Days after the king’s coronation, the archbishop condemns the British migrant plan

Last Saturday, he stood before a throne in Westminster Abbey and gingerly placed a crown on the head of King Charles III. On Wednesday, he stood up in the gilded chamber of the House of Lords to denounce the government’s new migration bill as “morally unacceptable and politically impractical”.

It’s been a momentous week for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Justin Welby – one that cements his distinctive place in British life. Not only the senior bishop of the Church of England, the man who crowns monarchs, he is also a member of the unelected upper chamber of the British Parliament.

Archbishop Welby was praised for his confident handling of the coronation ceremony. But his fervent intervention in the immigration debate has drawn a bitter response from ministers and other Conservative politicians, who say the law is needed to curb the number of migrants illegally crossing the Channel in small boats.

“He is wrong on both counts,” Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick told the BBC. “There is nothing moral about allowing the pernicious trade of people smugglers to continue,” he said. “I respectfully disagree with him.”

“By bringing this proposal forward,” Mr Jenrick continued, “we are making it clear that if you come over illegally on a small boat you will not find a route to life in the UK. That will be a serious deterrent.”

It is not uncommon for Archbishop Welby, 67, to weigh in on political or social justice issues. He has spoken out about same-sex marriage, tax policy, rising utility bills and what he called the divisive effect of Brexit. But his speech in the House of Lords carried extra weight because the migration bill is a mainstay of the government’s legislative agenda, and the bill, which would remove almost all asylum seekers arriving in small boats, was met with hostility in the chamber.

Given the Conservative Party’s majority in the House of Commons – currently 64 seats – the House of Lords is unlikely to torpedo the legislation. But it can slow down the process by adding amendments to the bill and sending it back to the House of Commons, where the Conservatives would then have to push it aside.

Archbishop Welby’s words made the front pages of British newspapers, making him an influential voice in one of the country’s most fraught policy debates. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government has been heavily criticized by human rights experts for threatening to detain migrants who arrive in Britain illegally. on some flights to Rwandawith which Great Britain has a relocation agreement.

But the crackdown on immigration remains popular with pro-Brexit voters who helped the Conservative Party win a landslide victory in the 2019 general election. Mr. Sunak must call the next election by January 2025. For that reason, political analysts said they expected Mr. Sunak must continue to pass the legislation despite criticism from human rights groups or religious leaders such as the archbishop.

“The fascinating thing is that the Church of England was once nicknamed the Tory party in prayer,” said Liberal Democratic Party Member of the House of Lords Ros Scott. “But the Tory party has drifted to the right, while the Church of England has remained in place or has drifted a little to the left. It is very interesting to see the bishops disagree with the government on this issue.”

Archbishop Welby argued that the legislation was fundamentally flawed because it failed to take into account the causes of mass migration, from war to climate change. As an expression of social policy, he said, the bill falls short of our history, our moral responsibility and our political and international interests.

“We can’t take everyone and we shouldn’t,” he said. “But this bill has no sense of the long term and the global nature of the challenge facing the world. It ignores the reality that migration must be tackled at source as well as in the channel, as if we as a country had no connection with the rest of the world.”

For all his criticism, Archbishop Welby called for the legislation to be changed rather than thrown out. The Liberal Democrat gentlemen put forward a motion to reject the bill altogether, which received little support.

Archbishop Welby, a former oil company employee who only began training as a priest in 1987, has long sought to balance religious tradition with a changing society. He supports the ordination of women as bishops and included them in the coronation ceremony. But other proposals have met with mixed success.

In the days leading up to the coronation, he proposed extending the oath of homage to the new king to millions of people across Britain and its distant realms, rather than just members of the aristocracy.

But the gesture backfired, with critics on social media saying it was presumptuous and political in a democracy. Archbishop Welby hastened to clarify that the oath was purely voluntary.

The Archbishop’s attack on the migration bill has drawn new attention to the role of the Church of England in the House of Lords. Bishops have held seats in the chamber for centuries, dating back to their status as landowners in the early English Parliament. There are now 26 bishops with seats, five of whom, including Archbishop Welby, receive automatic ranks (the rest are elected by seniority).

Critics have argued for the bishops to be ousted from the House of Lords, arguing that their presence is outdated and undemocratic in an increasingly secular country where the Church of England is just one religion among many.

“The strange thing is there are bishops in the lords at all,” said Peter Ricketts, a retired British diplomat who is a member of the House of Lords, meaning he does not represent a party. “I agree there is a good reason to end this practice.”

“But since we have them, I’m not shocked that they speak up, including when bills raise moral issues,” Mr Ricketts continued. “After all, that’s the point of having them in a way.”