Yes, wireless and electronic access control can meet Martyn’s Law requirements, but compliance depends on how the system is configured and used, not on the locking technology itself. A wireless system with no audit trail or lockdown planning offers no more protection than an old mechanical lock. The capability has to be switched on and set up correctly.
It’s 2am. An alarm trips in a wing of the building nobody monitors closely, and someone needs to know, right now, who can get into that area, and whether it can be sealed off before anyone reaches the door on foot. If the honest answer is “we’d have to find whoever’s got the master key,” you’re not alone. In SimonsVoss’s own survey of facilities and security professionals, 91% said they’d be in exactly that position. That’s the gap Martyn’s Law is designed to close.
That distinction matters, because most of the organisations already asking this question have wireless or electronic locking installed somewhere on their estate. The real question isn’t “wireless or wired?” It’s “does our current setup actually do what Martyn’s Law requires of us?”
What Martyn’s Law Actually Expects of Access Control
Martyn’s Law, formally the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, doesn’t specify a locking technology, software platform or hardware brand. It doesn’t tell you to rip out mechanical keys or install a particular access control system. What it does is set an expectation: those responsible for premises should take reasonably practicable steps to prepare for, and respond to, a security incident.
The Act applies on a tiered basis, based on how many people a premises can reasonably expect to have present at once. Standard Tier covers premises expecting 200 to 799 people, and focuses on procedures, training and clear evacuation, invacuation and lockdown plans. Enhanced Tier covers premises expecting 800 or more, and adds formal risk assessments and reasonably practicable physical security measures, which is where access control capability starts to matter directly. The Security Industry Authority (SIA) is the regulator responsible for overseeing compliance across both tiers.
Proportionality runs through all of it. A community hall with 250 visitors on a busy day isn’t expected to install the same access control infrastructure as a stadium. What both need to demonstrate is that they’ve assessed their risk and put reasonable, proportionate measures in place, not that they’ve bought the most advanced system available.
In practice, for access control, that generally translates into being able to:
- Identify who can currently access which doors, zones and buildings
- Restrict or remove that access quickly if circumstances change
- Respond to an incident in real time, not just review it afterwards
- Produce a clear record of who accessed what, and when, if asked
This isn’t a legal checklist, and this article isn’t legal advice. Organisations should refer to official government guidance for the specifics that apply to their premises. But the direction of travel is consistent: demonstrable control and structured preparedness are becoming the baseline, not a bonus.
Where Wireless Locking Helps
This is where wireless and electronic locking earns its place. Done properly, it gives estates and facilities teams four things a mechanical master-key system simply can’t:
- Audit trails. Every access event can be logged against a named credential, so “who was in that area, and when” becomes a report rather than a guess.
- Remote lockdown. Doors and zones can be secured from a central point during an incident, without waiting for someone to physically reach every door with a key.
- Zone-based control. Access rights can be structured by area, role and time, rather than one master key opening everything, or nothing.
- Integration with monitoring. Access data can sit alongside CCTV, alarms and incident logs, so a security event and an access event can be cross-referenced rather than investigated separately.
One important caveat: none of this overrides fire safety and emergency egress requirements. Martyn’s Law doesn’t change existing fire regulations, and any lockdown or access control measure must still allow safe, immediate escape in an emergency. This means specifying fail-safe operation and making sure electrically controlled exit systems and panic hardware meet the relevant British Standards. It’s a good reason to involve a specialist early, rather than treating security and fire compliance as separate conversations.
For organisations managing distributed or unattended sites, such as plant rooms, comms cabinets and remote technical infrastructure, this same thinking extends beyond the main building. SimonsVoss’s FORTLOX Series was built for exactly this kind of site: a battery-free digital cylinder and programmable key that let organisations issue, update and revoke access remotely for engineers, contractors and service providers, without a site visit for every permission change. It’s the same accountability principle Martyn’s Law is pushing for, applied to the remote and technical spaces that often get overlooked.
Where the Gaps Commonly Show Up
The technology to do all of this already exists in most estates. The gap is usually configuration, not hardware. SimonsVoss surveyed facilities and security professionals on exactly this, and the results point to a consistent pattern.
91% cannot remotely lock down doors or zones during an incident
For the large majority of organisations surveyed, response still depends on someone physically reaching a door with a key or fob. That’s not dynamic control, it’s delay, and in an incident, delay is the thing Martyn’s Law is trying to design out.
85% do not have predefined lockdown zones configured
Even where remote capability exists, most organisations haven’t decided in advance which doors and areas should lock down together, or who has authority to trigger it. Lockdown zones need to be planned before an incident, not worked out during one.
39% cannot produce an audit trail showing who accessed specific areas and when
If something happens and there’s no clear access record, an organisation moves from evidence to assumption, which is an uncomfortable place to be with insurers, regulators and senior leadership all asking the same question afterwards.
How to Check Your Own Readiness
None of this requires replacing an existing system overnight. Most estates already have some wireless or electronic locking in place; the work is auditing what it’s currently configured to do, and closing the gaps between “installed” and “compliant.” This also matters for older or listed buildings, where a full rewiring project isn’t practical. Wireless locking’s original selling point, retrofitting onto existing doors without cabling or structural work, turns out to be exactly what makes Martyn’s Law readiness achievable for estates that can’t take on major building work.
That’s exactly what our Access Control Readiness Checklist is built for, a practical, non-technical walkthrough covering access control and physical security, surveillance and monitoring, staff training and operational response, and policy and compliance preparedness. It’s designed to help you see where your current setup already meets the expectation, and where it doesn’t yet.
If you’d like a wider view of what “good” looks like for commercial estates specifically, our digital locking systems for compliance-ready buildings page sets out the core capabilities, centralised permissions, audit trails, zone and role-based control, that this article has been building toward. And if your estate includes offices or mixed commercial space, our office access control solutions page covers the sector-specific detail.
FAQs
1. Is wireless locking as secure as wired?
Yes, when specified and installed correctly. Modern wireless access control uses encrypted communication between credentials, locks and software, and is held to the same security standards as wired systems. Security depends on configuration and management, not on whether a cable runs to the door.
2. Does Martyn’s Law name specific technology?
No. The legislation sets expectations around preparedness and reasonably practicable protective measures. It doesn’t mandate a particular locking system, software platform or manufacturer.
3. What’s the enforcement timeline?
Martyn’s Law received Royal Assent on 3 April 2025, with a planned implementation period of at least 24 months. Some provisions are already in force, including the SIA’s statutory duty to produce enforcement guidance, which took effect from June 2026. Full commencement, when the duty to comply actually begins, is being signalled for Spring 2027, though this is still subject to formal confirmation. Organisations should check the latest government guidance for updates, since this timeline can move.
Ready to see where you stand? Get the Access Control Readiness Checklist, or speak to our UK team for a practical conversation about Martyn’s Law readiness across your estate.