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 are tonight discussing the Illegal Migration Bill as it goes through its latest parliamentary stage before it can become law.
While some Tories have hit out against “lefty lawyers” for making action on illegal arrivals 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”.
Speaking during the debate, Sir John Hayes MP 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 is among a number of Tory backbenchers who have been threatening to rebel against the bill if it does 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 bill.
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 has 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.
But the government is facing dissent from its own ranks on two fronts.
Other Conservatives from the more liberal wings of the party are calling for the government to create and improve safe and legal routes for those seeking asylum in the UK – a move likely to gain the support of opposition parties who plan to vote down the bill.
Tory MP Tim Loughton has said he will push his own amendment to a vote unless he gets “some substantial reassurances from the government” that new routes will be introduced as part of the bill.
However, Sky News understands there has been some movement from the Home Office on the issue, meaning he may not move the amendment later.
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.”
‘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.”
Birmingham band UB40 say the city’s striking bin workers and their union should “keep fighting” in their dispute over pay.
It comes as the government and the council urged them to accept a “fair and reasonable offer”.
“We’re fully on their side,” drummer Jimmy Brown told Sky News. “I think they shouldn’t give up, they should still be fighting.
“Working people shouldn’t have to take a reduction in their incomes, which is what we’re talking about here.
“We’re talking about people being paid less and it seems to me with prices going up, heating, buying food, inflation and rents going up then people need a decent wage to have a half decent life… keep going boys!”
Members of the Unite union in Birmingham earlier this month. Pic: PA
Workers joined picket lines again on Thursday, with some fearing they could be up to £600 a month worse off if they accept the terms.
“We have total utter support for the bin men and all trade unions,” said guitarist Robin Campbell.
“The other side is always going to say they’ve made a reasonable offer – the point is they’re the ones who’ve messed up, they’re the ones who’ve gone bankrupt, they’re the ones now trying to reduce the bin men’s wages.”
👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈
Lead singer Matt Doyle told Sky News: “It’s a shame that what we’re seeing is all the images of rats and rubbish building up, that is going to happen inevitably, but we’ve just got to keep fighting through that.”
About 22,000 tonnes of rubbish accumulated on the city’s streets after a major incident was declared last month by Birmingham City Council.
Rubbish has blighted the city’s streets for weeks . Pic: PA
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Bin situation ‘pains me’ – council boss
On a visit to the city, local government minister Jim McMahon said the union and local authority should continue to meet in “good faith” and the government felt there was a deal that could be “marshalled around”.
He paid tribute to the “hundreds of workers” who have worked “around the clock” to clear the rubbish.
Read more:
Bin workers urged to accept ‘fair’ offer
Military planners help with bin crisis
“As we stand here today, 85% of that accumulated waste has been cleared and the council have a plan in place now to make sure it doesn’t accumulate going forward,” said Mr McMahon.
Sky News understands talks are not set to resume until next week.
Trans women in British Transport Police custody will now be strip searched by male officers – not female – following Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling.
The force said it is introducing an “interim position” while it digests the Supreme Court’s decision that the definition of a “woman” under the Equality Act 2010 refers to “a biological woman and biological sex”.
A British Transport Police (BTP) Authority spokesman told Sky News: “Under previous policy, we had advised that someone with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) may be searched in accordance with their acquired sex.
“However, as an interim position while we digest today’s judgment, we have advised our officers that any same sex searches in custody are to be undertaken in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee.”
Politics latest: Badenoch responds to Jenrick WhatsApp mishap
In September last year, BTP, which is responsible for policing the UK’s railways and similar transport systems, published its “position” on transgender and non-binary officers carrying out strip searches.
It said officers would “only be able to search persons of the same sex on their birth or gender recognition certificate (GRC).
Officers who identified as another gender but who did not have a GRC were not allowed to, but if a trans woman had a certificate, they could strip search a female detainee.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Gender ruling – How it happened
Strip searches involve the removal of more than a jacket, outer coat, gloves, headwear and footwear.
They “expose buttocks, genitalia and (female) breasts”, the BTP guidance says.
The Sex Matters campaign applied for a judicial review of that guidance with the High Court in December.
It said the policy “puts detainees at risk of sexual harassment and sexual assault”, and said it was a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.
Sex Matters said the policy “also puts female officers in a humiliating and dangerous position, as they may be pressured to search trans-identified men”.
Read more: NHS must stop trans people being allowed on single-sex wars
Campaigners celebrated outside the Supreme Court after Wednesday’s ruling. Pic: PA
One of the High Court judges who made Wednesday’s decision, Lord Hodge, said the ruling should not be read as “a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”.
Government minister Karin Smyth told Sky News public bodies have been told to look at how equality laws are implemented following the ruling.
She said: “Obviously, public bodies have been asked to look at their own guidance.
“And we will do that very, very carefully.”
But she warned against public bodies making statements “that may alarm people”, telling them to take their time to look at their guidance.
Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chair of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said the ruling means there is “no confusion” now.
She said the NHS will “have to change” its 2019 policy, which says transgender patients are entitled to be accommodated on single-sex wards matching how they identify.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway