Illegal Migration Bill 2023 – The Church of England in Parliament

Bishop of St Albans speaks in debate on problems faced by inadmissible asylum seekers

The Bishop of St Albans spoke in a debate on the issues faced by those deemed inadmissible to the UK asylum system on 9th May 2024, raising the issue of unaccompanied asylum seeking children and the threat of exploitation under the current system:

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for obtaining this debate on a very important area that, although it has, sadly, become very party political, is somewhere that we need to get real and use everyone’s creative thinking to try to find solutions. This is affecting virtually every country, to a greater or lesser degree, in Europe; it is not going to go away; we are dealing with the lives of vulnerable people; and I hope we can try to think together about the way forward. I have a certain reticence to speak as this is an area where some of the legislation is extremely complex, and I hope I will bring some light rather than more confusion to it.

The passing of the Illegal Migration Act, alongside the Rwanda plan, appears to have created much more confusion and overlapping statuses for asylum seekers. We now have asylum seekers whose applications were made before 28 June 2022 and the Nationality and Borders Act, those whose applications were made from 28 June 2022 to 6 March 2023, the group between 7 March to 19 July, and then those who applied after 20 July 2023. As I understand it, all are affected by slightly different legislation.

Illegal Migration Bill: Archbishop of Canterbury speaks on motion to ensure scrutiny of government migration policy

On 17th July 2023, during the final day of debate on the Illegal Migration Bill, the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke on his motion J1, which would aim to ensure that government policy on migration is considered and debated by the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the future. The motion was not taken to a vote:

The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Motion J1. The amendment put forward under Motion J1 aims to ensure that, not only now but in the future, the Government’s policy is examined. As the Minister said, the current Government’s concentration is on international co-operation and working, although with some hesitation at times, with groups such as the UNHCR and others internationally. The amendment would ensure that that strategy—the way the Government are working—and the context in which migration is being considered are brought in front of both Houses, simply for a debate, with an analysis of the situation by the Government.

The Minister has said very clearly that he does not wish this to happen on the grounds that it is being done now, but this Bill is not about today. It will shortly be an Act, and when it is an Act it will last years—it may last many years. Who knows what will happen in elections in the future, whether they are next year, in 10 years or whenever? We cannot guarantee what kind of Government there will be at that time. That is why we have Acts of Parliament and a system of law which requires changes in the case that people wish to change the way in which this country operates.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Bristol tables motion to limit detention of vulnerable migrant children

On 17th July 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in the final day of the report stage. The Bishop of Bristol spoke in support of her motion E1, which would amend the bill to ensure that children could not be held in detention for longer than 120 hours, or for longer than a maximum of a week with authorisation of a Minister of the Crown:

The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I shall speak to Motion E1. This Motion, as with Motion D1, concerns vulnerable children being deprived of their freedom—in this case, those accompanied children. I am disappointed that, regardless of the strength of opinion across this Chamber, the Government are still not proposing to set limits on the detention of children in the Bill, whether they are accompanied or unaccompanied. Despite the comments of the Minister about the possibility of fake families earlier in the debate, I wish to press the point.

Votes: Illegal Migration Bill

On 17th July 2023, the House of Lords debated Commons amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill. Votes were held on motions relating to amendments, in which Bishops took part:

Illegal Migration Bill: Archbishop of Canterbury presses amendment urging government to establish plan for tackling refugee crises and human trafficking

On 12th July 2023, the Archbishop of Canterbury moved his motion Y1 in response to a Commons amendment to the Illegal Migration Bill. Motion Y1 would retain the Archbishop’s amendment to the bill that would require a government commitment to the development of a 10 year strategy for tackling refugee crises and human trafficking:

The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for what he said. Like him, I will be brief.

Immigration and asylum, as the long series of debates on this Bill has shown, is an extraordinarily divisive issue. Speaking as someone who has been deeply embedded in east Kent for more than a decade now, I know from experience the extent to which communities are divided and individuals are torn between their desire to do what they know is right and care for those arriving, and their apprehension about the impact on local communities. One understands both those feelings very well.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Manchester tables motions to limit detention of children and ensure safe accommodation

During a debate on Commons Amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill on 12th July 2023, the Bishop of Manchester spoke in support of his motion K1, which would include an amendment to limit the amount of time a child could be kept in detention under the bill, and his motion N2, on safe accommodation for unaccompanied children:

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his support for my Motion K1, even though I suspect we would both prefer his stronger Motion. I also welcome the government amendments that would allow an unaccompanied child to seek bail after eight days if they have been detained for removal.

I struggle to see why similar rules should not apply to all children. Hence, Motion K1 seeks to rectify the unreasoned omission of children who are with their families. It proposes a 24-hour extension to the current statutory 72-hour time limit for detention of children with families. Hence, the detention of these children would not be indefinite but be for no more than 96 hours or, if a Minister personally approved it, for no more than seven days. This seems a fair and reasonable change and I urge the Government to seriously reflect on it. I really cannot see that it is morally justified not to have equal provisions for children with families and those who are alone; one child is not different from another.

Votes: Illegal Migration Bill

On 12th July 2023, the House of Lords debated Commons amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill. Votes were held on these amendments, in which Bishops took part:

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Manchester tables motion to maintain safeguards for unaccompanied children

On 12th July 2023, the House of Lords debated Commons amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill. The Bishop of Manchester spoke in support of motion A1, moved by Baroness Chakrabarti, to insert a new clause into the bill which would stipulate that the UK must abide by international obligations, and in support of his motion U1, which would propose that removal of putative children should be delayed until judicial review of disputed age assessments had been completed:

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I support Motion A1 but will speak more particularly to Motion U1 in my name, to which the noble Baroness just referred. It proposes that if an age-assessment judicial review is in progress, removal should be delayed until its completion. I welcome comments from Ministers that those subject to an age dispute will be accommodated in an age-appropriate setting here in the UK, but can the Minister confirm that will be the case in a third country? Will Rwanda, for example, be informed that a young person is subject to an age dispute, and will the Rwandan Government then be required by the UK to keep that person separate from other adult residents and to supervise them properly as a child until the courts have made a judgment?

Illegal Migration Bill: Archbishop of Canterbury urges creation of 10-year strategy for tackling refugee crises and human trafficking

On 5th July 2023, the Archbishop of Canterbury moved his amendment 168A to the Illegal Migration Bill, requiring the Secretary of State to implement a 10 year strategy for collaborating internationally to tackle refugee crises affecting migration by irregular routes, or the movements of refugees, to the UK, and for tackling human trafficking to the UK:

The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 168A, tabled in my name. I shall also speak to Amendment 168C, which is consequential to it. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for co-signing it. This amendment is a combination of the two amendments that I put forward in Committee. It requires the Secretary of State to produce a 10-year strategy for tackling the global refugee crisis and human trafficking in collaboration with international partners. As I explained the rationale behind this in detail in Committee, I will be very brief.

In aid of this amendment I want to quote the Foreign Secretary, who spoke to an Italian newspaper a couple of days ago. He said that

“there needs to be an international response to this because it is an inherently international issue”.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Durham tables amendment to mitigate caps for safe and legal asylum routes

On 5th July 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in the final day of the report stage. The Bishop of Durham spoke in support of his amendment 162, which would exclude 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 proposed in the bill:

The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I again note my interests as laid out in the register. I will speak to Amendment 162. In Committee, I explained the well-intentioned nature of this amendment and hoped it would have afforded the Minister the opportunity to clarify that any cap placed on safe and legal routes would exclude current named schemes already in operation. I appreciate the Minister’s comments. He said:

“The cap will not automatically apply to all current and new safe and legal routes that we offer or will introduce in the future.”—[Official Report, 4/6/23; col. 1980.]

But, with respect, how can local authorities reflect on accommodation provision for new routes without excluding their current commitments from this assessment?

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: