migration – Page 2 – The Church of England in Parliament

Bishop of St Albans asks about long-term immigration and asylum plans

The Bishop of St Albans asked a question on the government’s long term asylum and immigration strategy on 20th November 2023, following a government statement regarding the Supreme Court Judgement on the proposed Rwanda Immigration Partnership:

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, we on these Benches are quite clear that we cannot have open borders, that we must stop people risking their lives, and that we need to stop the people smugglers. But we are also clear that we cannot export our moral responsibilities towards those seeking sanctuary on to the shores of another country, be it Rwanda or anywhere else. This is such a long-term, complex, worldwide problem that we need a long-term strategy for tackling this refugee crisis, in concert with our global partners, so while the Government are proposing some immediate new laws, what are they doing to address the scale of the problem, to provide long-term certainty? Will the Minister commit to developing and publishing a long-term strategy so that we can all try to engage with this in a much more measured way?

Bishop of Durham stresses importance of family reunification in migration cases

The Bishop of Durham spoke in response to a motion to take note of the Family Migration (Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report) on 20th September 2023, drawing attention to the work of the Archbishops Commission on Families and Households and to the importance of family reunification:

The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register, both with the RAMP project and RESET. I am pleased to speak today following the helpful and insightful report from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. The concept of family, which we all know is much more than just a societal description—it is a fundamental building block of our communal life as a nation—serves as an excellent basis for the review of migration policy. I refer the Minister to the Love Matters report from the Archbishops’ Commission on Families and Households, which I co-chaired, which has research on how family is now understood in our nation. I commend my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the committee for their important work.

Bishop of St Albans draws attention to repercussions of climate change in the Horn of Africa

The Bishop of St Albans spoke in a debate on the effects of climate change on migration on 14th September 2023, drawing particular attention to the food and water security crisis in the Horn of Africa:

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for securing this debate, for his excellent and comprehensive introduction and particularly for setting out so clearly some of the work undertaken by international bodies. I will not repeat any of that, because he spelt that out very clearly for us. As he noted, the climate crisis is at the heart of famines, conflicts and food insecurity across the globe today. We have already seen the disastrous effects of climate change in many parts of the developing world.

I want to focus on a few thoughts, particularly on the Horn of Africa, where we see this perhaps most clearly at the moment. Indeed, a terrible natural humanitarian disaster is unfolding before our very eyes, with thousands now fleeing the region in search of food security and water. It is vital to develop an effective strategy to mitigate the impacts of climate change in the developing world. The Horn of Africa is currently facing a climate-induced drought and a serious food crisis affecting more than 36 million people, more than half of whom are children. UNICEF estimates that up to 5.7 million children need urgent treatment for acute malnutrition.

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.

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:

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?

Bishop of Chichester asks about missing asylum-seeking children

On 10th July 2023, the Bishop of Chichester asked a question on the plans for accommodation of asylum seeking children who are found after going missing from Home Office accommodation, and whether the government could confirm that such children would be returned to local authority care rather than the care of the Home Office:

The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, our duty of care in the welfare of children is provided for in a number of ways: the Children Act is one, as is the routine of Ofsted inspections of schools and children’s care homes. Can the Minister confirm that, if an asylum-seeking unaccompanied child is found after going missing from Home Office accommodation, they will not be returned to hotel accommodation but instead will be returned to local authority care, where all their rights under the Children Act can be met and the quality of their accommodation will be subject to Ofsted regulation and inspection?

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: