Ministers quarrel with their peers over the illegal immigration bill

[ad_1]

By Becky Morton and Paul Seddon, BBC News May 9, 2023

Updated 21 minutes ago

Image source, Getty Images

The government is set to clash with its peers when its plan to tackle small boat crossings takes its next step through parliament later.

The illegal immigration bill was passed by MPs last month, but is expected to face significant opposition in the House of Lords.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, a former critic of the ministers’ immigration policies, is due to speak.

But the Home Secretary urged his peers to get behind the legislation.

In a warning shot before the debate, Soella Braverman said the bill represented “the will of the British people”.

Writing in The Times with new justice secretary Alex Chalk, she added that it had been “improved” by its passage through the House of Commons.

The bill, unveiled in March, is a key part of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s plan to “stop” small boats crossing the English Channel – which he has made a priority ahead of the next general election.

It would place a legal duty on the Home Secretary to detain and deport those who arrive in the UK illegally, to Rwanda or to another ‘safe’ third country.

This has angered opposition parties and charities, who argue the bill is impractical and could breach international law.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has been among the critics of the Rwanda scheme, previously calling it “the antithesis of God’s nature”.

He is among nearly 90 of his peers who put their names to debate later—more than one in 10 of the upper house members.

The government made a series of concessions to different sections of the Conservative Party to smooth its passage through the House of Commons last month.

However, senior peers told the BBC they expected significant opposition in the House of Lords – where the government does not have a majority.

Although the peers will not vote on the amendments during discussion at a later date, it will be their first opportunity to express their views on the bill and represents an opportunity for them to broaden support for potential changes to the bill at a later stage.

Lord Paddick in lib Diem put forward a “rare motion of no” to prevent the bill from moving forward in the House of Lords – although without Labor support being expected it is unlikely that this will happen.

Lord Paddick, formerly Met Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Police, argues that the bill falls short of the UK’s obligations under international law and revokes the legal right of refugees to seek asylum in the UK.

He told the BBC that the Liberal Democrats had been unable to find “any redeeming features” in the bill, which he said was “unprecedented” in the way it went against the rule of law.

“In principle we cannot allow this law to continue,” he said.

If the motion is approved, the Act will be dropped from the Lords and will have to be re-introduced by the government in the House of Commons from scratch.

However, a Labor House of Lords source said the party did not support the motion, making it unlikely it would pass.

‘Irresponsible’

If the proposal succeeds, the source said, the government can use the Parliament Act to introduce the bill, without the peers having the opportunity to make any amendments.

“Therefore, it is an irresponsible way to deal with legislation that has already been passed in the elected assembly,” they added.

The source described the bill as a “gimmick” that “will not deal with the major problems and misery caused by those who traffic and exploit the vulnerable.”

The government has also faced heavy criticism from senior members of the Conservative Party, including former Prime Minister Theresa May and former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, over the bill’s potential impact on victims of modern slavery.

The bill would remove temporary protections against removal from the UK that are currently offered to victims of modern slavery or suspected human trafficking while their case is being heard.

Critics say this may deter victims from going to the police.

There was also concern, including among Conservative MPs, about new powers in the Bill to detain children on suspicion of being subject to removal.

Ministers agreed to work with Conservative MPs to define the length of detention for unaccompanied children.

To get the bill through the House of Commons, ministers also promised to put in place new safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, after pressure from their own MPs.

[ad_2]