The Home Office faces a serious delay in pushing forward its Illegal Migration Bill as peers demand to see an economic impact assessment on the controversial legislation.
On Monday, Home Office minister Lord Murray of Blidworth was heckled in the Lords as he repeatedly said the report would be “published in due course.”
The Tory minister refused to commit to making the already completed document available to peers before the bill moves from the House.
Former senior judge and independent cross-bench peer Baroness Butler-Sloss said it was “outrageous” peers were being asked to take decisions on the proposals without knowing the predicted impact of them.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard added: “We are being asked to take a decision without knowing its effect. We do not know—other than breaking humanitarian law and international commitments—what practical effect the bill will have. Therefore, before we finish Committee, the minister should change his line and let us have it.”
‘Crucial’ Facts
The Illegal Migration Bill is undergoing scathing line-by-line scrutiny in the Lords at committee stage, with the government braced for amendments to be made by peers at report stage.The legislation is a key part of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s bid to deter people from crossing the Channel in small boats.
The reforms would prevent people from claiming asylum in the UK if they arrive through unauthorised means.
The government also hopes the changes will ensure detained people are promptly removed, either to their home country or a third country such as Rwanda.
After Murray sidestepped questions on the details and timing of the economic impact assessment, Lady Butler-Sloss said: “How does the government justify not having an impact statement until presumably the whole of this House has completed its dealing with the bill?
“It seems to me outrageous. How can the government justify it?”
Conservative Lord Cormack noted the House has to make “significant” decisions at report stage on the “most sensitive legislation that has been before Parliament for a very long time.”
He said, “It is crucial we have all the facts at our disposal.”
Lord Hunt added: “I think the House is entitled to ask the minister what he means by ‘in due course.’
“Let me ask him specifically whether the impact assessment will be available before we move into report stage?”
Shouts of “hear, hear” and “well said” could be heard after Lord Hunt made his point.
Murray replied, “Clearly I hear what the noble lord says and I will take back his comments and the comments of others in the House, and we can reflect on them.”
170,000 Illegal Immigrants Backlog
Murray went on to say that the assessment was “not an essential part” of the bill going through the Lords committee stage.“There is no statutory requirement to have a public impact assessment in relation to items of public legislation,” he told peers.
“Indeed, as I understand it, many pieces of legislation do not have one at all; so it is not a statutory requirement.”
In a series of questions surrounding the backlog of current illegal immigrant cases, Labour’s home affairs spokesman Lord Coaker sought clarity on how many illegal immigrants were to be removed from the UK.
Quoting the current number of illegal immigrants awaiting a decision as 172,758 which “continues to rise,” Coaker said of that number more than 128,000 were waiting on a decision for more than six months. Of these, the peer said, 78,954 are legacy cases.
He said: “On small boats, starting with 2022—I know that the prime minister was keen to talk about 2023—can the minister explain to the Committee how on earth the government have got themselves into a situation where we need an illegal migrants bill when, of the 45,000 people who crossed in small boats last year, only 1 percent have been processed?”
A total of 7,610 people have entered the UK on small boats this year alone, Coaker said.
He added: “Where are the 4,657 people who have come across since 7 March detained? What is the government’s presumption about where they will be returned to?”
Coaker also asked Murray to confirm that, of June 2022, almost 40,000 refugees were waiting for removal from the UK.
“That number is before we even get to the figures on illegal boats; we cannot even deport or remove people whose asylum claims were presumably refused years ago,” he said.
“What has happened to them and where are they? Do the government know?
“What is the actual figure if that figure is wrong? Where are they being returned to? Are we ignoring them, or are they being returned? Do we have returns agreements for them?”
16 Countries Onboard
In response, Murray said the “broken asylum system” costs the UK £3 billion a year, and is rising.“There seems to be an impression that, without the bill, those costs will not continue to rise at an alarming rate year on year,” he said. “Doing nothing is not an option.”
He confirmed that of May 2023, the Home Office has 16 returns agreements in place with other countries including Albania, India, Nigeria and Pakistan.
Negotiations on a new returns agreement have also begun with Moldova.
“A number of these agreements are sensitive, and receiving countries might withdraw co-operation if they are publicised, so it would be detrimental to formalise and publish all such agreements,” Murray added.
An analysis produced by the Refugee Council said it would cost between £8.7 billion and £9.6 billion to detain and accommodate people impacted by the bill in the first three years of its operation.
The government last month published an equality impact assessment which concluded disqualification from modern slavery support under the bill could have a disproportionate impact on female potential victims.
The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby previously condemned the legislation as “morally unacceptable and politically impractical.”
Peers later discussed amendments to the list of countries or territories where a person may be removed, with suggestions to explicitly state that LGBT people should not be taken to some of them due to fears of persecution.
A separate amendment also suggested removing Rwanda from the list given legal action to challenge the plan.
