Justin Welby said the Illegal Migration Bill does not provide «a long-term, strategic view of migration issues.» the Telegraph
The Archbishop of Canterbury was told by ministers that he was «wrong» in arguing that their law on illegal migration was «morally unacceptable» and «politically impractical».
Speaking to the Lords, His Eminence Justin Welby warned that this could damage the UK's reputation at home and abroad, fail to take a long-term and strategic approach to migration issues, and undermine «international cooperation rather than seize the opportunity for the UK to show leadership.»
He said that international refugee protection «is not an inconvenient obstacle that can be circumvented by any necessary legislative means.»
His intervention in the second reading of the bill was his first in a legislative debate in three years , although he had previously denounced the proposed deportation of migrants to Rwanda as «impious». This provoked an angry reaction from ministers and high-ranking Tories.
Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick said the archbishop was «wrong on both counts», calling the bill «morally unacceptable» and «politically impractical». “There is nothing moral about continuing the pernicious human smuggling trade. I want it to stop, and this bill is the only way to do that,” he said.
alternatives. With all due respect, I disagree with him.”
Lord Dobbs, a former adviser to the Thatcher government, said it was the government's moral duty to end the «unimaginable pain» of parents watching their children drown in the English Channel. “Neither wringing hands nor ringing bells can do this,” he said.
"I can’t understand the ethical nature of this strange proposal that unelected parliamentarians should, without any real discussion to destroy the bill passed by our elected House of Commons.»
Ministers are poised to push Rishi Sunak's bill through the Lords, despite statements by some colleagues on Wednesday that it will either be blocked, failed or heavily amended when it reaches its committee stage from May 24. The ministers pass the bill the lords can «fix the hell».
Lord Dunnett, the former head of the army, said the «perverseness» of the bill offended the moral standing of the people and could damage Britain's global standing. He warned that there was a danger that the bill «could fail» because it could run out of time in Parliament, given the number of amendments.
Conservatives «do not support»
Lord Carlisle, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said it was «more likely» the bill would be defeated on third reading if the government resisted the amendment. “There are quite a few Conservative colleagues who do not support the bill as it stands,” he said.
Former Solicitor General Lord Garnier, a fellow Conservative, said: “The meaning of the bill and the provisions that deny us access to the law and pit us against the European Court of Human Rights are designed to appeal to a specific audience. I don't like it, but it will probably win.»
Government sources said ministers were willing to use the Parliament Act, under which the House of Commons can overrule the Lords' decision to force the bill into the statute book. It would take at least two rejections of the bill by the Lords to allow its use, but that would mean ministers would have to wait 13 months to implement it.
The law has been invoked just seven times, most recently to ban hunting in 2004, but constitutional experts say the Lords tend to back down, especially if the Parliament Act is threatened. «I would be surprised if the government didn't offer more concessions,» said one expert.
Former Conservative Chancellor Norman Lamont warned against too many «loopholes, exceptions and exit clauses» in legislation to deal with the small boat crisis; that it becomes inoperable. He said crossing the English Channel for migrants was a «hot problem» and the bill was «part of the solution.»
The archbishop said the government's proposals, which effectively bar anyone who arrives illegally from seeking asylum in UK, failed to offer a long-term solution or address the global nature of the migrant crisis.
“This is a piecemeal bill… It is isolationist. It is morally unacceptable and politically inadvisable to allow the poorest countries to deal with the crisis alone and reduce our international assistance,” he said.
He said the bill represented a “drastic departure” from the Refugee Convention, which the UK played a key role in the development of the project in 1951. “Even if this bill manages to temporarily stop ships, and I don’t think it will, it will not stop conflict or climate migration,” he said.
Свежие комментарии