Key Points:
- A mother whose son died in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack walked 200 miles to meet the PM.
- She asked him to pass a law called “Martin’s Law” to make venues safer from terrorism.
- The PM promised to introduce the law before summer, but then called an election instead.
- The mother feels he misled her and wants the new government to prioritize the law.
Do you think the prime minister should have been more upfront with the Manchester victim’s mother? Read on to learn more.
Mom Walks 200 Miles to Meet PM
Figen Murray is the mother of Martyn Hett, who died in the 2017 bombing attack at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester. For five years, she has campaigned for a new law called “Martin’s Law.” This law would require venues like arenas and stadiums to have better security measures to protect people from terrorism.
In May 2023, Murray walked 200 miles from Manchester to London. Her goal was to meet with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on the 7th anniversary of the attack. She wanted him to commit to passing Martin’s Law before Parliament’s summer break.
Meeting Leaves Murray “Disappointed”
When Murray met Sunak on May 22nd, he promised to introduce Martin’s Law in Parliament before the summer recess. Murray even shook his hand to seal the deal.
However, just hours later, Sunak announced there would be a general election. This put the law’s progress in doubt.
“I felt a bit puzzled by his split-second hesitation when we shook hands,” Murray said. “A few hours later when he called the election, that hesitation made sense.”
Murray said she was “a little disappointed” because the campaign for safer venues has faced too many delays already.
PM Apologizes for Delay, but No Direct Apology to Murray
Home Secretary James Cleverly addressed the situation in an interview. He said Murray was not told about the upcoming election call, which prevented faster action on Martin’s Law.
“I’m sorry that we weren’t able to progress it immediately,” Cleverly stated. However, he claimed Murray was made aware the law might be delayed by an election.
Cleverly said there is “widespread cross-party support” for the law. He finds it “inconceivable” that it won’t be a top priority for the next government, regardless of who wins.
However, no one from Sunak’s office has directly apologized to Murray for misleading her about the law’s timing.
“He Misled Me”
When asked if Sunak should apologize to her, Murray said:
“No, he shouldn’t. I’m looking at the bigger picture – he had to meet me after I walked 200 miles. But I don’t feel he lied, I feel he misled me.”
She thinks Sunak could have been slightly more careful with his phrasing to avoid misleading her about introducing the law before summer.
Murray believes any government’s “top priority should be the safety of its citizens.” She feels her campaign for basic venue security laws shouldn’t have been needed.
“There are rules for silly things like how many toilets venues must have,” she said. “But nothing for protection against terrorism. That shouldn’t be acceptable.”
Keeping Venues Safe Going Forward
Murray hopes the new prime minister, whether Sunak or the opposition leader, sticks to promises to urgently prioritize Martin’s Law after taking office.
“The new terrorism means an attack can happen anytime, anywhere,” Murray warned. “The law of averages says one will get through if we don’t act.”
With over 40 near-miss attacks already narrowly stopped, Murray believes it’s just a matter of time before one succeeds without proper security measures in place.
Do you think venue security laws like Martin’s Law should be a top priority for the new UK government? Leave a comment with your thoughts.
