Martyn’s Law is changing the way many organisations think about preparedness. For operators of qualifying public premises and events, the focus is moving beyond general security awareness towards structured planning for how people will protect, inform, and manage people if a terrorist incident takes place.

That matters because emergency preparedness does not sit inside one discipline. Access control, lockdown procedures, communications, evacuation planning, and life safety systems all need to work together. In many buildings, fire systems already form part of that response.

This is where maintenance becomes critical. A fire alarm system may have been designed primarily to warn occupants of fire, but in practice it often supports building-wide alerting, door release arrangements, phased evacuation, and coordination with other systems. If it is poorly maintained, unreliable, or out of step with the way the building now operates, it can weaken the wider response plan an organisation is relying on.

It is also important to be clear about the legal position. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, commonly known as Martyn’s Law, received Royal Assent on 3 April 2025, but the new requirements have not yet been commenced. The Home Office has said there will be an implementation period of at least 24 months, and that guidance will be published before the regime comes into force.[1] So this article is not claiming that Martyn’s Law creates a new standalone fire maintenance duty. It is about recognising that reliable, well maintained fire systems are likely to form part of a credible preparedness strategy for many affected premises.

What does Martyn’s Law require organisations to think about?

The Act introduces duties for certain publicly accessible premises and events to improve preparedness for terrorist attacks. For standard duty premises, the emphasis is on having, so far as reasonably practicable, public protection procedures in place for scenarios such as evacuation, invacuation, locking down a site, and communicating with people on the premises. For enhanced duty premises and events, there are additional requirements around terrorism risk assessment and, where appropriate, measures to reduce vulnerability.

Many duty holders are therefore reviewing systems that support emergency response, rather than looking only at physical security hardware. A plan on paper is not enough if the systems staff rely on during an incident are not dependable.

Why are life safety systems relevant to a terrorism preparedness law?

A hostile event can create confusion, blocked routes, competing instructions, and pressure on staff making decisions quickly. In that environment, dependable life safety systems matter.

A fire alarm system may interface with access control, release some doors, support zoned responses, or provide clear signalling that helps staff manage movement. Even where it is not the primary terrorism response tool, faults, neglected devices, inconsistent sounders, or weak records can reduce confidence in the wider plan.

Why does fire system maintenance matter before Martyn’s Law comes into force?

The implementation period is the best time to identify weaknesses before new duties become active. The Home Office has said there is currently no legal requirement to comply until the Act is commenced, but organisations may wish to start considering what they need to do now.

For many premises, that preparation should include a review of whether fire systems are:
– operating reliably
– tested and serviced consistently
– properly documented
– aligned with current occupancy and building use
– integrated appropriately with access control or other emergency systems
– understood by staff who may need to act under pressure

In other words, maintenance is not just a technical housekeeping issue. It is one of the clearest ways to build confidence that the building will respond as intended if an emergency occurs.

What does existing fire safety law already require?

Even without Martyn’s Law, existing fire safety law already places duties on the responsible person in non-domestic premises. Government workplace fire safety guidance states that you must have a fire detection and warning system and that fire safety equipment must be properly installed, tested, and maintained. Responsible persons must also carry out and regularly review a fire risk assessment, prepare an emergency plan, and provide staff training.

Does Martyn’s Law replace fire safety compliance?

No. The two sit alongside one another. Fire safety law remains a separate legal duty, with its own requirements around risk assessment, equipment, maintenance, and evacuation planning. Martyn’s Law adds a preparedness framework for terrorist threats; it does not remove or replace the need for competent fire system maintenance.

For building operators, the best approach is integrated planning. Fire compliance should not sit in one silo and protective security in another. Where systems and procedures overlap, they should be reviewed together.

How can poor fire system maintenance undermine preparedness?

Faults create uncertainty at exactly the wrong moment

If a panel is carrying unresolved faults, if devices are unreliable, or if alerts are regularly dismissed as nuisances, staff confidence drops. During a real incident, hesitation can be dangerous. People need to trust the systems they are being asked to respond to.

Changes in building use are not reflected in the system

Many buildings have changed significantly in recent years. Reception areas have been reconfigured, shared spaces have been expanded, occupancy patterns have shifted, and access arrangements have become more controlled. If maintenance and periodic review have not kept pace, the fire system may no longer support the building’s actual operational reality.

Interfaces with other systems may be unclear or poorly managed

In complex buildings, fire alarms often interact with door release mechanisms, magnetic locks, lifts, smoke control, monitoring links, and access control platforms. If those interfaces are not tested and maintained properly, the site may behave unpredictably in an emergency.

Records may be too weak to support assurance

Good preparedness depends on evidence as well as intention. If maintenance records are incomplete, inconsistent across multiple sites, or hard to retrieve, it becomes much harder for duty holders to demonstrate that systems are dependable and managed properly.

Which types of premises should be paying particular attention?

Any publicly accessible building likely to fall within the scope of Martyn’s Law should be thinking about this now, especially sites with large or changing occupancy, complex circulation routes, multiple entrances, public events, or multi-building portfolios.

That can include education settings, commercial offices with public-facing functions, healthcare environments, cultural venues, mixed-use developments, and larger public buildings.

How should fire maintenance be reviewed in the context of Martyn’s Law?

The most useful starting point is not to ask whether Martyn’s Law changes the maintenance frequency on paper. Instead, ask whether the current maintenance approach gives the organisation confidence in four areas.

Reliability

Are routine inspections, servicing, testing, and fault response being carried out consistently by competent specialists? Are recurring issues actually being resolved?

Suitability

Does the current system still reflect the building as it is used today, including occupancy, zoning, interfaces, and emergency procedures?

Integration

Where fire alarms interact with access control, door release, monitoring, or other building systems, are those links understood, documented, and tested?

Governance

Can the organisation evidence what has been inspected, when it was serviced, what faults were found, how quickly they were addressed, and whether all sites are being managed to the same standard?

Why is this especially important for multi-site organisations?

Martyn’s Law is likely to be a major operational challenge for organisations managing more than one building. Procedures need to be proportionate, but they also need to be consistent enough that staff, contractors, and senior management understand what good looks like across the estate.

That makes fragmented maintenance arrangements a real weakness. If one site has excellent service records, another has open faults, and a third relies on outdated documentation, the organisation cannot be confident in its overall preparedness posture.

This is where multi-site fire system support becomes valuable. Standardised inspection regimes, documentation, fault reporting, planned maintenance, and integration reviews give estates teams a clearer operational picture.

What should organisations do now?

The implementation period should be used wisely. A sensible next step is to review fire system maintenance as part of a wider preparedness exercise, rather than leaving it inside a narrow compliance workstream.

That review should usually include maintenance history and service frequency, outstanding faults and repeat issues, cause and effect documentation, system interfaces with access control and door release arrangements, alignment with current emergency procedures, and consistency across all buildings in scope.

For some organisations, the outcome may simply be tighter servicing and better records. For others, it may reveal the need for upgrades, better integration, or a more joined-up approach between fire, security, and facilities teams.

Conclusion

Martyn’s Law is prompting organisations to think more seriously about how their buildings would perform during a high-pressure incident. That is a useful discipline, and it highlights a simple truth: emergency plans are only as dependable as the systems that support them.

Fire system maintenance is critical in that context because reliable, well managed fire systems support clearer communication, more dependable building response, and stronger operational assurance. Existing law already requires fire detection and warning systems to be properly installed, tested, and maintained. Martyn’s Law raises the stakes for organisations that need to show they are prepared, coordinated, and realistic about how their premises would function during an emergency.

For duty holders, estates teams, and responsible persons, the message is clear. Do not wait for commencement to discover whether your fire systems are dependable. Use the preparation window to review maintenance standards, strengthen documentation, and make sure life safety systems support the wider resilience strategy your building now requires.