The Bishop of Leeds asked a question on the need to ensure free and fair elections in Georgia, following a government statement on the conflict in Ukraine and clashes between police and protestors in Georgia on 16th May 2024:
The Lord Bishop of Leeds: My Lords, given Georgia’s recent history and its rather precarious geographical position, the importance of the upcoming elections in October cannot be overstated. To push a bit further the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, can the Minister explain what active steps the Government are taking to ensure that those elections are free and fair?
On 20th February 2024, the Bishop of Southwark made a speech during the second reading of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, raising the potential issue of religious education foundations being affected inadvertently by the bill, and expressing concern about the far-reaching implications of the bill:
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I expect that the name of Field-Marshal Julius Jakob Freiherr von Haynau does not elicit the sort of interest that once it did in your Lordships’ House. He was, none the less, a staple of O-level history when that subject would have elicited the admiration of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up. Field Marshall von Haynau was an effective but severe Habsburg military commander during the revolutionary years of 1848 and 1849. His imperial standing, however, did not prevent him being chased down Borough High Street in my diocese in 1850—where my diocesan headquarters now is, very near the cathedral—by two draymen from the nearby brewery of Barclay Perkins to remonstrate with him about his military conduct in Italy and Hungary.
I mention this once-famous incident to illustrate that there have always been strong currents of feelings about issues, including those abroad. Some of these fall into what one might call the dissenting tradition. As a Church of England Bishop, I recognise that I am an heir to a different tradition, but surely our history has taught us that consensus has been built up around what is obviously true and lived out with integrity, rather than by suppression.
The Archbishop of York asked a question on the issue of face masks being worn at protests on 13th February 2024, following a government statement on new measures being introduced to police these activities:
The Lord Archbishop of York: My Lords, like others, I entirely share the views about war memorials and their desecration, and fireworks and flares—there is a lot that is sensible in this. On face coverings, what concerns me is the law which we often do not often think about—the law of unintended consequences. To those dissidents, I would add religious minorities to the list of those who may be concerned about this. I wonder whether the effect of this will be that more people will wear face coverings, not fewer, because they are concerned about facial recognition. I find it hard to understand why this should be a matter for the law. If somebody commits a criminal offence while on a march, we already have the powers to deal with them. If somebody on a peaceful protest chooses to wear a face covering, I find it hard to understand why that, in and of itself, is a problem. The Minister has explained that this will be used only under certain circumstances, but if I have heard him correctly it is around the “risk” of criminal activity and violence. We do not arrest people because we think that they might be doing something. If the protest is peaceful, why should somebody not wear a face mask? I am struggling to understand why this has become such an issue, and I am concerned about minority groups who could be adversely affected by this.
On 13th June 2023, the House of Lords debated a motion to approve the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023. A vote was held on an amendment to the motion, in which a Bishop took part:
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.’”
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.