The government has achieved a significant victory in the House of Lords, advancing the Illegal Migration Bill closer to becoming law. This legislation is a key part of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s commitment to tackling the rise in small boat crossings of the English Channel.
In a late-night session, the final proposed amendments to the bill were rejected. Opposition peers made multiple attempts to soften the legislation, including proposals to limit the detention time for children and to enhance protections for victims of modern slavery. However, ministers successfully defeated each amendment.
One important amendment, which called for quarterly reports from the National Crime Agency on immigration-related crimes, was defeated by 201 votes to 166. Another amendment intended to strengthen safeguards for UK victims of modern slavery was rejected by 205 votes to 193.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, had urged the government to adopt a 10-year international strategy addressing refugees and human trafficking. After Members of Parliament dismissed this proposal, Welby withdrew his demand, weakening the Church’s position on the matter.
Home Office minister Lord Murray of Blidworth defended the bill, highlighting the pressure on the UK’s asylum system caused by over 45,000 dangerous Channel crossings last year. He emphasized the financial burden on taxpayers, who spend approximately £6 million daily on migrant accommodation.
Lord Murray urged the House of Lords to support the elected House of Commons’ decision, describing the bill as crucial to dismantling the business model of people smuggling gangs. The legislation would require the government to detain and remove illegal entrants, with plans to relocate some migrants to Rwanda or other designated safe countries.
Although the Court of Appeal recently blocked the Rwanda scheme, government ministers are contesting the ruling. Shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock criticised the bill, calling it “unworkable” and an “exercise in performative cruelty.” He argued that Rwanda could only accommodate a small number of migrants, rendering deportation threats ineffective as a deterrent.
Originally published by UKNIP.
