Most UK venues are not ready. Some are very close.
The 2026 Readiness Index aggregates what we hear from UK venue operators across hospitality, hotels, stadiums, late-night licensed venues, places of worship, education, healthcare, retail and PBSA. The picture is uneven. A small number of sectors are close to where the SIA will expect them to be by April 2027. Most sectors are not.
The strongest performers are stadiums and arenas. The weakest are places of worship. Between them, the readiness picture varies by operator size, by sector, by region, and by whether the venue has a dedicated security or estates function.
The single most consistent finding across every sector is that active monitoring of existing cameras is the biggest individual gap. Procedures exist, training is patchy but typically present, documentation is variable. Real-time monitoring of what cameras are seeing is rare across the board.
10
Sectors assessed
200+
Operator conversations
4
Readiness bands
1
Common gap
Five things the data is telling us.
Active monitoring is the biggest gap across every sector
Across more than 200 venue operator conversations across 2025 and early 2026, the single most consistent gap is real-time active monitoring of existing cameras. Procedures, training, and documentation are typically further along than the active layer. Cameras record. Most venues review footage only after an incident.
Stadiums and arenas are ahead. Smaller venues are behind.
The sector with the strongest readiness is stadiums and arenas. The legacy of major-event security and dedicated CT advisory relationships translates directly into Martyn's Law readiness. The sectors with the largest gap are places of worship, smaller licensed venues, and limited-service hotel chains where security has not historically been a dedicated function.
Documentation is rarer than the procedure itself
Many venues do things informally that meet the spirit of Martyn's Law without documenting them in a form an inspector could review. The most common gap is not the absence of procedure. It is the absence of written evidence of procedure. Closing that gap is typically a matter of formalising what already happens informally.
Group-level operators are further along than single-site operators
Multi-site portfolios with central security or operations functions tend to be materially further along than single-site operators. The same procedures, training programmes, and evidence systems applied across a portfolio create economies of scale that single-site operators struggle to match.
Awareness of the April 2027 timeline is rising but planning is not yet matching it
Most operators we speak to know about Martyn's Law and know the rough timing. Fewer have a documented plan with named owners, milestones, and a budget for the active monitoring layer. The gap between awareness and execution is the gap most likely to leave venues short when enforcement begins.
Readiness by sector.
Each sector below shows an aggregate readiness band (Critical, Behind, On track, Compliance ready) drawn from our operator conversations. The score is qualitative not statistical. The summary explains what is driving the band.
Hotels (luxury and mid-luxury)
Procedures and documentation tend to be stronger than average. Active monitoring is the most common gap. Cameras record but nobody is watching in real time.
Hotels (chain and limited-service)
Procedures exist at group level but are inconsistently applied at property level. Staff training is variable. Active monitoring is largely absent.
Stadiums and arenas
Mature procedures, formal risk assessments, dedicated security operations. Tightening the evidence trail and updating documentation are the typical remaining gaps.
Late-night licensed venues
Procedural awareness is high through Pubwatch and Best Bar None. Documentation is inconsistent. Active monitoring on cameras is rare. The biggest gap across the cohort.
Theatres and concert halls
Established fire and emergency procedures translate well to Martyn's Law. Active monitoring is the most common gap. Staff training tends to be in good shape.
PBSA (student accommodation)
Procedures exist but rarely cover Martyn's Law specifically. Staff training is partial. Active monitoring is rare across the sector. Operators with multi-site portfolios are typically further along.
Retail (shopping centres and large stores)
Larger shopping centres lead the sector. Smaller large stores are behind. Active loss-prevention monitoring is mature in some operators and absent in others.
Places of worship
The sector with the largest readiness gap. Awareness of Martyn's Law obligations is low across most denominations. Documented procedures and trained staff are rare. The Home Office has flagged this sector for specific outreach.
Education (universities and schools)
Universities with mature estates and security operations tend to be ahead. Smaller institutions and school event venues are behind. The differentiator is whether the institution has a dedicated security or estates lead.
Healthcare (NHS and private)
Existing security procedures translate partially. The active monitoring and documentation expectations are typically new conversations. Active monitoring is rare across the sector.
Patterns across the conversations.
What worries operators most
The single most common operator concern is uncertainty about what the SIA will actually inspect against. Operators do not know how rigorous the inspection will be, what evidence will be expected, or how penalties will be applied. The clarity gap is driving inaction across multiple sectors.
What gets fixed first
Operators who start their preparation typically prioritise the Responsible Person appointment and the documented procedure first. Active monitoring and training tend to come second, even though they are often the gaps that materially affect the readiness picture.
Where the biggest investment goes
Where venues do invest in Martyn's Law preparation, the largest single line is typically active monitoring on existing cameras. The procedural work can be done in-house. The active monitoring requires technology and budget.
Where consultants are being engaged
External consultant engagement is most common among Enhanced Tier venues running formal terrorism risk assessments. Standard Tier venues are typically handling the procedural work in-house and engaging external providers only for the active monitoring layer.
How the Index is built.
Source one: operator conversations. The Index aggregates qualitative findings from more than 200 conversations with UK venue operators across hospitality, hotels, stadiums, retail, late-night licensed venues, places of worship, education, healthcare and PBSA over 2025 and the first half of 2026. Findings are aggregated and anonymised.
Source two: public data. Where published UK data is referenced (HSE statistics, Home Office Martyn's Law factsheet, ProtectUK guidance, Scotch Whisky Association data on COMAH sites), the source is cited explicitly.
Score bands. The aggregate sector scores are qualitative not statistical. They reflect the consistent pattern across our conversations within each sector. They are not survey results.
Refresh cadence. The Index is updated quarterly until April 2027. Each refresh adds new conversations and updates the public-data references.
Limitations. The Index is a working aggregate, not a national survey. The SIA is the regulator and will be the authoritative source of national readiness data once enforcement begins. Until then, no national survey exists.
Common questions about the Index.
What is the Martyn's Law Readiness Index?
Why publish a Readiness Index?
How accurate are the figures?
When was the Index last updated?
Can I contribute to the next refresh?
Does the Index name specific venues?
Want to know where your venue sits on the Index?
The 10-question Readiness Score tool gives you a tailored band and action plan in 3 minutes. No sign-up required.