UK immigration overhaul suffers defeats in House of Lords

The Nationality and Borders Bill contains a number of contentious reforms

A migrant carries her children ashore at a beach in Dungeness, on the south-east coast of England, on November 24, 2021, after being rescued while crossing the English Channel. AFP

The British House of Lords has inflicted defeats against the UK government’s controversial immigration revamp.

Among the measures rejected in the Lords 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 Home Secretary Priti Patel’s response to the refugee crisis.

The dismissal of key reforms in the Nationality and Borders Bill sets the stage for a long round of to-and-fro between the unelected chamber and the Commons.

The government said the planned differentiation in the treatment of asylum seekers, depending on how they arrived in the country, was aimed at discouraging people from travelling there other than by safe and legal routes, given the continuing problem of English Channel crossings.

But the measure drew strong criticism in the Lords.

“It’s a complete nonsense, it’s not workable and it diminishes this country in the eyes of the world,” said refugee campaigner and Labour peer Lord Dubs, who fled the Nazis as a child on the Kindertransport scheme.

Independent crossbencher Lord Russell of Liverpool said: “We are behaving in a way which frankly I find shameful.”

But Home Office minister Baroness Williams of Trafford said the provision “strikes a robust balance between firmness and fairness”.

Peers rejected the government move by 204 votes to 126.

The Lords also demanded 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 a move to strike out the proposed power, contained in Clause 9 of the legislation, despite ministers agreeing to a series of protections.

Critics included the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Right Rev Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani.

“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,” Dr Francis-Dehqani said.

But former terrorism law watchdog and independent crossbencher Lord Carlile of Berriew 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.”

Former Tory chairwoman Baroness Warsi, who was Britain’s first female Muslim Cabinet minister, said: “What this law does is that in the United Kingdom, in our courts, we punish two people convicted of the same crime differently based upon their heritage.

“We may not have taken this moment to put right the wrongs of the past but the least we can do is to stop a bad law becoming worse.

Liberal Democrat peer and former senior police commander Lord Paddick said: “At the end of the day, the government should be taking ownership of the actions of British citizens, including terrorists overseas, ensuring wherever possible they are extradited to the UK to stand trial rather than depriving them of British citizenship, preventing them from returning to the UK and making them some other country’s problem, whether with notice or not.”

Labour frontbencher Lord 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.”

Responding, Lady Williams insisted that law-abiding people had nothing to fear from the provision, but there were peope who posed a threat to the UK.

“It simply cannot be right that our hands are tied because we can’t take away their British citizenship without giving them notice of that decision,” she said.

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 protection 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.