Illegal Migration Bill set to become law after government survives final challenges from the House of Lords

The UK's controversial Illegal Migration Bill is set to become law after the government saw off a series of proposed amendments in the House of Lords on Monday night.

The bill seeks to address one of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's five stated priorities – to "stop the boats" containing asylum seekers crossing the Channel to England.

The proposed legislation aims to "prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes, by requiring the removal of certain persons who enter or arrive in the United Kingdom in breach of immigration control".

The government intends to deport "illegal" migrants to Rwanda, where they would live in detention centres indefinitely.

Despite the proposal's popularity with the right wing of the Conservative Party, the bill has received criticism from across the political spectrum, as well as international organisations such as the UN.

Criminal law and immigration specialist Rubin Italia, a Solicitor at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, says the legislation is an illegal attempt from the government to stop asylum seekers from seeking refuge.

Rights groups and the United Nations also said the legislation would make Britain itself an international outlaw under European and UN conventions on asylum.

And last month, the Women and Equalities Committee published a report calling for children to be exempted from detention or deportation to Rwanda, under the government immigration plans.

The committee's chair, Tory MP Caroline Nokes, a former immigration minister, said: "The risk of harm to children outweighs any perceived damage to the effectiveness of the government's policy agenda."

However, the government remains adamant that Rwanda is a "safe and viable alternative" for migrants, many of whom are fleeing persecution, poverty or war in their home nation.

And now, the end of the stand-off between peers and MPs paves the way for the bill to receive royal assent – when the King formally agrees to make the bill into an Act of Parliament, or law.

During the final debate in the House of Lords, Home Office minister Lord Murray of Blidworth said the number of small boat arrivals had "overwhelmed" the UK's asylum system and that accommodation was costing taxpayers £6m per day.

"With over 45,000 people making dangerous Channel crossings last year this is simply no longer sustainable," he told peers, adding it was "only right" that the "business model" of human traffickers be broken.

In 2019, the Tory manifesto pledged to "bring overall numbers down". However, in 2021, the net figure remained high at 488,000.

And in December 2022, Sunak declared he would clear the backlog of "legacy" asylum cases, promising that this would be achieved by the end of this year.

Most recently, in May, official figures released by the Home Office showed that Net migration in the UK hit a record 606,000 in 2022.

Whilst Sunak admitted that migration numbers were too high, he denied that immigration is out of control.

Downing Street said measures it had introduced to tackle the number of unresolved cases would "take time to bed in".

A last-ditch attempt by the Lords to include nine amendments to the bill – including moves to protect against LGBT+ people being deported to unsafe countries and to compel ministers to create safe and legal routes for prospective asylum seekers within nine months – was voted against.

Former prime minister Theresa May was among several MPs that fought to retain some of the changes proposed by the Lords, including trying to ensure migrants have some protections under modern slavery laws, which was voted against by 205 votes to 193.

Also unsuccessful was The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, in his attempt to propose an amendment to the bill calling on the government to develop a long-term strategy for tackling the refugee crisis and human trafficking.

However, the Lords did manage to gain some concessions from the government, including limiting the length of time children and pregnant women could be detained and preventing the legislation from being enforced retrospectively.

Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said the small number of changes that were accepted to the bill "will make a horrendous piece of legislation slightly less bad" but that the bill remains unworkable and "will lead to human misery and huge cost to the taxpayer".

As well as the legality of the bill, its economic viability has also been flagged as a potential concern.

An analysis carried out by the Home Office revealed that it will cost the government an estimated £169,000 to send illegal migrants to countries such as Rwanda.

A breakdown of the costs said that a third country like Rwanda would get £105,000, the Home Office £18,000, costs for flying and escorting would be £22,000, costs for detention would be £7,000 and costs to the Ministry of Justice would be £1,000.

An extra 9 per cent was added to account for estimates being optimistic, bringing the figure to £169,000.

But Home Secretary Suella Braverman said the assessment proves that "doing nothing is not an option".

Braverman said: "We cannot allow a system to continue that incentivises people to risk their lives and pay people smugglers to come to this country illegally while placing an unacceptable strain on the UK taxpayer."

Discussing the proposed legislation, Yvette Cooper MP, Labour's shadow home secretary, said the Conservatives had "lost all common sense and decency" and were pushing ahead with a plan that would likely increase the asylum backlog and the number of people staying in costly hotels.

The Labour Party has been vocal in its opposition to the policy, describing it as "inhumane" and "unworkable".

In a statement released today, the UN expressed its "grave concerns" over the content of the legislation.

"The bill is at variance with the country's obligations under international human rights and refugee law and will have profound consequences for people in need of international protection", the UN refugee and human rights chiefs said.

UN human rights chief Volker Turk added that the bill's passage raises "very serious legal concerns" and sets "a worrying precedent for dismantling asylum-related obligations" that other countries may follow.