KEIR Starmer is reportedly not planning to repeal the UK Government’s “morally unacceptable” migration bill.
The Labour leader’s spokesperson told the Byline Times it may not be “necessary” for the bill to be repealed to bring in his own reforms.
He said: “We have set our own comprehensive plan for how we would deal with the Channel crossings and we’ll be looking forward to bringing our own legislation through when we’re in government.
“When you bring in new legislation, it often can involve sort of dealing with the predecessor legislation that there is. It doesn’t automatically mean it is necessary to repeal existing legislation to introduce your own legislation.”
It comes after the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby delivered a scathing verdict on the Tory plans in a rare Lords intervention on Wednesday, calling the bill “morally unacceptable, and politically impractical”.
READ MORE: Archbishop of Canterbury attacks Illegal Migration Bill in rare Lords intervention
Labour have previously criticised the Tories' Illegal Migration Bill as “unworkable” and have said they have their own plans to stop people from crossing the English Channel in small boats.
The Government’s bill would effectively criminalise most asylum seekers who reach Britain – something human rights groups and the UN say puts the country at odds with its obligations under international refugee law.
It passed its first Commons reading in March and is currently being scrutinised in the House of Lords.
The Archbishop of Canterbury told the upper chamber on Wednesday: “It does not require a lawyer to see that what is suggested is a dramatic departure from what was ever envisaged in international law since 1951.
“Even if this bill succeeded in temporarily stopping the boats, and I don’t think it will, it won’t stop conflict or climate migration.
“The IPCC forecasts that climate change by itself, let alone the conflicts it is already causing, will lead to at least 800 million more refugees a year in total by 2050.
“And what if other countries follow suit? The UNHCR has warned the bill could lead to the collapse of the international system that protects refugees.”
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