THE Tories’ controversial Nationality and Borders Bill suffered a string of defeats on Monday night in the House of Lords.
Among the measures rejected by peers was a move to treat asylum seekers differently based on whether they entered the UK legally or “illegally”, and a proposal to allow people to be stripped of their British citizenship without warning.
The votes came against the backdrop of thousands of Ukrainian civilians fleeing the conflict with Russia and criticism of the Home Secretary’s response to the unfolding refugee crisis.
READ MORE: Priti Patel's 'anti-refugee' bill could erode devolution, legal expert warns
The dismissal of key reforms contained in the flagship Nationality and Borders Bill sets the stage for a protracted round of parliamentary ping-pong, where legislation passes between the unelected chamber and the Commons.
The Government had argued the planned differentiation in the treatment of asylum seekers depending on how they arrived in the country was aimed at discouraging people from travelling to the UK other than via safe and legal routes, given the continuing problem of English Channel crossings.
The plan, contained in clause 11 of the legislation, goes directly against the 1951 Refugee Convention, and drew strong criticism in the Lords.
Refugee campaigner and Labour peer Alf Dubs, who fled the Nazis as a child on the Kindertransport scheme, said: “It’s a complete nonsense, it’s not workable and it diminishes this country in the eyes of the world.”
Independent crossbencher Simon Russell said: “We are behaving in a way which frankly I find shameful.”
But Home Office minister Susan Williams argued the provision “strikes a robust balance between firmness and fairness”.
Peers rejected the Government move by 204 votes to 126, majority 78.
READ MORE: Here are the five cruellest parts of the UK Nationality and Borders Bill
Commenting on the Lords’ votes, Gary Christie from the Scottish Refugee Council said it was “hard to overstate the scale of harm” clause 11 would cause.
He went on: “It would create a population of refugees who would be in a very precarious situation, unable to be reunited with family members or integrate and have the threat of return constantly with them. Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted the provisions of Clause 11 would ‘threaten the integrity of the global asylum system’.
“As the majority of people who make an asylum claim in the UK are deemed to have entered irregularly the majority of recognised refugees in the UK will be denied the rights and protections owed under the Refugee Convention in the future. This would include Ukrainian refugees who arrive irregularly in the UK.
“The bill will now return to the Commons for further consideration. We very much hope that MPs will see how unfit for today’s world this cruel bill is, and uphold this crucial amendment from the Lords.”
The Lords also defeated the Government in demanding the scrapping of a contentious plan that would allow people to be stripped of their British citizenship without warning.
Peers supported by 209 votes to 173, majority 36, a move to strike out the proposed power, contained in clause 9 of the legislation, despite ministers agreeing to a series of safeguards.
Critics included the Bishop of Chelmsford, Guli Francis-Dehqani, who said: “I am quite convinced that the impact this clause will have, indeed it already has had, in terms of continuing to undermine trust between the Home Office and civil society is serious enough that the bill would be greatly improved by clause 9 being removed in its entirety.”
Labour frontbencher Richard Rosser said: “The consequences of this clause are likely to be felt most, but certainly not exclusively, by those from ethnic minority backgrounds.
“It is no surprise that it is in this area that the bill and clause 9 has caused most concern about how the new powers might be applied and interpreted and what the evidence is that they are needed now and haven’t been needed before.”
READ MORE: Health fears lead to calls for Priti Patel to scrap 'cruel' anti-refugee bill
But former terror law watchdog and independent crossbencher Alex Carlile said: “Removing clause 9 from the bill leaves the unattractive proposition that even where an alternative nationality is available, individuals should have a free run to betray this country and be terrorists against this country’s interests.”
The Government was also defeated by peers demanding that descendants of exiled Chagos Islanders are entitled to British citizenship.
In another setback for the Tory administration, the upper chamber backed a change aimed at ensuring the bill complies with international protections for refugees.
Peers also defied the Government in backing a cross-party move to allow asylum seekers to work if no decision had been taken on their claim after six months.
The relaxing of restrictions was supported by 112 votes to 89, majority 23.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel