On 3rd July 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in the second day of the report stage. The Bishop of Gloucester spoke in support of amendments to the bill tabled by Baroness Lister of Burtersettwhich would seek to prevent the current 72 hour limit on detention of pregnant women from being removed:
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who expertly outlined why the amendment is needed.
On 3rd July 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in the second day of the report stage. Votes were held on amendments to the bill, in which Bishops took part:
The Bishop of St Albans received the following written answer on 3rd July 2023:
The Lord Bishop of St Albans asked His Majesty’s Government how many S2 funding applications were approved in (1) NHS Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board, and (2) NHS Hertfordshire and West Essex Integrated Care Board, in (a) 2019, (b) 2020, (c) 2021, and (d) 2022.
On 3rd July 2023,Andrew Selous MP, representing the Church Commissioners, gave the following written answers to questions from an MP:
Independent Safeguarding Board
Mr Ben Bradshaw MP (Lab, Exeter): To ask the Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners:
what steps the Church took to resolve the dispute with members of the Independent Safeguarding Board before the decision was made to give them notice.
whether the Commissioners made an assessment of the potential implications of any obligation to provide an independent mediator to resolve the Independent Safeguarding Board dispute.
what process the Church is using to appoint new members of the Independent Safeguarding Board.
whether the work started in phase one of the Independent Safeguarding Board will be completed following the disbanding of the Board.
On 29th June 2023, Bishop of St Albans asked a question on effective recruitment for early years and childcare settings following a government statement on childcare reform:
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I join others in congratulating His Majesty’s Government for what is a very forward-looking and exciting series of announcements. The research we have on the first 1,000 years and many other pieces of research show just how vital this is, and it absolutely plays into the last debate about our economy in the long run.
The Bishop of Manchester spoke in support of amendment 37 to the Illegal Migration Bill, tabled by Lord Etherton, on 28th June 2023. The amendment would prevent the removal of LGBT people to third countries where they might be persecuted:
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, we cannot countenance a situation in which people who sought asylum here because of a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin are then removed to a third country where they may face a similar, or even greater, level of risk. For that reason, I join others in supporting Amendment 37.
It was my privilege earlier this year to be invited to attend a reception on the Parliamentary Estate, where I met a group of LGBTQI+ women who had sought and gained asylum in this country. Their stories were harrowing. By contrast, their efforts to rebuild their lives here in Britain were inspirational.
On 28th June 2023, during a debate on amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill, the Bishop of Chelmsford spoke in support of amendment 14, tabled by Lord Dubs and supported by the Bishop of Durham, that would ensure that asylum and human rights claims by unaccompanied children are not subject to the bill’s inadmissibility regime:
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I support both amendments in this group, but I am particularly pleased to be able to speak in support of Amendment 14, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Durham is a co-signatory, although he is unable to be present today.
The Bill will prevent potentially thousands of children ever claiming refugee protection in the UK, however serious their protection needs may be and, disturbingly, regardless of the fact that they may not have had any say in the decision to travel here irregularly. Let us be absolutely clear: this means that vulnerable unaccompanied children who have fled unimaginable horrors will arrive to find that they will be detained and then potentially accommodated by the Home Office outside the established care system. All of this is not in order for their asylum cases to be heard and assessed but simply to deter others.
During a debate on amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill on 28th June 2023, the Bishop of Manchester spoke in support of amendment 12, tabled by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which would stipulate that “potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.”
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, traffickers exercise control over their victims by convincing them that they will not receive help from the authorities if they seek it. The Bill will simply add credence to that claim.
I fully sympathise with the desire to deter people from using our modern slavery laws as a means to make a spurious claim for protection, but where is the evidence? The Government cannot point at any evidence of widespread abuse of our modern slavery system, yet they propose to remove basic protections for some of the most vulnerable people in our country. It is a basic principle of law—I can find it for you in the Book of Genesis if you want—that, in our desire to convict the guilty, we should not end up punishing the innocent. Amendment 12 is the very least we need in order to protect that vital principle.
On 28th June 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in the first day of the report stage. Votes were held on amendments to the bill, in which Bishops took part:
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.