Bishop David spoke in the House of Lords yesterday in the debate on The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill also known as 'Martyn’s Law' in tribute to Martyn Hett who was killed alongside 21 others in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack. He commended the work of those who have drafted the Bill and expressed his gratitude for the amendments that help to balance the needs of smaller venues.
His speech is provided here in full:
My Lords, as a bishop whose diocese includes around 300 places of worship, most of which will find this Bill directly applies to them, I have, along with my Right Reverend friends on these benches, a very obvious interest to declare.
As Bishop of Manchester, I have a more specific reason for wanting to see this Bill reach the statute books. Martyn Hett, whose name is immortalised in the informal title of this Bill, was killed three minutes walk from my Cathedral. We are all grateful for his mother Figen’s persistence over the last seven years, and for achieving the degree of cross party consensus that should speed the Bill on its way.
In the immediate aftermath of the Manchester attack, it fell to me to help lead my city and its people in how we responded. I spoke then of the crucial difference between defiance and revenge. For me that comes direct from my reading of the Christian scriptures, but the application is for those of all faiths and none. The terrorist sought to divide us. Acts of revenge, by one part of the community against another, would have played into his hands. Instead, we showed our defiance, coming together in one of the most moving examples of a community embracing its diversity, and showing its love, that I’ve ever seen. We in Manchester were helped in responding to the atrocity by the support given to us by national leaders, not least the then Prime Minister, now the Noble Baroness May of Maidenhead, who it is a pleasure to see in her place among us today.
Crucially, we did not allow the extremists to determine how we lived our lives. We didn’t cower behind our front doors, or retreat to the safety of those who looked, thought or believed like us. We got on with our lives, whilst being somewhat more vigilant than before. That same principle needs to lie at the heart of the Bill. Its provisions need to be such that they do not lead to mass cancellations of events, nor to the closure of social, commercial and religious venues which cannot afford the costs of compliance. My Lords, what we enact must be proportionate, it must balance the very real risks we face with the need for us to live as we choose, not as the terrorists seek to dictate.
I do think that we have got the balance broadly right in the form that the Bill has reached us. I’m grateful for several Amendments made in the Other Place. It is right that we focus on the expected attendance at an event rather than some technical capacity of a building. Many of my churches are built to hold the largest occasion likely to be required. Whilst I might pray for the day when every service is as packed as Christmas Eve, we need to be realistic and pursue safety measures commensurate with the numbers we expect. The same will apply to many other places.
I’m grateful for the standard tier commencing at 200 rather than 100. This will save smaller events, often community led and dependent on volunteers. It will help vital local venues remain open to serve their community. Increasing the figure to 300 would, however, in my view go too far. I will seek to oppose any changes to the number during the future stages of this Bill.
Whilst clearly we are still at an early stage of our consideration of this Bill, I would hope that, either today or at a later stage, the Noble Lord, the Minister, will be able to offer faith and voluntary sector groups, along with other less commercial venues, training that is free, easy to access, and available in a wide range of languages and formats. All need to be fully equipped for the responsibilities that this Bill assigns to them. Given that Places of Worship, across all main religions, form between 10% and 20% of the affected premises, I would ask the Noble Lord for his assurances that His Majesty’s Government will produce Guidance specifically to address their contexts before the Bill is enacted. I assure him that I and others stand ready to help in that task in any way we can.
I thank those who have drafted the Bill for the recognition given to Places of Worship, by allocating them all to the standard tier, irrespective of capacity or likely attendance. This appropriately recognises the relationship between those buildings and the communities they serve, and the deep experience faith communities have of working with both police and specialist security providers for the occasional very large events we host.
Much will no doubt be said in this debate about the role of the SIA as Regulator. As with the other provisions of the Bill, the Regulator’s powers and responsibilities need to be proportionate to the task - neither a toothless tiger nor an overbearing and unaccountable overlord. I will listen carefully to the arguments made on the powers, responsibilities and accountabilities of the Regulator as the Bill progresses.
Finally, my Lords, whilst reiterating the thanks of myself and my colleagues on these benches to Figen Murray, I would also want to single out Brendan Cox, whose wife Jo was murdered whilst fulfilling her parliamentary duties. I’ve had the privilege of meeting Brendan on an number of occasions, offering my own support to what he, Figen and others have done to address the ever present threat of terrorist atrocities. Jo’s death reminds us that one of the main ongoing terror threats in the UK, as recognised by the security forces, comes from those inspired by extreme right wing voices. These seem to be increasingly tolerated, and perhaps even encouraged, by some social media platforms. Beyond the scope of this Bill, and building on the exchanges we had at Oral Questions earlier today, I do urge His Majesty’s Government to complete the implementation of the Online Safety Act now, as a matter of urgency, so that fines based on total global earnings can be levied against those who seek to undermine our parliamentary democracy from outside the UK.
It’s not enough, My Lords, for us to focus purely on security at public events, we need to get upstream. 2025 must be the year when Britain takes decisive action against those who seek to radicalise others or to normalise violence in pursuit of political ends, whether they come from within the UK or beyond our shores, and no matter how wealthy, or how powerfully connected, they may be.