Last minute battle over Rwanda
Right up until the last minute Bishops of the C ofE were trying to fight the Safety of Rwanda Bill in spite of an earlier commitment by the Archbishop of Canterbury that it was time to bow to the seniority of the House of Commons.
The two bishops were the Bishop of Chelmsford and the Bishop of Derby who voted in favour of an amendment tabled by Lord Anderson of Ipswich which would stipulate that the secretary of state must consult a monitoring committee to verify the ongoing safety of Rwanda. The government were of course committed to keeping the game of ping pong between upper house and lower house going until they won. Lord Anderson eventually withdrew his amendment.
The trouble is that we all knew weeks ago that the Bill would go through. I have my own issues with the Rwanda plan, primarily the fact that asylum seekers must be able to apply for asylum in the country they arrive at, so even if they are sent to Rwanda they should still have the possibility of coming to the UK should their claim succeed in Rwanda.
The Archbishop seems to think that the problem is outsourcing. But in the Syria and Afghanistan resettlement schemes UK asylum decisions were outsourced to the UNHCR. The EU has outsourced asylum claims to Turkey.
The Archbishop of Canterbury upped the ante from the very beginning describing the policy as the “opposite of the nature of God”. I have never been able to understand why? A country has the right to decide who crosses its borders especially when they are coming from a safe third country. Unless you think the place Rwanda is the opposite of the nature of God, then why is there a theological problem with this?
By setting up the Rwanda policy as an existential clash between church and state, the bishops have done themselves no favours. The Conservative party which is far more likely to support the C of E’s constitutional arrangements is far less likely to vote to keep bishops in the second chamber under the next Labour government.
And the next Labour government is far more likely to reform the House of Lords and do away with the bishops altogether. Can you imagine there being any sort of outcry from the public about a policy of disestablishment now with the Bishops so rabidly opposing a policy which is apparently quite popular in the country.
It is ultimately a matter of proportion. The Bishops had every right to oppose, but must they do so right up to the final hour knowing they would lose? It just looks party political, doesn’t it?
Church of England Newspaper Editor’s Comment April 25th
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
