The amendments will 'deeply undermine' Lord Murray announced attempts to stop small boats. Photo: STEVE FINN
Rights were accused of “wrecking” Rishi Sunak's small boat bill on Wednesday night when they voted to keep Channel migrants demanding asylum and modern-day slavery in the UK.< /p
The Lords, including fellow Conservatives, have dealt the government four defeats by amending the illegal migration law ahead of Thursday's key Court of Appeal ruling on whether migrants can legally be deported to Rwanda for asylum.< /p>
Two of the amendments would frustrate the prime minister's proposals to detain and quickly deport thousands of illegal migrants to a safe third country or home. Instead of any claims being dealt with after they are removed, they will be allowed to remain in the UK to be dealt with here.
The first, put forward by Lord Carlisle, a former independent reviewer of terrorism law, would stop deportation plans applicable to any migrant who arrived after March 7, when the proposed law was introduced to Parliament. Instead, they will only come into effect once the bill is passed this summer or fall.
This would mean that any migrant who arrived illegally after 7 March would be eligible to apply for asylum in the UK and not be expelled. that any claim will be considered from abroad. During this time, more than 8,300 migrants reached the UK across the English Channel in small boats.
Ministers expected to reverse Lords' decision' amendments when the bill returns to the House of Commons Credit: Gareth Fuller/PA Wire
The Home Secretary Lord Murray of Bleedworth warned: “The retrospective nature of these provisions is critical. Without it, we risk that organized criminals and human smugglers will try to take advantage of this, and the number of illegal entries will increase before the bill comes into force.”
However, peers supported Lord Carlisle's amendment by a vote of 219 to 177. The Lords also voted by a vote of 210 to 145, with a majority of 65, for a change that would ensure that presumed victims of human trafficking are not detained or deported before they can apply to the referral system for protection. and support.
Labor Party colleague Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said: “The problem with this bill, if left unamended, is that it would completely undermine the Modern Slavery Act and result in victims being punished for crimes committed by their perpetrators, deportation or detention centers, exacerbating the pre-existing trauma.”
However, Lord Murray criticized what he claimed were disruptive amendments that would “deeply undermine” efforts to stop the boats. He said it currently takes 566 days to process a migrant's claim of being a victim of modern-day slavery.
Colleagues also supported amendment 222 to 179, which insists that the interpretation of the bill be in line with international law, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the Refugee Convention.
The bill will return to the House of Commons in July
Ministers are expected to try to repeal the amendments when the bill returns to the Commons next month, but are likely to face opposition from senior Tories, including former Prime Minister Theresa May and former Tory leader Ian Duncan Smith if they try to do so. it's about modern slavery.
The defeats came after senior Conservative MPs urged ministers to ignore European judges and send migrants on deportation flights to Rwanda if they win a legal battle in British courts.
They are urging the government to keep flying even if European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judges issue a new injunction in an attempt to block them or uphold the appeal.
Their statement comes ahead of Thursday's Court of Appeal ruling led by a British court. Chief Justice Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett on whether it is legal to deport migrants to Rwanda for asylum in a Central African state.
The verdict is subject to appeal
If the ministers win, the verdict can be appealed to the UK Supreme Court and the ECtHR. He was the only ECtHR judge to block the first deportation flight from Rwanda last June, placing a “rule 39” injunction at the eleventh hour. This has already expired, but asylum seekers who have lost can reapply as well as appeal.
Lee Anderson, Tory Vice Chairman and member of the Home Affairs Committee, said: “If the flights are supported by the British courts, they should be carried out. We are a sovereign nation. Judging by my inbox, they are the number one priority, which is surprising because there are no illegals in my patch.
Jonathan Gullis, a former minister, said: waiting – and if we don't have to go to the Supreme Court, I would like the plane to take off as soon as possible.
“If the judges in Strasbourg try to intervene again, we should just delete the email because the injunctions rules 39 are not legally binding, and get the planes airborne.”
Former secretary Tim Lawton, a member of the House Home Affairs Committee, said the government should keep flying and ignore any legal threats from Strasbourg judges.
He said the injunctions under rule 39 “pajamas” — so named because the one blocking Rwanda was issued late at night — have been challenged by other countries with 400 ignored in the last 10 years. “We're among the best in terms of compliance, but we're the most criticized,” he said.
Recent Comments