Government suffers four defeats before technical problems cause postponement of further votes
The House of Lords this evening has inflicted multiple defeats on the Government's Illegal Migration Bill.
Image credit: UK GovernmentIn the first defeat of the day, the Lords voted by 222 to 179 in favour of an amendment moved by Baroness Chakrabarti which clarifies that the provisions of the Bill should be interpreted consistently with the UK's obligations under relevant international human rights treaties.
Baroness Chakrabarti said of the amendment: "It replaces the rather long and strange narrative in Clause 1, so as to reinstate Section 3, the interpretation provision, of the Human Rights Act, and ensure that the rest of the Bill is read so as not to require that British officials, Ministers or His Majesty's judges breach precious international treaties that our former statesmen and stateswomen played such a heroic part in creating. These are the [European Convention on Human Rights] of 1950, the refugee convention of 1951, the conventions on statelessness of 1954 and 1961, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, and the anti-trafficking convention of 2005. This interpretation amendment is essential to protecting the most vulnerable people, including by any amendments to follow. It is equally important for the international rules-based order and for our reputation as a great democracy in a troubled world."
The amendment was one of several which the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) advised Lords to support.
In a briefing published today (accessible from here), the EHRC warned that provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill risk placing the UK in breach of its international legal obligations to protect human rights.
In the second defeat of the day, the Lords voted to remove the provision of the Bill that would see the duty to deport apply retrospectively to those who arrived in the UK without permission from March 7th, when the Bill was introduced, rather than when it receives royal assent and enters into law. Lord Carlile of Berriew's amendment passed by 219 votes to 177.
Lord Carlile, a KC and former MP, told the House of Lords: "Retrospectivity is the enemy of legal certainty. Legal certainty is a basic tenet of common law and of our statutory law. … I remind your Lordships that the House of Lords Constitution Committee has emphasised that retrospective legislation should be passed in very exceptional circumstances only. The proof of very exceptional circumstances should require more than mere assertion: it should require clear evidence. The fact that the retrospectivity asked for, as in this situation, may affect a relatively small cohort of people is no mitigation for the wrong of unnecessary retrospectivity. The Government are not offering evidence. They are offering a refrain, and the refrain is: 'Stop the boats'. But they have failed to offer any convincing evidence at all as to how the present circumstances are so exceptional as to justify the Bill's wide-ranging retrospective powers. This is wholly unacceptable, given that the proposals represent a widespread retroactive overhaul of our asylum law, founded simply on a deterrent effect—'Stop the boats'—which is unproved."
A third defeat saw the Lords vote by 210 to 145 in favour of Lord Hunt's amendment to remove the provision of the Bill that would allow claimed victims of modern slavery or human trafficking to be removed from the UK.
Lord Hunt noted: "My amendments first seek to remove from Clause 4 the inclusion of a claim to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking from provision under which the Secretary of State must declare the claim inadmissible. My amendments to Clause 21, which are consequential, seek to restore current protections of victims of trafficking and modern slavery. Like many noble Lords, I was very proud and very supportive of the Government when the Modern Slavery Act was taken through Parliament. This Bill undermines that Act completely. The Minister has not come up with one substantive piece of evidence to suggest that there is a fault in the actual system contained in that legislation. Unamended, this Bill is a completely untried and untested proposal, but it will undoubtedly strengthen the hands of the trafficking networks. Traffickers know; they keep people under control with threats that they will not receive help if they reach out to the authorities. We really must remove this provision."
A further defeat followed, as the Lords voted for an amendment by Lord Dubs regarding claims by unaccompanied children, bringing the total number of defeats today to four.
Lord Dubs commented as he moved his amendment: "This amendment would make asylum and human rights claims admissible from unaccompanied children, who are exempted from the duty to remove by Clause 3. This would continue current policy under which unaccompanied children’s asylum claims are not subject to the inadmissibility regime."
Dubs emphasised to the Lords: "The clear point is this: the impact of the Bill will be that children claiming asylum in the UK will automatically be turned away, based on the method by which they have travelled and arrived in the UK. That, in effect, will mean that children will be refused an application for asylum, regardless of their need for protection as child refugees. … What we are doing with this Bill is shutting the door on some of the most vulnerable human beings on earth: refugee children. These are children who have escaped the most appalling situations. The Government was wobbly even in the Commons during Report on this issue, and the right thing would be for them to accept this amendment. There is absolutely no argument why they should turn their backs on children, the most vulnerable refugees that there are."
While two further votes were scheduled this evening, technical problems in the Lords led to the votes being postponed.
Baroness Jenny Jones explained on Twitter: "[T]he next two votes didn't happen because the new super duper voting machines broke down. So the votes have been postponed to Monday."