Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: New Clause 1

Parliament voted on New Clause 1 to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill on 9 December 2024. The clause, proposed by the Conservative opposition, would have introduced a review mechanism and additional oversight provisions aimed at protecting smaller venues from the full weight of the legislation's compliance requirements. The amendment was defeated by 340 votes to 89. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, commonly known as Martyn's Law after Martyn Hett, one of 22 people killed in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack, creates legal obligations for venues above certain capacity thresholds to have protective security measures in place. New Clause 1 sought to build in a formal review after 18 months and to limit the Secretary of State's power to lower the capacity threshold from 200 to 100 without parliamentary approval. Supporters argued this would protect small community venues, volunteer-run organisations such as parish halls and churches, and small businesses from disproportionate regulatory and financial burdens. Opponents argued the existing bill was already proportionate and that adding exemptions or review mechanisms risked weakening comprehensive terrorism protection. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. Labour and Labour Co-operative MPs voted unanimously against the amendment, providing the bulk of the 340 Noes, while Conservative MPs provided 80 of the 89 Ayes. The Democratic Unionist Party, Reform UK, Traditional Unionist Voice, and Ulster Unionist Party also voted in favour of the amendment. Three independent MPs supported it, while four voted against. The Liberal Democrats did not vote on this clause, though they tabled their own separate new clause on training provision. The Bill itself enjoyed cross-party support in principle, with disagreement confined to these peripheral questions of scope and oversight.