Tag: Public Order Bill 2022

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?

Continue reading “Bishop of St Albans asks about guidelines for protesters on Public Order Bill”

Public Order Bill: Bishop of Manchester supports conditions on stop and search powers

On 28th March 2023, the Bishop of Manchester spoke in support of an amendment to the Public Order Bill tabled by Lord Coaker, which would seek to place conditions on how suspicion-less stop and search powers are used by police:

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the national police ethics committee, but obviously I am not speaking on behalf of it today. I had hoped not to have to speak at all this afternoon but after the contributions of other noble Lords I feel I must say a few words.

Continue reading “Public Order Bill: Bishop of Manchester supports conditions on stop and search powers”

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:

Continue reading “Votes: Public Order Bill”

Public Order Bill: Bishop of Manchester speaks in support of amendments on stop and search regulations

On 7th February 2023, the House of Lords debated the Public Order Bill in the second day of the report stage. The Bishop of Manchester spoke in favour of amendments to remove clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill, which would have extended the police’s stop and search powers:

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I too speak in support of the amendments to remove Clauses 10 and 11, to which I have added my name. I declare my registered interests as the co-chair of the national police ethics committee and the chair of the Greater Manchester Police ethics advisory committee.

Stop and search can be an extremely useful tool in the police kit box, but, like many tools, it works far less well if it is overused or used for the wrong task. Eventually, it loses its efficacy entirely. I have several broken screwdrivers at home that bear witness to my own excesses in that regard, as well as to my very limited DIY skills. That is the danger we run when we extend stop and search powers in what, at times, feels like a knee-jerk reaction. They are simply the most obvious tool at the top of the box, whether they are appropriate or not. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, indicated, stop and search becomes, as it has in the past, so discredited that it reaches a point where, like my screwdrivers, it is counterproductive to use it, even in circumstances where it would be right and appropriate to do so.

Continue reading “Public Order Bill: Bishop of Manchester speaks in support of amendments on stop and search regulations”

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.

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

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.

Continue reading “Public Order Bill: Bishop of Manchester speaks in favour of amendments on police powers”

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.’”

Continue reading “Votes: Public Order Bill”

Public Order Bill: Bishop of Chelmsford speaks in favour of amendments on Serious Disruption Prevention Orders and police powers

On 13th December 2022, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Public Order Bill in the third day of Committee. The Bishop of Chelmsford spoke in support of two sets of amendments to the bill:

  • firstly to amendments tabled by Lord Paddick, with the support of the Bishop of St Albans, which would raise the burden of proof required to impose a serious disruption prevention order on protesters.
  • secondly to amendments tabled by Baroness Chakrabarti and the Bishop of Manchester, which would place a moratorium on extending existing police powers without a parliamentary debate on current recruitment, vetting, and discipline of police officers.
Continue reading “Public Order Bill: Bishop of Chelmsford speaks in favour of amendments on Serious Disruption Prevention Orders and police powers”