SUPPORT from bishops within the House of Lords for amendments to the Government’s Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill has delayed the laws, which now won’t be reconsidered until after Easter.
On Wednesday afternoon, peers voted against the Government on seven amendments to the Bill, including one recommend by the Labour Party requiring that any laws must have “due regard for domestic and international law”.
The Bishops of Chelmsford, Manchester, Worcester, and Southwell & Nottingham took part in Wednesday’s votes, but none spoke in the talk.
All 4 bishops voted in favour of the amendment requiring the Government to make sure compliance with the law, in addition to further amendments, including one specifying that Rwanda can only be considered a “secure country” when certain arrangements specified by the Rwanda Treaty have been made, and only as long as those arrangements remain in place.
The Government was also defeated on an amendment to preclude the removal to Rwanda of youngsters undergoing age assessment, which was passed by 249-219, and on one to forestall the deportation of victims of contemporary slavery, which was passed by 251-214.
On Monday, the Commons had rejected proposed changes from the Lords (News, 8 March, 15 March), and sent the draft back to the Upper Chamber for further consideration in a legislative game of “ping pong”.
But Opposition MPs, along with peers, sought assurances that Rwanda was a secure country and would guarantee the human rights of latest arrivals. The House of Lords can be asked for migrants to have increased rights under domestic law to appeal, and tighter protection under international law.
Speaking to the Church Times concerning the amendments before Wednesday’s debate, the Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, said: “None of those would obstruct the Bill’s passage, but would help reduce some its harmful effects. It isn’t the job of the Lords to dam Government Bills but to enhance them, and if the Lords backs these amendments I hope Government uses the chance to reflect rigorously on them.”
A lot of the proposed changes had been sponsored by the Bishop, including an amendment moved in her name on the committee stage, questioning “a everlasting judgement on the protection of Rwanda”.
“As well as raising essential questions on the rule of law, the Lords are asking the Commons to reassess about whether we should always be sending to Rwanda victims of contemporary slavery, unaccompanied children, and those that could have helped the UK’s armed forces overseas in places comparable to Afghanistan,” she said.
The welfare of kid migrants was of particular concern; Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani was keen to see safeguarding embedded within the Bill and avoid the chance of sending unaccompanied children to Rwanda in error.
“Good intent isn’t any basis for safeguarding, and sending children before the Treaty is fully implemented could be a dereliction of our duty to them,” she said, in one in every of the debates.
The Government has been pushing the deportation initiative as a flagship policy for 2 years. The 280 Conservative members of the Lords have been requested by Conservative whips to be present and vote the laws through, in effect to defeat the proposed amendments. In total, 220 voting Conservative peers are required to offset the combined forces of Labour and Liberal Democrat peers, alongside bishops sitting as Lords Spiritual.
