On 8th March 2022, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Nationality and Borders Bill in its third day of the Report stage. Votes were held on several amendments, in which Bishops took part.
Division 1:
The Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Leeds, the Bishop of Manchester and the Bishop of St Albans took part in a vote on an amendment relating to age assessments for young refugees, moved by Baroness Neuberger:
Baroness Neuberger moved amendment 64A, after clause 56, to insert the new clause Age assessments: restrictions.
Baroness Neuberger (CB):
64A: After Clause 56, insert the following new Clause—
“Age assessments: restrictions
(1) Age assessments under section 49 or 50 must only be undertaken if there is significant reason to doubt the age of the age-disputed person.(2) A person conducting age assessments under section 49 or 50 must be a local authority social worker.(3) Age assessments must be undertaken in accordance with the Association of Directors of Children’s Services Age Assessment Guidance or equivalent guidance in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.(4) When an age assessment is conducted, a process must be used that allows for an impartial multi-agency approach, drawing on a range of expertise, including from—(a) health professionals,(b) psychologists,(c) teachers,(d) foster parents,(e) youth workers,(f) advocates,(g) guardians, and(h) social workers.(5) When making regulations under section 51, the Secretary of State must not specify scientific methods unless the Secretary of State receives written approval from the relevant medical, dental and scientific professional bodies that the method is both ethical and accurate beyond reasonable doubt for assessing a person’s age.(6) Any organisation developed to oversee age assessments must be independent of the Home Office.(7) The standard of proof for an age assessment is reasonable degree of likelihood.” Hansard
The amendment was agreed. Content: 232 / Not Content 162
The Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Leeds, the Bishop of Manchester and the Bishop of St Albans voted Content.
Division 2:
The Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Leeds, the Bishop of Manchester and the Bishop of St Albans took part in a vote on an amendment moved by Lord Coaker, that would remove Clause 58 of the bill (relating to disclosure deadlines for victims of modern slavery):
Lord Coaker (Lab): Clause 58 provides that decision-makers “must take account” of a missed deadline, which damages a victim’s “credibility” unless there are “good reasons” not to. We had a huge debate about what “good reasons” means. Why is the NRM suddenly not to be trusted to make decisions and to give weight to what matters? Who are the NRM decision-makers? Do we not trust them to make these decisions and realise when there is a difficulty? I would have thought we do. Through all our discussions, there has been no guarantee at all from the Government on what would count as a good reason. In the provisions there is no recognition of the trauma, the exploitation and the fear of authorities. In those figures I quoted, your Lordships can see the fear, the exploitation and the concern of victims—they will not come forward, because they are frightened of the consequences. Hansard
The amendment was agreed. Content: 213 / Not Content 142
The Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Leeds, the Bishop of Manchester and the Bishop of St Albans voted Content.
Division 3:
The Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Leeds, the Bishop of Manchester and the Bishop of St Albans took part in a vote on an amendment moved by Baroness Butler-Sloss:
Baroness Butler-Sloss moved amendment 68A, to leave out clause 62 and insert the new clause Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB): This new Clause is an alternative to clause 62. It ensures that the power currently provided for in Clause 62 is exercised in line with the UK’s obligations under Article 13 of the Trafficking Convention. This amendment also protects child victims of modern slavery from disqualification from protection. Hansard
The amendment was agreed. Content: 210 / Not Content: 128
The Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Leeds, the Bishop of Manchester and the Bishop of St Albans voted Content.
Division 4:
The Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Leeds, the Bishop of Manchester and the Bishop of St Albans took part in a vote on an amendment moved by Lord McColl of Dulwich:
Lord McColl of Dulwich moved amendment 70, to leave out clause 64 and insert the new clause Conclusive grounds: support and leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con): This replacement clause would provide new statutory support for victims in England and Wales after a conclusive grounds decision for at least 12 months. It would also provide temporary leave to remain for all victims receiving support after a positive conclusive grounds decision and for victims meeting the requirements of Article 14 of the Trafficking Convention. It specifies decisions for children should be made on the basis of their best interests. Hansard
The amendment was agreed. Content: 207 / Not Content: 123
The Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Leeds, the Bishop of Manchester and the Bishop of St Albans voted Content.
Division 5:
The Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Leeds, the Bishop of Manchester and the Bishop of St Albans took part in a vote on an amendment moved by Lord Coaker to differentiate recognition and treatment of children as victims of human trafficking:
Lord Coaker moved amendment 70ZA, after clause 64, to insert the new clause Slavery and human trafficking: victims aged under 18 years.
The amendment was agreed. Content: 194 / Not Content 128.
The Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Leeds, the Bishop of Manchester and the Bishop of St Albans voted Content.
Division 6:
The Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Manchester took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick:
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick moved amendment 71, in clause 71, page 74, line 16, at end to insert:
“(c) the individual is travelling to Northern Ireland on a local journey from the Republic of Ireland.”
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab): Under this amendment, persons who are neither British nor Irish would nevertheless be able to make local journeys from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland without the need for an Electronic Travel Authorisation. Hansard
The amendment was agreed. Content: 141 / Not Content: 107
The Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Manchester voted Content.
Division 8:
The Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Manchester took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Lord Coaker, regarding settlement fees for non-UK members of the armed forces:
Lord Coaker moved amendment 77, after clause 78, to insert the new clause Indefinite leave to remain payments by Commonwealth, Hong Kong and Gurkha members of armed forces.
The amendment was disagreed. Content: 80 / Not Content: 88
The Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Manchester voted Content.
Division 9:
The Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Manchester took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Lord Oates:
Lord Oates moved amendment 79, after clause 78, to insert the new clause UK immigration status: certification.
Lord Oates (LD): My Lords, Amendment 79 would require the Secretary of State to provide physical proof of immigration status to anyone who has been granted such status and requests such proof. The arguments for providing physical proof alongside digital status have been aired extensively in this House, most recently in the debates on the then Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, when your Lordships overwhelmingly supported a cross-party amendment to this effect for EEA citizens with settled or pre-settled status. I am heartened that this amendment has also received support from across the House, and I am grateful to all the signatories of it. Hansard
The amendment was disagreed. Content: 61 / Not Content: 83.
The Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Manchester voted Content.
Division 10:
The Bishop of Durham took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering:
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering moved amendment 83, after clause 78, to insert the new clause Fees.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con): In conclusion, this is a very modest amendment. It seeks simply to remove the power to use the function of registering British people’s citizenship to raise money to pay for the immigration system and to restrict any fee that is charged to cover the estimated costs of registration. It does this by amending the powers in Section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014 to clearly distinguish rights to be registered as a British citizen from the many and diverse Home Office immigration functions to which those powers also apply. These people have lived their whole lives in this country and essentially have nowhere else to go. I do not believe that it is right that this fee should cause a barrier to them obtaining full citizenship, which, in my view, is their right. Hansard
The amendment was disagreed. Content: 25 / Not Content 69
The Bishop of Durham voted Content.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.