 |
LONDON — Rishi Sunak’s plans for tackling cross-Channel migration are “morally unacceptable,” the Archbishop of Canterbury warned Wednesday — as Sunak’s landmark piece of legislation faced trouble in the House of Lords.
Justin Welby, who is the most senior cleric in the Church of England and was intimately involved in the coronation of King Charles III this weekend, has previously criticized the U.K. government over its immigration policy.
But his first, stridently critical, intervention on Sunak’s Illegal Migration Bill marks a public blow for the prime minister as he tries to pass the legislation unscathed in Britain’s unelected upper chamber.
“Of course, we cannot take everyone and nor should we,” Welby said in the House of Lords. “But this bill has no sense at all of the long term … It ignores the reality that migration must be engaged with at source, as well as in the channel.”
“It is morally unacceptable and politically impractical to let the poorest countries deal with this crisis alone and cut our international aid,” he added.
Responding to the the cleric’s remarks, Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick told the BBC there was “nothing moral about allowing the pernicious trade of people smugglers to continue,” and said he “respectfully” disagreed.
Political interventions by the archbishop and other religious leaders are relatively rare in the U.K. Welby indicated in his speech that other bishops are likely to join in attacking the bill later Wednesday.
Sunak unveiled the Illegal Migration Bill in March as part of efforts to cut the number of people using small boats to make the dangerous crossing from French to British shores. The prime minister has made “stopping the boats” one of his five political priorities.
The proposed law effectively bans those arriving in the U.K. on small boats from claiming asylum altogether, and sharply curtails routes to challenge U.K. asylum decisions. It would place a legal duty on the home secretary to detain and remove those arriving in the U.K. through irregular means to a safe third country. Critics — including representatives of the European Union and the United Nations refugee agency — have argued the bill would breach international law by ignoring the U.K.’s refugee obligations.
“This bill fails to take a long-term and strategic view of the challenges of migration and undermines international cooperation, rather than taking an opportunity for the U.K. to show leadership as we did in 1951,” Welby said, pointing to the U.N.’s 1951 Refugee Convention.
Though the measures were passed by MPs last month, they are likely to face a more turbulent time in the Lords — which, as the U.K.’s second legislative chamber, has the power to send heavily amended legislation back to the Commons for further consideration.
‘Will of the British people’
Ahead of the Lords beginning their scrutiny Wednesday, Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Justice Secretary Alex Chalk warned peers not to defy the “will of the British people” by blocking or delaying the legislation.
“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,” the senior Cabinet ministers wrote in a joint op-ed for the Times.
While peers are likely to amend the bill later Tuesday, one attempt to block it altogether looks set to fail.
Liberal Democrat peer Brian Paddick proposed a so-called fatal motion — which aims to kill the legislation in its tracks but could raise fresh constitutional questions about the role of the House of Lords, which was deprived of its power to veto legislation in the 20th century.
“This bill is a low point in the history of this government and we should not allow this bill to proceed any further,” Paddick told the second chamber as he proposed the motion.
That move is unlikely to succeed after the opposition Labour Party’s home affairs spokesperson Vernon Coaker warned his party’s bloc of peers would not back it. Labour has argued that such a move would only prompt the government to force the legislation through without the chance for the Lords’ input.
