The Home Secretary’s Illegal Migration Bill received a rocky ride through the Lords as cross-party peers almost unanimously criticised the small boat cutting plans.
Several voiced concern over how the UK would be viewed on the world stage, with one peer stating that Britain faced “humiliation” if the legislation goes through in its current form.
Others argued the bill should be amended to enforce compliance with the UK’s international obligations, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and other treaties regarding refugees, anti-trafficking and children’s rights.
“Even if it’s legal, which I don’t accept, it actually violates so many principles, that you have to say, how can we not be ashamed to let a bill like this go through?” Green Party peer Baroness Jones said on Wednesday.
“And it’s all very well talking about legalities, but there’s also such a thing as embarrassment and humiliation, particularly on the world stage, and I think that’s what this bill offers it, as other noble lords have said.”
The Liberal-Democrat’s Baroness Ludford added: “Now is precisely the moment for the UK to lead on the world stage in reinforcing basic human rights norms and international law, including the ECHR. Pushing this bill through this chamber when the government cannot confirm that in their view, multiple provisions in it are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, threatens our reputation as a country that upholds international law.”
Ludford also claimed the Illegal Migration Bill “threatens could have an impact on business.”
She noted the Law Society has raised concerns about “the damage non-compliance with our legal commitments could do to the UK’s economic competitiveness by undermining the confidence of businesses looking to invest in the UK.”
‘Fails to Protect Children’
Suella Braverman previously said that she was “unable to make a statement” that the bill’s proposed provisions are “compatible with the Convention rights” amid warnings from human rights organisations.The home secretary later stated she was “confident” the legislation complies with both domestic and international law.
Former Labour shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti highlighted the “contradiction” in Braverman’s two comments.
She also highlighted what she described as “one of the strongest condemnations of a democratic and rights-respecting nation” by a senior United Nations figure on the Home Office plans.
“In the words of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, it amounts to, ‘an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be.’”
Chakrabarti added: “At the very least, the bill violates Articles 2, 3, 4 and 14 of the European Convention in failing to protect victims of torture and trafficking and those at risk of death, and in allowing the government to pick and choose which refugees from different countries it finds palatable from time to time.
“The bill fails to protect stateless people and children in the context of its provisions on removal, detention, accommodation and age assessment.”
Independent crossbench peer Baroness Meacher said the Illegal Migration Bill “flies in the face of the Refugee Convention.”
While former top diplomat Lord Hannay of Chiswick compared Home Office minister Lord Murray of Blidworth to the Red Queen in “Alice in Wonderland,” because in his comments that the bill does not contravene the Refugee Convention.
“He’s simply saying, ‘it’s so because I say it’s so’” the crossbench, life peer said.
Public ‘Gaslighting’
Douglas Hogg, viscount of Hailsham and a former Tory MP, also expressed his concern over the bill’s apparent distancing from the ECHR.He said that if the amendment to the legislation which seeks to enforce the UK to stick to its international human rights obligations is put forward, he would be voting in favour of it.
He added, “If the purpose test is designed to override convention rights, I shall vote against it if given the chance.”
However unaffiliated peer Baroness Fox said she believes international agreements “are being used in a particular political way on this issue.”
The former Brexit Party MEP said: “My concern is, how do we avoid ripping up Parliament’s long-standing commitment to UK democracy if international treaties become a barrier to acting at the behest of the electorate? It is true that the UK’s international reputation matters, of course, but I also think the parliamentary reputation matters at home as well to UK citizens.”
She added: “Breaching promises to the British electorate are leading to a cynicism and a bitterness in the electorate and low turnout at the elections were an indication of the fact that many people feel politically homeless.”
She accused the Lords of being an echo chamber out of touch with the “mood outside this House,” asserting that, “People feel they are being gaslit on the law.”
Life and Death
Addressing peers, LGBT rights activist Lord Cashman said he looked at the Illegal Migration Bill from a “very personal perspective.”“I stand here as someone who, for most of my life, I’ve faced discrimination and illegality,” Cashman said.
“Why? Because the views of the majority were used against people like me having the equal protection of the law and freedom from discrimination.
“I believe it is incumbent on anyone in public life to challenge public opinion, to lead public opinion and have the courage to do the right thing for the long-term and never follow the short-term.”
The Stonewall founder, who is a Labour member said he was “lucky” to have been born in the UK, but added, “I have to stand back and say, what if I hadn’t been?”
“What would I do to value my family, my life, my liberty? I would seek refuge,” he said.
“To leave your home is not an easy option – I say to the Government, don’t represent it as a rush through Waitrose with a three-wheeled shopping trolly, it’s about life and death.”
A senior church leader, who fled revolutionary Iran, also challenged the bill in the chamber.
Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt. Rev. Guli Francis-Dehqani, questioned if it was “plausible” to “make the migration system thoroughly orderly and predictable.”
The Bishop also criticised Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick over his use of the “offensive and disparaging term” asylum shopping in relation to migrants as she urged more careful use of language.
Speaking in the Lords, Francis-Dehqani said: “The shorthand of safe and legal, which has become all too common, is misleading and it leads to scaremongering. I believe we should be much more careful about our use of language.”
The bill is set to go through another four committee stages at the House of Lords.
