Illegal Migration Bill: how did my MP vote on Suella Braverman’s controversial asylum law?

MPs and Lords have backed the controversial bill despite strong opposition from Labour and the SNP
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

The government’s controversial Illegal Migration Bill has passed the Lords and will become law later this week

The contentious bill, introduced by Home Secretary Suella Braverman, plans to prevent people who enter the UK through irregular routes from claiming asylum and see them deported. The Bill has been condemned by human rights organisations, who’ve said it would likely breach international law and would not have the desired effect of preventing people from crossing the Channel.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Under the Bill, migrants deemed to have arrived in the UK ‘illegally’ or through ‘irregular routes’ would be prevented from claiming asylum. Instead, they would be immediately detained without bail or judicial review, and subsequently removed from the country. The government is currently engaged in a legal battle over potentially deporting migrants to Rwanda, which judges ruled was an unsafe third country.

Asylum seekers would also be banned from ever returning to the UK - and blocked from seeking citizenship. Sunak has described this as “fair for those at home” and “for those who have a legitimate claim to asylum”, adding: “My policy is very simple. It is this country, and your government, who should decide who comes here.”

The Bill was introduced by Braverman earlier this year, with the first vote taking place on 13 March. Last night (17 July), the government saw off five changes by peers - including modern slavery protections and child detention limits - ahead of the bill being made law.

Which way did my MP vote on the Illegal Migration Bill?

MPs did not vote on the Illegal Migration Bill last night (17 July), which was time set aside for House of Lords amendments. They voted to back the government’s bill on 27 April, despite opposition from Labour. Former prime minister Theresa May was one of a few Conservatives who criticised the legislation, but she abstained on the vote, rather than rebelling.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

At the time, May said: “But what should be clear from this is whenever you close a route, the migrants and the people smugglers find another way, and anybody who thinks that this Bill will deal with the issue of illegal migration once and for all is wrong. Not least because a significant number, if not the majority, of people who are here illegally don’t come on small boats, they come legally and overstay their visas.”

May said the government has yet to provide evidence that modern slavery laws are being “abused” by people crossing the Channel and noted statistics suggest “nearly 90% of modern slavery claims are found to be valid”.

The Conservative MP added neither the return agreement with Albania or the Nationality and Borders Act has been in long enough to assess their impact, and expressed concerns about the “blanket dismissal” of anyone facing persecution who finds their way to the UK albeit not through legal ways.

She said: “Examples have been given that a young woman fleeing persecution in Iran, for example, would have the door to the UK shut in her face. The UK has always welcomed those who are fleeing persecution regardless of whether they come through a safe and legal route. By definition someone fleeing for their life will more often than not be unable to access a legal route.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“I don’t think it’s enough to say we will meet our requirements by sending people to claim asylum in Rwanda. This matters because of the reputation of the UK on the world stage and that matters because the UK’s ability to play a role internationally is based on our reputation – not because we’re British, but because of what we stand for and what we do.”

Search your MP’s name or constituency below to see how they voted.

Loading....

Home Office concessions

Since MPs voted, the Home Office has made a number of concessions to rebels in the Commons and the Lords. On 10 July, the Home Office offered some concessions on the bill - with more than 10,000 migrants set to be spared automatic deportation to Rwanda after ministers agreed to abandon plans to apply new powers of automatic detention and deportation to any asylum seeker who arrived after 7 March - the date when the ‘small boats’ bill was presented to Parliament.

Previously, the Home Office wanted to the bill to be retrospective to prevent a surge in asylum seekers trying to reach the UK before it becomes law, but now, the powers will only come into force once the Illegal Migration Bill has been granted Royal Assent.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In April, the Home Office made another amendment - pledging that refugee children would only be detained in the UK in “exceptional” circumstances and only deported to another country in “very limited” ones, such as for a family reunion. Prime Minister Sunak moved to “enhance the safeguarding” of children under the draft legislation following calls from backbench Conservative MPs, in an apparent move to avoid an in-party rebellion.

But the government has also made concessions to those on the right-wing of the Tory Party, with Sunak and Braverman announcing in April an amendment to the Illegal Migration Bill that would mean the government could ignore orders from human rights judges who attempt to block migrant deportation flights from the UK.

Under the change, ministers would be given the legal authority to disregard ‘Rule 39’ injunction orders from the European Court of Human Rights, which can prevent migrants from being deported where there is “a real risk of serious and irreversible harm”. This is what happened to the first flight of asylum seekers meant to head for Rwanda.

UN criticises Bill

Speaking on the Illegal Migration Bill, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has said the proposal amounts to an effective “asylum ban” - which would prevent people fleeing war and persecution from seeking refuge. It explained: “The effect of the bill would be to deny protection to many asylum seekers in need of safety and protection, and even deny them the opportunity to put forward their case.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

This is because under the bill a legal duty would be imposed on the Home Secretary to remove “as soon as reasonably practicable” anyone who arrives on a small boat - and to do so without hearing their asylum claim. The so-called “duty to remove” would take legal precedence over an individual’s right to claim asylum, although there would be exemptions for under-18s as well as those with serious medical conditions.

The UNHCR argued this would be “a clear breach of the Refugee Convention” and “would undermine a long-standing, humanitarian tradition of which the British people are rightly proud.”

“In addition to raising very serious legal concerns from the international perspective, this Bill sets a worrying precedent for dismantling asylum-related obligations that other countries, including in Europe, may be tempted to follow, with a potentially adverse effect on the international refugee and human rights protection system as a whole,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk warned.

While the UN's High Commissioner for refugees, Filippo Grandi, said: “UNHCR shares the UK Government’s concern regarding the number of asylum-seekers resorting to dangerous journeys across the Channel. We welcome current efforts to make the existing asylum system work more effectively through fast, fair and efficient case processing, that allows the integration of those found to be in need of international protection and the swift return home of those who have no legal basis to stay. Regrettably, this progress will be significantly undermined by the new legislation. Cooperation with European and other partners along the routes through which refugees and migrants are moving is also key."

Modern Slavery

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

As someone instrumental in bringing about the UK’s Modern Slavery Act, Unseen UK chief executive Andrew Wallis told NationalWorld he found the Bill “deeply depressing”.

“We see the horrific brutality that is meted out on these victims… to deny the support and recognition that is so vital to them, it will damage the UK’s reputation [as leaders on modern slavery] around the globe,” he said.

From working with victims, Wallis said they were often “highly exploited”. Their employers frequently used threats of turning them over to authorities or getting them deported to control them, he said.

If you were someone seeking to exploit victims, the new Bill would have you “rubbing your hands with glee”, he said. “You can now say they’re not going to be believed… they’re not going to have access to the support system”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“We’re playing into the hands of traffickers,” Wallis added. He slammed the new Bill as driven by ideology but not backed up by facts, and said he resented the ongoing rhetoric from government conflating issues like the small boats crisis with modern slavery, “to make sweeping changes… to suggest these people should be punished”.

The Illegal Migration Bill was problematic right down to its title, he said, as a person could never be illegal, and migration was not a crime. It was discriminatory, aimed at “denying them their rights”.

When the UK’s net migration was considered as a whole, asylum seekers arriving on small boats made up less than 9%, Wallis said, and most of the modern slavery victims they dealt with either came into the country via regular entry or were UK nationals.

“This is a very big sledgehammer to crack a very small problem,” he said.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Wallis said it was only a very small number of the approximately 17,000 victims who had been referred to support services via the National Referral Mechanism who had arrived in the UK by irregular means - about 702. But if the Bill was passed into legislation, those 702 victims would be denied the support and recognition they needed, he said. “You can’t claim asylum, you can’t claim you’re a victim of modern slavery.”

The Scottish and Welsh governments have slammed the UK Home Office over its “unacceptable” failure to appoint a new anti-slavery and trafficking champion – almost a year after the role became vacant.

Holyrood said it is concerned about the resulting lack of scrutiny “at a time of extreme rhetoric and UK legislative proposals which will significantly impact victims of trafficking across Scotland and the wider UK”, while the Senedd said the Home Office is “failing to live up to its statutory duties” while at the same time pursuing “regressive” migration legislation.

Is Rwanda safe for refugees?

If the Illegal Migration Bill does pass into law, the Home Office will be reliant on third-countries to deport those who try to enter the UK via small boat crossings. The government has struck a deal with Rwanda, although the arrangement has been mired in legal and practical difficulties so far.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In a recent report from UNHCR assessing the situation for DRC refugees, the agency noted that while refugees enjoy “a favourable protection” in Rwanda, they also face significant challenges.

The report notes that gender-based violence (GBV) remains one of the biggest protection concerns for refugee women and children, while most refugee households report “little to no” access to electric energy and access to water below the humanitarian standard of 20 litres per person per day.

Food inflation is also a major issue in Rwanda, with prices rising 12% between May and June 2022, and 54% between June 2021 and June 2022. This has left around one in three refugee households at the threshold of food insecurity, according to UNHCR.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

According to the report: “Although there have been improvements in child protection and prevention, risk mitigation and response to gender-based violence over the past few years, GBV and incidents of violence, abuse and exploitation against children remain a concern and still go underreported among the refugee population. Exposure to sexual exploitation and abuse also poses a significant risk to refugee communities in Rwanda”.

Rishi Sunak met with Rwanda President Paul Kagame earlier to discuss the partnership, which has been widely criticised as unworkable and expensive, as well as going against the principles of international law around asylum and refugees.

According to a readout of the call, the pair discussed the UK-Rwanda migration partnership and joint efforts to break the business model of criminal people smugglers and address humanitarian issues.

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.