Immigration bill
During the bill’s second reading in the House of Lords this month, conservative lords criticised it.
On May 10, the House of Lords held a second reading of the Illegal Migration Bill.
The administration could have hoped for more support from Conservative peers, but that did not happen.
Many Conservative peers raised issues with the bill.
Representatives like Baroness Sugg and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate expressed discomfort with the bill’s violation of international law.
According to Lord Kirkhope, “they are using extreme rhetoric and, in carrying out their Rwandan scheme, flagrantly ignoring laws,” including the European Convention on Human Rights and other international accords in addition to the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Lord Garnier said that he thought the bill was unrealistic and would fail to accomplish its goals.
The bill “does not deal with the asylum backlog, nor does it do anything to bring to book traffickers,” according to Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. I wonder if the proposed legislation would have the desired deterrence impact.
Liberal Democrat peers even went so far as to vote in favour of a fatal amendment proposed by one of their own, Lord Paddick, whose opposition to the bill was shared by Labour peers.
Labour didn’t participate in the poll. Due to the opposition from Conservative peers, it failed with 76 votes to 179.
On May 24, committee stage for the bill will start.
Read This : Illegal Migration Bill
We have serious reservations regarding the compatibility of the new immigration bill with our international obligations as outlined by the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Refugee Convention.
When we disregard our international obligations, we undermine the very foundation of the rule of law.
One of our major concerns is that the bill will significantly reduce the oversight of our courts, potentially leading to a greater number of cases being brought to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This, in turn, places the UK at a higher risk of legal liability.
The bill includes only limited safeguards, and when combined with restrictive timescales for appeal, it is likely to restrict access to justice for all individuals affected by its provisions.
The specifics regarding the detention of individuals and their access to legal advice remain unclear, leaving many questions unanswered.
Given the absence of any “safe” third country, except Rwanda, available to accommodate those in detention, there is a possibility that tens of thousands of people could be detained indefinitely, resulting in substantial costs to the UK taxpayer.
Moreover, there are doubts about the practical feasibility of this bill based on its current terms.
The implications of these concerns are significant, particularly with regard to our reputation as a reliable nation that upholds its international responsibilities. This reputation has long been a cornerstone of our position as an attractive hub for global investment and as a defender of the rule of law.
What you need to know
On March 7, 2023, the Illegal Migration Bill was announced. It seeks to address difficulties with the UK’s asylum procedure, specifically small boat crossings of the English Channel.
The following proposals are made by the bill, which was not the topic of a public hearing:
- remove those who enter the UK via unauthorised routes to their home country, or a ‘safe’ third country, such as Rwanda
- block their access to the UK’s modern slavery protections
- disregard in most cases asylum or human rights claims made by asylum seekers
- widen the powers of detention for the purposes of removal, including detention of children
On March 13, the bill was given a second reading in the legislature. On March 27, it moved on to the committee stage. On April 25, it will move into the report stage.
Examining the Concerns Surrounding the New Immigration Bill
We have serious reservations regarding the compatibility of the new immigration bill with our international obligations as outlined by the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Refugee Convention.
When we disregard our international obligations, we undermine the very foundation of the rule of law.
One of our major concerns is that the bill will significantly reduce the oversight of our courts, potentially leading to a greater number of cases being brought to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This, in turn, places the UK at a higher risk of legal liability.
The bill includes only limited safeguards, and when combined with restrictive timescales for appeal, it is likely to restrict access to justice for all individuals affected by its provisions.
The specifics regarding the detention of individuals and their access to legal advice remain unclear, leaving many questions unanswered.
Given the absence of any “safe” third country, except Rwanda, available to accommodate those in detention, there is a possibility that tens of thousands of people could be detained indefinitely, resulting in substantial costs to the UK taxpayer.
Moreover, there are doubts about the practical feasibility of this bill based on its current terms.
The implications of these concerns are significant, particularly with regard to our reputation as a reliable nation that upholds its international responsibilities. This reputation has long been a cornerstone of our position as an attractive hub for global investment and as a defender of the rule of law.
