The Archbishop of Canterbury has claimed that the government’s intention to transfer certain asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda is “antithetical to the essence of God.”
Justin Welby declared in his Easter sermon that the resurrection of Christ was not the time to “subcontract our obligations.”
He also called for a cease-fire in Ukraine and expressed worry about the rising expense of life. Change, according to the government, is required to safeguard lives from people traffickers. People found to have entered the UK illegally will be relocated to the east African country under the £120 million initiative, where they will be able to seek for the right to settle. It has been met with significant resistance, with more than 160 charities and advocacy organisations pressing government to end the “cruel” policy. Opposition parties and several Conservatives have also criticised it.
Mr Welby claimed there are “severe ethical problems about sending asylum seekers overseas” when speaking at Canterbury Cathedral on Easter Sunday.
“The details are for politicians and politicians only,” he continued. The premise must withstand God’s judgement, which it cannot.
“…And it cannot bear the weight of our national obligation as a Christian-based country; for delegating our responsibilities, even to a country that aspires to do good like Rwanda, is the polar opposite of God’s nature, who assumed accountability for our shortcomings.”
On Friday, it was revealed that Home Secretary Priti Patel had to take personal responsibility for the plan, issuing a rare “ministerial direction” in response to concerns from officials that the scheme’s costs were not fully known, making it impossible for the department to say whether it was cost-effective.
It’s only the second occasion in the previous 30 years that the Home Office has issued such a ministerial directive.
The exchange of letters between Matthew Rycroft, the department’s senior civil servant, and Ms Patel, in which he explains his views, has been published by the Home Office.
Mr Rycroft wrote to the home secretary, acknowledging that “despite the considerable expense” of the strategy, “potentially significant savings” may be made by preventing individuals from entering the UK illegally.
He did caution her, however, that he did not believe there was “sufficient evidence” that the programme would have “a major deterrent impact sufficient to make the policy value for money.”
While she agreed with his evaluation of the scheme’s immediate value for money, Ms Patel said that “without action, expenses will continue to escalate [and] lives will continue to be wasted.”
She went on to say that it would be “imprudent…to enable the absence of measurable and dynamic modeling…to postpone delivery of a policy that we believe would cut illegal migration, save lives, and eventually undermine the smuggling gangs’ economic model.”
