THE UK Government has suffered what is believed to be a record 20 defeats in the House of Lords over its Illegal Migration Bill.
One alteration was spearheaded by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, with a cross-party demand for the Government to draw up a 10-year strategy to work with other countries to tackle the refugee crisis, driving unauthorised migration to the UK, and human trafficking.
Welby made a rare intervention in the Lords in May to condemn the bill as it faced its first test in the upper chamber.
The top Anglican cleric argued it was meant to improve the bill and mitigate some of the concerns raised.
READ MORE: Chris Pincher: Ex-Tory MP suspended over groping claims
Outlining his proposal for a long-term strategy on refugees and human trafficking, the Archbishop said: “I hope the Government can see that this amendment is a positive and constructive suggestion whatever I or others may feel about the Bill in general.
“I urge the Government to develop a strategy that is ambitious, collaborative and worthy of our history and up to the scale of the enormous challenges that we face.”
He had earlier found himself in a spat with Tory former cabinet minister Lord Lilley, who said: “He hasn’t come forward with a policy. He’s coming forward with a policy to have a policy.”
Other changes included reinstating the right of appeal against age assessments for migrants claiming to be children, putting a legal duty on ministers to create safe and legal routes to the UK for refugees and bolstering enforcement against people smugglers.
The defeats – which follow 11 inflicted on the Government on Monday – surpass those it endured during the Brexit years.
It raises the prospect of a prolonged and fraught stand-off between peers and the Government during so-called parliamentary ping-pong, when legislation is batted between the Lords and Commons.
The bill aims to ensure those who arrive in the UK without Government permission will be detained and promptly removed, either to their home country or a third country.
The plan to send migrants to Rwanda was dealt another blow recently after the Court of Appeal found it was unlawful, although the Government intends to challenge this ruling.
Ministers say action is needed to stop migrants making the dangerous sea crossing but critics argue the draft legislation breaks international law and denies refuge to the most vulnerable.
The Government also faced a rebel amendment from its own backbenches.
READ MORE: Inside King Charles's Scottish coronation service at St Giles
Leading the call to ensure the provision of authorised and secure corridors for refugees, Tory peer Baroness Stroud, a former special adviser to ex-Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, said: “The moral credibility of the entire Bill depends on the existence of the creation of more safe and legal routes.
“The basis on which we are disestablishing illegal and unsafe routes is that we are creating legal and safe routes.
“The lack of a substantial commitment in primary legislation to this end is a serious omission and one which this amendment gives an opportunity to address.”
She added: “I have had commitments to policy positions from the despatch box before that have not been fulfilled, and whilst I have the greatest respect for the minister legislative certainty is what this House needs.”
But the minister pointed out the deadline for the requirement was “sometime next spring”.
Lord Murray said: “I entirely understand her desire to make early progress with establishing new safe and legal routes but it is important to follow proper process.”
The Tory frontbencher added: “I gladly repeat the commitment that we will implement any proposed additional safe and legal routes as soon as practicable and in any event by the end of 2024.
“In order to do something well in an appropriate manner we must have time in which to do so.”
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 here