Stop preaching at us, Welby!
Tory MPs hit out at the Archbishop of Canterbury after he attacks Rwanda scheme in Lords debate
THE Archbishop of Canterbury was blasted by Tory MPs last night after he said the Rwanda scheme was ‘leading the nation down a damaging path’.
Justin Welby told the unelected House of Lords that Rishi Sunak’s Safety of Rwanda Bill was ‘damaging Britain’s reputation and the rule of law’.
The Prime Minister has insisted the package of reforms will finally get Rwanda removal flights off the ground after human rights challenges left the policy wallowing in legal limbo for 18 months.
And last night it cleared its first major hurdle in the Lords after peers voted 206 to 84 against a motion designed to block it.
In a win for the Government, the amendment proposed by Liberal Democrat peer Lord German, which would have stopped the Bill progressing any further in the
‘Literally nobody is bothered’
Lords, was defeated in the Upper Chamber. It will now move on to committee stage.
Mr Welby’s remarks triggered a furious response from Tory backbenchers. One MP even suggested the intervention meant it was time to review bishops’ right to take part in parliamentary debates.
The archbishop told Lords: ‘We can as a nation do better than this Bill. With this Bill the Government is continuing to seek good objectives in the wrong way, leading the nation down a damaging path.
‘It is damaging for asylum seekers in need of protection... It is damaging for this country’s reputation. It is damaging in respect of constitutional principles and the rule of law. And most of all, it is damaging for our nation’s unity in a time when the greatest issues of war, peace, defence and security need us to be united.’
Mr Welby told peers it would ‘outsource our legal and moral responsibilities for refugees and asylum seekers’. He added that ‘sadly’ he would not vote in favour of a Liberal Democrat motion to ‘kill’ the legislation, as he wanted peers to revise the legislation. Three other Anglican bishops joined his criticism of the Bill. Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Martin Seeley, described it as a ‘deeply immoral solution’ which treated ‘victims as perpetrators’. And Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally appeared to compare Mr Sunak’s proposals with past human rights atrocities.
She said: ‘The Bill decides who is and who is not entitled to human rights. My Lords, has history not taught us the risk of that? This Bill disapplies parts of the Human Rights Act with respect to asylum seekers... This is a slippery slope.’
Bishop of Durham Paul Butler said: ‘I stand in agreement with the arguments already made regarding the domestic, constitutional, international standing and human rights concerns surrounding this Bill, and echo the belief we should not outsource our moral and legal responsibilities to refugees and asylum seekers.’
In response to the archbishop’s remarks, Tory MP Tom Hunt said he ‘is doing great harm to the Church by his repeated and clumsy political interventions’. He said Mr Welby ‘has no plan at all for how the small boats crisis can be solved and speaks only in meaningless platitudes’. Mr Hunt added: ‘Both myself and others who are very much engaged with everyday people on this issue are utterly sick of his sermons. Sadly I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that the position of the bishops in the Lords should be reviewed.’
Lee Anderson MP, who resigned as Tory deputy chairman earlier this month to vote in favour of toughening the Rwanda measures, said: ‘Literally nobody on the streets of my constituency is bothered about our international reputation when it comes to illegal migration. I walk by Lambeth Palace most days which I am sure could house hundreds of illegal migrants in the archbishop’s second home. When hypocrites like the archbishop open up the doors to every church building in the UK,
then he may be taken seriously.’ He added: ‘The only thing damaging our reputation within our own country is people like the archbishop, who says one thing and does another.’ Alp Mehmet, of Migration Watch UK, said the ‘majority’ of the British public are ‘fed up to the back teeth with the likes of his Grace all but encouraging people to come here... and claim asylum in the knowledge they will be allowed to stay even if their claim is rejected’.
The Bill aims to declare Rwanda a safe country and overcome objections raised by the Supreme Court, which declared the scheme unlawful in November.
In the Lords debate yesterday, Tory peer and House Of Cards author Lord Dobbs said Labour and the Lib Dems had no alternative to the Bill, and failing to tackle illegal migration would lead to ‘catastrophic’ consequences. However, former Tory Cabinet minister Lord Kenneth Clarke said the Bill was a ‘step too far’ and he was unlikely to back it unless it was ‘substantially amended’.
Earlier, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: ‘This Bill is a key part of how we stop violent criminal gangs targeting vulnerable people that has led to too many deaths in the English Channel.’
Peers will now vote on amendments to the Bill in March before sending it back to the Commons.
■ Yesterday the Government’s own human rights watchdog joined the assault on the Bill, telling peers it ‘risks breaching’ the European Convention on Human Rights and other international treaties. The Equality and Human Rights Commission said the proposed legislation ‘displaces the role of the courts’.
THE story of Obada Abd Rabbo is both heartbreaking and instructive. A 14-yearold migrant from Syria, he drowned a few yards off the French coast, trying to reach the UK in a small inflatable.
In the early hours of January 14, he was among a group of asylum seekers herded by traffickers on to the moving boat. In the scramble, Obada fell overboard. Unable to swim and without a lifejacket, he succumbed to the icy water, as did his brother Ayser, 24, and three others.
How many more must die before we get serious about ending these lethal crossings? Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda scheme offers a partial solution, yet our political class fights it tooth and nail.
In the Lords yesterday, dozens of sanctimonious peers queued up to decry it. The Archbishop of Canterbury was typical. The plan was bad for this country’s reputation, he said, and ‘damaging for asylum seekers in need of protection’.
However, if it were up and running, Obada and Ayser may not have attempted the crossing and could still be alive.
They travelled 2,500 miles from Damascus to Calais by air, land and sea, choosing to come to England because another brother had been granted refugee status here. His wife had already joined him, and he was also hoping to bring their parents.
No one can blame them for seeking a better life in the UK, but it was a choice. Had they simply been fleeing persecution, they could have settled in one of several safe countries en route. Opting instead to make the Channel crossing ended in death and devastation for Obada’s family.
The Rwanda scheme aims to break the traffickers’ business model and stop history repeating itself. Shouldn’t any truly compassionate person welcome that?