Bills – Page 29 – The Church of England in Parliament

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham moves amendment to exclude certain groups from cap on safe and legal migration routes

On 14th June 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in the fifth day of committee. The Bishop of Durham moved his amendment 128B to the bill, which would “exclude the schemes for those displaced from Ukraine, the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) and the Hong Kong BN(O) routes from the safe and legal routes cap.”

The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests with the RAMP project and as a trustee of Reset, as laid out in the register. In moving Amendment 128B, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Stroud and Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for their support, which, in itself, I hope demonstrates that this whole business of safe and legal routes is a matter about which there is common mind across the House and that we all agree that we need safe and legal routes. I am therefore looking forward to the next couple of hours—as I anticipate it might be—as we explore these issues, because this is really a debate about what is the best, how and when.

This amendment is a straightforward and well-intentioned addition to ensure that any cap placed on safe and legal routes excludes current named schemes already in operation. I hope, therefore, that it is a simple amendment that the Government will be able to accept to help provide clarity. Before I explain the rationale behind the amendment, I should like to comment on the importance of safe and legal routes. Since the pandemic, and following the end of the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, I have despaired as I have witnessed the breakdown of our contribution to global efforts to support refugees to find sanctuary.

Financial Services and Markets Bill: Archbishop of Canterbury supports effort to prevent changes that would go against Banking Standards Commission Report

On 13th June 2023, the House of Lords debated the Financial Services & Markets Bill in the third day of the report stage. During the debate, the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke in support of an amendment to the bill tabled by Baroness Kramer that would “prevent the Government from making substantive changes to the policy on ring-fencing and SMCR by statutory instrument, and would prevent policy from being amended in a way that departs from the report from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards.”

The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I have joined the noble Baroness in supporting her Amendment 106, as I did her two amendments on this topic in Committee. This amendment seeks to prevent change which goes against the two years of work of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which looked in detail at both issues and produced its final report, Changing Banking for Good, 10 years ago. I declare an interest: I sat on the commission along with the noble Baroness.

As I said in Committee on 21 March, the underlying motivation of this amendment is to ask us not to forget the hard lessons learned after the 2008-09 financial crash, for which the whole country, especially the poorest, paid, then and to this day. Recent events show that the memory in the markets is strong, even if it is not in the Government. Alarm spreads easily.

Votes: Financial Services & Markets Bill

On 13th June 2023, the House of Lords debated the Financial Services & Markets Bill in its third day of the report stage. Votes were held on two amendments to the bill, in which the Archbishop of Canterbury took part.

House of Commons Passes Church Commissioners Diocesan Stipendiary Funds Measure

On 13th June 2023, Andrew Selous MP, representing the Church Commissioners, put an amendment to the Delegated Legislation Committee on new regulations allowing the transfer of diocesan stipend funds outside of dioceses, either to another diocese, to the Archbishop’s Council, or to another Church charity. The Committee agreed the measure:

Andrew Selous MP (Con, South West Bedfordshire): I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Diocesan Stipends Funds (Amendment) Measure (HC 1413).

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I hope that you will permit a very brief piece of historical context setting on the Measure before us today. In medieval times, clergy were paid mainly from income from land owned by the Church, known as glebe land, from the Latin gleba, meaning soil. The amount of land varied from parish to parish and from 1571 onwards, the amount of land a parish owned was recorded in a glebe terrier. With the industrial revolution and the growth of cities, wealthy industrialists were often willing to give significant amounts of money to support the local church, often helping to build and endow the church in question, such as, for example, St Mattias church in Stocksbridge, which opened in 1890 thanks to the generosity of Samuel Fox, the founder of the local Stocksbridge works.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham tables amendment aimed at protecting children subject to age assessments

The Bishop of Durham tabled an amendment to the Illegal Migration Bill during the fourth day of the committee stage on 12th June 2023. The amendment would reinstate the right of appeal against age assessments for putative children affected by these under the bill:

121: Clause 55, page 56, line 21, leave out subsection (2).

Member’s explanatory statement:

This amendment reinstates the right of appeal against age assessments in respect of putative children whom there is a duty to remove under the Bill.

The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, in moving Amendment 121 I shall speak to Amendments 122 and 126 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Neuberger, for their support. My comments will also be in support of Amendments 124 and 125, which were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

Before I get going, I note that on the Nationality and Borders Bill the debate on age assessment took place at 2.30 am on 9 February last year. We now find ourselves at 12:25 am discussing age assessments once again. Age assessments are serious matters. I know that it was not designed that this has happened again but it is extremely unfortunate, and since we have more time on Wednesday, I think we could have moved this to Wednesday. However, we have not, so I will carry on.

I believe strongly that these changes need to be made to Clauses 55 and 56 if we are to ensure that the welfare and best interests of children are protected. I will try to be brief, but they are critical amendments that are worthy of full consideration. It is vital that we adequately scrutinise the impact this Bill will have on children; it is therefore a failure in their safeguarding responsibility for the Government not even to have produced a child rights impact assessment. They are asking this Chamber to agree to these additional clauses on age assessments, added on Report in the other place, which on their own admission are more likely than not to be incompatible with conventions under the ECHR—not on the rights of anyone here today but on the rights of children. We have a duty to ensure that their voices are heard. Will the Minister guarantee that an assessment will be published before Report?

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham supports citizenship amendment on behalf of the Bishop of St Albans

On 12th June 2023, during a committee debate on the Illegal Migration Bill, the Bishop of Durham spoke in support of amendment 98I, tabled by Baroness Brinton and the Bishop of St Albans, which would seek to limit the effects of the bill on those holding or those entitled to British National Overseas Citizenship, with particular reference to people from Hong Kong:

The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling Amendment 98I, and I thank Amnesty International and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens for their steadfast support for those who wish to register as British citizens. My friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who added his name, was here earlier in the day but was unable to stay through to the evening.

This amendment aims to tackle a matter of great significance that affects the lives of many individuals residing in the UK under British national overseas visas. They include many people from Hong Kong who are rightly entitled to British citizenship but face serious uncertainty about their legal status. Many Hong Kongers have reported appalling responses from immigration officials regarding their children born here, being told that they cannot have any travel documentation and even querying whether they are allowed to become British citizens in the future.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham advocates for removal of clauses which would strip support from victims of modern slavery

On 12th June 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in the fourth day of committee. During the debate, the Bishop of Durham spoke in support of the removal of clauses 22 to 24, and clause 27, from the bill, on the grounds that these clauses withdraw essential protections and support from victims of modern slavery:

The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I rise to support the removal of Clauses 22 to 24 and 27, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, noted, many of the arguments are similar to those related to Clause 21, so we will not repeat them.

Clauses 22 to 24 carry through the logic of Clause 21 and remove protections and support from those who, crucially, have already been identified and assessed as having reasonable grounds to be considered a victim of trafficking or modern slavery. These victims are not self-identified or -assessed. They have to be referred by a first responder agency, such as the police, and assessed by the competent authority.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham requests clarification on use of digital methods such as video conferencing in immigration procedures

During a committee debate on the Illegal Migration Bill on 12th June 2023, the Bishop of Durham raised a point of clarification to Lord Murray of Blidworth (the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Migration & Borders), on the use of remote methods such as video-conferencing to conduct immigration procedures, asking whether such methods were as effective as in person interviewing and interventions:

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con, Home Office): Amendment 90, spoken to by my noble friends Lord Randall and Lord McColl, relates to the presumption that it is not necessary for a person to remain in the UK to co-operate with an investigation. It is one of the enduring legacies of the Covid pandemic that much more can now be done remotely. We all see this in the changes to the way we work. Even now, some Members of your Lordships’ House take part in debates by videolink. It is simply no longer the case that a victim of crime needs to be in face-to-face contact with police or others to assist with an investigation. There is no reason why, in the majority of cases, such co-operation cannot continue by email, messaging and videoconferencing. The presumption in Clause 21(5) is therefore perfectly proper.

(…)

The Lord Bishop of Durham: Sorry—it has taken me a little while to contemplate but is the Minister effectively saying that the use of video and email and so on is as good as in-person interviewing and in-person interventions? I really think that needs to be rethought.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham speaks on importance of safeguarding victims of modern slavery and human trafficking

On 12th June 2023, during the fourth day of committee debates on the Illegal Migration Bill, the Bishop of Durham spoke in support of proposals by Baroness Hamwee to remove clauses 21, 25, 28 & 28 from the bill, in order to safeguard victims of modern slavery and human trafficking who would otherwise be subject to removal under the bill:

The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I declare my interests with RAMP and Reset and, like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, did at the outset of the debate, I hope that will stand for the other times I speak later on different groups.

I support all the amendments, but I am speaking in support of the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that Clauses 21, 25, 26 and 28 be completely removed. This is supported by my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who we heard earlier is unfortunately unable to be here today. Bishops across England have had the privilege of working very closely with the large sector of faith-based charities and projects that work with victims of slavery. We have heard a lot about the Salvation Army, but I want to highlight the Clewer Initiative, which is our own project raising awareness and helping support victims. The feedback that has been coming from the Salvation Army, from Clewer and from other groups in relation to the modern slavery provisions of the Bill ranges from trepidation to outright horror.

Rather euphemistically, the Explanatory Notes refer to what is proposed in this and the following clauses as “a significant step”. I suggest that the complete disapplication of all support, replaced with detention and removal, is drastic in the extreme. I cannot see how such a step could be justifiable, but for it even to be defensible would require the most robust and extensive level of proof of its necessity. I do not think that has been shown.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Southwark supports removal exemptions for victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking

On 12th June 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in the fourth day of the committee stage. The Bishop of Southwark spoke in the debate, support of amendment 88, tabled by Lord Coaker and supported by the Bishop of Gloucester, which would aim to prevent victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking from being removed under the bill:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is supported by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester, who regrets that she is unable to be here today. There is much similar ground in this amendment to others, but this amendment focuses specifically on victims of sexual exploitation.

The Bill directs that victims of modern slavery, including victims of sexual exploitation, shall be subject to detention and removal to their own country or to a third country. As we have heard, the principal exception to this is if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the individual is co-operating with criminal proceedings and that their presence in the United Kingdom is necessary for this to continue. We know that the Government have committed to victims of sexual violence and exploitation in this country. The UK ratified the 2011 Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence only last summer and there has been much work done over the past few years to increase awareness and tackle perpetrators. To deny those who have arrived here safety and protection is a regressive move.

Research tells us that women who have been exploited often arrive confused, not always having been aware of their final destination or even that they were going to another country. They may have been exploited by their traffickers during the flight. The notion of removing them to a safe third country that contains their abusers is cruel and unnecessary. The moral basis of legislating for and the axiomatic assumption of the detention and removal of such women, as there is in Clause 21, is at best dubious. I support this amendment.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: