freedom of expression – The Church of England in Parliament

Bishop of St Albans asks about guidelines for protesters on Public Order Bill

On 10th May 2023, the Bishop of St Albans asked whether the police or government would give guidelines to those who wish to protest regarding the scope of the public order act, following arrests under the act during the Coronation of King Charles:

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I am sure that we all support the police for doing a magnificent job. One of the problems we are grappling with is that we have only read reports in the media, and of course the police may know things that we do not. However, by all accounts, someone who had been planning for months, working with the police, was arrested and simply did not realise that the luggage straps they were using to create their banners would fall foul of the legislation. Therefore, trying to be constructive, will either the police or the Government give some guidelines, to people who genuinely want to have a protest, about what is likely to fall within the scope of the Act, so that they can demonstrate peaceably?

Votes: Public Order Bill

On 14th March 2023, the House of Lords debated Commons amendments to the Public Order Bill. Votes were held on amendments to the bill, in which bishops took part.

Votes: Public Order Bill

On 7th February 2023, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Public Order Bill (2022) in the second day of the report stage. Votes were held on amendments to the bill, in which Bishops took part:

Public Order Bill: Bishop of Manchester expresses concerns on amendments relating to protests at abortion clinics

During a debate on amendments to the Public Order Bill on 30th January 2023, the Bishop of Manchester expressed concerns regarding amendments to clause 9 of the bill:

Clause 9: Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, in Committee I shared my concerns about Clause 9 as it then stood. I am grateful for conversations that have taken place since. I particularly thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Barker. The latter has listened patiently and sympathetically to me and my friends on these Benches at some length.

My concerns regarding Clause 9 had nothing to do with the moral merits or otherwise of abortion; they lie in my passion to see upheld the rights of citizens of this land, both to receive healthcare and to protest. Women must be able to access lawful medical interventions without facing distressing confrontations, directed at them personally, when they are identifiable by their proximity to the clinic or hospital. At the same time, anyone who wishes to protest in general about abortion law must be able to do so lawfully, with the least restriction on where and when they may do so.

Public Order Bill: Bishop of Manchester speaks in favour of amendments on police powers

On 30th January 2023, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Public Order Bill. The Bishop of Manchester spoke in the debate, supporting amendments by Baroness Chakrabarti concerning police powers to arrest protestors for “locking on” offences:

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly in support of the amendment to remove Clauses 1 and 2 that my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol signed. She regrets that she cannot be in her place today. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, establishing new offences of locking on and being equipped for locking on have very significant consequences for the right to protest. A few days ago I got an email from a retired vicar in my diocese. He wrote to tell me he is awaiting sentencing: he has just been convicted of obstruction by gluing himself to a road during a protest by an environmental group. The judge has warned him and his co-defendants that they may go to prison. I cite his case not to approve of his actions—which I fear may serve to reduce public support for his cause rather than increase it—but because it clearly indicates to me that the police already have sufficient powers to intervene against those who are taking an active part in such protests. Anything extra, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has just so eloquently illustrated, is superfluous.

Votes: Public Order Bill

On 30th January 2023, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Public Order Bill (2022) in the first day of the report stage. Votes were held on amendments to the bill, in which Bishops took part:

Division 1:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Manchester and the Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham took part in a vote on an amendment to the bill tabled by Lord Coaker: “to insert a new clause: Meaning of ‘serious disruption.’”

Bishop of St Albans asks about upholding free speech in universities

The Bishop of St Albans asked a question on upholding freedom of speech in universities on 20th December 2022, following discussion of an attack on protestors at the Chinese consulate in Manchester:

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, as was said, this is part of a much larger testing of what we do in this country. This is also being lived out and spelled out in our university campuses, where meetings are sometimes being disrupted, people are being shouted down and freedom of speech is under threat. What advice and support are being given to our universities to ensure that these vital values are upheld in our country?

Public Order Bill: Bishop of Manchester supports amendments related to access to abortion clinics and to curtailing excessive police powers

On 22nd November 2022, the House of Lords debated the Public Order Bill in the second day of the committee stage. The Bishop of Manchester spoke regarding two sets of amendments: firstly, in support of amendments to Clause 9, pertaining to access issues around abortion providers, and secondly in opposition to clauses remaining in the bill which would grant excessive police powers, particularly regarding the right to protest.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I rise to address Amendments 85 to 88, 90 and 92, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of St Albans has added his name. He regrets that he is unable to be in his place today. I also have sympathy with a number of other amendments in this group.

It is a heated and emotive debate on this clause, and it was heated and emotive when it was added in the other place. The danger is that we get dragged into debates about whether abortion is morally right or wrong. Indeed, I have had plenty of emails over the past few days, as I am sure other noble Lords have, tending in that direction. As it happens, I take the view that the present law on abortion strikes a reasonable balance; in particular, it respects the consciences of women faced, sometimes with very little support, with making deeply difficult decisions.

Bishop of Leeds asks about freedom of expression in Pakistan

The Bishop of Leeds received the following written answer on 16th November 2022:

The Lord Bishop of Leeds asked His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) freedom of religion or belief, (2) freedom of assembly, and (3) freedom of expression, in Pakistan.

Public Order Bill: Bishop of St Albans highlights concerns of excessive police powers

On 1st November 2022, the House of Lords debated the Public Order Bill in its second reading. The Bishop of St Albans spoke in the debate, highlighting concerns that the bill would grant excessive powers to the police:

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I think many of us in this debate will have a feeling of déjà vu. No matter how many pieces of legislation come through here granting the police additional powers, it seems that they are never enough. It seems we are always one more public order provision away from solving the problem.

Along with other noble Lords, I want to support the police and the rule of law. We are grateful for all the police do; they stand in our place and, very often, have to take very difficult decisions. But we already have the Public Order Act 1986, which grants the police powers to place restrictions on protests and to prohibit those which threaten to cause serious disruption to public order. We already have the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which introduced the offence of aggravated trespass. We have the offence of obstruction of a highway and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which allows for civil injunctions to prevent protesters demonstrating in a way which causes harm or harassment. As recently as last year, remarkably extensive powers, including on noisy and disruptive protests, were granted in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: