Jim Fletcher was in the audience on Wednesday evening (September 320) for the Bishop’s Debate under the title: “Immigration: a cultural and ethical challenge?”
Around 200 of us were in the Town Hall to hear Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General, Jane Esuantsiwa Goldsmith, a leading activist and advocate for women’s human rights worldwide, and the Bishop of Ramsbury, the Right Reverend Dr Edward Condry, giving their answers to the question in the evening’s title – with the current immigration or migrant crisis very fresh in our minds.
In previous years it has been a debate, regretfully this year we heard well-researched presentations, undoubtedly sincere, but nothing much more.
The Bishop introduced the speakers and briefly set the scene. Britain, he said, being an immigrant nation should have empathy with the migrants/refugees. British values such as generosity, charity will be challenged. But as it stands today 433 local authorities may be asked to welcome 20,000 migrants over the next 5 years – not by any means, he thought, a difficult task.
Dominic Grieve looked at many aspects of the migrant challenge. The scale of the problem and the UK position had been a familiar issue over the years. The historic movement of people often caused by poverty or prejudice and the present situation showed many parallels.
But there are new challenges ranging from asylum seekers expressing a preference for a particular country, through to the housing shortage and the unpopular likelihood of a place on the housing waiting list being taken by a migrant.
Mr Grieve emphasised the need for debate and the need to establish a national policy.
Ms Goldsmith opened on a lighter note asking us all to realise that in some way we are all migrants. She established that only five members of the audience were born in Marlborough – so in one way, we are all immigrants.
A particular concern for Ms Goldsmith was to emphasise the sincerity of the immigrants. Most want to work and to become part of society even though eventually many may return to help re-build their own country.
Although we are a small island with fewer resources, she was insistent that we must champion human rights. However, the problem is global with an ointment pot full of flies: foreign interventions, arms fairs, the press and media, politicians, the blame game – – Isil, Assad, people smugglers, Russia & China’s UN vetoes.
Immigration, she said, can provide an opportunity – for example German, Dutch and Swedish attitudes are all similar to the USA’s welcome in times past.
Ms Goldsmith said that we In the UK must devise a quota system and look at the direction of our expenditure. How can we spend billions on Trident, a weapon we’ll never use, when we could re-direct money to this world-wide humanitarian crisis?
We should ask ourselves: do we really pull up the drawbridge and leave the problem to others? Or do we embrace the diverse wonderful mix of people and cultures to continue the development of the UK?
So to the ‘not so good’ part of the evening. Fundamentally a debate needs a proposition. Neither of the two speakers or the Bishop approached ideas of what to do. We had plenty of talk about strategic debate, joined up political solutions etc. And suggestions that the UN had to act. Even a conclusion that “we need to keep asking questions and you may come up with an answer.”
After the presentations the Bishop asked for questions which allowed members of the audience to put forward their views and ask for comments on them.
We do expect the Bishop’s Debate to challenge our thinking rather than provide a compilation of all the aspects of the immigration situation. Our worthy guests managed a comprehensive coverage of the latter without doing much to progress the former.
Award for Wiltshire Museum volunteers
