The government’s key immigration bill passed the House of Commons by a vote of 289 to 230 on Wednesday, but is likely to be changed after double criticism from former Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May and the Children’s Commissioner for England in the Upper House.
The bill would allow the government to detain people arriving in the UK on small boats and in almost all cases prevent them from seeking asylum in the UK.
Critics say the bill would effectively prevent people from traveling within the UK beyond a small number of predetermined safe routes currently only open to Ukrainian refugees and some Afghans, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission warns they could violate international rights. person. law.
Ms May, who abstained on the bill’s third reading, intervened in the small boat bill despite ministers’ desperate attempts to persuade her and other rebels to make concessions, warning that doing so would increase the toll of modern-day slavery.
In a separate objection to the legislation, Dame Rachel de Souza, Commissioner for Children, said that despite the amendment to protect unaccompanied minors, the children of asylum seekers are still not fully protected.
Dame Rachel said she was “deeply disappointed by the government’s continued lack of clarity on critical elements” and that the wording of the children’s bill continued to be a “grey area”.
The interventions raise the likelihood that the peers’ illegal migration bill will be blocked when it enters the House of Lords next month.
Rishi Sunak used his tenure as prime minister to pass laws to prevent small boatloads of migrants from crossing the English Channel, with concessions to Conservative MPs from all sides of the party.
The bill is likely to struggle when it enters the House of Lords next month as Labor, the Liberal Democrats and some fellow Conservatives, as well as several bishops, plan to oppose the larger measure in committee later in May and June.
May and her former Conservative colleague Sir Ian Duncan Smith joined forces to pass an amendment exempting victims of modern slavery from deportation to Rwanda. The measure was not put to a vote by the MPs, but is more likely to be passed to the Lords, where it has a better chance of being passed.
The ex-premier told the deputies that a separate change in the government, designed to attract the rebels to the problem of modern slavery, will actually become a “slap in the face” to those who care about the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking.
She added: “Modern slavery is the greatest human rights issue of our time. I think the approach in this bill will have several implications. I believe this will send the victims into slavery.
“The government will enslave and exploit more people as a result of this law, because it will kill the slave traders, it will give the traffickers another weapon to keep people in this slavery and exploitation, because it will be very easy to say, “Think about it.” Don’t even think about avoiding the suffering of your life, the suffering we are causing you, because all the UK government will do is reject you and possibly reject you. to Rwanda.
“The Modern Slavery Act has given the victims hope, this bill is taking hope away from them. I firmly believe that if this law is passed in the form it is currently proposed, more people, more men, women and children, will remain in slavery in Great Britain.
Dame Rachel said: “Children should be able to apply for asylum and be exempt from deportation. The circumstances under which the Home Office will take children under this bill remain a significant gray area – this needs to be urgently clarified on the surface of the bill.
Former Home Secretary Swella Braverman told TalkTV the bill was “the legislation that the British overwhelmingly want,” adding: “I urge my colleagues in the House of Lords to support these measures, they are absolutely necessary so that we can stop the boats. they are necessary to prevent people from making this dangerous journey.
This week, a senior bishop announced strong opposition to the bill in the House of Lords, warning that it would “do harm” and lead people to poverty.
So said the Bishop of Durham. I The government has abandoned its moral and legal obligations to protect those fleeing persecution.
Ahead of the vote in the House of Commons, the Equality and Human Rights Commission said it “remains deeply concerned that the law threatens to force the UK to violate its international legal obligations to protect human rights and subject people to serious harm.”
The bill “risks violating the Refugee Convention by restricting the right to asylum and punishing refugees,” the commission warned.
Mr Sunak suffered a second parliamentary blow when the Lords blocked a strike mitigation bill.
Colleagues inflicted four defeats on government anti-strike legislation, including blocking a measure that would put frontline workers at risk of being fired if they joined the strike.
TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak urged the government to review legislation in the aftermath of the defeat. He said: “No one should be fired for trying to get a better deal at work.
“Therefore, colleagues did the right thing by voting that nurses, teachers, firefighters and other public sector workers should not be fired for exercising their right to strike.”
Source: I News
I’m Sandra Hansen, a news website Author and Reporter for 24 News Reporters. I have over 7 years of experience in the journalism field, with an extensive background in politics and political science. My passion is to tell stories that are important to people around the globe and to engage readers with compelling content.