By 289 votes to 230, MPs vote through the Government's legislation aimed at stopping small boat crossings
The Government's controversial Illegal Migration Bill this evening successfully passed its third reading stage and was voted through the House of Commons. It will now go to the House of Lords.
Image credit: UK GovernmentMPs voted in favour of the Bill by 289 votes to 230 votes.
The Bill and all related documents, including amendment papers, are available on Parliament's website here. Numerous amendments were made to the Bill following its introduction in March.
Immigration minister Robert Jenrick said in the Commons today that the Illegal Migration Bill is probably the most significant immigration bill of his lifetime.
Jenrick stated: "It is worth reminding the House of why the Government introduced this vital Bill. A sovereign state must have control of its borders. Quite properly, we have an immigration system that determines who can come to the UK lawfully, whether to visit, to study, to work or for other legitimate reasons. … But the people of this country are rightly frustrated if a self-selected group of individuals can circumvent those controls by paying people smugglers to ferry them across the channel on a small boat. … Illegal migration undermines the integrity of our immigration system. … That is why we want to stop the boats and secure our borders, and this Bill is dedicated to that goal."
Critics say the Bill effectively amounts to a ban on asylum and it will not achieve its objective of stopping asylum seekers coming to the UK via small boats.
Stephen Kinnock, Labour's shadow immigration minister, told the Commons today: "Government Members repeatedly state that they wish to stop the dangerous channel crossings, but the fact is that they are completely and utterly failing to do so. Every single measure that Ministers announce turns out to be either an expensive and unworkable headline-chasing gimmick or a policy that succeeds only in making things worse, or indeed both. In the case of this legislative sham that we are debating today—this bigger backlog Bill—it is definitely both. Under the Conservatives, channel crossings have skyrocketed from 299 in 2018 to 46,000 in 2022."
Kinnock added: "The entire Bill is predicated on the Government being able to remove those who arrive here on small boats to a safe third country, and right now Rwanda is the only safe third country they have. As such, the fact that the Rwanda plan is unworkable, unaffordable and unethical renders this entire Bill unworkable, unaffordable and unethical."
In detailed legal observations released last month (available here), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said the Bill is inconsistent with the UK's obligations under the Refugee Convention as it effectively extinguishes the right of refugees to be recognized and protected in the UK, for all but a few.
Amnesty International UK said in a briefing paper published ahead of today's debate: "This proposed legislation is yet another huge step towards the UK completely abandoning its responsibilities under international law to respect and protect the universality of human rights. If passed, this Bill will harm refugees, victims of human trafficking, rob British people of their rights to British citizenship and will set a dangerous example to other countries. It will do this all, ultimately at a huge human, moral and financial cost."
The speed in which the Bill progressed through the Commons has also attracted considerable criticism.
Last month, Nick Vineall KC, the chair of the Bar Council, said the Bill had been introduced on an "extraordinarily truncated" timescale without prior consultation and there was "no justification for such exceptional haste which will impact the level of scrutiny and debate and ultimately makes for bad law."
As noted in today's debate in the Commons, the impact assessment for the Bill has still yet to be published.
Labour MP, and chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Diana Johnson told the Commons: "I wish again to express my concerns about the lack of an impact assessment for the Bill. The impact assessment is now seven weeks late, and it is wholly unacceptable that the House is being forced to pass this very significant legislation with no firm analysis on whether it will work or what the cost will be. According to the Refugee Council, the Bill could cost as much as £9 billion over the next three years. I again refer to the Home Affairs Committee report on small boat crossings, in which we were very clear about the need for evidence-based policy making. It is regrettable that this Bill is being forced through at breakneck speed with no time for pre-legislative scrutiny."