Conservative backlash over asylum and immigration changes

LONDON (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Today, a group of Conservative MPs is poised to defy the government on a number of proposed refugee and immigration policies.

The Nationality and Borders Bill, which the critics have dubbed “barbaric”, returns to the House of Commons this afternoon after being extensively revised by peers in the House of Lords.

Ministers claim, however, that the legislation, which establishes the UK’s post-Brexit asylum system, will provide a “strong but fair” process that will allow the country to “take complete control of its borders.”

Some Conservatives may defy the government on offshore processing.

Peers attempted to remove several of the Bill’s more problematic provisions during its passage through the Lords, notably a provision allowing the offshore of asylum claimants to overseas processing centres.

Priti Patel is expected to face significant criticism on this proposal, which was proposed by former immigration minister Lord Kirkhope, later today, even from her own backbenchers.

The home secretary has stated repeatedly that she intends to continue using the same mechanism that Australia has used in the past.

Andrew Mitchell, former minister, who has been open in his criticism of how such a system may be implemented, and fellow former minister David Davis are two Conservatives who are likely to rebel on the topic.

Rwanda, Ghana, Denmark and Albania, had all refused to host a UK processing centre, causing complications for the strategy.

The most recent suggestion, Ascension Island, is a British foreign territory located almost 4,000 miles away.

Mr Mitchell has questioned the cost of such a scheme.

Mr. Davis has referred to this as “building a British Guantanamo Bay.”

“Offshoring misses the objective,” stated Archbishop of Canterbury David Welby.

In light of the Ukraine conflict, legislation is being reexamined.

Another amendment that is expected to cause problems for the government is a proposal that dozens of Conservative MPs have backed, to reduce the time it takes for asylum seekers to be able to work in the UK to six months from 12 months.

Those in favour of Baroness Stroud’s idea argue that shortening the period people must wait before being allowed to work in the UK will indicate that asylum seekers are not a financial burden on the government.

Former Conservative Party leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, as well as fellow Tories Steve Baker and David Simmonds, are expected to back the initiative.

The administration, on the other hand, has dismissed the notion, claiming that it would encourage more people to come to the UK.

In light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has caused a humanitarian crisis as millions of citizens evacuate, the legislation has been reexamined.

An amendment proposes a 10,000-refugee-a-year target.

Lord Kirkhope also proposed establishing a formal resettlement scheme with an aim of 10,000 refugees each year.

This is gaining traction among Conservative Party members who are angry over the Home Office’s attempt to set up new refugee schemes for refugees from Afghan following the fall of Kabul and Ukrainians following the outbreak of conflict.

Damian Green, a former minister who lobbied the department for concessions on British National (Overseas) passports, is one Conservative MP who is pushing this amendment hard.

The Conservative chairmen of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Defence Select Committee have also approved it.

Tobias Ellwood, the former, said: Geopolitics has entered a new era. Regrettably, refugee crises in Europe may remain with us for many years to come.

We can’t react with fear; we need a robust resettlement programme that aligns with our foreign policy strategic goals.

Meanwhile, Tom Tugendhat, the leader of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said: Last year’s troubles in Afghanistan demonstrate that we lack a crisis-ready resettlement policy.

 

Image via Sky News