The Government’s Illegal Migration Bill has been denounced by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the House of Lords.
The legislation that seeks to send immigrants to Rwanda, according to Justin Welby, is “morally unacceptable.”
Speaking in the House of Lords, he claimed that the measure is a “short-term fix” that “risks great damage to the UK’s interests and reputation at home and abroad, let alone the interests of those who need protection.”
Of course, we cannot accept everyone, and we should not do so either, but this Bill has absolutely no understanding of the long-term and global scale of the crisis that the globe faces, according to Mr. Welby.
‘It ignores the reality that migration must be engaged with at source as well as in the channel. As if we as a country were unrelated to the rest of the world.’
Mr Welby added: ‘It is isolationist, it is morally unacceptable and politically impractical to let the poorest countries deal with the crisis alone and cut our international aid.
‘Our interests as a nation are closely linked to our reputation for justice and the rule of law and to our measured language, calm decision and careful legislation. None of those are seen here.
‘This nation should lead internationally, not stand apart’.
Immigration minister Robert Jenrick accused Mr Welby of being ‘wrong on both counts’.
He told the BBC’s World At One: ‘It’s important that the House of Lords plays its constitutional function scrutinising legislation but I strongly disagree with some of the comments that have been heard in the House of Lords today. This is the right approach.
‘We have to tackle illegal migration and we have to bring control back to our borders.’
Asked about the archbishop’s comments in the Lords earlier on Wednesday, Mr Jenrick said: ‘Well, he’s wrong on both counts.
‘Firstly, there’s nothing moral about allowing the pernicious trade of people smugglers to continue… I disagree with him respectfully. By bringing forward this proposal we make it clear that if you come across illegally on a small boat you will not find a route to life in the UK.’
He added: ‘That will have a serious deterrent effect.’
House Of Cards author Lord Dobbs also rejected the Archbishop’s criticism, stressing the need to tackle the people smugglers.
The Tory peer and former adviser to the Thatcher government said: ‘They trade in lies, they trade lives.
‘It is our moral obligation to stop them, to bring an end to the unimaginable pain of mothers and fathers watching their children drowning off our shores in the channel.
‘No amount of handwringing or bell ringing is going to do that.’
He is one of the 90 peers expected to raise issue with the proposed bill in its second reading within parliament.
The intervention marked his second major rebuke of the Government’s treatment of migrants and asylum seekers.
The clampdown has been prompted by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s pledge to ‘stop the boats’ bringing migrants across the English Channel.
More than 6,000 migrants have crossed the channel so far in 2023.
To cope with the numbers, the Government plans to use disused military camps and a barge as accommodation centres.
But critics argue the flagship immigration reforms break international law and threaten modern slavery protections.
The Archbishop, in a speech to the Lords last year, warned against ‘harmful rhetoric’ that treats those arriving in the UK as ‘invaders’.
He has previously called for a better system based on ‘compassion, justice and co-operation across frontiers’.
Downing Street defended the bill as ‘compassionate and fair’ after the proposed legislation was condemned by the Archbishop.
Asked whether the Prime Minister believed Justin Welby’s intervention was appropriate, his official spokesman said: ‘Obviously it’s right that the Lords are able to scrutinise this Bill.
‘The Government for its part will continue to robustly defend it.
‘We think it is about an issue of fairness and it is not right to allow people to be preyed upon by criminal gangs.’
Downing Street refused to be drawn on the Archbishop’s criticism specifically but added: ‘The Prime Minister does not think it is compassionate or fair to allow people who are jumping the queue over some of the most vulnerable people who are seeking to come here through safe and legal routes.’
Asked whether the Bill was morally acceptable, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: ‘We think it is the compassionate and fair thing to do.’
The Bishop of Durham also appeared alongside other peers in the Lords, and quoted Jesus as he urged ministers to ensure migrant children will not be kept in detention for long periods of time.
The Rt Rev Paul Butler said migrant children needed the ‘highest levels of safeguarding written into the letter of the law’ to protect them.
Explaining his worries about the Bill, he told peers: ‘The state will view a child or a pregnant woman first and foremost as individuals subject to immigration control, not as an innocent child or a vulnerable mother due to give birth.
‘We need to ask – what about the Government’s duty to protect?’
The Bishop added: ‘I am reminded of Jesus’ words: It would be better to have a millstone around the neck and be cast into the sea than to cause a little one to stumble.
‘This responsibility needs to bear upon us heavily.’
Ahead of the legislation returning to the red benches, Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Justice Secretary Alex Chalk have urged peers not to stand in the way of the ‘will of the British people’ by blocking the UK Government’s migration policies.
Writing jointly for Times Red Box, the two Cabinet ministers said: ‘We urge the House of Lords to look at the Illegal Migration Bill carefully, remember it is designed to meet the will of the British people in a humane and fair way, and back the Bill.’
But in a rare parliamentary move, Liberal Democrat Lord Paddick, a former senior police officer, has proposed a so-called fatal motion to the proposed legislation, aimed at stopping it in its tracks at its first Lords hurdle.
His amendment argues the draft legislation would see Britain fail to meet its international law commitments, allow ministers to ignore the directions of judges and undermine ‘the UK’s tradition of providing sanctuary to refugees’, while failing to tackle the backlog of asylum cases or people-smuggling gangs.
But the blocking bid is destined to fail without the backing of the main opposition.
A Labour source said: ‘We’re not supporting the motion. If successful, which they never are, the Government could just Parliament Act the Bill in the next King’s Speech and peers would lose the opportunity to make any amendments.
‘It is therefore an irresponsible way to deal with legislation that has already gone through the the elected House.’
The two Green Party peers will be among those supporting the fatal motion, with Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb saying: ‘This Bill is illegal because it breaks international law and should be opposed for that reason alone. It is also immoral and plain nasty.
‘It effectively makes all asylum seekers criminals unless they are from a few select countries where the UK has approved pathways and safe routes for immigration such as Hong Kong.’
Lady Jones added: ‘It is hugely disappointing that Labour are failing to oppose this legislation outright, but unsurprising given their recent track record of caving in on Voter ID and the Public Order Bill. If we are to save our democracy, we need an opposition that is up to the job.’