The Church of England in Parliament

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill: Bishop of Leeds raises concerns over indefinite declaration of Rwanda’s safety

The Bishop of Leeds spoke in a debate on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill on 14th February 2024, pointing out the need for demonstration of Rwanda’s safety, and the risks associated with the country’s safety being declared indefinitely:

The Lord Bishop of Leeds: My Lords, I will be very brief. I endorse the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I want to question slightly the use of truth because there is a difference between truth and factuality. Something can be not factual, but it can be true. Let us look at a parable, for example. We have not even got as far as factuality when we are talking about truth. To put it very simply—I am in terrible danger of evoking Immanuel Kant here, but I will try to avoid that—if I say I am a banana, it does not make me a banana. There has to be some credible questioning of that. I am not a banana. A country does not become safe because someone says it is, even if a Government say that. That has to be demonstrated, and it has to be open to question, particularly, as has been said many times, because the word “is”—we are getting very Clintonesque in his impeachment hearings when we get into the meaning of “is”—has a permanence about it that does not allow for the possibility of change. I fail to see rationally how this is such a problem for the Government, other than that there is an ideological drive in this which is not open to argument.

Hansard

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill: Bishop of Bristol supports amendments related to implementation of UK-Rwanda Treaty

On 14th February 2024, during a debate on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, the Bishop of Bristol spoke in support of amendments 19, 21, 25 and 28 to the bill on behalf of the Bishop of Manchester, relating to the proper implementation of the Rwanda Treaty, and introducing further safeguards relating to verifying Rwanda’s safety:

The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester regrets that he cannot be here today to speak to Amendments 19, 21, 25 and 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to which he has added his name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for setting out the case clearly, and I am particularly grateful to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, as he has made the case so powerfully.

My right reverend friend and I are concerned, not as lawyers but as citizens, about the constitutional precedent the Bill sets. The role of the judiciary as distinct from the Government and Parliament must not be infringed. Parliament creates laws but judges and juries are responsible for the finding of facts. Where the Supreme Court has ruled that Rwanda is not safe, it is an abuse of Parliament’s powers, as we have just heard, for it to attempt to declare otherwise.

We are concerned that the Bill represents a dangerous step. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, therefore attempt to preserve the important principle that facts should be considered by the courts. We must surely be able to take into account credible evidence that Rwanda is not a safe country.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill: Bishop of Bristol speaks in favour of amendments protecting armed forces workers and victims of modern slavery

On 14th February 2024, the House of Lords debated the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill in committee. The Bishop of Bristol spoke in support of amendment 75 to the bill, which would introduce an exemption clause to prevent those who had worked with UK armed forces or the UK government overseas, or their families, from being sent to Rwanda. She also spoke in support of amendments 70, 73, and 85, on the issue of protecting victims of modern slavery from removal to Rwanda:

The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I am grateful to all those supporting Amendment 75 and for the speeches on it. I am further grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—they are all helping us to delve deeper into the legal and moral issues in these amendments. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who has set out her Amendments 70, 73 and 85, to which I have subscribed my name.

This issue is close to my heart, as I speak on behalf of the Church of England on human trafficking and modern slavery issues. I do so from the city of Bristol, with its history of slavery and its current commitment to prevent human trafficking and slavery, including domestically—we train our lay officers to spot the signs of those hiding in plain sight—and to provide refuge for those on their journey through the NRM. I was also particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deben: I think that I will miss church downstairs, so I am grateful that he has brought church upstairs in his Ash Wednesday words to us about the deep moral issues in our debate today.

Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich asks about county council funding

The Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich asked a question on 14th February 2024 concerning the issue of funding for county councils, drawing on an example from Suffolk County Council and stressing the need for advance communication of finances to allow for forward planning:

The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, may I return to the issue of reforming the model? I have recently been caught up in discussions with Suffolk County Council about funding cuts it was making to its arts programmes. That drew me into detailed discussions about what its priorities were and the challenges it was facing. It said that two things would make a huge difference. The first was knowing further in advance what it might receive; it was looking for a three-year projection. The second was for the groundwork for the reform to which the Minister has been referring to be done now, rather than in the future.

Bishop of St Albans asks about religious minority participation in elections in India and Pakistan

The Bishop of St Albans received the following written answer on 14th February 2024:

The Lord Bishop of St Albans asked His Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the governments of (1) India, and (2) Pakistan, to ensure that religious minorities are not denied their right to vote in upcoming elections in those countries.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con, Foreign Office): We regularly engage with the Government of Pakistan to advance our key priorities and interests, including upholding democracy through inclusive elections.

Bishop of Southwark asks about current events in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank

The Bishop of Southwark received the following written answers on 14th February 2024:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark asked His Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Israel to ease its restrictions on the free movement of Palestinian people within the West Bank and from the West Bank to Israel.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con, Foreign Office): We expect Israel to fulfil its obligations as an occupying power, and we are concerned by the restrictions on the free movement of Palestinians in the West Bank. In our engagements with Israel, we have stressed to them the damage the restrictions on movement, access, and trade are doing to the living standards of ordinary Palestinians.

Bishop of Durham asks about growing tensions between Rwanda and Burundi

The Bishop of Durham received the following written answer on 14th February 2024:

The Lord Bishop of Durham asked His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of relations between Rwanda and Burundi and the closure of the border between the two countries; and what steps they are taking to help prevent further escalation of tension in the region. [HL2070]

Bishop of St Albans asks about unauthorised tankers in the English Channel

The Bishop of St Albans received the following written answers on 14 February 2024:

The Lord Bishop of St Albans asked His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of ships in the ‘dark fleet’ passing through the English Channel carrying Russian oil and oil products in (1) 2020, (2) 2021, (3) 2022, and (4) 2023.

Lord Davies of Gower (Con, DfT): Definitions of the ‘shadow fleet’ or ‘dark fleet’ vary and so it is not possible to provide accurate figures in relation to the English Channel. This practice has emerged since the introduction of the Russian Oil Services ban and Oil Price Cap Exception by the Price Cap Coalition of the G7, the European Union and Australia in December 2022.

Archbishop of York asks about reasons for increased policing of face-masks at protests

The Archbishop of York asked a question on the issue of face masks being worn at protests on 13th February 2024, following a government statement on new measures being introduced to police these activities:

The Lord Archbishop of York: My Lords, like others, I entirely share the views about war memorials and their desecration, and fireworks and flares—there is a lot that is sensible in this. On face coverings, what concerns me is the law which we often do not often think about—the law of unintended consequences. To those dissidents, I would add religious minorities to the list of those who may be concerned about this. I wonder whether the effect of this will be that more people will wear face coverings, not fewer, because they are concerned about facial recognition. I find it hard to understand why this should be a matter for the law. If somebody commits a criminal offence while on a march, we already have the powers to deal with them. If somebody on a peaceful protest chooses to wear a face covering, I find it hard to understand why that, in and of itself, is a problem. The Minister has explained that this will be used only under certain circumstances, but if I have heard him correctly it is around the “risk” of criminal activity and violence. We do not arrest people because we think that they might be doing something. If the protest is peaceful, why should somebody not wear a face mask? I am struggling to understand why this has become such an issue, and I am concerned about minority groups who could be adversely affected by this.

Archbishop of Canterbury asks about support for Jordan during current conflict in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank

The Archbishop of Canterbury asked a question on what support is being given to Jordan under the pressures of conflict in the West Bank on 13th February 2024, during a session of questions to the foreign secretary on the UK’s future recognition of a Palestinian state:

The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I welcome very strongly the continued emphasis by the Secretary of State on the two-state solution, and his condemnation of the Hamas terrorist group and his call for the liberation of hostages, as was echoed in a statement this morning from the Bishops. But it is not only in Gaza that we are seeing tragedy; we are seeing it in the West Bank, where it is almost forgotten that very large numbers of Palestinians have been killed by people who live in illegal settlements. One of the countries most affected by that is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. First, what support are His Majesty’s Government giving to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, given its vulnerability and its significant responsibility as guardian of the holy places? If it comes under significant pressure, that would widen the conflict appallingly and dramatically. Secondly, what are the practicalities for Jordan in preparing for or aiding a two-state solution, where the flow of refugees towards it—and it has taken something like half its population in refugees—would be a very threatening process for its destabilisation?

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: