Illegal migration bill passes second reading in House of Lords

The illegal migration bill has passed its second reading in the Lords, following strong criticism from peers including Vernon Coaker, who said the plans would “drive a stake through the heart of our international standing”.

The bill – which has been described as “desperately cruel” by human rights organisation Liberty – would see anyone arriving in the UK on a small boat have their asylum claim deemed “inadmissible”, with arrivals detained and then “promptly removed”, either to their home country or a third country.

The legislation passed its second reading in the Lords this evening without division. A ‘motion to decline’ the bill put forward by the Liberal Democrats, which would have blocked the legislation from continuing its passage through the Lords, was rejected by peers by 179 votes to 76.

Addressing the Lords on behalf of Labour, Coaker said the party would not back the Lib Dems’ motion though he acknowledged that it “sounds attractive”.

The shadow home affairs minister argued that if the motion was passed the government would use the Parliament Act to reintroduce the bill without peers getting the opportunity to make amendments, adding: “We will propose amendments and press the government to think again.”

The Labour peer said the UK faces a “very real challenge” on the issue of asylum seekers, “with the government having lost control of migrants crossing the Channel in particular and asylum policy in general”.

“Of course, this is a problem that needs fixing. But this new bill, layering more incompetence, more complexity, more unworkability and more unfairness, won’t do it. It’ll make it worse,” he told peers.

Coaker accused the government of “introducing unworkable measures that drive a stake through the heart of our international standing” and “playing fast and loose with our place in the world and our respect for international law”.

“This must change, and we will do all we can, particularly at report [stage], to change this bill – not by blocking it but to stand up for those who look to us for sanctuary and proposing workable, humane solutions,” he said.

Home office minister Simon Murray told peers that new legislation is needed to “make it unambiguously clear that if you enter the UK illegally you will not be allowed to stay here”.

The Conservative peer argued: “It is only by removing the incentive to come to the United Kingdom that we will stop people taking these dangerous journeys and deter the people smugglers from profiting off people’s suffering. This is what the bill seeks to deliver.”

The bill passed its third reading in the Commons in April by 289 votes to 230, completing its passage through the lower House. Speaking during the second reading, Suella Braverman said “stopping the boats” is her “top priority” and claimed that the British people “back this government’s bill”.

Responding to Braverman, Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper denounced the bill as a “con that makes the chaos worse” and argued that the legislation “won’t do the things” the government has promised.

Speaking during today’s debate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said the bill “fails utterly to take a long-term and strategic view of the challenges of migration and undermines international cooperation”.

He argued that there are “too many problems for one speech in this bill”, telling peers: “It is isolationist. It is morally unacceptable and politically impractical to let the poorest countries deal with the crisis alone.”

Several Conservatives peers also expressed concerns about the bill. Arminka Helic declared that she does not believe the legislation is “likely to be successful in its stated goals or moral at its core”.

Edward Garnier said he was yet to hear a “political and legal case” for the measures set out, while Nick Bourne argued that there were “very real concerns” about the legislation in its current form.

A coalition of more than 170 civil society organisations published an open letter today, calling on parliamentarians to urge the government to “immediately withdraw” the bill, describing it as “effectively a ban on asylum”.

The letter stated: “These cruel and inhumane plans are a stain on our collective moral conscience, attacking the values we cherish as a democratic, rights-respecting society. This bill is a dangerous piece of legislation that will most certainly lead to irreparable harm, grave suffering and possible deaths if enacted.”