The Peers backed proposals to ensure the bill complied with the 1951 Refugee Convention and challenged the government’s plan to redefine refugees into two categories based on how they arrived in the UK. They also voted to allow asylum seekers to work if their case had not been resolved within six months. require formal repayment agreements with third countries to ensure safe returns; and allow unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Europe to legally join a family member in the United Kingdom. A row of votes turned against the government as the House of Lords meeting was running until midnight. Amendments to protect and support victims of modern slavery were adopted – one by one. After 12 defeats, the only vote in favor of the government was whether a child’s interest should be the “primary concern” in decisions for those under 18 years of age. The defeats, following similar rejections in the upper house earlier in the year, mean ministers could be forced to make concessions if they want to relax the bill through a second parliament amid increasingly rigid legislative engagement. The government is expected to adjourn parliament later this month, but still has a number of important bills to pass in both houses. The usual convention is that the Lords are expected to step down if MPs make it clear that they do not support peer amendments. But the lack of time left means that a miscalculation by the government could force concessions or cause the account to fall. The Peers defeated the government by asking for additional safeguards for a measure that would allow people to withdraw their British citizenship without warning. In another government defeat, peers backed by 163 votes to 138 to remove a broad provision criminalizing deliberate unauthorized arrival in the UK, limiting it to those who violate an deportation order. In another blow to the Conservative government, the request for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Europe to be allowed to join a family member legally in the UK was supported by 181 votes to 144. Lord Cormac, a Conservative MP for 40 years, said the bill was “largely unnecessary … narrow, vicious and sometimes vindictive” and “in danger of violating international law and international humanity”. “. A proposal submitted by Labor’s Lady Chakrabarti received the support of many senior conservative colleagues. He argued that the courts of the United Kingdom should play a role in ensuring that the bill complies with the 1951 UN Convention and the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees. “As a public and constitutional lawyer, I take the primacy of the other place very seriously. This is neither a monetary nor a manifesto. It implements the government’s stated policy of complying with the Refugee Convention at times when this could not be more important. “No sensible government should oppose it,” he said. Former Crossbench Chief Justice Lord Judge and crossbencher former High Court Judge Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood both supported the amendment. Mr Brown said: “Many of these provisions are in clear violation of our obligations as interpreted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. [UN High Commissioner for Refugees]. » Trafford’s Torris Lady Williams champion has defended the move to create a criminal offense for unauthorized entry into the United Kingdom. “There is a need to prosecute where there are aggravating circumstances and where prosecutors agree that this is in the public interest,” he said.
