General Assembly, the key-decision making body of United Reformed Church (URC), opened on 9 July. Due to the Covid-19 restrictions, the meeting was held digitally.
The 2021 General Assembly of the United Reformed Church began with the Constitution of Assembly in prayer by the Moderator of Assembly, Peter Pay.
Holmes Lane,
Rustington,
BN16 2PY
Faith leaders have called on the UK government to step up international efforts to encourage the phasing out of fossil fuels. Senior representatives of the Methodist Church, the Baptist Union and the United Reformed Church have co-signed a letter asking Ed Miliband, as Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero, to personally attend the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels later this month. The international summit is being co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands in Santa Marta, Colombia. This letter argues that the presence of the Secretary of State would convey a clear message of support from the UK for this new multilateral movement, and aid vital work to agree a detailed roadmap for a transition away from fossil fuels that is fast, fair, and funded. The UK has a proud history of international climate leadership, with Ed Miliband himself having observed last autumn that ‘We are up against the march of time and massive global forces that would slow down or stop action. In the face of this opposition, multilateralism is our best hope.’ The faith leaders say that ‘Your words encouraged us […and] we encourage you to put them into action with fellow climate leaders in Santa Marta.’ In an appendix to the letter, the leaders explain their shared motivation in issuing the call, saying “To be good carers of our common home, we must act quickly and phase out the production of fossil fuels… It is a moral imperative to protect those most in need and to uphold the rights of future generations and the whole earth by employing renewable sources of energy.” Rev’d Canon Giles Goddard, Chair of Faith for the Climate and signatory of the letter, said ‘It’s really important that the UK continues its record of climate leadership by working with climate allies. In the face of a fossil fuel crisis, this conference is vital to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, and ensure that it is fast, fair and funded.’ ‘Ed Miliband’s attendance would show the UK is serious about climate justice and wants to work together, especially with the countries most impacted by the climate crisis. As Ed said himself, ‘You can’t solve a fossil fuel crisis by doubling down on fossil fuels.’ Santa Marta is a key opportunity to bring on ‘the era of clean energy security’’ This conference has the support of many fellow climate leaders, such as the nations who signed the Belem Declaration on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels, a statement made at the conclusion of COP30 on the next steps in the fight for climate justice. This includes small island states especially at risk from climate change, such as Fiji and Jamaica, as well as close European allies of the UK, such as Spain and Austria. It also includes the co-host of COP31, Australia. These countries have welcomed the Santa Marta Conference ‘as a platform to advance the dialogues to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels after COP30.’ Several nations attending are major fossil fuel producers, including Colombia itself, as well as Canada, Brazil and Norway. The initiative follows on from JPIT’s previous work in support of a Fossil Fuel Treaty, and would represent an important step in furthering international discussions on climate change. The UNFCCC COP talks have struggled to maintain a focus on the phase-out of fossil fuels, despite it being referred to in the outcomes of COP28. This conference, independently organised by like-minded countries with high climate ambitions from Global South and North, would help to keep fossil fuel phase-out on the agenda as we look towards COP31 later this year. The full text of the letter is below: L-R: Thomas Niblett, JPIT Intern 2025-26; Rev’d Canon Giles Goddard – Chair of Faith for the Climate; Ann Howell, Social Action Officer – UK Unitarians; Melanie Nazareth – Christian Climate Action; Ben Niblett – Campaigns Coordinator, Quakers in Britain Dear Ed Miliband First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels As UK faith leaders and representatives from many faiths, beliefs and traditions, we are writing to you ahead of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands in Santa Marta, Colombia in the last week of April. In light of the ongoing energy crisis, this conference is vital for developing energy security and access for the UK and our allies, and a key opportunity for the UK to demonstrate its climate leadership. Multilateralism and leadership We are writing to ask you: To convey a clear message of support from the UK to make the most of this new multilateral movement, including sending a signal of leadership by personally attending the High-Level Segment at the end of the conference To work to agree a detailed roadmap for a transition away from fossil fuels that is fast, fair, and funded To commit the UK’s fair share of funding for the transition. As you wrote in your Guardian column after COP30, ‘Clean energy and climate action remain the foundation on which the global economy is being remade and rebuilt. We are up against the march of time and massive global forces that would slow down or stop action. In the face of this opposition, multilateralism is our best hope. ‘We have seen the emergence of an impressive coalition of 83 countries from the global north and global south’ to create ‘a roadmap to help countries transition away from fossil fuels and scale up clean energy.’ ‘Detailed negotiations matter, but the movements we build around them profoundly influence what can be delivered.’ Your words encouraged us, and reflect the UK’s climate leadership through the phase out of coal mining, and prohibitions on further exploration of oil and gas. We encourage you to put them into action with fellow climate leaders in Santa Marta. A just transition away from fossil fuels is very important to the faith communities, and we would value a meeting with civil servants, and perhaps the Special Representative on Climate, to discuss our shared experiences and perspectives on the transition. Yours sincerely, Rev’d Lynn Green – General Secretary, Baptist Union of Great BritainRev’d Dr David Gregory – Convenor of BUEN, Baptist Union Environmental NetworkRev’d Richard Andrew – President of […]
With an escalating global oil crisis, is it out of touch for churches to continue supporting the campaign to stop the Rosebank oil field? Absolutely not. ICYMI*: What’s going on? The Strait of Hormuz – between the countries of Oman, UAE and Iran – is currently being partially blockaded by Iran, as they protest illegal American and Israeli attacks which began on 28th February. This matters because a fifth of the world’s oil is usually transported through the Strait. On 19th March, leaders from the G7 and other nations (including the UK) issued a joint statement condemning Iran’s blockade of the Gulf and highlighting the global impact. Meanwhile, JPIT continues to support Stop Rosebank, the campaign to prevent the development of an oil field off the Shetland coast. The UK Government will be deciding whether to approve or deny this project in late spring 2026. Critics are pouncing on the seeming contradiction between these two political moments. But can we respond to the energy crisis and stop fossil fuel expansion? And how should the Church be involved? The energy security argument Some are exploiting the argument of “energy security” in this moment of global disruption, as a reason to slow down climate policy, and go ahead with Rosebank. Jim Ratcliffe’s blog for his company’s website, ‘Energy Security Must Come Before Net Zero’ argues that, ‘we must not let ideology obscure common sense’ as Brent crude oil hits over $100 per barrel, and gas prices double. As a petrochemical billionaire, Ratcliffe undeniably has a personal stake in the fossil fuel industry. If you’re into football, you might also know his track record of slashing hundreds of jobs at Manchester United to “cut costs”. Not so keen to defend job security then. Nevertheless, the energy security argument is spreading beyond fossil fuel lobbyists. Ideas of national strength are fiercely present in our public discourse and this is only being heightened by oil politics. The impact of geopolitics on our cost of living should not be downplayed, but media propaganda makes things worse. For instance, The Express reported that Ed Miliband’s “net zero fanaticism” would cost taxpayers over £9 trillion. This claim – being propagated by rightwing think tanks and Reform UK – both exaggerates the facts and fails to consider ‘the cost of paying for the fossil fuels needed for energy if we do not reach net zero’. Our recent work on Christian nationalism is pertinent to the energy security debate, because of the desire for national (oil and gas) independence. Resource extraction is interlinked with the Christian history of colonial capitalism, using theological arguments to justify conquest of a land, its peoples and resources.1 Often this draws on the notion of “dominion”, when instead as Christians we must reorient our relationship to creation towards “stewardship” or “loving service”. Our friends at Stop Rosebank highlight that dominion over this oil field would have little benefit to our domestic energy security, given that 80% of UK oil is exported. Instead, approving the project will continue to ‘ti[e] our economy to the geopolitical ripples of war’. Although some are musing over the North Sea’s potential to reduce the environmental impact of mass energy imports, fundamentally these “unstable” markets won’t bring us more security in the same way that renewable energy can. A pithy meme from Greenpeace sums it up well. David Fallon, Greenpeace The job security argument As COP30 underlined, a “just transition” is essential to the safe and fair movement from fossil fuels towards more sustainable economic models. This requires protecting the workers within fossil fuel-intensive industry, agriculture, oil and gas, ensuring high quality jobs are created. Unite’s ongoing campaign, No Ban Without a Plan, stresses this factor in the shift to renewable energy. Amid the Iran war’s escalation, the union’s general secretary recently stated that “Domestic gas from Jackdaw and oil from Rosebank are essential for jobs” and that “we cannot let go of one rope before we have hold of another”. It is vital that we promote a politics of listening to workers who are experiencing this reality and their valid concerns about the potential negatives of this ban. However, Stop Rosebank’s campaign website and pledges centre job security. We are encouraging MPs to sign the Rosebank pledge, which explicitly commits politicians to “advocate for a properly funded just transition for oil and gas workers and communities”. If we can persuade the Government to stop this oil field, they will need to invest in well paid green jobs and infrastructure in the North Sea that will be more sustainable in the long-term than fossil fuel industry jobs. Delaying the transition won’t fix the current issues, but a new system could. The role of the Church It is easy to separate ourselves from the messiness of international politics. But oil politics continues to impact all our lives because of our entanglement with the fossil fuel industry, most clearly revealed in our energy bills. Churches have a long history of standing in solidarity with the most vulnerable communities. This includes both those being directly impacted by the climate crisis in the Global North and South, as well as those facing job losses in the North Sea without a just transition. We must pray for peace, while acting on our Christian values of faith, hope and love which are clear in the fight against fossil fuels. We believe the Stop Rosebank campaign emphasises our call to responsible stewardship of the Earth and follows Jesus’ example of loving our neighbour rather than seeking economic power or independence.2 Resources You may like to use this prayer produced by the URC in response to the escalation in the Middle East. We are currently promoting a climate craftivism project to send a craft to your MP, if they haven’t signed the Rosebank pledge. Please consider joining this if you have been persuaded by this post! *In case you missed it For more research on land rights and social justice, check out this resource from the Methodist Church Global Networks for Mission (June 2025) Land_Rights_Social_Justice_20250617.pdf ↩︎This was articulated in the letter from Christian leaders to Keir Starmer in June 2025, highlighting theological arguments for stopping Rosebank. ↩︎Source
Amongst the on-going horrors of the war across the Middle East and on top of significant questions around the legality and intent behind it, we’re seeing a dangerous step into a new kind of warfare. How significantly is human judgement being replaced by artificial intelligence (AI) in the decisions that are leading to the deaths of civilians? “Shortening the kill chain” in Iran According to reporting from the Washington Post, the US military is using AI to autonomously select airstrike targets inside Iran. [1] This isn’t a first for the region, Israel was claimed to be doing the same when selecting targets in Gaza.[2] Further afield, both Russia and Ukraine have been reportedly using AI-enhanced drones, including ones that can make the decision to kill independently from their human operators.[3] In the case of the US strikes in Iran, these may not be fully autonomous weapons but, in military speak, they “shorten the kill chain”. This means that they reduce the time it takes for decisions to be made on airstrike targets, with the risk of also reducing the level of human scrutiny. And when the official White House communications are using phrases like “no pause, no hesitation” over clips of airstrikes, it’s fair to question just how carefully they are checking the AI system’s decisions.[4] In some of the most harrowing scenes from this conflict so far, a girls’ school in the southern Iranian town of Minab was destroyed. The imagery that has since emerged shows children’s backpacks and schoolwork books strewn among the rubble. Iranian officials report that 150 students were killed in the attack. While the exact circumstances are still unknown, various experts who have seen the available evidence say it was most likely the US that mistakenly attacked the school during a series of airstrikes on a nearby Iranian naval base.[5] A national security advisor with specialism in civilian harm told the New York Times that the strike was most likely down to “target misidentification”.[6] The US military are unlikely to reveal if AI was used in this particular case, so we may never know it’s true level of involvement. However, with reports that AI is being used in target selection it becomes important to question exactly how the decision was made to target that site. If AI was used, the question then becomes: who is accountable for these deaths? For AI systems to work, the need to be trained on data. In the case of these airstrikes, the data is likely drawn from previous human controlled targeting decisions. But in war the first real-world test for these AI systems are the airstrikes they’re already influencing with potentially lethal consequences for civilians caught in the ever-increasing race to “shorten the kill chain”. The battle of AI use in battle Just before the US and Israeli attacks on Iran began, the US Department of Defence got into a high-profile dispute with one of its AI service providers. The company, Anthropic, said they would allow the US military to use its AI systems for everything except two ethical no-go areas. Firstly, they couldn’t use it for mass surveillance of the American public and secondly, they couldn’t use it for fully autonomous weapons. In response, the Trump administration threatened Anthropic with several measures that would not only mean they would lose their contracts with the US military but that any businesses that used Anthropic AI systems would also not be allowed access to US military contracts. OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, was quick to pick up the pieces and made a deal with the Department that was seemingly absent of any safeguards.[7] Palantir, a US company run by a close Trump ally, is currently used by the US, UK and other Nato partners for military use and the implementation of AI systems. The UK Government has proudly boasted of how it’s integrating AI into certain parts of its military.[8] The Future of Arms? Is this the future of warfare? Some would argue that theoretically an effective AI targeting system implemented with the correct safeguards could help to reduce civilian casualties by reducing human error – although there is no hard evidence to suggest this would be the case. The US and other military forces are all secretive on exactly how AI is integrated into their warfighting capabilities and without any international standards on their use, it’s impossible to know just how automatically targets are being selected and struck. With these systems already being used in conflicts with potentially devastating effects, we desperately need world leaders to come together and decide on rules and red lines for the use of AI in warfare. We’ve done this before for other military technologies, particularly in cases where the international community judged a weapon to be so destructive or have too high a risk of harming innocent civilians. Treaties on cluster munitions, anti-personnel landmines and nuclear weapons have all been successful in limiting their use or stopping their spread. JPIT has been working with an international coalition of civil society organisations and academics calling on world leaders to work towards this goal. In late 2025, 156 countries, including the United Kingdom, voted in favour of a UN resolution drawing attention to the concerns about autonomous weapons. The United States, Israel and Russia all voted against this resolution. Join our call supporting those countries advocating for a treaty on autonomous weapons, sign the Stop Killer Robots petition today. You can read more about JPIT’s work on the emergence of new, deadly warfighting technologies here or watch the video below. We can also pray for the region and those being affected by the conflict. Here is a prayer for the Middle East from the Methodist Church in Great Britain: God of love,As we see and hear the news of the devastating violence wrought uponand within the Middle East,we hold your broken world before you in prayer,We pray for lives lost, for people who mourn, and for those living in fearWe pray for people stranded […]
Listening to the Spring Statement, it’s not hard to see why people are disillusioned with politics. The Chancellor began by saying how wonderful the economy was and how everything was going to plan while the Shadow Chancellor responded with how terrible the economy was and how there was no plan. They traded some insults and borderline truths before other MPs were allowed to ask the Chancellor questions. With a few honourable exceptions these questions can be summarised as either “Chancellor, you are the worst and you should resign”, or “Chancellor, can you expound on how wonderful your policies are”. A big row over very little Perhaps it is often like this, but the unedifying performance of it all was underscored by the fact that nothing much was being said. To the approval of almost everyone, the Chancellor has said that there will be only one “fiscal event” (i.e. Budget) each year, to stop the unhelpfully frequent tinkering with taxes and departmental budgets that had become common in recent years. Therefore, as promised, there were no new policy announcements to argue over in the statement. Instead, the Chancellor gave a speech based on the Office of Budgetary Responsibility’s (OBR’s) update of November’s economic forecast. You could sum this up as: it’s mostly as expected, a gradual improvement in the main economic numbers, a bit more tax revenue from asset prices, a bit more unemployment in the next year or so, but it’s all within the envelope of what was expected. However, the OBR’s forecast was finalised before the US/Israeli attack on Iran. The effect of that on economic forecasts (via energy prices and much else) is vastly greater than anything that has happened since November – so the forecast’s numbers need to be taken with more than a pinch of salt. Parliament should regularly scrutinise Government spending and the view of independent experts is vital to this. That needs to happen even if events make the forecasts much more uncertain than usual – but what happened inside the chamber didn’t look a lot like effective scrutiny. The long story of the economy The long story of the UK economy is one of struggle since the 2008 Banking Crisis. Growth – the primary aim of policy makers – has been slow. The environmental consequences of increasing economic activity have become more obvious while it has not translated into improved standards of living for most. This long story initially led to increasing income inequality, followed by increasing wealth inequality[1], followed by a spectacular concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few. The story included rising poverty with 7.2m people experiencing food insecurity including 1 in 3 of the UK’s children. People recognise there is a problem, but the shouting in the Commons chamber feels utterly disconnected from that reality. It seems reminiscent of two people fighting over how heavy a brick to drop on their foot – an important question certainly, but perhaps they should be asking more fundamental questions about their plan’s wisdom. Outside the chamber the public’s main concern is the cost of living – and even the most generous reading of the economic numbers doesn’t indicate that things will move enough to change how people are feeling. The British public currently has a very low view of politics and thinks politicians put party (and self) before people when making decisions. They also feel that politics is unable to find solutions to the nation’s problems. Watching the debate on the statement in Parliament is unlikely to shift anyone’s opinion on these views either. “The British People Deserve Better” The Shadow Chancellor’s response contained the old rhetorical device “the British people deserve better” – and I was left thinking that they do, but perhaps not in the way he meant. The electorate are certainly seeking something better, but it is not entirely clear what they will get. The two parties that have dominated British politics for a century are polling badly. In the recent byelection they came 3rd and 4th, beaten both by Reform UK and the Greens. This disillusionment with politics and shift from ‘traditional’ parties is not only a UK phenomenon. Similar stories can be seen in countries across the world. Parties of the populist right such as AfD[2] in Germany, and Fidesz in Hungary, and the MAGA[3] wing of the Republican Party in the USA, have grown in popularity with their support concentrated in older and male voters, while younger and female voters have tended to move towards Green and more left-wing parties. Opportunity and Change This time of change can feel unsettling and even frightening, especially for those who rightly feel threatened by increasing anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric and policies. However, it also true that structures and institutions that once looked immovable have become less solid, and that presents new opportunities and possibilities for positive change. For Christians who see politics as way of creating a more just world, now is the time to engage. For churches that want to explore how to be more active in seeking justice through politics, JPIT’s Constituency Action Network (CAN) is one way of pursuing a positive and purposeful relationship with your Member of Parliament, that moves beyond the exchange of predictable and unedifying soundbites. * “A politics characterised by listening, kindness and truthfulness” is one of the six hopes that guides JPIT’s work [1] Importantly this isn’t because people saved more – it is because the things wealthier people owned (property, houses, stocks, shares) rapidly increased in value. [2] Alternative for Germany (AfD) [3] Make America Great Again (MAGA) Source
Video Listen to JPIT team members Adam Aucock and Steve Tinning explaining refugee family reunion and why it matters. [embedded content] Case Study *names have been changed to protect identities A trauma survivor, refugee and father is desperately hoping to be reunited with his partner and young children. This father was first displaced during the 2003 conflict in Sudan, where members of his own family were killed, leaving him carrying deep trauma. When violence escalated again years later, he made the painful decision to seek safety in the UK, where he was granted refugee status. His partner, Hiba, and their children, Sara and Omer, who are both under 10 years old, escaped the renewed fighting to Uganda, where they are now registered as refugees. Hiba is raising the children alone in extremely difficult conditions, with little access to healthcare, education or the ordinary rhythms of childhood, relying entirely on their father’s support from afar. Their application for family reunion was submitted just before the Government’s suspension came into force, and they now wait in uncertainty, separated by borders but bound by love. Under the proposed new rules, families like theirs could face income and eligibility thresholds that take little account of vulnerability, effectively valuing financial capacity and formal status over human need. For many faith communities, every life holds equal worth and dignity; protection should not depend on wealth, education or earning power, but on the simple recognition of our shared humanity. Social Media Assets I support refugee family reunion, do you? With torn photo of child. Source
Please read, share, and sign our letter raising deep concerns about plans to stop refugee family reunion. Dear Home Secretary, As leaders from faith communities across the UK, we write with deep concern about the Government’s plans to permanently curtail refugee family reunion. The current proposals – removing the right to family reunion for most refugees, narrowing the legal definition of “family”, and placing steep new barriers before those fleeing danger – represent a profound departure from values that have long shaped our national life and are deeply embedded in our faith traditions: human dignity, fairness, protection for the vulnerable, and the importance of family life. We urge you to recognise that family reunion is not a marginal element of refugee protection and resettlement; it is central to it. For many refugees, the presence and safety of close family is essential for their stability, wellbeing and integration. For people of faith, family is foundational to human belonging, resilience, and hope. To further restrict safe routes for family reunion is to push desperate people toward the very smuggling networks we all wish to dismantle. We are mindful that there are public concerns about current levels of immigration. However, refugees represent a small proportion of immigrants to the UK, and in many communities, anxieties arise not from hostility towards refugees, but from long-standing pressures on housing, health services, and local infrastructures. It is therefore deeply troubling to see refugees and asylum seekers presented, sometimes explicitly and sometimes by implication, as the cause of strains for which they are not responsible. In recent history our nation has repeatedly shown that compassion can rise above fear. When the world recoiled at the image of Alan Kurdi’s lifeless body on a Turkish beach in 2015, and when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, people responded with generosity to those who needed sanctuary. That spirit did not arise from indifference or hostility; it arose from the recognition that every child is precious and every family deserves safety. Governments can either champion such compassion or be led by the loudest calls against it. We urge you to choose the former. We also respectfully remind you of your own earlier advocacy on this issue. In 2017, you urged the Government to extend family reunion rights – not restrict them – so that unaccompanied refugee children in the UK could be joined by their parents. You argued then that “surely it would be far better for that child, and for the care system, to have their parents in the UK to support them,” and that aligning with European standards would not create a “pull factor” but would express the UK’s long-standing commitment to protecting vulnerable children. We offer this reminder in the hope that the moral clarity, practical wisdom and commitment to family life expressed then, might continue to guide your decisions. Making family reunion inaccessible and/or contingent on a fee-paying route will neither reduce journeys nor create a more settled country. It will simply deepen suffering and place Britain at odds with values long central to our national identity and to every major faith tradition in this land. We therefore urge you to reconsider these proposals, to protect the right to family reunion, and to demonstrate the moral leadership that this moment demands. Yours sincerely, Revd Lynn Green, General Secretary, The Baptist Union of Great BritainRevd Richard Andrew, President of the Methodist Conference Matthew Forsyth, Vice-President of the Methodist Conference Catriona Wheeler, General Assembly Moderator, United Reformed ChurchRight Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin, Bishop of DoverMike Royal, General Secretary, Churches Together in EnglandNicola Brady, General Secretary, Churches Together in Britain and IrelandThe Rt Revd and the Rt Hon Lord Rowan Williams of OystermouthRabbi David Mason, Executive Director, HIAS+ JCOREShaykh Ibrahim Mogra, Co-chair, Christian Muslim ForumThe Rt Revd John Arnold, Roman Catholic Bishop of SalfordThe Rt Revd Dr Guli Francis-DehqaniThe Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, Bishop of Southwark Source
Those of us without experience of the asylum and refugee system in the UK might not be aware of the refugee family reunion scheme. This explainer covers some of the basics about how the scheme used to work, how the government is seeking to change it and why church, and other faith leaders, should speak out on this topic. It’s important to remember that behind every statistic and figure is a real, human story. A story of a family desperate to be reunited with their loved ones and begin rebuilding their lives together. Like this story of a father desperately hoping to be reunited with his partner and children. What is refugee family reunion? Refugee family reunion is a long-standing component of the UK refugee system that allows those who are granted refugee status in the UK to apply for their immediate family members (spouses, partners and children) to join them. The scheme stands as one of the few ‘safe routes’ into the UK. The vast majority of those granted refugee status through this route are women or children (92% over the last five years). From October 2024 to September 2025 refugee family reunion visas represented less than 3 percent of all medium and long-term visas (excluding visitor visas). What changes are the UK Government proposing? In September 2025 the Home Office announced an abrupt pause to the refugee family reunion scheme. Almost overnight they closed the application process. There is currently no route available for refugee family reunion, aside from the family sponsorship schemes available to all migrants, which typically have prohibitively high application fees and minimum earning requirements that make them difficult to access for many refugees. The Home Office says it expects to reopen the scheme in the spring with additional, stricter criteria that more closely align with the family sponsorship schemes for other migrants. In November, the government announced plans to create a new “Core Protection” category for newly arrived refugees. While in this category, they would not be able to apply for family reunion, only becoming eligible to do so once they had transferred onto an “in country Protection Work and Study” route. The exact requirements to transfer onto one of these routes has not yet been specified, but the Home Office has indicated that there will be a fee for this application and it’s possible that they will introduce minimum earning criteria. The time taken to meet the eligibility criteria and transfer onto these schemes would be on top of the time refugees already have to wait for their asylum claims to be reviewed, which can take many months or even years, during which they cannot access family reunion and have no right to work. How will these changes impact children? Over the last five years, 54% of those accepted into the UK under the existing scheme have been children. The availability of this route means that fewer people fleeing conflict or persecution have had to consider taking their young children with them on long, dangerous journeys. The British Red Cross estimates that the pause to the scheme alone between September 2025 and April 2026 could impact 6,300 children, 1,500 of whom are unaccompanied. Countless more would be impacted by the proposed changes. In a separate consultation, the Home Office is seeking responses on a proposal that would see dependents (spouses, partners and children) treated separately from their family members when it comes to achieving settled status (the point from which you are allowed to remain in the UK indefinitely without the need to reapply for visas). They are consulting on how this should apply to children, but there is a scenario in which an adult refugee obtains settled status, but their child is never able to because they do not meet the high bar of newly introduced criteria. What about the court case? Safe Passage International have initiated a judicial review of the suspension of family reunion. They argue that the suspension is unlawful on the basis that “the decision breaches the Home Office’s duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children”. We welcome the review, and hope that its findings may have an impact on the implementation of further restrictive policies. This doesn’t, however, mean that this campaign is won. Rather, it reenforces the need for pressure to ensure that the safety and welfare of children is prioritised. You can read more about the planned judicial review here. How has JPIT campaigned on this before? In the past JPIT has joined campaigns that would expand the definition of refugee family reunion to allow a wider definition of immediate family, particularly when it comes to unaccompanied children. We are therefore disappointed to see the government actively restricting this scheme. You or your church, faith, or community leader may have signed our last letter on the Nationality and Borders Bill in 2022 or the Illegal Migration Bill in 2023. The 2022 letter was quoted in parliamentary debates on the bill. We have also spoken out against other similar so-called ‘deterrent measures’ proposed by the UK government such as those contained in the November 2025 proposals for updates to the asylum system. What can leaders do about this? JPIT is asking local, regional and national church leaders from all denominations to sign an open letter, alongside other faith leaders. This is addressed the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, and urges her to reconsider the changes to the refugee family reunion scheme. We hope to communicate how strongly Christians and those of other faiths across the UK feel about the importance of protecting the rights of refugees to live in safety without having to worry about the safety of their closest loved ones. Why is it important for leaders to speak up? For people of faith, family is foundational to human belonging, resilience, and hope. For many refugees, the presence and safety of close family is essential for their stability, wellbeing and integration. We’re seeing increasing division in our […]
Brief · 18 February, 2026 Our new weekly reel and blog highlights what is going on in the UK and around the world that you might like to pray about this week. For the reel, follow us on Facebook or Instagram. News headlines Democracy The High Court ruled this week that the Government acted unlawfully in proscribing Palestine Action under terrorism laws. This feels like a ‘line in the sand’ against using sweeping counter-terror powers to silence protest. JPIT has previously spoken out about the right to protest, stressing that peaceful protest is a vital function of democracy. Pray for democratic freedoms, including the freedom to protest. Pray for the protection and amplifying of those who speak out for justice. Pray for guidance around proportionate policing. You may also like to pray for politicians, judges and campaigners in challenging times. Global Crises Global crises continue to impact millions of people around the world. This week’s global reports suggest that international humanitarian law is at breaking point, with widespread impunity for serious violation. Women and girls around the world continue to face deep-rooted inequality, violence, and discrimination. The war in Sudan continues into a fourth year; and the UN is appealing for $1.6bn to support refugees from the nation. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine also enters a fourth year next week. Pray for a strengthening of humanitarian law, for justice for women and girls and for peace where conflict destroys life. Public Life JPIT hopes for a a politics characterised by listening, kindness, and truthfulness. Headlines in the UK – and questions in parliament this week – have included significant scrutiny of political figures linked to Jeffrey Epstein. These raise ongoing questions about power, justice, and transparency. Pray that truth may be revealed, survivors may be heard, and that those in power would act with integrity and accountability. Parliament: What’s coming up Parliament has been on recess this week for half term, but are two particular pieces of business in parliament next week to pray about this coming week. On Monday, parliament has the final stages of the Universal Credit Bill, which will remove the two-child limit. Pray that our politicians will centre and honour those who have lived experience of poverty as the bill goes through its final stages. On Wednesday, parliament’s business will include a general debate on Ukraine. Pray that this debate will guide active work for peace. Prayer God, our just ruler, You guide us with truth and grace. This week, we pray for Minds open to hear the righteous anger of those who speak truth to power, Hearts open to hope for peace and justice in the midst of violence and oppression, Hands open to work actively for peace, and to lift up the voices of those who experience poverty and marginalisation. In the name of Jesus, a child who journeys with us through the wilderness, Amen Conclusion Do look out for Justice Weekly, every Thursday, here and on our social media. Source
We are deeply concerned by Home Office plans to establish a so-called “earned settlement” scheme that would judge those with a higher salary, better education and from a more fortunate background as more worthy of living settled, secure lives in the UK. This is contrary to our understanding of the equal value and dignity of every human being and ignores the particular responsibility that, in our view, government has to attend to the needs of those who are most vulnerable and marginalised. Many of our congregations are blessed with the presence, gifts and service of those who are in the UK having immigrated from Hong Kong, are refugees or are of other immigrant backgrounds. The current proposals will create anxiety among each of these groups, particularly severely impacting the ability of refugees to live settled, healthy lives in the UK. Some of our congregations are also faithfully served by ministers from overseas and we view these proposals as placing overly restrictive barriers in front of those hoping to take up God’s call within the UK church. We are particularly concerned that the retrospective application of these new policies would be unfair to those who have already begun to make their lives in this country on the basis of the current immigration rules, and made decisions and plans based upon an expectation of a being able to follow a pathway to settled status and citizenship. We urge the Home Office to reconsider these proposals and listen to advocates who are showing the evidence that enabling shorter, less complex paths to settlement delivers benefits to not only the individual but the community they make their home. Crucially, any changes must take into account the real-world circumstances faced by many immigrants and not push those already at the margins of our society into further destitution and uncertainty. The Baptist Union of Great Britain, Methodist Church, United Reformed Church and the Church of Scotland have each submitted responses to the ongoing Home Office consultation detailing our stances and we will continue to follow this process with interest and concern. Source
More worrying climate news. Is our international system still up to today’s challenges? Earlier this month the EU’s Copernicus research institute revealed that 2025 was the third hottest year on record globally. The first and second hottest years were 2024 and 2023 respectively. We are dangerously close to crossing the 1.5°C global warming threshold which governments across the world agreed to try to prevent in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.* Yet prospects for the global cooperation that is vital to addressing this global crisis seem to be at an all-time low. When Donald Trump re-entered the White House just over a year ago, he immediately triggered the 12-month notice period to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Agreement. The US government continues to publicly dispute the international consensus that the climate crisis is a global threat of epic proportions. This isn’t the only area where Trump is challenging international institutions and collaborative efforts – read Paul’s recent blog here for more. Have we given up international climate cooperation? It’s not just Trump and likeminded world leaders who are casting doubt on international collaborative efforts to tackle climate change. In polling analysis by Global Nation looking at trust in international institutions, just 35% of the global population said their taxes should go towards solving global problems. A larger group, 57%, said that international institutions should have the power to enforce rules on global issues including climate change – just seemingly not with their taxes. Even though that measure shows majority support, it has fallen four percentage points in just the last 12 months. The sense of global solidarity seems to be diminishing. Perhaps this should not be a surprise. Every year, there appears to be as much media coverage debating whether the UN’s climate negotiations are worthwhile as there is coverage of what is actually being negotiated. The most recent iteration, COP30 in Belem, Brazil, hit the lowest attendance figures for official government representatives since before the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015. The US sent 234 delegates to COP29 but 0 to COP30 as Trump changed the country’s direction once again. Most concerningly of all, young people, who will be the most affected and are therefore often the most worried and compelled to act on climate change, are the least likely to put their trust in these international institutions. In that same polling, just 33% of people said they felt more like a global citizen than they did a citizen of their own country. This very question sets up an unhelpful dichotomy – that we either see ourselves as British, American or Chinese etc, or we’re global citizens. But we can and should be both. As Christians we’re called to be citizens of God’s kingdom and to work to bring about that kingdom in our surroundings. However, those surroundings shouldn’t be limited to our towns, cities, regions or country. We are called to recognise the face of God in all humans and as the global ramifications of our actions (or inaction) become better understood we have a duty to do what we can to reduce our impacts on our global neighbours. How do we turn the tide back towards collaboration? While we tend to focus on the international systems that are stumbling, it’s important to remember that a lot of successful cooperation is still taking place. Ironically, Copernicus, the very project that allows us to know for certain that we’re rapidly heating our planet and conclude that international cooperation is faltering, is itself a product of international cooperation. The only reason we don’t have a catastrophic problem with ozone layer depletion is that countries came together in the 1990’s to agree a solution under the Montreal Protocol – a system of international cooperation that is still making advancements today and is often regarded as the world’s most successful environmental treaty. In some ways, it’s a victim of its own success. The fact it was able to quickly begin to remedy the problem with broad global support meant that it dropped out of the public consciousness, and many people forget (or, for those born since, were never taught about) the dangerous potential of an ozone hole. There are also other ways of doing international collaboration. Much of the discussion around the climate crisis happens in multilateral spaces (meaning everyone can have a say but also often means they can only move as fast as the slowest member) but increasingly, with initiatives like the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, countries have been creating smaller groups that are taking more ambitious commitments voluntarily or bilaterally. In Global Nation’s analysis, they also talk about “communities of the willing”. They define these as communities of responsible citizens, businesses and civil society groups, including faith organisations and charities that are collaborating and taking more local action. With both these community initiatives and international groupings, the effects ripple outwards into communities and nations not part of these schemes. History shows that this approach can make an enormous impact, even in the face of apparently immovable forces. One example is the campaign to end the racist apartheid system in South Africa which, in addition to the tireless, brave efforts of in-country campaigners was brought down by an international movement that struggled at first to find global consensus. However, countries surrounding the apartheid state began boycotting goods and wielding their somewhat limited diplomatic power, at times this was costly to their economies and therefore their populations. Gradually companies, individuals and campaign groups in countries across the world joined the boycott. Eventually, many more countries, including the US, backed calls for apartheid to end. Many individuals and churches are leading the way on building such “communities of the willing” for climate action. As we take action for a cleaner, greener future, through individual lifestyle choices, net zero commitments and programmes such as Eco Church, we show that it is possible to make a meaningful difference on these issues – and that it’s important to us and should be to […]
