Menu
UK Parliament

Illegal Migration Bill completes passage through Parliament

18 July 2023

There is no description available for this image (ID: 195193)

The Illegal Migration Bill returned to the Lords for consideration of Commons amendments in ‘ping pong’, on Monday 17 July. Following agreement by both Houses on the text of the bill it received Royal Assent on 20 July. The bill is now an Act of Parliament (law).

The Illegal Migration Bill seeks to prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe routes, by requiring the removal of anyone arriving illegally in the UK to their home country or to a safe third country to have their asylum claim processed.

Consideration of amendments

The bill was considered by the House of Lords between 27 April and 10 July 2023, during which time several amendments (changes) to the bill were made before it was then returned to the House of Commons.

Members of the Lords have now considered Commons reasons for disgreeing to certain Lords amendments, plus some proposed alternatives to Lords changes.

Monday 17 July

On day two of 'ping pong', Lords members discussed Commons reasons for pressing their objections to amendments agreed by the Lords on Wednesday 12 July.

Lords divisions

There were five divisions (votes) on proposed alternative changes to the bill, covering previously discussed issues on human rights conventions, asylum claims, unaccompanied children, victims of migrant exploitation and organised immigration crime operations.

All the revised Lords amendments were disagreed to, and the Commons original objections accepted.

Members agreed at an earlier stage to government compromises on time limits for detention of children and pregnant women, and the application of the bill to immigration and asylum cases retrospectively, following Lords changes earlier in the bill's progress.

Catch up

Explore further information

Read background on the bill in the House of Lords Library Illegal Migration Bill briefing.

What's happened so far?

Consideration of amendments day one: Wednesday 12 July

On day one of 'ping pong', Lords members accepted the Commons rejection of amendments relating to arrangements for removal and judicial interventions.

Lord divisions

There were also nine divisons (votes) which resulted in the Lords insisting upon - or approving a revised version of - amendments relating to:

A revised amendment on judical reviews of suspensive removal claims was agreed without a vote.

Catch up

Third reading: Monday 10 July

Third reading is the chance for members to ‘tidy up' a bill, making small changes to ensure it is effective.  

No changes to the wording of the bill were put forward ahead of third reading. Members discussed the progress of the bill through the House at the conclusion of Lords stages.  

Catch up

Report stage day four: Wednesday 5 July

Members speaking on the third and final day of report stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill covering a range of topics.

Lords Divisions

There were five divisions (votes) on proposed changes to the bill.

Incorrect age assessments

The first two votes addressed the issue of incorrect age determinations of migrant children arriving in the UK.

Amendment 156A reinstates judicial reviews to challenge potentially incorrect age assessments and allows for any such legal proceedings to serve as a barrier to a child's removal from the UK.

Members voted 235 in favour and 185 against, so the change was made.

Following this, amendment 158A sets out the formula for those legal challenges, clarifying that a child's removal may be blocked on the grounds that the age assessment was either:

  • wrong in law
  • based on information that was 'incomplete, misleading or otherwise so seriously misinformed that no reasonable decision-maker would have relied on it.'

Members voted 232 in favour and 178 against, so the change was made.

Safe and legal routes

The third vote was on amendment 164, which inserts a new clause into the bill requiring the government to set out its plans to allow people from abroad to enter safely and lawfully into the UK.

Members voted 232 and 169 against, and so the new clause was inserted into the bill.

Organised immigration crime

The fourth vote was on amendment 168, which inserts another new clause into the bill to put a legal responsibility on the National Crime Agency to tackle organised immigration crime across the English Channel. This work is to be undertaken by a specifically established unit within the agency dedicated to that role.

Members voted 188 in favour and 158 against, and so the new clause was written into the bill.

Refugee and human trafficking strategy

The final vote was on amendment 168A, which inserts an additional new clause into the bill requiring the government to implement a ten-year strategy, in collaboration with international partners, to tackle human trafficking and refugee crises, which are deemed to exacerbate migration into the UK by dangerous and illegal routes.

Members voted 186 in favour and 131 against, so the change was made and the clause entered in the bill.

Catch up

Report stage day three: Monday 3 June

Members speaking on day two of report stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill covering a range of topics.

Lords Divisions

There were eleven divisions (votes) on proposed changes to the bill.

The first two divisions had been deferred from day one of report stage on Wednesday 28 June.

Human rights claimants

The first vote was on amendment 15, which requires the government to consider a protection or a human rights claim if the applicant has not been removed from the UK within six months of the claim being deemed inadmissible.

Members voted 204 in favour and 186 against, so the change was made.

Relocation of LGBT+ persons

The second vote was on amendment 37, which prevents LGBT+ people from being relocated to a third country where they may be subject to persecution. Under the rules, the government would have the power to add or remove countries from the proscribed list. 

Members voted 216 in favour and 147 in favour, so the change was made.

Detention limits for children and pregnant women

The next three divisons on amendments 51, 57 and 64 sought to reverse government proposals to increase immigration detention limits for under-18s and expectant mothers.

All three of the Lords changes were agreed, and so the bill does not change the existing legal limits for:

Lawfulness of immigration detention

The sixth vote was on amendment 66, which was part of a larger group of amendments that collectively sought to ensure the lawfulness of immigration detention remains subject to principles established in the common law.

Members voted 216 in favour and 163 against, so the amendment was agreed.

Children in local authority care

The seventh vote was on amendment 89, which limits the government's power to transfer a child out of local authority care and into government accommodation, except when necessary to safeguard the child's welfare.

Members voted 218 in favour and 158 against, so the change was made.

Unlawful exploitation

The eighth vote was on amendment 95, which sought to ensure that persons who have been subject to unlawful exploitation in the UK are exempt from removal time limits.

Members voted 214 in favour and 150 against, so the change was made.

Criminal proceedings

The ninth vote was on amendment 96, which removes the presumption that it is not necessary, unless there are compelling reasons, for an individual to be present in the UK to cooperate with an investigation or criminal proceedings.

Members voted 202 in favour and 154 against, so the change was made.

Interpretation of 'serious harm'

The tenth vote was on amendment 130, which rewrites an existing clause in the bill regarding 'suspensive claims' on the risk of serious harm.

Suspensive claims apply when an individual is given a removal notice to a third country and they wish to appeal on the grounds that they will be at risk of persecution or serious harm in that country.

The revised clause retains the principle of suspensive claims, but removes requirements that mean appeals can only be made if the potential harm inflicted is 'irreversible'.

Members voted 187 in favour and 139 against so the change was made and the revised clause inserted.

Court interventions

The final vote was on amendment 152, which removes a clause from the bill which restricted a UK court's ability to temporarily delay the removal of a individual to a third county.

Members voted 153 in favour and 128 against, so the clause was removed.

Catch up

Report stage day one: Wednesday 28 June

Members speaking on day one of report stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill to be discussed. These amendments cover a range of subjects, including human rights claims, safe third States and removal provisions.

Lords Divisions

There were four divisions (votes) on proposed changes to the bill.

Compliance with international obligations

The first vote was on amendment 5, which inserts a new clause that ensures provisions of the bill should be interpreted consistently with the UK’s obligations under relevant international human rights treaties.

Members voted 222 in favour and 179 against, so the change was made. 

Retrospective applications of the bill

The second vote was on amendment 6, which ensures the 'duty to deport' in Clause 2 of the bill does not apply retrospectively to those who entered or arrived in the United Kingdom before the bill comes into force.

Members voted 219 in favour and 177 against, so the change was made.

Victims of modern slavery

The third vote was on amendment 12, which ensures that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), the government's framework for identifying, referring and supporting potential victims of modern slavery, and have that application duly considered.

Members voted 210 in favour and 145 against, so the change was made. 

Asylum claims of unaccompanied children

The final vote was on amendment 14, which inserts a clause that makes asylum and human rights claims admissible from unaccompanied children who are exempt from the 'duty to remove' in Clause 3 of the bill.

Members voted 185 in favour and 133 against, so the change was made.

Catch up

Committee stage day five: Wednesday 14 June

Members speaking on day five of committee stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill to be discussed.

These amendments covered a range of subjects, including:

  • caps on the number of entrants using safe and legal routes to the UK
  • efficiency of the UK's visa and immigration system
  • the right to work of asylum seekers.

Catch up

Committee stage day four: Monday 12 June

Members speaking on day four of committee stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill to be discussed.

These amendments covered a range of subjects, including:

  • support for victims of modern slavery
  • access to legal aid 
  • removing Albania from a list of 'safe states' from which asylum claims will be deemed inadmissable.

Catch up

Explore further information

Read background on the bill in the House of Lords Library Illegal Migration Bill briefing.

Committee stage day three: Wednesday 7 June

Members speaking on day three of committee stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill to be discussed.

These amendments cover a range of subjects, including:

  • rights to appeal immigration and asylum decisions
  • multiple occupation housing for asylum seekers
  • the expansion of detention sites. 

Catch up

Committee stage day two: Monday 5 June

Members speaking on day two of committee stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill to be discussed.

These amendments cover a range of subjects, including:

  • support for victims of trafficking
  • powers of the Secretary of State to prevent a removal
  • negotiating migration return agreements with other states.

Catch up

Committee stage day one: Wednesday 24 May

Members speaking on day one of committee stage put forward amendments (PDF) (changes) to the bill to be discussed.

These amendments covered a range of subjects, including:

  • providing a definition of what amounts to illegal migration
  • obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights
  • limits on detention and deportation.

Catch up

Second reading: Wednesday 10 May

During second reading, members discussed the main issues of the bill and and drew attention to specific areas where they think amendments (changes) will be needed.

Topics covered during the debate included: 

  • the UK's obligations under international law
  • the need to stop the passage of small boats across the channel
  • safe and legal routes for migration.

Members speaking 

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative), Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Migration and Borders, opened the debate and responded on behalf of the government. 

Members speaking in the debate included: 

Motion to Decline

Members also considered a motion to decline, put forward by Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat), former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

The motion proposed that the House should decline to give the bill a second reading on the grounds that the bill: 

  • fails to meet the UK's international law commitments and allows ministers to ignore the directions of judges
  • undermines the UK’s tradition of providing sanctuary to refugees by removing their legal right to claim asylum and protections offered to modern slavery victims
  • fails to provide safe and legal routes for refugees
  • fails to include measures to eliminate the backlog of asylum cases and to tackle people smuggling gangs.

Following the debate on the floor of the House, members voted 76 in favour of Lord Paddick's motion and 179 against, and so the motion was not agreed to.

Watch and read the debate

Image: copyright House of Lords / photography by Roger Harris

Related news

Further information