During a debate on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration Bill on 4th March 2024, the Bishop of Manchester spoke in support of amendments 9 and 12 to the bill, tabled by Lord Anderson of Ipswich, which would allow the courts to take new factors into consideration when considering Rwanda’s safety in the future:
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for sponsoring Amendments 9 and 12, to which I have added my name. They take up matters that I and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, raised in Committee.
On 4th March 2024, the House of Lords debated the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration Bill) in the first day of the report stage. Votes were held on amendments to the bill, in which Bishops took part:
The Bishop of Manchester spoke in a discussion on issues with the Avanti train service on 27th February 2024, expressing support for the train staff working under difficult conditions and inviting the government to do the same:
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, a number of times in this short session, we seem to have had it suggested that somehow the Avanti staff are to blame. I suffer along with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, regularly on that Manchester Piccadilly to Euston route. The staff are wonderful; it is not the driver’s fault if they are eight minutes late, or the fault of the person bringing you a cup of tea if they are 40 minutes late. The problem does not lie with the Avanti staff, who are working under incredibly difficult conditions. Can the Minister join me in expressing support for those staff in the work that they are doing under very trying circumstances?
On 26th February 2024, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Victims and Prisoners Bill. The Bishop of Manchester spoke in support of amendment 133 to the bill, which “would require public authorities, public servants and officials to act in the public interest and with transparency, candour and frankness when carrying out their duties in relation to major incidents,” arguing that introducing this statutory duty would allow for greater support for victims and survivors of major incidents and crimes:
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as co-chair of the national police ethics committee.
Before turning to the amendment, I follow other noble Lords by recording the deep gratitude of both myself and many in the Church for the wisdom and friendship of Lord Cormack. On behalf of both the party he served and the Church he loved, over so many decades, Patrick wonderfully embodied that concept of “critical friend” which is so vital to the functioning of all institutions. We were all better for his wisdom and friendship, and we all learned much from his challenges. He may not have been subject to a duty of candour, but that never stopped him from being very candid in expressing his views. We will miss his contributions, here and elsewhere greatly.
The former Bishop of Liverpool advocated for a duty of candour in his report on the Hillsborough disaster, The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power. That title tells its story. His report was produced over six years ago; a duty of candour was finally contained in the College of Policing’s Code of Practice for Ethical Policing in the last two months, for which I and many others are deeply grateful.
On 14th February 2024, during a debate on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, the Bishop of Bristol spoke in support of amendments 19, 21, 25 and 28 to the bill on behalf of the Bishop of Manchester, relating to the proper implementation of the Rwanda Treaty, and introducing further safeguards relating to verifying Rwanda’s safety:
The Bishop of Bristol
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester regrets that he cannot be here today to speak to Amendments 19, 21, 25 and 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to which he has added his name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for setting out the case clearly, and I am particularly grateful to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, as he has made the case so powerfully.
The Bishop of Manchester
My right reverend friend and I are concerned, not as lawyers but as citizens, about the constitutional precedent the Bill sets. The role of the judiciary as distinct from the Government and Parliament must not be infringed. Parliament creates laws but judges and juries are responsible for the finding of facts. Where the Supreme Court has ruled that Rwanda is not safe, it is an abuse of Parliament’s powers, as we have just heard, for it to attempt to declare otherwise.
We are concerned that the Bill represents a dangerous step. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, therefore attempt to preserve the important principle that facts should be considered by the courts. We must surely be able to take into account credible evidence that Rwanda is not a safe country.
On 5th February 2024, the House of Lords debated the Victims and Prisoners Bill in Committee. The Bishop of Manchester spoke on two amendments he had tabled, aimed at enabling increased collaboration between statutory and community bodies in the victim support sector:
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 56 and 59 in my name; I also support the other amendments in this group. These amendments would all help to firm up the very good intentions set out in Clauses 12 and 13.
In an earlier group, I tabled an amendment to ensure that victim support services were properly signposted; it is no use a service existing if the people it is meant to serve are not able to access it. But now we come to, if anything, a more fundamental point: how do we ensure that the right services exist for victims, and in each and every part of the country?
The Bill as drafted gets much right: it requires policing bodies, integrated care boards and local authorities to collaborate in assessing the needs of victims, producing a published strategy and, indeed, revising that strategy as occasion requires—so far, so good. But, as things stand, and as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has indicated, that assessment and strategy could be little more than a combination of the unaffordable and the non-existent—a bit like an overambitious child’s Christmas wish list.
The Bishop of Manchester tabled a question on rising costs of temporary accommodation affecting local authorities on 31st January 2024:
The Lord Bishop of Manchester asked His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on local authority finances caused by the rising cost of temporary accommodation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con): My Lords, local authorities deliver vital homelessness services, and we recognise the pressure that the cost of temporary accommodation places on councils. As we announced recently, total core spending power for councils in England will rise by 7.5% for 2023-24 to 2024-25—an above-inflation increase. In addition, we are providing more than £1 billion over three years to councils through the homelessness prevention grant, with a further £120 million UK-wide funding in 2024-25, announced at Autumn Statement, to help prevent homelessness.
The Bishop of Manchester received the following written answer on 25th January 2024:
The Lord Bishop of Manchester asked His Majesty’s Government whether they will provide a timetable for updating the HM Prisons and Probation Service Strategy for Care-Experienced People; and whether this will include a specific focus on race.
On 24th January 2024, the House of Lords debated the Victims & Prisoners Bill in committee. The Bishop of Manchester spoke in the debate, in support of two amendments:
amendment 10, which would seek to provide a definition of “child criminal exploitation” in the text of the bill
amendment 15 in the Bishop of Manchester’s name, which would specify that responsibility for accessing services for victims does not lie with the potential service user
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, as I said at Second Reading, this is a good Bill for victims. It contains many provisions that I strongly support. I hope and believe that we can make it an even better Bill by working across the House, which is the mood tonight, as it was then.
The Bishop of Manchester spoke in a debate on the Digital Markets, Competition & Consumers Bill in the second day of the Committee stage on 24th January, stressing the need to create a proper balance between smaller and larger businesses:
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. When we debate in Grand Committee, it always strikes me that we do so in the Moses Room —Moses, the great giver of the law. However, the biblical characters that I am more thinking of today would be David fighting Goliath, because it seems to be that a lot of the conversation around this group of amendments is about how we create a proper balance between the large platforms and small entrepreneurial providers. My mother was a small businesswoman; she ran two record shops in the Greater Manchester area. We could have been put out of business very easily if somebody had been able to delay some anti-competitive business action against us. We also have the judgment of Solomon here; he was quick in his judgment—there were no lengthy processes that took for ever and a day. I tend to the view that the Bill, as it entered the House of Commons, was probably at about the sweet spot, but let us get this right so that Davids have a chance amid the Goliaths. And yes, I apologise for not declaring that interest—I am called David.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.