On 4th March 2024, the House of Lords debated the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration Bill) in the first day of the report stage. Votes were held on amendments to the bill, in which Bishops took part:
On 19th February 2024, the House of Lords debated the Safety of Rwanda (Immigration and Asylum) Bill in committee. The Bishop of Chichester spoke in the debate, in support of two sets of amendments on the jurisdiction of the courts, pointing out the practical issues associated with offshoring of asylum seekers:
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, my noble friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury regrets that he cannot be in his place today to speak to the amendments in this group tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale. I wish to associate my remarks with theirs and to emphasise how important the restoration of the jurisdiction of the domestic courts is in considering also UNHRC evidence and the ability to grant interim relief. This is no mere technicality. This jurisdiction might make the difference between sending an asylum seeker to Rwanda while their claim, or an aspect of their claim, is pending or not doing so.
Continue reading “Safety of Rwanda (Immigration and Asylum) Bill: Bishop of Chichester supports amendments on role of the courts in asylum system”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.
The Bishop of St Albans received the following written answer on 29th January 2024:
The Lord Bishop of St Albans asked His Majesty’s Government what support they are providing to those UK citizens names as co-conspirators in the trial of Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Jimmy Lai.
Continue reading “Bishop of St Albans asks about support for UK Citizens named in criminal proceedings in Hong Kong”
The Bishop of Gloucester received the following written answers on 4th September 2023:
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester asked His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the pilot, launched in March 2021, with 15 magistrates’ courts, involving the Ministry of Justice, HMCTS and the probation service, of an alternative delivery model to increase the number of cases receiving pre-sentence reports.
Continue reading “Bishop of Gloucester asks about data collection in criminal justice”
On 12th May the House of Lords Debated the Queen’s speech. The Bishop of Southwark spoke in the debate:
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, the late Sir Winston Churchill said:
“To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.”
I consider that a useful maxim for any Government’s programme, both to build up and, in modern speak, to level up. With that maxim in mind and looking at the Government’s concern in relation to the Human Rights Act, I say that the recently introduced measures on migration and further proposals on public order will inevitably impact adversely on the welcome of refugees, including Ukrainians, and on legitimate protest. I regret that we did not hear of specific action to insulate homes to tackle the energy crisis and measures to alleviate rising poverty, not to mention action on the climate crisis—in particular, an end to new fossil fuels. We must not allow these vital changes to be eclipsed by the Russian military escapade and its consequences in Ukraine.
However, important as that all is, I wish to focus on those elements in the gracious Speech that promise to address the balance between the operation of the courts and the legislature and to do so through a Bill of Rights. I note with appreciation the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and other noble Lords.
Continue reading “Queen’s Speech: Bishop of Southwark speaks on legislature and the courts”On 27th April 2022, the House of Lords debated amendments to the Judicial Review and Courts Bill. There was a vote on an amendment in which one Bishop took part.
On 31st March 2022, the House of Lords debated Commons Amendments to the Judicial Review and Courts Bill. There were votes on several amendments, in which Bishops took part.
During a debate on compensation for postmasters affected by the Horizon IT Scandal on 10th January 2022, the Bishop of Leeds asked whether legal costs were being paid for these postmasters:
The Lord Bishop of Leeds: My Lords, will the Minister say whether, following on from that question, those who are currently negotiating compensation with the Post Office for some form of redress are having their legal costs paid, or are they expected to pay them and then try to claim them back later?
Continue reading “Bishop of Leeds asks about legal costs for postmasters affected by miscarriage of justice”On 22nd November 2021, the House of Lords debated the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill. The Bishop of Leeds spoke in the debate, supporting an amendment tabled by Baroness Coussins which would establish minimum qualifications for court appointed interpreters:
The Lord Bishop of Leeds: My Lords, I endorse every word of what the noble Baroness just said. In a previous incarnation—that is probably the wrong phrase to use; I am mixing my religions—I was a professional linguist in Russian, German and French, working in government service. One of the things you learn as a professional linguist is that language goes deep. This is not simply a matter of picking someone off the street who can order a pint in a Spanish bar; you are dealing with the stuff of people’s lives. Surely accuracy is vital, for the sake of not only clarity of understanding but justice itself.
Continue reading “Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill: Bishop of Leeds supports amendment on qualifications for court interpreters”
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.