Speeches – Page 44 – The Church of England in Parliament

Bishop of Oxford urges commitment to unilateral action on climate change

On 7th June 2023, the Bishop of Oxford spoke in a debate on a report from the Environment and Climate Change Committee, stressing the need for a coordinated response to the challenges presented by climate change:

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, it is a pleasure to be part of your Lordships’ committee under the excellent leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and to present this report and debate it today. Many in your Lordships’ House will have seen the 2021 Hollywood film “Don’t Look Up”, which was written and directed by Adam McKay. It explores the world’s response to climate change through the metaphor of an asteroid hurtling towards the earth bringing destruction in its wake. The scientists and world leaders in the film have a way through the crisis, but only if the scientific facts are acknowledged and the world works together. As noble Lords may know, in the film the world fails that test spectacularly.

Each year brings fresh reminders of the reality of global heating in floods, fires, extreme weather events, natural disasters and rising sea levels. The IPCC continues to publish ever more solemn warnings to the world, including most recently that we are likely to see a 1.5 degree rise in average temperature in at least one year in this decade. The human consequences of climate change are seen in wars, migration, changing crop patterns and the loss of islands and coastal areas. The burden falls most on the poorest and those who have historically used the least in terms of carbon, yet still we do not listen.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham supports amendments to ensure high standard of “safe” countries

On 5th June 2023, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill on the second day of the committee stage. The Bishop of Durham spoke in support of amendments to the bill tabled by Baroness Hamwee, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and Lord Alton of Liverpool that would ensure that, when removing migrants to “safe” countries, the country in question meets high definitions of safety:

The Lord Bishop of Durham: I apologise that I was unable to be present on day one of Committee and I arrived today rather later than I had planned, so was unable to speak earlier. However, I am grateful to my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry for so doing.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Coventry supports amendments covering human rights claims

On 5th June 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in the second day of committee. On behalf of the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Coventry spoke in support of an amendment to the bill tabled by Lord Dubs which would require the Home Secretary to consider a protection claim or a human rights claim if the applicant has not been removed from the UK within six months of the claim being deemed inadmissible:

The Lord Bishop of Coventry: My Lords, I apologise for not being able to speak previously on the Bill, but I support Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who has added his name to this little band, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to them. I have been holding back in the hope that he would land, but his aircraft has been delayed.

Of course, it is right that every nation should have jurisdiction over its own borders and the ability to decide who may or may not have a credible claim to reside in the country, but Clause 4 ends any such due process which would consider the merits of an asylum application. By denying those who are deemed inadmissible from ever claiming asylum, as we have heard, thousands of men, women and children will simply not have their case heard, let alone assessed, regardless of how grave their protection needs might be—and regardless of the fact that there is no way to travel to the UK with prior authorisation in order to claim asylum in many cases. That point is made regularly in your Lordships’ House.

Bishop of St Albans supports measures to restrict invasive grey squirrels

The Bishop of St Albans spoke in a debate on the issue of invasive grey squirrels and the need for woodland cover protection on 25th May 2023:

My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition, although I am not speaking on its behalf today. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I seem to remember that we have debated these issues before and I have always been grateful for his contributions.

There are many reasons why increasing our woodland cover is important. For example, being able to walk in woodlands is associated with mental health, at a time when this is a huge issue for us as a society; it is clearly deeply bedded into the issues of net zero; and it is intimately associated with the need to increase again our biodiversity. It is of inestimable importance.

The threat posed by grey squirrels is therefore an issue that exercises many of us, along with the longing that we might one day be able to reintroduce red squirrels. I have to say that the problem is not just grey squirrels; in North Hertfordshire we have black squirrels. I do not know if the Committee has come across them but they are breeding across both North Hertfordshire and South Cambridgeshire, and are a feature of our local area in my diocese. Sadly, there are now only a few conservation areas for red squirrels left, as we have heard, following the introduction of the grey squirrel in the 18th century and indeed the wider issue of the reduction in woodland.

Bishop of St Albans raises serious issues regarding imprisonment for public protection and calls for urgent reform

On 25th May 2023, the Bishop of St Albans spoke in a debate on the government’s Imprisonment for Public Protection Action Plan, pointing out a high rate of suicide among prisoners serving IPP sentences and urging reform of the system:

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his tenacity and for keeping this terrible situation before us. I rise with a certain reluctance because I do not have the expertise that many other noble Lords in this debate have, though like all bishops I have a right to visit the prisons in my diocese, which I do, and I am regularly in touch with people working in the legal and penal systems. My colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, the lead bishop on prisons, has raised this matter on numerous occasions and sadly cannot be here today.

It is now seven months since the House of Commons Justice Select Committee issued its report on IPP sentences. There were some alarming conclusions in it, such as noting:

“The indefinite nature of the sentence has contributed to feelings of hopelessness and despair”,

leading to some suicides within the IPP population. There are reports that perhaps as many as 81 people have taken their own life when serving an IPP sentence. If we could identify in any other area of life that 81 lives had been taken, we would be calling for inquiries and wanting answers. Many of us are concerned to hear of further, more recent suicides.

Online Safety Bill: Bishop of Chelmsford supports Bishop of Oxford’s amendments on safety and risk

On 25th May 2023, the House of Lords debated the Online Safety Bill in committee. The Bishop of Chelmsford spoke in support of amendments to the bill tabled by the Bishop of Oxford, Lord Clement Jones, and Lord Colville of Culross, which would introduce new duties to Ofcom to assess risk and monitor online safety:

My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendments 195, 239 and 263, tabled in the names of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Oxford, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who I thank for his comments.

My right reverend friend the Bishop of Oxford regrets that he is unable to attend today’s debate. I know he would have liked to be here. My right reverend friend tells me that the Government’s Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, of which he was a founding member, devoted considerable resource to horizon scanning in its early years, looking for the ways in which AI and tech would develop across the world. The centre’s analysis reflected a single common thread: new technologies are developing faster than we can track them and they bring with them the risk of significant harms.

This Bill has also changed over time. It now sets out two main duties: the illegal content duty and the children duty. These duties have been examined and debated for years, including by the joint scrutiny committee. They are refined and comprehensive. Risk assessments are required to be “suitable and sufficient”, which is traditional language from 20 years of risk-based regulation. It ensures that the duties are fit for purpose and proportionate. The duties must be kept up to date and in line with any service changes. Recent government amendments now helpfully require companies to report to Ofcom and publish summaries of their findings.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Chelmsford speaks in favour of amendments to protect victims of trafficking

During a debate on the Illegal Migration Bill on 24th May 2023, the Bishop of Chelmsford spoke in support of an amendment tabled by Lord Coaker that would exempt those cooperating with law enforcement from removal from the UK in instances of human trafficking:

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House for long, especially given the excellent speeches we have already heard delivered on this group, but I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, about retrospection. I add my support, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and those other noble Lords who have tabled Amendment 11, on which we have already heard the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

A succession of migration, public order and modern slavery Bills in recent years have drastically raised the length of sentences and the severity of punishments that can be brought to bear on people traffickers and smugglers. While this may look tough, it is difficult to say that it has had much impact; indeed, the entire purpose of this Bill is to try to put a stop to arrivals which have not, apparently, been impacted on at all by the deterrents that are already in place. Nor is this surprising, given the very low number of prosecutions and convictions for such offences. Regrettably, it seems that smuggling is a crime with enormous rewards but relatively little risk for the perpetrators. Instead, we seem to almost exclusively punish those who are smuggled, often in highly dangerous circumstances.

Illegal Migration Bill: Archbishop makes point of clarity on numbers Bill will apply to

On 24th May 2023, during a debate on the Illegal Migration Bill, the Archbishop of Canterbury intervened during a speech by Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, raising a point of clarification on numbers of migrants the Bill was intended to apply to:

Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill: Bishop of Bristol tables amendments on local authority grants to places of worship

On 24th May 2023, the House of Lords debated the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill in Grand Committee. The Bishop of Bristol tabled amendments to the bill that would remove the existing confusion in law on whether local authorities can offer grants to places of worship:

Amendment 485:
After Clause 214, insert the following new Clause—

“Removal of prohibition on local authority from making grants to churches etc.

In section 8(1)(i) of the Local Government Act 1894 (works to church property), omit “, not being property relating to affairs of the church or held for an ecclesiastical charity”.”

Member’s explanatory statement: This amendment would remove the prohibition concerning churches and ecclesiastical charities in section 8(1)(i) of the Local Government Act 1894 and would ensure that local authorities’ spending power under section 8(1)(k) could be used to make grants to places of worship.

The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I am pleased to speak to my Amendments 485, 505, 510 and 512. I thank the Government for making time so soon after the conclusion of the debate on Monday. I declare my interests as a board member of the Church Commissioners, as set out in the register, and as the Church of England’s lead bishop for church buildings. Noble Lords will also recall the debate on Amendment 163, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, which took place earlier in Committee on 15 March.

I tabled these four amendments to clarify the issue of local authority funding responsibilities for all Christian churches, including parish churches. The Bill affords the opportunity to bring much-needed clarity to this issue and resolve a long-standing problem. I am delighted to say that these amendments have received strong cross-party support, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for acting as sponsors. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, is unable to be in her place today, but I am assured of her continued support for these amendments.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Chelmsford supports amendments to ensure compliance with international legislation

On 24th May 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in its first day of Committee. The Bishop of Chelmsford spoke on the details of the bill concerning “safe and legal routes”, in support of two amendments:

amendment 4, tabled by Lord Paddick, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, Lord Etherton, and Baroness Chakrabarti, which would replace clause 1 of the bill with a requirement that bill not violate any international legal obligations
amendment 84, tabled by Lord Alton of Liverpool, aimed at ensuring compliance with international legislation against human trafficking

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I support Amendments 4 and 84; I also have a great deal of sympathy for Amendment 148. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the independent Commission on the Integration of Refugees. I have been listening with great interest to the expert points raised by particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but also other noble Lords.

I am sure noble Lords will be aware that Clause 1, as it stands, is a narrative introduction that sets the scope and intent of the Bill as a whole. Crucially, it defines the purpose of the Bill as

“to prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes”.

I am sure we can all sympathise with the desire to make the migration system thoroughly orderly and predictable in nature, but I question whether this is plausible and whether what it entails is indeed desirable, particularly if it cannot guarantee compatibility with those international treaties, as we have heard. The sort of circumstances of catastrophe and persecution that drive refugees do not tend to allow for orderly or safe departures. I know this from my own personal experience but also from having spoken to many asylum seekers and refugees over the years.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: