The Bill seeks to solve the problem of unmanageable illegal migration flows across the English Channel. These journeys are perilous and exploitative for those undertaking them and are in the control of organised criminal gangs.
Last Tuesday 11th July there were seventeen Parliamentary votes on Lords Amendments to the Bill. A number of these were contentious and Conservative MPs, including me, voted against a Three-Line Whip. I will outline these issues below and explain why I voted in this way.
Modern Slavery
When Theresa May was Home Secretary the UK introduced the world-leading Modern Slavery Act. This encompasses human trafficking and all forms of exploitation. I was proud to support this at the time and I am proud to do so now.
As the Bill was drafted it would remove protections from some victims of modern slavery if they had arrived in the UK illegally, as some would have done so. This would mean that those who enter the UK illegally as slaves to trafficking gangs would not be able to rely on protection from deportation if they went to the authorities, strengthening the hands of the trafficking gangs. This is contrary to the express intention of the Bill and would render it less effective at punishing criminal gangs and stopping illegal migration. Therefore, I voted against rejecting Lords Amendment 56, as maintaining this within the Bill would have been the more sure-fire way of ensuring the continuation of existing modern slavery protections.
Update – The Government has issued guidance as to the circumstances in which the Modern Slavery protection could apply, but is unwilling to write this into the Bill. Whilst this is not unusual, it is less satisfactory. However, I was prepared to accept the assurances given.
Unaccompanied Child Refugees
The Government has made commitments about guidance which will be used when unaccompanied minors arrive in the UK. Other MPs and I have asked that this guidance be put on the face of the Bill, rather than be inserted after it has become law, and to apply across the board. Legislation is a process, and I am pleased at the progress we have made up until this point.
I voted against Government Amendments (a) and (b) which were in lieu of Lords Amendments Lords Amendments 31, 35, and 36. The Lords Amendments would have enshrined guidance on how to process unaccompanied child refugees into the Bill, as well as setting a detention limit for the time they could be held, plus ensuring they have age-appropriate accommodation and support. I am confident that as the Bill progresses further and continues its ‘ping pong’ between the Lords and Commons we will find common ground on this crucially important matter.
Update – The Government has given some guarantees about the quality of ‘appropriate’ accommodation.
Safe and Legal Routes
Commitments had been made by the Government at the Despatch Box to introduce amendments in the House of Lords regarding safe and legal routes for asylum seekers and refugees. It is regrettable that these have not been forthcoming up until this point.
Lords Amendment 102, which I voted for, aimed to enshrine the Government’s commitments in the Bill as well as requiring the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on details of the safe and legal routes by which persons may enter the UK within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
Update – The Government has committed to operationalise and implement the outcome of the review by the end of 2024.
Tuesday 18th July
Last night I decided that although a completely satisfactory outcome had not been reached, the Government has listened and, therefore, I was prepared to not vote against the Government. Later, the House of Lords decided to not push their amendments again and the Bill is likely to receive Royal Assent later this week.