclusivity must be considered from the beginning of the planning process for security. Entrance management arrangements must comply with relevant requirements and be assessed against the institution’s procedures for supporting people who may experience difficulties using routes or facilities.
Students, staff and visitors also need to understand how to use a building and what is expected of them. Clear signage, consistent procedures and appropriate staff support can make access arrangements easier to follow without creating unnecessary barriers.
The objective is to manage different levels of access while preserving the accessibility and purpose of the learning environment.
Emergency Procedures
Martyn’s Law identifies four core public protection procedures: evacuation, invacuation, lockdown and communication. For international providers, the precise procedures will depend on local requirements and institutional risk assessments, but the interaction between these procedures and the physical environment remains relevant.
- Evacuation
Consider whether people can leave safely through available routes and whether arrangements remain suitable when buildings are at higher occupancy
- Invacuation
Consider how people can reach designated safe areas and how access to those areas is managed
- Lockdown
Consider restricting movement, who is responsible for implementing restrictions and how communication is maintained
- Communication
Establish who is responsible for communicating instructions, how information reaches different buildings and how procedures are implemented
Training and Responsibility
Clear allocation of responsibilities is essential, particularly where different organisations or departments share a site. In these circumstances, institutions need to establish who manages access, exactly who communicates changes to procedures and who takes responsibility during an emergency.
Training should reflect the responsibilities of each group. Staff managing entrances need to understand the relevant access procedures and how to respond when circumstances change. The aim is to ensure people understand their role and how it connects with the responsibilities of others, rather than making every member of staff responsible for security operations.
Procedures also need to be reviewed and tested regularly. Training should reflect those changes, with opportunities for staff to understand and practise the procedures relevant to their roles.
Connecting Security with Management and Continuity
Security planning needs to form part of the wider management of an institution’s estate. Facilities management, health and safety, business continuity and organisational resilience all influence how buildings operate and how people are protected.
Decisions made in one area can have implications for another and these changes need to be reflected in security planning and communicated to the teams responsible for managing the estate.
Business continuity also requires institutions to consider how they would maintain essential activities if access to a building or part of a campus became restricted. For larger institutions, these arrangements may extend across several locations, combining consistent organisational procedures with the requirements of individual sites.
Both security and business continuity depend on an accurate understanding of the estate, its operational requirements and the people who rely on it.
The security of educational environments extends beyond individual entrances or buildings. Institutions must understand how their estates are used, who requires access, how people move between spaces and whether existing arrangements support everyday operations and emergency procedures.
What Martyn’s Law Means for Education Beyond the UK
Our free-to-access white paper, What Martyn’s Law Means for Education Beyond the UK, looks at the topics discussed in detail and examines how today’s education environments can balance security, accessibility and the movement of people.