Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: New Clause 1

Parliament voted on 9 December 2024 to reject New Clause 1 to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, commonly known as Martyn's Law. The clause, tabled by the Conservative opposition, would have required a formal statutory review of the Act to assess whether it was working as intended after implementation. The motion was defeated by 340 votes to 89. The rejected clause would have built a mandatory post-implementation review into the legislation, examining whether venues understand their obligations and whether the law is achieving its protective aims. Martyn's Law creates a two-tier system of requirements for publicly accessible venues: standard duty premises with a capacity of 200 to 799 people, and enhanced duty premises with a capacity of 800 or more. The review would have provided Parliament with evidence on whether smaller venues, charities, and community organisations are coping with new compliance obligations, and whether the Security Industry Authority is enforcing effectively. Without a statutory review, scrutiny of the Act's operation will rely on existing government accountability mechanisms rather than a dedicated assessment. Voting divided sharply along party lines. All 305 Labour MPs and all 32 Labour and Co-operative MPs voted no, providing the bulk of the majority against the clause. All 80 voting Conservatives supported it, joined by the three Democratic Unionist Party MPs who voted, two Reform UK MPs, one Traditional Unionist Voice MP, and one Ulster Unionist MP. Four independents split, with three voting aye and four voting no. The vote reflects a broadly co-operative legislative relationship on the Bill's substance: Conservative MPs praised the government's cross-party working during debate, and one Liberal Democrat MP, Ben Maguire, confirmed he was not pressing a related new clause to a vote after receiving a written commitment from the Security Minister on implementation.