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.
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. The Bishop of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich spoke in the debate, supporting amendments on assessing Rwanda’s safety, establishing right of return for asylum seekers after relocation, and protection for victims of modern slavery:
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich: My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendments 1, 3 and 5 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, to which I have added my name. I do not believe that we can enshrine in law a statement of fact without seeing and understanding the evidence that shows such a statement to be true, in particular when such a statement of fact is so contentious and for which the evidence may change. Ignoring for a second the strange absurdity of such declarations, we must also consider the real impact that this could have on the potentially vulnerable people whom the Government intend to send to Rwanda. As my most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is in his place, said at Second Reading,
On 19th February 2024, the Bishop of Chelmsford tabled her her amendment 91 to the Safety of Rwanda (Immigration and Asylum) Bill, which would insert a sunset provision for the Bill to expire two years after commencement unless Parliament decides that it should remain in force and the Government has produced a report containing evidence that the Rwandan government is fulfilling its Treaty obligations:
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, in moving Amendment 91 I am grateful to my friends the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Blunkett, for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is in his seat and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was in touch with me today to apologise for not being able to be here this evening.
I want to keep my comments as short as possible, given the hour and the fact that some of the issues have already been debated in Committee. However, there is merit in discussing the value of a sunset provision, now that each of the Bill’s clauses has been scrutinised.
The fundamental issue, which I fear has not yet been fully addressed by the Government Benches, is that we are being asked to make a permanent judgment on the safety of Rwanda on the basis of the yet to be implemented arrangements outlined in the treaty. This is, of course, against the opinion of our highest court. Furthermore, it is simply not arguable on any rational basis that Rwanda is safe at present, when, as the Minister himself has conceded, Rwanda is moving towards having the required protections in place.
During a debate on the Safety of Rwanda (Immigration and Asylum) Bill on 19th February 2024, the Bishop of Chelmsford spoke in support of two amendments tabled by Lord Dubs which sought to prevent the erroneous relocation of unaccompanied children to Rwanda:
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I too support Amendments 54 and 55, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for giving us the opportunity to ensure that the voice of the child is heard in this debate. For we should never forget that both accompanied and unaccompanied children, and those who may well be found to be children, are in the scope of the Bill, which the Government cannot confirm is compatible with convention rights under the ECHR. I spoke earlier in Committee on the universality of human rights, but to remove children from their reach is simply unforgivable. For this reason, I repeat the noble Baroness’s request that a children’s rights impact assessment be published as a matter of urgency.
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:
amendments tabled by Baroness Chakrabarti restoring the jurisdiction of domestic courts “by rendering the future safety of Rwanda (evidenced by UNHCR advice) a rebuttable presumption and restoring the ability for UK courts and tribunals to grant interim relief…”
amendments in the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Baroness Chakrabarti which would seek to ensure that that proper regard is given to interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in accordance with international law
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.
On 14th February 2024, the House of Lords debated the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill in committee. The Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich spoke in support of amendment 36 to the bill, on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The amendment would leave out clause 3 of the bill, in order to “limit the Bill’s disapplication of the Human Rights Act to immunising the Secretary of State from challenge of his decision to lay positive UNHCR advice.” The Bishop also pointed out the risks associated with disapplying the universal principle of human rights to asylum seekers:
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord from Suffolk. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury regrets that he cannot be in his place to speak to Amendment 36, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness who has just briefly left, and to which he has added his name. I will speak briefly and again repeat the moral point.
The amendment leaves out Clause 3, where the Bill disapplies large chunks of the Human Rights Act and replaces it instead with one very limited disapplication of the Act to allow the Secretary of State to lay positive UNHCR advice before Parliament. This seems a necessary corrective to the wider issues in the Bill and supports the other amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, to Clause 1 of the Bill, to give the UNHCR a role in providing positive advice on the safety of Rwanda before any asylum seekers can be sent there.
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.
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, during a debate on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, the Bishop of Bristol spoke in support of amendments 19, 21, 25 and 28 to the bill on behalf of the Bishop of Manchester, relating to the proper implementation of the Rwanda Treaty, and introducing further safeguards relating to verifying Rwanda’s safety:
The Bishop of Bristol
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester regrets that he cannot be here today to speak to Amendments 19, 21, 25 and 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to which he has added his name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for setting out the case clearly, and I am particularly grateful to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, as he has made the case so powerfully.
The Bishop of Manchester
My right reverend friend and I are concerned, not as lawyers but as citizens, about the constitutional precedent the Bill sets. The role of the judiciary as distinct from the Government and Parliament must not be infringed. Parliament creates laws but judges and juries are responsible for the finding of facts. Where the Supreme Court has ruled that Rwanda is not safe, it is an abuse of Parliament’s powers, as we have just heard, for it to attempt to declare otherwise.
We are concerned that the Bill represents a dangerous step. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, therefore attempt to preserve the important principle that facts should be considered by the courts. We must surely be able to take into account credible evidence that Rwanda is not a safe country.
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.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.