On 28th June 2023, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill in the first day of the report stage. The Bishop of Chelmsford spoke in support of amendment 5, tabled by Baroness Chakrabarti, which would replace clause 1 of the bill with a new clause ensuring compliance with the UK’s international obligations under human rights, refugee, child protection, and anti-trafficking conventions:
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I support Amendment 5 also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. In Committee a comprehensive debate took place, during which different cases were made by distinguished lawyers across the House about the place of international law as it relates to our domestic lawmaking. Notwithstanding the different interpretations, I wish to reflect on the moral imperative for us to take seriously the commitments we have made in past decades. Those commitments have value in themselves, but they have also come to define the country that we are and aspire to be. They are part of why we are trusted by much of the international community and held in high regard.
Treaties such as the refugee convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child set out clearly the rights of people who, due to their particular circumstances, may not be able to speak up for themselves. In many cases, this country has led the way in drafting the treaties named in the amendment. We should be proud of our involvement in advocating for the rights of every single human being. Anything that affirms our conviction that we are all created in the image of God, worthy of value, dignity and safety, should be commended.
Ensuring that international treaties of this nature are taken seriously in this country, and in this Parliament, is especially important given much of the unfortunate rhetoric and misinformation present around the Bill and last year’s Nationality and Borders Act. Language matters and it forms perceptions, sometimes false perceptions. For example, we hear repeatedly that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, even when the majority of refugees already do this, and even though the refugee convention makes no such obligation on people to claim asylum where they first find themselves.
The refugee convention states that protection is not a simple concession made to the refugee: he or she is not an object of assistance, but rather the subject of rights and duties. If we move away from this indisputable legal principle, which underpins the human rights framework, not only our reputation but the spiritual health of this nation will be at stake.
Extracts from the speeches that followed:
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con, Home Office): In response to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, I point out that the refugee convention is clear that states can still operate controls on illegal migration. Under Article 31, it is indeed expressly permitted to disadvantage those who have arrived illegally from safe countries, which is true of all who come from France. This embodies the first safe country principle, in the sense that Article 31 protections apply only to those who have come directly from unsafe countries. The first safe country principle is widely recognised internationally, including in the common European asylum system, which is a framework of rules and procedures operated by the EU countries together, based on the refugee convention.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.