Government wins latest battle with Lords over Illegal Migration Bill
The government has managed to fight off the latest challenge from the House of Lords seeking to change its Illegal Migration Bill.
In a vote in the Commons, MPs voted to reject all nine amendments peers had put forward to change the legislation.
That was despite some high-profile rebels from the Tory benches supporting the amendments suggested in the Lords – including former party leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith and ex-justice secretary Sir Robert Buckland.
After the vote by MPs, immigration minister Robert Jenrick urged the other House to now drop its amendments to the bill, which aims for the “swift detention and removal” of people arriving in the UK illegally, particularly via Channel crossings.
But Sky News understand peers will push forward with at least four of their proposals when the legislation returns to them later tonight.
Politics live: Labour mayor quits party as he slams Starmer
The government has insisted throughout that its proposed new law, including its Rwanda deportation plan, is the best way to “stop the boats” – one of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s five priorities.
But the House of Lords has a number of issues with it, especially around the treatment of women, children, people from the LGBT+ community, and victims of modern slavery.
The government offered some concessions last week, such as cutting the length of time lone children and pregnant women could be detained for.
Proposals put forward by peers to change the bill were then largely vetoed during a mammoth voting session.
But the Lords sent nine tweaked versions back to the Commons for another debate and vote – including restrictions on removing LGBT+ people to certain countries and demands for safe and legal routes to be established – which took place this afternoon.
Immigration minister Robert Jenrick called the move “disappointing”, claiming many of the peers’ suggestions “simply drive a coach and horses through the fabric of the legislation”.
He told MPs: “There is simply no point in passing [a law] that does not deliver a credible deterrent and provide the means to back it up with effective and swift powers.
“It is time for the clear view of the elected house to prevail… uphold the will of the democratically elected Commons… and to get on with securing our borders and stopping the boats.”
But as the debate rolled on, it was clear the government would face some rebellions from its own backbenchers, as well as opposition MPs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What is in the new ‘small boats bill’?
Former Conservative leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith focused on the impact of the Illegal Migration Bill on victims of modern slavery – something he and former prime minister Theresa May have been highlighting throughout.
The senior backbencher said: “We want to prosecute those who have been the traffickers – that way we may stop them trafficking people further on the boats.
“My worry here still remains this [bill] will put off many people from giving evidence and cooperating with the police for fear of the fact they may… be sent abroad while doing it.”
The government has refused to budge, saying an amendment to tackle the problem would allow people to claim they were trafficked to the UK the moment they got off a small boat.
But Sir Iain said victims would “live under the fear” they could be booted out of the country if they talked to the police.
Fellow Tory backbencher Tim Loughton also supported the Lords’ amendment, saying “protecting victims and prosecuting traffickers is not undermining the bill… it strengthens the bill”.
But Mr Jenrick said it “only serves to create another loophole which renders the swift removal we seek impossible or impractical”.
MPs voted to reject the proposed amendment from the Lords with a majority of 55, but 13 Tories rebelled: Sir Iain, Mr Loughton, Peter Bone, Sir Peter Bottomley, Sir Robert Buckland, Rehman Chishti, Tracey Crouch, Jackie Doyle-Price, Damian Green, Alicia Kearns, Caroline Nokes, Julian Sturdy and William Wragg.
Separately, 12 Conservatives also rebelled to support the Lords’ call for safe and legal routes for migrants, 11 on unaccompanied children, and five on added protections for LGBT+ people.
‘Performative cruelty’
Labour’s shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock said the government’s response to the latest proposals from peers was “typically arrogant and tin-eared” and “ministers are refusing to listen”.
He added: “They are once again closing their eyes and ears to the reality of what is happening around them and continuing to drive the car straight into a brick wall.”
Mr Kinnock urged the government to “come to its senses” in its proposed treatment of asylum seekers and end its “performative cruelty”.
Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael also appealed to the Lords to “stick to its guns” when the bill bounces back to the other House as early as tonight, with only days of parliament left before it goes on its summer break, meaning the bill would fall.
But Tory stalwart Sir John Hayes defended the government, saying: “This bill is about fairness, about affirming the integrity of our nation by defending our borders from those who seek to arrive here illegally.”
He added the legislation was “just and fair” and both MPs and peers opposing it were “denying and detached [from] the popular bill”.
The government has published witness statements submitted by a senior official connected to the collapse of a trial involving two men accused of spying for China.
Here are three big questions that flow from them:
1. Why weren’t these statements enough for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to carry on with the trial?
For this prosecution to go ahead, the CPS needed evidence that China was a “threat to national security”.
The deputy national security adviser Matthew Collins doesn’t explicitly use this form of words in his evidence. But he comes pretty close.
Politics latest – follow live
In the February 2025 witness statement, he calls China “the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”.
Six months later, he says China’s espionage operations “harm the interests and security of the UK”.
Yes, he does quote the language of the Tory government at the time of the alleged offences, naming China as an “epoch-defining and systemic challenge”.
But he also provides examples of malicious cyber activity and the targeting of individuals in government during the two-year period that the alleged Chinese spies are said to have been operating.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Witness statements published in China spy trial
In short, you can see why some MPs and ex-security chiefs are wondering why this wasn’t enough.
Former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove told Sky News this morning that “it seems to be there was enough” and added that the CPS could have called other witnesses – such as sitting intelligence directors – to back up the claim that China was a threat.
Expect the current director of public prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson to be called before MPs to answer all these questions.
2. Why didn’t the government give the CPS the extra evidence it needed?
The DPP, Stephen Parkinson, spoke to senior MPs yesterday and apparently told them he had 95% of the evidence he needed to bring the case.
The government has said it’s for the DPP to explain what that extra 5% was.
He’s already said the missing link was that he needed evidence to show China was a “threat to national security”, and the government did not give him that.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What does China spy row involve?
The newly published witness statements show they came close.
But if what was needed was that explicit form of words, why was the government reticent to jump through that hoop?
The defence from ministers is that the previous Conservative administration defined China as a “challenge”, rather than a “threat” (despite the numerous examples from the time of China being a threat).
The attack from the Tories is that Labour is seeking closer economic ties with China and so didn’t want to brand them an explicit threat.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Is China an enemy to the UK?
3. Why do these statements contain current Labour policy?
Sir Keir Starmer says the key reason for the collapse of this trial is the position held by the previous Tory government on China.
But the witness statements from Matthew Collins do contain explicit references to current Labour policy. The most eye-catching is the final paragraph of the third witness statement provided by the Deputy National Security Adviser, where he quotes directly from Labour’s 2024 manifesto.
He writes: “It is important for me to emphasise… the government’s position is that we will co-operate where we can; compete where we need to; and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
In full: Starmer and Badenoch clash over China spy trial
Did these warmer words towards China influence the DPP’s decision to drop the case?
Why did Matthew Collins feel it so important to include this statement?
Was he simply covering his back by inserting the current government’s approach, or was he instructed to put this section in?
A complicated relationship
Everyone agrees that the UK-China relationship is a complicated one.
There is ample evidence to suggest that China poses a threat to the UK’s national security. But that doesn’t mean the government here shouldn’t try and work with the country economically and on issues like climate change.
It appears the multi-faceted nature of these links struggled to fit the legal specificity required to bring a successful prosecution.
But there are still plenty of questions about why the government and the CPS weren’t able or willing to do more to square these circles.
The Trump family’s crypto ventures have generated over $1 billion in profit, led by World Liberty Financial and memecoins including TRUMP and MELANIA.
SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the US is a decade behind on crypto and that building a regulatory framework to attract innovation is “job one” for the agency.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
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
-
Environment2 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