rule of law – The Church of England in Parliament

Bishop of Norwich highlights importance of rule of law for faith and society

The Bishop of Norwich spoke in a debate on the importance of the rule of law on 26th November 2024, highlighting the intersection of the rule of law with faith communities and the need to uphold human rights legislation, particularly with regards to immigration and asylum:

The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Smith, for bringing this debate forward and congratulate her on her outstanding maiden speech. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Laing of Elderslie, on hers.

While I feel an utter novice in this area, especially following such informed speeches, I am acutely aware that your Lordships have a role in reviewing decisions of the General Synod of the Church of England and passing—or not—our Measures into law. As such, our ecclesiastical laws are also laws of the land. The Church of England values its participation in this process, and, by virtue of that, engaging with any debate on the rule of law that strengthens the ordering of a safe, healthy and flourishing society.

Bishop of Gloucester asks about ICC judgement regarding Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories

The Bishop of Gloucester received the following written answer on 2nd September 2024:

The Lord Bishop of Gloucester asked His Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take in response to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice issued on 19 July regarding (1) Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, and (2) its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill: Bishop of Manchester welcomes legislation and raises issue of maintaining the rule of law

The Bishop of Manchester spoke at the second reading of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill on 13th May 2024, supporting the intent of the bill and commenting on the importance of safeguarding the rule of law whilst ensuring the swift exoneration of the victims of the Horizon scandal:

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I admit to being a little nervous as a non-lawyer entering a debate that has already heard from so many distinguished minds. Some may think that they have heard enough from the lawyers and do not need to hear from me.

I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill. I concur with other noble Lords in hoping that it will be swiftly passed into law. The many victims of this long-running scandal and injustice must now benefit without further undue delay. As the noble Lord said in opening this debate, Parliament is not the usual route by which we overturn wrongful convictions. I echo others today, as well as what I have said in debates on other matters, in believing that we need to tread very carefully when acting in ways that move us on to territory more normally occupied by the courts and the judiciary. That is particularly important in Britain, because we give such huge weight to precedent. The Minister has, I am pleased to note, assured us that this Bill should not be considered a setting of precedent, and others have concurred. However, I think that that aspect of what we are doing merits, albeit briefly, deeper consideration. What one Government do today, no matter how warily, may be drawn on by future Governments in ways that stretch the original intentions well beyond breaking point. Our best defence against that, perhaps our only defence, is to set down very clear principles, not merely general assertions, at the outset.

Votes: Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

On 6th March 2024, the House of Lords debated the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill in the final day of the report stage. Votes were held on amendments to the bill, in which bishops took part:

Votes: Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

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:

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill: Archbishop of Canterbury supports amendments on rule of law

On 4th March 2024, the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke in a debate on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, in support of a group of amendments seeking to ensure compliance with the rule of law in the application of the bill:

The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, at this stage of the debate on this group, we are looking at two distinct things. One is the question of whether Rwanda is safe. If, as the noble Lord just said, it is unquestionably safe, it seems to me that these amendments are not a problem because, at that point, the Secretary of State can easily say, “It’s safe”, and they will have evidence of that, for this and future Governments.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill: Bishop of Chelmsford points out importance of equality before the law

On 14th February 2024, the Bishop of Chelmsford spoke in a committee debate on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, in support of amendment amendment 33 to the bill, which specified the route to be taken by Parliament if a court declares the bill incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998:

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I support Amendment 33 from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, to which I am a signatory. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the amendment and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the role of Parliament if a higher court were to declare this legislation to be incompatible with the convention right, or indeed a number of rights.

We should not forget that the Government have been unable to make a statement in the Bill that it is compatible with convention rights. As the Government nevertheless wish Parliament to proceed with the Bill, it seems prudent to probe what the role of Parliament would be in determining how any potential incompatibility should be addressed. In fact, the Attorney-General has said in the Government’s own legal position paper that it should be for Parliament to address any determination of incompatibility by the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, has eloquently set out the motivation for this amendment, and I agree that what it does is simply to expound what parliamentary sovereignty would look like in this context.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill: Bishop of Southwark supports amendments on rule of law

On 12th February 2024, the House of Lords debated the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill in committee. The Bishop of Southwark spoke in support of an amendment to the bill tabled by Baroness Chakrabarti which would ‘add the purpose of compliance with the rule of law to that of deterrence,’ pointing out the dissonance between the bill’s intention of replacing the Supreme Court’s judgement on the safety of Rwanda and the actual situation in the country for vulnerable asylum seekers sent there:

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I support Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Amendments 2, 5 and 34, tabled by the same noble Lords and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I also offer supportive comments on Amendment 7 to Clause 1, tabled by the noble Viscount, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. The most reverend Primate is present but cannot attend the entirety of this debate and the right reverend Prelate cannot be with us this afternoon.

It will be a very slight augmentation of the wisdom of this House to know that we on these Benches do not favour the outsourcing of asylum claims to other countries or territories—which is rather different from what the noble Lord, Lord Howard, was saying about the outsourcing of power. We recognise, however, that the courts have deemed this lawful in certain circumstances and that we have a Bill from the other place which is designed to deal with a particular designation that the Supreme Court deemed to fall outside our obligations under the law.

Illegal Migration Bill: Bishop of Chelmsford supports amendments to ensure compliance with international legislation

On 24th May 2023, the House of Lords debated the Illegal Migration Bill in its first day of Committee. The Bishop of Chelmsford spoke on the details of the bill concerning “safe and legal routes”, in support of two amendments:

amendment 4, tabled by Lord Paddick, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, Lord Etherton, and Baroness Chakrabarti, which would replace clause 1 of the bill with a requirement that bill not violate any international legal obligations
amendment 84, tabled by Lord Alton of Liverpool, aimed at ensuring compliance with international legislation against human trafficking

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I support Amendments 4 and 84; I also have a great deal of sympathy for Amendment 148. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the independent Commission on the Integration of Refugees. I have been listening with great interest to the expert points raised by particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but also other noble Lords.

I am sure noble Lords will be aware that Clause 1, as it stands, is a narrative introduction that sets the scope and intent of the Bill as a whole. Crucially, it defines the purpose of the Bill as

“to prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes”.

I am sure we can all sympathise with the desire to make the migration system thoroughly orderly and predictable in nature, but I question whether this is plausible and whether what it entails is indeed desirable, particularly if it cannot guarantee compatibility with those international treaties, as we have heard. The sort of circumstances of catastrophe and persecution that drive refugees do not tend to allow for orderly or safe departures. I know this from my own personal experience but also from having spoken to many asylum seekers and refugees over the years.

Bishop of Leeds asks about recent statements on the rule of law by the UK

Following a government statement on Russian aggression towards Ukraine on 10th January 2022, the Bishop of Leeds asked a question on perceptions on attitudes regarding the rule of law in the UK:

The Lord Bishop of Leeds: My Lords, I note that the Statement refers several times to the rule of law, and I am delighted to hear the commitments made by the Minister and the Government. However, it has not gone unnoticed in the Russian press that there have been threats to the rule of law, not least by the Government here proposing legislation that might undermine international treaties. The Statement says:

“The free world must rise to meet the moment. Britain is stepping up and leading by example.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/1/22; col. 170.]

That is not necessarily how it is seen elsewhere. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. I do not ask the question to be awkward; I am simply concerned about it.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: