- By Paul Seddon and Becky Morton
- BBC News
May 9, 2023
Updated 52 minutes ago
video caption,
The Archbishop of Canterbury argues against the Illegal Migration Bill but Lord Howard backs it.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has attacked the government’s migration plans, saying they risk “major damage” to Britain’s reputation.
Justin Welby said the illegal migration law would not stop small boat crossings and violated “our moral responsibilities” to refugees.
He was speaking as the bill began what was expected to be a rocky passage through the House of Lords.
But Immigration Secretary Robert Jenrick urged his colleagues to support the legislation.
He added that the archbishop had been “wrong” in his criticism, saying: “There is nothing moral about allowing the pernicious trafficking of people smugglers to continue.”
“I want that to stop and this bill is the only way to get that done,” he told BBC Radio 4’s World at One.
He added that critics of the bill, including opposition parties, had “proposed no viable alternatives” to halting cross-Channel traffic.
The archbishop’s targeted intervention came during a long, highly charged debate on the bill in the House of Lords on Wednesday.
The bill cleared its first parliamentary hurdle in the upper house after an attempt by the Liberal Democrats to block it was defeated by a vote of 179 to 76.
The bill, presented in March, is a key part of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s plan to “stop” small boats crossing the English Channel – which he has made a priority ahead of the next general election.
This places a legal obligation on the Home Secretary to arrest and deport those arriving in the UK illegally to Rwanda or another ‘safe’ third country.
This has sparked outrage from opposition parties and charities, who argue the bill is unworkable and could violate international law.
“Short-term solution”
The archbishop, one of nearly 90 peers who have signed up to speak for the debate, told Lords the bill is “a complete failure” and takes a long-term view of migration challenges around the world.
While acknowledging that existing international law needed updating, he said the bill represented a “dramatic departure” from existing conventions and would undermine international cooperation on the matter.
He described the bill as a “short-term solution” and said it “risks great harm to Britain’s interests and reputation at home and abroad”.
He added it was “morally unacceptable and politically impractical” that the UK would deal with the poorest countries with asylum seekers while the UK cuts international aid spending.
Baroness Helic, a former adviser to William Hague when he was Foreign Secretary, described the government’s plans to stop small boats as “a race to the bottom”.
The baroness, who fled war-torn Bosnia to Britain at the age of 23, argued that the illegal migration law was “a total ban on asylum” and questioned its morality.
But other colleagues were also in favor of the bill, including the Conservative Lord Forsyth, who said he had “not yet heard any solution” from critics of the bill to prevent boat crossings.
He congratulated the archbishop on his “fantastic job” at Saturday’s coronation, but added that while he agreed with him on spiritual issues, he disagreed on the bill.
He said he agreed that further examination was needed, but that it was “unreasonable to criticize the government for trying to address this issue”.
Last month the government made a number of concessions to various parts of the Conservative Party to help it get into the House of Commons.
But senior colleagues have told the BBC they expect significant opposition in the House of Lords – where the government does not have a majority.
Although colleagues did not vote on amendments during the debate, it was their first chance to have a say on the bill.
Liberal Democrat MP Lord Paddick tabled a rare “motion of rejection” that would have prevented the bill from moving through the House of Lords and forced the Government to reintroduce it from the ground up in the House of Commons.
But the motion met with a clear rejection from the Lords: MPs rejected it by 179 votes to 76 and a majority of 103.
Lord Paddick said: “This bill is only pain and no gain. This is a matter of principle.”
Labor MP Lord Coaker said that while his party opposed the bill, the Liberal Democrats’ motion was not the best way to tackle it.
He said Labor would “do everything we can” to amend the bill at a later date and pledged the party would not be “intimidated” into accepting the House of Commons ruling.
Concerns about modern slavery
The government has also faced harsh criticism from senior Tories, including former Prime Minister Theresa May and former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, over the bill’s potential impact on victims of modern slavery.
The bill would remove the temporary protections from deportation from the UK currently granted to suspected victims of modern slavery or human trafficking while their case is being considered.
Critics say this may deter victims from going to the police.
There have also been concerns, including among Conservative MPs, about new powers in the bill to have children jailed on suspicion they are responsible for deportation.
Ministers have agreed to work with Conservative MPs on a deadline for the detention of unaccompanied children.
To get the bill through the House of Commons, ministers also pledged, under pressure from backbenchers, to establish new safe and legal routes for asylum seekers.