A government minister has accused Labour and Liberal Democrat members of the House of Lords of voting “sabotage” key elements of the government’s flagship small boats legislation.
Neil O’Brien, a health minister, told Sky News, “We’ve got to restore our ability to deport people who shouldn’t be here”, after the government suffered a series of defeats on its illegal migration bill on Wednesday evening.
One of the amendments passed by the Lords included a requirement for the government to abide by a series of international agreements such as the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Speaking this morning, Mr O’Brien: “We are, through this small boats bill, taking action to take away that thicket of rules and human rights laws that are being used by all these people at the last minute to stop themselves being deported”.
He accused Liberal Democrat and Labour peers of “fighting tooth and nail” to stop the flagship legislation which he contended the rest of the country was roundly in favour of.
Under the illegal migration bill, in its unamended state, arrivals on “small boats” would be detained within the first 28 days without bail or judicial review. The legislation would also place a legal duty on the government to deport almost anyone who arrives “irregularly” to the UK to their home country or a “safe” third country such as Rwanda. And it would introduce a cap on the number of refugees offered sanctuary through safe and legal routes.
Peers voted to say the bill should only apply from when it is brought into law, rather than it being backdating its proposals to 7 March. They voted to allow unaccompanied children to claim asylum. And they voted to ensure victims of people trafficking are not detained or deported before they can apply to a referral system for protection and support.
After these votes, the balloting system in the House of Lords failed, meaning the session will now resume on Monday.
Home Office minister Lord Murray of Blidworth accused peers of trying to derail the bill, branding the change a “wrecking amendment” that would make it unworkable.
It is also a significant day for the government’s Rwanda policy as the Court of Appeal rules this morning, at around 10.00 am, on whether migrants can be lawfully deported to the country to claim asylum there.
The court ruling in favour of ministers would represent a significant step towards getting the Rwanda scheme off the ground.
Conversely, if the court finds against the government, the verdict could still be appealed to the UK’s Supreme Court and to the European Court of Human Rights, further delaying the implementation of the policy.
Conservative Baroness Helic and critic of the illegal migration bill said on Wednesday: “The government say they believe it is compliant. A great number of others, including some of the bodies tasked with implementing these conventions, say that it is not.
“What is clear is that disobeying or disapplying international agreements which bear the name of the United Kingdom is not acceptable.
“If the government is unhappy with international obligations, then they are free to seek to renegotiate them, but simply ignoring our international legal commitments in pursuit of domestic expediency puts us in very bad company”.
Writing in The Times in May, the home secretary Suella Braverman and justice secretary Alex Chalk urged peers to “remember [the bill] is designed to meet the will of the British people in a humane and fair way, and back the bill”.
