MPs debating Illegal Migration Bill clash as Tory criticises ‘swarm’ of arrivals
A Tory MP has warned of a “wave” and “swarm” of migrants coming to the UK as the Commons debated the government’s controversial legislation to tackle small boat crossings in the Channel.
MPs have been discussing the Illegal Migration Bill tonight as it goes through its latest parliamentary stage before it can become law, as around 100 protesters gathered outside to voice their opposition to the plans.
While some Tories have hit out against “lefty lawyers” for making action on those arriving difficult, other opposition MPs have insisted the UK is “not swamped by refugees” and merely has an “incompetent government”.
The bill’s controversial proposals, which home secretary Suella Braverman has admitted may not adhere to international human rights laws, aim to stop people from making the perilous journey to the UK by boat after more than 45,000 people took the route from France last year.
But with clauses allowing the detention and swift removal of asylum seekers, it has received condemnation from refugee charities and opposition parties, who said the plans were “costly”, “unworkable”, and “promise nothing but more demonisation and punishment of asylum seekers”.
The government was forced to promise some changes to the bill late in the day after some of its own backbenchers threatened to rebel over the role of the courts and the introduction of new safe and legal routes.
But other amendments by opposition parties failed to get enough support to influence the legislation.
Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts
Arrivals ‘make a nonsense’ of immigration system
Speaking during the debate, Tory MP Sir John Hayes echoed words Ms Braverman had used about migrants and asylum seekers, which caused a backlash against the minister earlier this year.
He said the bill offered the chance to “deal once and for all with the matter of the boats arriving in Dover”.
The MP for South Holland and The Deepings in Lincolnshire added: “And I do use the words ‘tide’, ‘wave’… I think the home secretary described it as a ‘swarm’… of people coming here who know they are arriving illegally, who know they are breaking the law.
“For they know they have no papers or right to be here and therefore make a nonsense of an immigration system which must have integrity if it is to garner and maintain popular support.”
Sir John Hayes is part of a group of Tory MPs pushing for tougher measures in the bill
Continuing his speech, the veteran backbencher added: “It isn’t too much to make that simple statement, is it? It isn’t too much to expect a government maintains lawful control of our borders?
“And yet I hear constantly… that somehow that is militant, unreasonable, extreme. It is anything but those things.
“It is modest, it is moderate, it is just, it is virtuous to have a system which means that people who come here come here lawfully and the people who come here seeking asylum are dealt with properly.”
Read more:
Corbyn refuses to be drawn on his future
The life and controversies of new SNP leader
Sunak and Braverman heckled in Essex
Rebels on two fronts for the government
Sir John was among a number of Tory backbenchers who had been threatening to rebel against the bill if it did not include tougher measures to block the courts, especially the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), from intervening on deportation decisions.
Sir Bill Cash warned of “judicial activism” over the policy, while Jack Brereton spoke of “activist lefty lawyers” blocking the removal of migrants.
Danny Kruger echoed those arguments and called for “no more pyjama injunctions in the middle of the night” from the ECHR.
But fellow Tory Laura Farris said her colleagues “should be very wary of quick fixes”, adding: “We said throughout the Brexit debate we would be taking back control of our borders, but it is more complex than that.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What is new small boats bill?
The rebel group calling for tougher measures on court intervention had promised not to push an amendment containing its plans to a vote after conversations with ministers over the weekend, who apparently promised to act on their concerns.
And immigration minister Robert Jenrick ensured the amendment’s withdrawal after his speech wrapping up the debate, promising to “engage closely with colleagues” ahead of the next stage of the bill.
He added: “We are united in our determination this bill would be a robust bill, that it will be able to survive the kind of egregious and vexatious challenges that we have seen in the past, and that it will enable us to do the job and remove illegal immigrants to safe third countries like Rwanda.”
However, the government was facing dissent from its own ranks on two fronts.
Other Conservatives from the more liberal wings of the party were calling for the government to create and improve safe and legal routes for those seeking asylum in the UK – a move which would likely have gained the support of opposition parties who plan to vote down the bill.
Tory MP Tim Loughton said he would push his own amendment to a vote unless he got “some substantial reassurances from the government” that new routes will be introduced as part of the bill.
Tim Loughton brought forward an amendment
Earlier, Mr Loughton told the Commons: “We need to be ruthless against the people smugglers who benefit from this miserable trade.
“[And] we want to continue to offer safe haven for those genuinely escaping danger and persecution and in a sustainable way.
“And that is why safe and legal routes is the obvious antidote to this problem.”
The Tory MP added: “I think this bill is a genuine attempt to get to grips with [the small boats issue].
“It would be much more palatable and much more workable if it contained a balance that has safe and legal routes written into the bill that comes in at the same stage.”
But again, Mr Jenrick announced changes to the plan to win over Mr Loughton and his supporters – promising to bring in new safe and legal routes next year.
The minister added: “As the prime minister has said, it is precisely because we want to help genuine refugees that we need to take full control of our borders.
“Safe and legal routes like those that we have brought forward in recent years, the safe and legal routes that have enabled almost half a million people to come into our country for humanitarian purposes since 2015, are exactly how we will achieve that.”
Click to subscribe to the Sophy Ridge on Sunday podcast
‘Moral outrage’
The debate also saw critics of the bill voice their concerns.
Labour’s shadow immigration minister, Stephen Kinnock, said: “We on these benches are absolutely clear that we must bring the dangerous Channel crossings to an end and that we must destroy the criminal activity of the people smugglers.
“[But this bill only offers] headline chasing gimmicks which are the stock and trade of the benches opposite.”
He said even with the measures proposed, “the boats will keep on coming, the backlog will keep on growing and the hotels will keep on filling”, and said the plan was “not really worth the paper it is written on” and was “a dog’s breakfast”.
Former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron also called the bill “dozy” and “dangerous”.
“We are not swamped by refugees,” he added. “We have a system, an asylum system, run by an incompetent government.
“What is maybe the most morally outrageous thing about this whole debate is that these people, whether they are genuine asylum seekers or not… they are being blamed for the government’s incompetence. What a moral outrage.”
MPs will return to the Commons tomorrow afternoon to debate the bill further.
UK
Nurse Sandie Peggie who complained about sharing changing room with transgender doctor wins part of employment tribunal
A nurse who complained about sharing a changing room with a transgender doctor has won part of her employment tribunal against NHS Fife, although several claims were dismissed.
Sandie Peggie took action against the health board and transgender medic Dr Beth Upton after she was suspended from her job at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy following a row with her colleague on Christmas Eve 2023.
Ms Peggie, who has worked for the NHS for 30 years, was placed on special leave after Dr Upton made an allegation of bullying and harassment, and cited concerns about patient care.
The nurse lodged a claim against NHS Fife and Dr Upton, citing the Equality Act 2010, including sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination, and victimisation.
The employment tribunal hearings took place in Dundee before Judge Sandy Kemp earlier this year.
In a written judgment on Monday, the harassment claim was upheld against NHS Fife, but allegations of discrimination, indirect discrimination and victimisation were dismissed.
The claims against Dr Upton did not succeed and were dismissed.
Dr Beth Upton arriving at the tribunal in February. Pic: PA
Ms Peggie stated: “I am beyond relieved and delighted that the tribunal has found that my employer Fife Health Board harassed me after I complained about having to share a female-only changing room with a male colleague.
“The last two years have been agonising for me and my family.
“I will have much more to say in the coming days once I’ve been able to properly consider the lengthy judgment and discuss it with my legal team.
“For now, I am looking forward to spending a quiet few days with my family.”
Ms Peggie paid tribute to her “incredible” legal team, which included lead counsel Naomi Cunningham, junior counsel Dr Charlotte Elves, and solicitor Margaret Gribbon.
She added: “There are many others I would like to thank and will do so in the coming days.”
Read more:
NHS Fife chief announces early retirement ahead of ruling
The tribunal found that NHS Fife had harassed Ms Peggie by failing to revoke the grant of permission to Dr Upton on an interim basis after the nurse complained, for the period until different work rotas took effect so that they would not work together and said that, as a result, Dr Upton was in the changing room when the claimant was present on two occasions.
It also found the board had harassed Ms Peggie by taking an unreasonable length of time to investigate the allegations against her; by making reference to patient care allegations against her on 28 March 2024; and giving an instruction to her not to discuss the case, until a further message a little over two weeks later which confirmed that applied only to the investigation.
A separate hearing on remedy – which could see Ms Peggie receive financial compensation – will take place at a later date.
NHS Fife said it had been a “complex and lengthy process”.
The health board added: “The employment tribunal unanimously dismissed all of the claimant’s allegations against Dr Upton and all of the allegations against the board apart from four specific aspects of the harassment complaint.
“We will now take time to work through the detail of the judgment alongside our legal team to understand fully what it means for the organisation.
“We want to recognise how difficult this tribunal has been for everyone directly and indirectly involved.
“Our focus now is to ensure that NHS Fife remains a supportive and inclusive environment for all employees and our patients and to deliver health and care to the population of Fife.”
Retired footballer Joey Barton has been sentenced over X posts he sent to football pundits Eni Aluko and Lucy Ward, along with broadcaster Jeremy Vine.
Barton, 43, had been found guilty of six counts of sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety.
He was sentenced to a six-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, at Liverpool Crown Court on Monday.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Watch judge’s remarks in Barton sentencing
The former Manchester City, Newcastle United and Rangers midfielder had claimed he was the victim of a “political prosecution” and denied his aim was to “get clicks and promote himself”.
But the jury decided Barton, capped once for England in 2007, had “crossed the line between free speech and a crime” with the six posts he made on the social media platform.
The prosecution argued that Barton, who has 2.5 million followers, “may well be characterised as cutting, caustic, controversial and forthright”.
Peter Wright KC continued: “Everyone is entitled to express views that are all of those things.
“What someone is not entitled to do is to post communications electronically that are – applying those standards – beyond the pale of what is tolerable in society.”
Barton denied 12 counts of sending a grossly offensive electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety between January and March last year.
He was found guilty on six counts, but cleared of another six.
Eni Aluko at London’s Royal Courts of Justice last year for her libel claim against Barton. Photo: PA
In one post in January 2024, Barton compared Aluko and Ward to the “Fred and Rose West of football commentary”, and superimposed the women’s faces on a photograph of the serial murderers.
He also described Aluko as being in the “Joseph Stalin/Pol Pot category”, suggesting that she had “murdered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of football fans’ ears”.
The jury found him not guilty in relation to the comparison with the Wests, Stalin and Pol Pot, but decided the superimposed image was grossly offensive.
Jeremy Vine. Pic: PA
Another message allegedly suggested Vine had a sexual interest in children, after the broadcaster posted a question relating to the posts about the football commentators asking whether Barton had a “brain injury”.
The court heard Barton replied to Vine’s tweet with a post referring to him as “you big bike nonce” and made references to convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The ex-footballer told the court the posts were “dark and stupid humour” and “crude banter”. He also said he had no intention of implying Vine was a paedophile.
Sentencing, the Honorary Recorder of Liverpool, Judge Andrew Menary KC, told Barton: “Robust debate, satire, mockery and even crude language may fall within permissible free speech.
“But when posts deliberately target individuals with vilifying comparisons to serial killers or false insinuations of paedophilia, designed to humiliate and distress, they forfeit their protection.
“As the jury concluded, your offences exemplify behaviour that is beyond this limit – amounting to a sustained campaign of online abuse that was not mere commentary but targeted, extreme and deliberately harmful.”
Barton was also given a two-year restraining order preventing him from contacting Aluko, Ward or Vine, or publishing any reference to them on a social media platform or broadcast platform.
He will also have to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work in the community and pay prosecution costs of £23,419.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024