“We’ve got health and safety. We’ve got fire. Aren’t we covered?” It’s one of the most common first reactions when an organisation realises Martyn’s Law applies to its premises. It’s also a misreading of how the three regulatory frameworks relate to each other.

Health and safety legislation, fire safety legislation, and Martyn’s Law sit alongside each other. They don’t overlap in a way that lets one substitute for another. This page explains why.

Each piece of legislation exists to address a distinct risk:

• Health and safety legislation covers general workplace and > visitor safety. Risks from equipment, working conditions, premises > design, and the practical conduct of work.
• Fire safety legislation (the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) > Order 2005) covers fire prevention, detection, escape, and > response.
• Martyn’s Law (the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025) > covers terrorism response > readiness.

The risks are different. So are the response patterns. So are the duties.

The clearest practical example is the difference between a fire evacuation and a terrorism evacuation.

In a fire:

• Get people out by any available exit.
• Gather at a pre-agreed muster point outside the premises.
• Wait for fire service instruction.

In a terrorism incident:

• Get people out by the nearest safe exit (not any exit), away > from the threat.
• Do not gather at a pre-agreed muster point; it may become the next > target.
• Respond to information as it develops, not to a fixed plan.

Using a fire evacuation plan in a terrorism incident would actively direct people toward the threat or toward a known gathering point an attacker could anticipate. The two procedures look similar on paper and are structurally opposite in practice.

The same applies to lockdown and invacuation procedures, where existing plans often assume fire-adjacent risks rather than active threat scenarios.

Some elements of existing documentation do carry across:

• General evacuation mapping of the premises
• Emergency communications system basics
• Staff training cadence and record-keeping systems
• General governance structures (responsible person, committee, reporting)

Most of the substance has to be purpose-built:

• The four public protection procedures
• Specific decision-making frameworks for active threat scenarios
• Terrorism-specific staff training content
• Exercise scenarios that test terrorism response, not fire response
• Evidence packaging aligned to what the Martyn’s Law regulator will look for

When the regulator begins inspections under the Act, it will expect to see documents and evidence produced specifically for the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025. A general health and safety policy with a terrorism paragraph will not pass the test.

This is not a preference: it’s the structural reality of how the regulator will assess readiness. Specific duties under the Act require specific preparation.

One thing the frameworks share is the “reasonably practicable” standard. Across health and safety, fire, and Martyn’s Law, what you’re expected to do is calibrated to the nature of your premises and what can reasonably be implemented.

A small community premises is not expected to prepare like a national retailer. Both are expected to prepare in proportion.

The fastest way to know is our free Am I in Scope? tool. A handful of questions, a clear answer, no account needed.

If you already know you’re in scope, Get Started with Prova Risk to prepare your public protection procedures, train your staff, and keep the evidence you’ll need if inspected. £399 per year per site.

• Does My Existing Health and Safety Policy Cover Martyn’s Law?
• Will My Existing Provider Cover Martyn’s Law?
• What Are Public Protection Procedures?
• Procedures vs Measures Explained
• Origins and Purpose of the Act