Rwanda bill: ‘We can as a nation do better’, says Archbishop of Canterbury

Published

1 year ago

January 29, 2024

admin

The Archbishop of Canterbury has again slammed the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, telling the House of Lords: “We can as a nation do better than this bill.”

Speaking in the upper chamber, the Most Rev Justin Welby said the government was “continuing to seek good objectives in the wrong way”, leading the country down a “damaging path” by insisting on pushing forward with its legislation.

And he accused ministers of seeking to “outsource our legal and moral responsibilities for refugees and asylum seekers”.

Politics live: Tory MP quit six-figure minister role because he ‘couldn’t afford mortgage’

MPs approved the Rwanda bill earlier this month, which aims to deport asylum seekers coming to the UK on small boats to the African nation as a deterrent from making Channel crossings.

But Rishi Sunak faced a backlash from his own benches, with around 60 Tory rebels voting to toughen up the law and 11 of his MPs voting the whole bill down.

Now it is facing its next parliamentary hurdle with the scrutiny of peers, many of whom have already publicly spoken out against the bill – especially around its ability to disapply human rights law and to ignore rulings made by the European Court of Human Rights to halt deportation flights.

The plan has already faced its first defeat in the upper chamber, after Lords voted against the ratification of the UK’s new treaty with the country – part of the government’s plan to address the fears of the Supreme Court, who ruled the scheme unlawful late last year.

The bill covering the overall plan is expected to pass its second reading this evening, mostly due to a convention for the unelected chamber not to create barriers to legislation from elected MPs at this stage.

But there is a plot by Liberal Democrat peers – who total 80 in the Lords – to ignore the practice and vote against it anyway.

And it is not stopping prominent figures in the Lords from speaking out against the plan.

Mr Welby, who as one of the 26 bishops of the Church of England is allowed to sit in the Lords, said the Rwanda bill “obscures the truth that all people, asylum seekers included, are of great value”.

He added: “It is damaging for asylum seekers in need of protection and safe and legal routes to be heard. 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, my lords, 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 said the “right way forward though is to enable the unity on ends to be translated into a unity on means”, adding: “The challenge of migration is… long term and global, and so must our response be.

“We need a wider strategy… for refugee policy which involves international cooperation and equips us for the far greater migration flows, perhaps 10 times greater, in the coming decades as a result of conflict and climate change and poverty

“Instead this bill offers only ad-hoc one off approaches.”

While Mr Welby said he would not vote against the bill at second reading, he and his spiritual colleagues take their “revising role seriously”.

Welby preaches to the converted

Jon Craig

Chief political correspondent

@joncraig

To a majority of members of the House of Lords, the government’s Rwanda bill is an unholy abomination.

Last week, their lordships voted by 214 votes to 171, a majority of 43, to delay ratification of the Rwanda treaty until safeguards have been implemented.

And in his speech during the second reading debate on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, Mr Welby accused Rishi Sunak of a “pick and choose approach” to international law.

The archbishop began his speech by telling peers the heart of the Christian tradition was that strangers were welcomed.

“Jesus said ‘I was a stranger and you invited me in’,” he said.

And there were loud cries of “hear, hear!” from around the Lords’ chamber when the Archbishop declared: “We can as a nation do better than this bill.”

No-one could accuse the archbishop of contradicting himself on this issue. He led opposition in the Lords to the Illegal Migration Bill, which resulted in a series of defeats for the government.

He has previously described the Rwanda policy as “against the judgement of God” and he served notice in this debate that he’s prepared to play a full part in their lordships’ attempts to pull the Rwanda bill apart in the coming weeks.

Rishi Sunak has urged peers not to block “the will of the people”.

But Lord Welby’s argument, essentially, is that the will of God trumps the will of the people. And many of their lordships appear to agree.

Speaking for the government, Tory minister and Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Dirleton stood by the bill, saying it was a “shared objective” of peers to “stop the boats” and “doing nothing is not an option”.

He said: “There is nothing generous about letting the status quo continue, that would only serve the deplorable people smugglers to facilitate these dangerous crossings.

“It would only put more lives at risk and it would continue to strain our communities and our public services.”

But there were jeers from some peers when Lord Dirleton claimed the new legislation made it clear Rwanda was “a safe country”, and further unsettled noises when he said, while “novel”, the provisions in the bill could be implemented “in line with both our domestic law and our international obligations”.

Labour’s shadow minister, Lord Ponsonby, outlined his party’s opposition to the bill, telling peers: “This is the third time in as many years that the government has asked this house to consider legislation to stop boat journeys and to reform the asylum system.

“The third year of being presented with increasingly rushed, unworkable and inhumane solutions to the problem of small boats and asylum.”

But despite Labour’s issues – especially over the bill “threatening the UK’s compliance with international law” – Labour said it would not join the Lib Dems in voting it down at this stage.

However, the peer leading the plan to vote down the bill today, former leader of the Welsh Lib Dems, Lord German, said: “The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees… is completely contrary to how we should be acting as a country with a reputation for protecting individuals rights and freedoms where the rule of law is upheld.

“It was the settled will of this house last week that the treaty cannot yet by ratified, so how can this house consent to a bill which relies on that treaty having the approval of this house?”

Politics

US-UK trade deal ‘done’, says Trump as he meets Starmer at G7

Published

4 hours ago

June 17, 2025

admin

US-UK trade deal 'done', says Trump as he meets Starmer at G7

The UK-US trade deal has been signed and is “done”, US President Donald Trump has said as he met Sir Keir Starmer at the G7 summit.

The US president told reporters: “We signed it, and it’s done. It’s a fair deal for both. It’ll produce a lot of jobs, a lot of income.”

As Mr Trump and his British counterpart exited a mountain lodge in the Canadian Rockies where the summit is being held, the US president held up a physical copy of the trade agreement to show reporters.

Several leaves of paper fell from the binding, and Mr Starmer quickly bent down to pick them up, saying: “A very important document.”

Sir Keir said the document “implements” the deal to cut tariffs on cars and aerospace, adding: “So this is a very good day for both of our countries – a real sign of strength.”

Mr Trump added that the UK was “very well protected” against any future tariffs, saying: “You know why? Because I like them”.

However, he did not say whether levies on British steel exports to the US would be set to 0%, saying “we’re gonna let you have that information in a little while”.

What exactly does trade deal being ‘done’ mean?

The government says the US “has committed” to removing tariffs (taxes on imported goods) on UK aerospace goods, such as engines and aircraft parts, which currently stand at 10%.

That is “expected to come into force by the end of the month”.

Tariffs on car imports will drop from 27.5% to 10%, the government says, which “saves car manufacturers hundreds of millions a year, and protects tens of thousands of jobs”.

The White House says there will be a quota of 100,000 cars eligible for import at that level each year.

But on steel, the story is a little more complicated.

The UK is the only country exempted from the global 50% tariff rate on steel – which means the UK rate remains at the original level of 25%.

That tariff was expected to be lifted entirely, but the government now says it will “continue to go further and make progress towards 0% tariffs on core steel products as agreed”.

The White House says the US will “promptly construct a quota at most-favoured-nation rates for steel and aluminium articles”.

Other key parts of the deal include import and export quotas for beef – and the government is keen to emphasise that “any US imports will need to meet UK food safety standards”.

There is no change to tariffs on pharmaceuticals for the moment, and the government says “work will continue to protect industry from any further tariffs imposed”.

The White House says they “committed to negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes”.

Mr Trump also praised Sir Keir as a “great” prime minister, adding: “We’ve been talking about this deal for six years, and he’s done what they haven’t been able to do.”

He added: “We’re very longtime partners and allies and friends and we’ve become friends in a short period of time.

“He’s slightly more liberal than me to put it mildly… but we get along.”

Sir Keir added that “we make it work”.

The US president appeared to mistakenly refer to a “trade agreement with the European Union” at one point as he stood alongside the British prime minister.

Mr Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on countries in April. At the time, he announced 10% “reciprocal” rates on all UK exports – as well as separately announced 25% levies on cars and steel.

In a joint televised phone call in May, Sir Keir and Mr Trump announced the UK and US had agreed on a trade deal – but added the details were being finalised.

Ahead of the G7 summit, the prime minister said he would meet Mr Trump for “one-on-one” talks, and added the agreement “really matters for the vital sectors that are safeguarded under our deal, and we’ve got to implement that”.

Politics

Abortion debate reignited as Sky poll reveals public’s view on decriminalisation ahead of Commons vote

Published

4 hours ago

June 17, 2025

admin

Abortion debate reignited as Sky poll reveals public's view on decriminalisation ahead of Commons vote

A small group have gathered in the main square in the centre of Birmingham, and it’s a real mix of people. There are older figures from the community, young students, as well as groups of friends and some families.

On closer inspection, you can make out candles and rosary beads, signalling it’s some kind of vigil. As hymns start to be sung, it’s revealed to be a gathering to protest against abortion.

Nearly 90% of this country is pro-choice, but a small, vocal minority is becoming more organised in the UK.

Energised by the Trump administration, young and old activists in the UK anti-abortion movement have become more motivated to get their message across.

And all this is happening just as abortion laws in the UK could be about to go through the most significant change in over 50 years.

Nearly three years on from the ruling reversing Roe v Wade – a landmark case that once made abortion legal in the US – the age-old abortion debate has become even more political in the UK.

A breakthrough moment came when Vice President JD Vance criticised the UK laws on abortion buffer zones – areas outside clinics where police are allowed to use their discretion to stop anyone harassing women entering abortion clinics.

Explained: What are the UK’s abortion laws?

One of the cases cited by the vice president was that of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce.

She’s a lifelong anti-abortion activist who has been handing out leaflets outside clinics for 20 years. Since buffer zones came into force, she now visits to silently pray once a week. In 2022, she was arrested outside an abortion clinic for silent prayer and taken to court, although the charges were later dropped.

She also received £13,000 in a civil claim against West Midlands Police, which did not admit liability.

“They actually asked me what I was doing, and I said, well, I’m just physically standing here. I might be praying in my head, but nothing out loud. And on that basis, they made an arrest. I was heavily searched, I was taken to the police station, locked in a police cell for hours before being questioned under caution. And then, eventually, I went to court.

“I believe that abortion centres are like the modern-day Calvary. This is where the innocent are being put to death. I might not be physically interacting with anybody or stopping anyone or talking to anyone, just to be there in prayer is really, really important from a spiritual perspective.”

For people like Ailish McEntee, any type of protest is a distraction, which she says is not wanted by the women who come to the clinic she works at in London. She’s hoping that this week MPs will go further on abortion laws and pass an amendment through the Commons to decriminalise abortion for anyone seeking an abortion up to 24 weeks.

“The law itself works very well for the majority of people, but for those individuals in those kind of really high-risk domestic abuse situations… they maybe can’t make it to a clinic, they might seek abortion care from those kind of unregulated providers.

“So this amendment would take away that decriminalisation of women themselves. And it’s a really strange part of the law that we have.

“I think particularly in recent years, with Roe v Wade overturning and Donald Trump winning the election again, I think it’s really pushed forward the anti-choice rhetoric that has always been there, but it’s absolutely ramping up.”

According to polling by Sky News and YouGov, 55% of people are in favour of the law changing to stop women being criminalised for their own abortion before 24 weeks.

Surprisingly though, 22% said they believe women should be investigated or imprisoned for abortion after 24 weeks.

Stella Creasy is one of the MPs laying down an amendment to try to decriminalise abortion.

“There’s no other health care provision that we see with a criminal foundation in this way and it has a very real practical consequence.

“We’ve seen some incredibly vulnerable women and girls who didn’t even know that they were pregnant who have late-term miscarriages finding themselves with police officers rather than counsellors at their hospital beds finding themselves under suspicion for months, if not years, and I just don’t think that’s where the British public are at.”

But Rachel is concerned by this amendment. She runs sessions at the UK arm of Rachel’s Vineyard – a faith-based organisation originally founded in the United States, dedicated to, in their words, “healing the trauma of abortion”. They frame abortion not as a medical procedure, but as a harm to mothers and fathers.

“With all sudden deaths, whether you are 80 years of age or you’re 26 weeks born, you know, out of the womb, and you’ve died, you’ve sadly died, we need to be able to investigate that. For us to have compassion, we need to have justice.”

In Northern Ireland, where the decriminalisation battle was won in 2019, I met Emma, who fought on the campaign at Alliance for Choice.

She says police searches were a daily routine for her, and since 2019, she has been able to continue helping women navigate abortion care without the threat of being investigated.

Orfhlaith Campbell should have been one of the lucky ones. She was able to seek a medical abortion at 23 weeks in Northern Ireland, two years after it had been decriminalised, but she says she had to fight to get the care she needed.

She was on the cusp of the medical time limit when she suffered a premature rupture of membranes, went into labour and was told she would likely develop sepsis.

“I would have died and my daughter was dying, I could feel her dying, and it was a compassionate choice. When we got the post-mortem after, the infection had went into her wee body too, and she had nuclear debris in her lungs. If she had survived at all, it would have been a very, very painful existence.

“So yes, I had to break through the stigma that had been ingrained in me in Northern Ireland. I had to break through legal fights and the barriers that were being put in place. But I was strong enough to know that that was compassionate and that healthcare was needed both for me and her.”

The UK is majority pro-choice, and our polling shows the majority are for decriminalising abortion.

But activists who are against abortion are energised by the changing landscape of the debate in the US.

As parliament sets to vote on two amendments on abortion laws this week and potentially pulls in one direction, activists will likely only get louder and become more effective at getting their message across.