The Bishop of Southwark received the following written answer on 15th April 2024:
The Lord Bishop of Southwark asked His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in correcting the errors in the Person Centric Data Platform and Atlas system, which have led to the merging of different immigration records.
Continue reading “Bishop of Southwark asks about errors in immigration data systems”On 20th March 2024, the House of Lords debated Commons Reasons and Amendments to the Safety of Rwanda Bill. Votes were held on motions to the bill, in which Bishops took part:
The Bishop of Chelmsford received the following written answer on 18th March 2024:
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford asked His Majesty’s Government what statistical evidence is held by the Home Office to support the claim made by former Home Secretary in the Daily Telegraph on 3 February that between 6 September 2022 and 13 November 2023, she “became aware of churches around the country facilitating industrial-scale bogus asylum claims”.
Continue reading “Bishop of Chelmsford asks about recent statements by former Home Secretary on churches and asylum claims”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:
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.
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.
Continue reading “Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill: Bishop of Bristol speaks in favour of amendments protecting armed forces workers and victims of modern slavery”The Bishop of Chelmsford received the following written answer on 30th January 2024:
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford asked His Majesty’s Government how many days is a GP on site on the Bibby Stockholm each week; and whether they have plans to review this level of provision.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con, Home Office): The medical facility on the barge is staffed 5 days a week to provide an onsite primary healthcare service with which the asylum seekers will register; this means individuals will not need to register with a local GP practice. The medical team has previous experience of working with asylum seekers.
Continue reading “Bishop of Chelmsford asks about presence of GPs on the Bibby Stockholm barge”On 22nd January 2024, the House of Lords debated a motion on whether the government should ratify the UK-Rwanda Asylum partnership. A vote was held on the motion, in which a Bishop took part:
The Bishop of Gloucester spoke in a debate on the government’s asylum agreement with Rwanda on 22nd January 2024, questioning the government’s decision to declare Rwanda a safe country would provide adequate protection to asylum seekers facing deportation:
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak today and thank the International Agreements Committee for its excellent report. I will just say that as Lord Bishops we take no position on this Bench based on tribal loyalty and we are not whipped. Instead, because of what our Christian faith teaches us about care for the stranger, we have spoken with one voice on these Benches.
I am focusing on the issues before us today; friends on this Bench will speak to wider points in the coming weeks, as the Bill is discussed. As has been said, this treaty is the central plank of the Government’s case that Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers. As others have commented, it is remarkable for the Executive to request that parliamentarians declare another nation state safe, and safe ad infinitum, on the basis that one drafted international agreement answers all the concerns of the Supreme Court. If Parliament proceeds to, in effect, substitute its judgment for that of the Supreme Court, where does that leave the constitutional principle of the separation of functions and what precedent is this setting?
Continue reading “Bishop of Gloucester questions decision to legislate over safety of Rwanda”The Bishop of Chelmsford asked a question about appropriate monitoring of the use of force against those detained under immigration regulations, particularly children and vulnerable adults, during a discussion on the inquiry into conditions at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre on 11th January 2024:
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, the inquiry found that the inappropriate use of restraint and force on detained persons suffering from mental illness was common at Brook House, with healthcare staff unaware of their responsibilities to monitor the welfare of detained persons during use of restraint. Regardless of this information, the Illegal Migration Act allows for the use of force against even children across the detention estate. What steps will be taken to ensure that the use of force is continually monitored and recorded for all detainees, but particularly vulnerable adults and children, to ensure that what occurred at Brook House is never allowed to happen again?
Continue reading “Bishop of Chelmsford asks about use of force by immigration authorities”
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.