On 4th April 2022, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Nationality and Borders Bill. There were votes on amendments to the bill, in which Bishops took part.
Division 1:
The Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Durham, and the Bishop of St Albans took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Baroness D’Souza:
Baroness d’Souza (CB): My Lords, my Motion B1 also falls in this group. I start by saying how welcome the safeguarding concessions that have been or will be incorporated into the Bill are. But there is still unfinished business. Very simply, my Motion seeks to delete the retained subsections (5) to (7) on the grounds that these clauses maintain a legal fiction that deprivation orders issued without notice continue to be valid, despite court rulings to the contrary. It is accepted by the courts that it is unjust to strip a person of his or her citizenship and all the associated rights without ever providing notice. Retaining subsections (5) to (7) seeks to overturn that ruling by legislative fiat. Instead of invalidating previous deprivation orders that were made unlawfully, the Government appear to wish to apply retrospectively these earlier orders. Hansard
The amendment was agreed. Content: 209 / Not Content 165.
The Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of St Albans voted content.
Division 2:
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Baroness Chakrabarti:
Baroness Chakrabarti moved amendment D1, as an amendment to Motion C, at end to insert “and do propose Amendment 5B in lieu—
5B Insert the following new Clause—
“Interpretation of Part 2
For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of this Part are compliant with the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, and must be read and given effect as such.””
The amendment was agreed. Content: 189 / Not Content 151
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham voted Content.
Division 3:
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Lord Kerr of Kinlochard:
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard moved amendment D1, as an amendment to Motion D, at end to insert
“and do propose Amendment 6B to the words so restored to the Bill—
6B Page 14, line 7, leave out subsections (5) to (8) and insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must make provision within the Immigration Rules to—
(a) guarantee Group 1 and Group 2 refugees all of their rights under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and international law, without distinction;
(b) ensure that the classification of a refugee as a Group 1 or a Group 2 refugee does not affect the ability to maintain the unity of that person’s family.””
The amendment was agreed. Content: 191 / Not Content 148
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham voted Content.
Division 4:
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Baroness Stroud concerning right to work for refugees and asylum seekers:
Baroness Stroud: In summary, the Government say that the amendment is not needed because, in the new system, all those coming by legal and safe routes would have an immediate right to work—but this actually supports the amendment. Why are we happy to give an immediate right to work to Ukrainians but not to others who come to this country? The Government say this is not needed because in the new system, even including appeals, the process will take only six months. That is great, but we are not there yet and, to my knowledge, we have never been there. The Government say this is not needed because the new system will be so clear that they will be able to focus on the backlog and on those who come in via alternative routes. Again, this sounds great but, at this moment, all evidence is to the contrary.
Even the new system for Ukrainians cannot flex or adapt quickly enough and already shows signs of significant strain. No one more wants the system to be sorted than me or other noble Lords, but we have waited many years to see it happen. There are between 60,000 and 80,000 people who need to be able to work; they should be experiencing a Britain that enables asylum seekers to rebuild their lives and create their own pathway from poverty to prosperity. Hansard
The amendment was agreed. Content: 199 / Not Content 132
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham voted Content.
Division 5:
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Lord Rosser:
Lord Rosser moved amendment F1, as an amendment to Motion F, at end to insert “and do propose Amendments 8B and 8C in lieu—
8B After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Safe third State: commencement
(1) The Secretary of State may exercise the power in section 83(1) so as to bring
section 15 into force only if the condition in subsection (2) has been met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that the United Kingdom has agreed
formal returns agreements with one or more third States.
(3) A “formal returns agreement” means an agreement which provides for the
safe return of a person making an asylum claim (a “claimant”) to a State
which is party to the agreement, where the claimant has a connection to
that State.
(4) This section, and the condition it imposes, cease to have effect at the end of
the period of five years beginning with the day on which this section comes
into force.”
8C Clause 83, page 84, line 27, at end insert—
“(aa) section (Safe third State: commencement);””
The amendment was agreed. Content: 179 / Not Content: 152.
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham voted Content.
Division 6:
The Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Bristol took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by the Bishop of Durham, concerning offshoring of refugees and asylum seekers:
The Lord Bishop of Durham moved amendment G1, as an amendment to Motion G, at end to insert “and do propose Amendments 53B, 53C and 53D in lieu—
53B Page 88, line 14, leave out “falling within subsection (2B)” and insert “prescribed by an order under subsection (2B)”
53C Page 88, line 15, leave out “A State falls within this subsection if” and insert “The Secretary of State may by order prescribe a State for the purposes of subsection (2A) if”
53D Page 88, line 31, at end insert—
“(2BA) No order under subsection (2B) may be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(2BB) The Secretary of State must not lay before Parliament a draft of an order prescribing a State under subsection (2B) unless the Secretary of State has first laid before each House of Parliament a proposal setting out—
(a) the estimated costs, for at least the first two years after the order is to come into effect, of any arrangements made with that State in respect of the removal of asylum seekers from the United Kingdom to that State; and
(b) the estimated costs, for at least the first two years after the order is
to come into effect, of any additional aid provided to that State as a
result of any such arrangements.””
The amendment was agreed. Content: 176 / Not Content 153.
The Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Bristol voted Content.
Division 7:
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Lord Dubs:
Lord Dubs moved amendment H1, as an amendment to Motion H, at end to insert “and do propose Amendment 10B in lieu—
10B Insert the following new Clause—
“Immigration Rules: entry to seek asylum and join family
(1) The rules laid down by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 1(4) and section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom of persons not having the right of abode must include provision for admitting persons coming for the purpose of seeking asylum.
(2) These rules must make provision, for the purpose of seeking asylum, for unaccompanied children in Europe who have a family member in the United Kingdom who is ordinarily and lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a “family member” means—
(a) a parent, including adoptive parent;
(b) an aunt or uncle;
(c) a grandparent;
(d) a sibling, including an adoptive sibling; or
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—
(i) the importance of maintaining family unity;
(ii) any dependency between the family members;
(iii) the best interests of a child; and
(iv) any compelling circumstances.””
The amendment was agreed. Content: 181 / Not Content 184.
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham voted Content.
Division 8:
The Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Bristol took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by the Bishop of Durham concerning targets for refugee resettlement schemes:
The Lord Bishop of Durham moved amendment J1, as an amendment to Motion J, at end to insert “and do propose Amendment 11B in lieu—
11B Insert the following new Clause—
“Refugee resettlement schemes
(1) The Secretary of State must publish a numerical target for the resettlement of refugees to the United Kingdom each year.
(2) The target under this section must include the numbers of people resettled under—
(a) dedicated schemes for the evacuation of people from a geographical locality, such as a specific third State,
(b) a general UK resettlement scheme, and
(c) other routes as appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State must put in place appropriate resourcing and infrastructure to support local authorities to deliver the target under subsection (1).””
The amendment was agreed. Content: 159 / Not Content 150.
The Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Bristol voted Content:
Division 9:
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Lord Coaker, with a view to preventing criminalisation of refugees and asylum seekers arriving to the UK after crossing the English Channel:
Lord Coaker moved amendment L1, as an amendment to Motion L, to leave out from “Amendments” to end and insert “13, 14 and 16 to 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 13A, 14A and 16A to 19A, do insist on its Amendment 15, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 15A, and do propose Amendment 13B in lieu of Amendment 13—
13B Page 40, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert—
“(D1) A person who knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order commits an offence.””
The amendment was agreed. Content: 163 / Not Content 138.
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham voted Content.
Division 10:
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Lord Paddick:
Lord Paddick: I ask the House to support my Motion M1. The Government want to criminalise those who facilitate those entering the UK without the correct prior authority, even if those doing so are not people smugglers and not acting for their own gain. The perhaps unintended consequence is that those rescuing drowning migrants in the English Channel, for example, commit an offence unless the rescue is co-ordinated by HM Coastguard or an equivalent organisation. The Government propose a defence, once charged, if the rescuers are genuine good Samaritans, and again claim that only the most egregious cases would be prosecuted. This, again, is not sufficient, as it could have a chilling effect on would-be rescuers who knew that they would be committing an offence if they attempted rescue without prior coastguard authority were the House to agree with Motion M. How many might drown before the rescuers were able to contact HM Coastguard and enable them to co-ordinate the rescue?
Instead of a defence once charged, Motion M1 proposes that the offence is committed only if a person facilitates entry to the UK without reasonable excuse. Rescuers would then know that, provided they are acting in good faith, they would not be prosecuted, but people smugglers would not have a reasonable excuse and could be prosecuted. The Government’s suggestion that people smugglers might pretend to be genuine rescuers is, quite frankly, ridiculous, as there are likely to be many witnesses, in the form of the migrants who have paid large sums to the people smugglers, that this is not the case. Hansard
The amendment was agreed. Content 162 / Not Content 141.
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham voted Content.
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Lord Coaker:
Lord Coaker: It is most important that we resolve the part relating to Motions Q and Q1 as well. The anti-slavery commissioner has said that the Government’s proposals make it harder to prosecute people traffickers. The Government recognise that it is common for victims to be criminally exploited and so have a criminal record as part of their exploitation. Our replacement for Clause 62 therefore seeks to protect children and adults—all victims of slavery—against being penalised for having been at some point criminally exploited.
The key issue raised by Ministers about our original amendment is that it did not provide a definition of who could be considered a threat to public order. So, our Amendment 25B provides that a person is considered a threat if they have been convicted of a terrorism offence; it also requires the Secretary of State to consult within a year on whether further offences listed under Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act should be added to this definition. In other words, we have made an important concession in that we understand the need for a definition and that the Home Office is debating what that definition should be. Rather than hold up the Bill, let us have a situation where, within one year of this Act coming into force, the Government must come forward with a consultation on whether a person convicted of any offence listed in Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, other than a terrorism offence, should be considered as presenting
“an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order”. Hansard
The amendment was agreed. Content: 116 / Not Content: 111.
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham voted Content.
Division 12:
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Lord McColl of Dulwich:
Lord McColl of Dulwich moved amendment R1, as an amendment to Motion R, at end to insert “and do propose Amendment 26B in lieu—
26B Before Clause 64, insert the following new Clause—
“Confirmed victims in England and Wales: assistance and support
After section 50A of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 insert—
“50B Confirmed victims etc: assistance and support
(1) This section applies if a positive conclusive grounds decision is made in respect of a person.
(2) If the person has received support under section 50A, the Secretary of State must continue to secure tailored assistance and support for that person at the end of the recovery period for at least 12 months beginning on the day the recovery period ends.
(3) Any duty under this section ceases to apply in relation to a person in respect of whom a determination is made under section 62(1) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (disqualification from protection).
(4) References in this section to “assistance and support”, a “conclusive grounds decision” and the “recovery period” have the same meaning as in section 50A.”””
The amendment was agreed. Content: 108 / Not Content: 107.
The Bishop of Durham and the Bishop of Bristol voted Content.
Division 13:
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham took part in a vote on an amendment tabled by Lord Coaker:
Lord Coaker moved amendment S1, as an amendment to Motion S, at end to insert “and do propose Amendment 27B in lieu—
27B Insert the following new Clause—
“Slavery and human trafficking: victims aged under 18 years
(1) Where a competent authority is making a decision in relation to a person who is aged under 18 years, the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration.
(2) The Secretary of State may not serve a slavery or trafficking information notice on a person who is aged under 18 years.
(3) Section 61 of this Act does not apply in cases where either the first reasonable grounds decision or a further reasonable grounds decision made in relation to a person relates to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.
(4) Section 62 of this Act does not apply in cases where a positive reasonable grounds decision has been made in respect of a person which relates to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.
(5) The Secretary of State must grant a person leave to remain in the United Kingdom where a positive conclusive grounds decision is made in respect of a person who—
(a) is under 18 years, or
(b) was under 18 years at the time of the incident or incidents to which the positive reasonable grounds decision relates.
(6) Guidance issued under section 49(1)(c) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 on determining whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking must provide that, where the determination relates to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years, the determination must be made on the standard of “suspect but not prove”.””
The amendment was disagreed. Content: 101 / Not Content 110.
The Bishop of Bristol and the Bishop of Durham voted Content.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.