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.
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.”
Image: 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.”
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
2:32
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.
Image: 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.”
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.
Sir Keir Starmer’s controversial welfare bill has passed its first hurdle in the Commons despite a sizeable rebellion from his MPs.
The prime minister’s watered-down Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill, aimed at saving £5.5bn, was backed by a majority of 75 on Tuesday evening.
A total of 49 Labour MPs voted against the bill – the largest rebellion since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.
After multiple concessions made due to threats of a Labour rebellion, many MPs questioned what they were voting for as the bill had been severely stripped down.
They ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the bill voted through “is not expected to deliver any savings over the next four years” because the savings from reducing the Universal Credit health element for new claimants will be roughly offset by the cost of increasing the UC standard allowance.
More from Politics
Just 90 minutes before voting started on Tuesday evening, disabilities minister Stephen Timms announced the last of a series of concessions made as dozens of Labour MPs spoke of their fears for disabled and sick people if the bill was made law.
In a major U-turn, he said changes in eligibility for the personal independence payment (PIP), the main disability payment to help pay for extra costs incurred, would not take place until a review he is carrying out into the benefit is published in autumn 2026.
An amendment brought by Labour MP Rachael Maskell, which aimed to prevent the bill progressing to the next stage, was defeated but 44 Labour MPs voted for it.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:31
Welfare bill blows ‘black hole’ in chancellor’s accounts
A Number 10 source told Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby: “Change isn’t easy, we’ve always known that, we’re determined to deliver on the mandate the country gave us, to make Britain work for hardworking people.
“We accept the will of the house, and want to take colleagues with us, our destination – a social security system that supports the most vulnerable, and enables people to thrive – remains.”
But the Conservative shadow chancellor Mel Stride called the vote “farcical” and said the government “ended up in this terrible situation” because they “rushed it”.
He warned the markets “will have noticed that when it comes to taking tougher decisions about controlling and spending, this government has been found wanting”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:02
‘Absolutely lessons to learn’ after welfare vote
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said: “I wish we’d got to this point in a different way. And there are absolutely lessons to learn.
“But I think it’s really important we pass this bill at the second reading, it put some really important reforms to the welfare system – tackling work disincentives, making sure that people with severe conditions would no longer be assessed and alongside our investment in employment support this will help people get back to work, because that’s the brighter future for them.”
She made further concessions on Monday in the hope the rebels’ fears would be allayed, but many were concerned the PIP eligibility was going to be changed at the same time the review was published, meaning its findings would not be taken into account.
Her changes were:
• Current PIP claimants, and any up to November 2026, would have the same eligibility criteria as they do now, instead of the stricter measure proposed
• A consultation into PIP to be “co-produced” with disabled people and published in autumn 2026
• For existing and future Universal Credit (UC) claimants, the combined value of the standard UC allowance and the health top-up will rise “at least in line with inflation” every year for the rest of this parliament
• The UC health top-up, for people with limited ability to work due to a disability or long-term sickness, will get a £300m boost next year – doubling the current amount – then rising to £800m the year after and £1bn in 2028/29.
Labour’s welfare reforms bill has passed, with 335 MPs voting in favour and 260 against.
It came after the government watered down the bill earlier this evening, making a dramatic last-minute concession to the demands of would-be rebel MPs who were concerned about the damage the policy would do to disabled people.
The government has a working majority of 166, so it would have taken 84 rebels to defeat the bill.
In total, 49 Labour MPs still voted against the bill despite the concessions. No MPs from other parties voted alongside the government, although three MPs elected for Labour who have since had the whip removed did so.
Which Labour MPs rebelled?
Last week, 127 Labour MPs signed what they called a “reasoned amendment”, a letter stating their objection to the bill as it was.
The government responded with some concessions to try and win back the rebels, which was enough to convince some of them. But they were still ultimately forced to make more changes today.
In total, 68 MPs who signed the initial “reasoned amendment” eventually voted in favour of the bill.
Nine in 10 MPs elected for the first time at the 2024 general election voted with the government.
That compares with fewer than three quarters of MPs who were voted in before that.
A total of 42 Labour MPs also voted in favour of an amendment that would have stopped the bill from even going to a vote at all. That was voted down by 328 votes to 149.
How does the rebellion compare historically?
If the wording of the bill had remained unchanged and 127 MPs or more had voted against it on Tuesday, it would have been up there as one of the biggest rebellions in British parliamentary history.
As it happened, it was still higher than the largest recorded during Tony Blair’s first year as PM, when 47 of his Labour colleagues (including Diane Abbott, John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn, who also voted against the bill on Tuesday) voted no to his plan to cut benefits for single-parent families.
The Data and Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.
A 92-year-old man has been sentenced to life with a minimum term of 20 years in prison for the rape and murder of an elderly widow nearly 60 years ago.
Ryland Headley was found guilty on Monday of killing 75-year-old Louisa Dunne at her Bristol home in June 1967, in what is thought to be the UK’s longest cold case to reach trial, and has been told by the judge he “will die in prison”.
The mother-of-two’s body was found by neighbours after Headley, then a 34-year-old railway worker, forced his way inside the terraced house in the Easton area before attacking her.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:09
The UK’s longest cold case to reach trial
Police found traces of semen and a palm print on one of the rear windows inside the house – but it was about 20 years before DNA testing.
The case remained unsolved for more than 50 years until Avon and Somerset detectives sent off items from the original investigation and found a DNA match to Headley.
He had moved to Suffolk after the murder and served a prison sentence for raping two elderly women in 1977.
Prosecutors said the convictions showed he had a “tendency” to break into people’s homes at night and, in some cases, “target an elderly woman living alone, to have sex with her despite her attempts to fend him off, and to threaten violence”.
Image: Louisa Dunne in 1933. Pic: Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Image: Headley during his arrest. Pic: Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Headley, from Ipswich, who did not give evidence, denied raping and murdering Ms Dunne, but was found guilty of both charges after a trial at Bristol Crown Court.
Detectives said forces across the country are investigating whether Headley could be linked to other unsolved crimes.
Mrs Dunne’s granddaughter, Mary Dainton, who was 20 when her relative was killed, told the court that her murder “had a big impact on my mother, my aunt and her family.
“I don’t think my mother ever recovered from it. The anxiety caused by her mother’s brutal rape and murder clouded the rest of her life.
“The fact the offender wasn’t caught caused my mother to become and remain very ill.
“When people found out about the murder, they withdrew from us. In my experience, there is a stigma attached to rape and murder.”
Image: The front of Louisa Dunne’s home. Pic: Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Image: Louisa Dunne’s skirt. Pic: Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Finding out her grandmother’s killer had been caught after almost six decades “turned my life upside down,” she said.
“I feel sad and very tired, which has affected the relationships I have with those close to me. I didn’t expect to deal with something of such emotional significance at this stage of my life.
“It saddens me deeply that all the people who knew and loved Louisa are not here to see that justice has been done.”
Image: Palmprint images. Pic: Avon and Somerset Constabulary
After her statement, Mr Justice Sweeting told Mrs Dainton: “It is not easy to talk about matters like this in public.
“Thank you very much for doing it in such a clear and dignified way.”
The judge told Headley his crimes showed “a complete disregard for human life and dignity.
“Mrs Dunne was vulnerable, she was a small elderly woman living alone. You treated her as a means to an end.
“The violation of her home, her body and ultimately her life was a pitiless and cruel act by a depraved man.
“She must have experienced considerable pain and fear before her death,” he said.
Sentencing Headley to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 years, the judge told him: “You will never be released, you will die in prison.”
Detective Inspector Dave Marchant of Avon and Somerset Police said Headley was “finally facing justice for the horrific crimes he committed against Louisa in 1967.
“The impact of this crime has cast a long shadow over the city and in particular Louisa’s family, who have had to deal with the sadness and trauma ever since.”
The officer praised Ms Dainton’s “resilience and courage” during what he called a “unique” case and thanked investigators from his own force, as well as South West Forensics, detectives from Suffolk Constabulary, the National Crime Agency and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).