CONVERTING to Christianity is “not like flicking a switch” but a gradual, often costly process that shouldn’t be held against asylum-seekers, the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Sarah Mullally, has said.
The Archbishop-designate was speaking during a debate on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which accomplished its Report Stage within the House of Lords on Tuesday. She was opposing an amendment from Baroness Maclean of Redditch which might require an annual report on what number of asylum-seekers were granted asylum based on their religion or religious conversion.
This was, the Baroness said, based largely on conversations with the Revd Matthew Firth — a former Priest-in-Charge of St Cuthbert’s, Darlington, who left to hitch the Free Church of England in 2020 — who made claims that the Church was complicit in a “conveyor belt” of asylum-seeker conversions (News, 16 February 2024).
Bishop Mullally said that the amendment was “motivated by a desire to make a problem of something that just isn’t a problem”; and, if passed, this could be a “concerning threat” to freedom of belief within the UK. The Select Committee had found no evidence of Mr Firth’s claims abuse of the system (News, 15 March 2024).
The data couldn’t be easily extracted, she said. “There are many more problems to be solved in our asylum system before addressing this data point.”
Bishop Mullally continued: “I imagine that there are some asylum-seekers who might well consider that converting to Christianity will help their asylum claim. One can hardly be surprised about that, when some politicians keep implying that that’s the case.”
But “clergy will not be naïve,” and had been trained to discern “through teaching, discussion, reflection, commentary and prayer, whether an individual, whoever they’re, is prepared for a public confession of religion through baptism. . . It just isn’t the job of clergy to evaluate asylum claims. The Home Office has stated that evidence from clergy or church members in an asylum case doesn’t determine the end result of a claim.”
Without the support of Lord Hanson, the Minister of State for the Home Office, the amendment was not moved.
Earlier within the day, the Bishop of Chelmsford, Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, had attempted to amend the “good character” clause within the Bill, which was modified by the Government through retrospective secondary laws in order that the strategy utilized by a migrant to succeed in to the UK, even in the event that they did in order a toddler, was included as a part of their character assessment.
“This”, Dr Francis-Dehqani argued, “is a fundamental cultural shift and introduces an element that bears no correlation to someone’s moral character, their price and value or the contribution they may make to British society.”
The determining factor, she said, should as an alternative be “the explanation behind their travel in pursuit of sanctuary” — and that is what her amendment would achieve.
She told peers: “This latest clause would ensure the nice character requirement just isn’t applied contrary to the UK’s international legal obligations across a variety of instruments. It also ensures that an assessment of excellent character may not bear in mind an individual’s irregular entry or arrival to the UK in the event that they were a toddler, and it might only be taken into consideration to the extent laid out in guidance published and in force on the time of an adult’s irregular entry or arrival.”
Many asylum-seekers had few, if any, options to use for asylum before making a journey, she said. She asked the Minister whether the Government could provide pre-authorised travel routes to avoid illegal journeys.
During the Committee stage of the Bill, the Minister had, Dr Francis-Dehqani said, made it clear that citizenship shouldn’t be afforded to those that have broken the foundations and entered illegally. “But I respectfully argue that the refugee convention makes it clear that it just isn’t illegal to travel to assert asylum; hence, the state rightfully considers the merits of every claim.
“Why, then, should a legal act, forced upon many in essentially the most desperate of circumstances, be used as a future test of their character and stop them from ever truly becoming a full member of British society? It just isn’t just too high a bar but an unattainable and, I suggest, an immoral one.”
The guidance must also be specific in ensuring that the foundations didn’t apply to children, she said. “Given that illegal entry is generally considered to be outside a toddler’s control, most applicants wouldn’t be held accountable for immigration breaches that occurred once they were a minor.”
Speaking personally about her vocation, having arrived within the UK as an asylum-seeker when she was 14, she said: “Without British citizenship, this journey wouldn’t have been possible — indeed, I’d not be standing before noble Lords today. If citizenship is to be seen as a privilege, not a right, then surely it’s a present that we must always not close off for refugees merely on the premise of how they travelled here. Let us not forget that we’re talking about individuals who have a longtime and legal right to stay on this country.”
The former Archbishop of York Lord Sentamu said that he was persuaded by these arguments. Also speaking from personal experience, he said that he had arrived within the UK “extremely indignant” in 1974, having suffered internal bleeding “from the blows received from Amin’s soldiers” (the previous President of Uganda, Idi Amin).
He continued: “This whole query of excellent character might be very subjective and misleading when the person first arrives, particularly once they come as children. We all have the grace and skill to grow out of a number of the not-so-good bits of us, but we still remain a really rough diamond. We are never fully polished until we undergo the gate of death.”
Legislation based on good character didn’t understand this scale of growth, he suggested.
Lord Hanson disagreed. “British citizenship is a privilege, not a right,” he said. “The requirement for a person to be of excellent character is a statutory one which goes back to 1981 and the British Nationality Act. It is taken into account reasonable and proportionate when assessing whether to grant British citizenship.”
The good character policy didn’t apply to children under the age of ten. Dr Francis-Dehqani interjected to ask what the logic for this age limit was. Lord Hanson said: “Given that illegal entry is generally considered outside a toddler’s control, most youngsters wouldn’t be held accountable for his or her immigration breach.”
Dr Francis-Dehqani said that she had not received the assurances that she hoped for, including that “a toddler’s right to naturalisation shall be safeguarded” under the present guidance.
Put to the vote, Bishop’s amendment was lost by 195 to 89.
The third reading of the Bill is attributable to happen on Monday.
