Peers inflict third defeat on Blunkett's asylum Bill
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.David Blunkett suffered a third defeat at the hands of peers last night over his reform of asylum laws.
The House of Lords rejected Home Office attempts to make it easier to deport asylum-seekers and refugees convicted of criminal offences.
Ministers want powers to deport asylum-seekers or refugees who have been convicted of criminal offences and who are given sentences of two years' imprisonment.
But during debate on the report stage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill peers voted by 77 votes to 71 to set the threshold for deportation at a minimum sentence of 10 years in jail.
The Home Office condemned the vote, arguing it would allow violent criminals and drug dealers to stay in Britain.
A spokeswoman said: "The Government believes that there is simply no place in the UK for refugees and asylum-seekers who abuse our protection and trust by committing serious criminal offences. This outrageous amendment would stop the deportation of criminals, child abductors, violent thugs and bomb hoaxers."
On Wednesday peers rejected plans to set up four 750-place accommodation centres for asylum-seekers, setting instead a limit of 250 places. They also rejected plans to educate the children of asylum-seekers at the accommodation centres rather than local schools.
In last night's debate, Lord Goodhart, for the Liberal Democrats, condemned the Government's proposal on criminal convictions as "unacceptable". Earl Russell, a party colleague, said: "It reverses the burden of proof."
Lord Filkin, a Home Office minister, told peers: "The very small minority who commit serious offences will be expected to argue their case for remaining here by seeking to rebut the presumption that they are a danger to the community."
Ministers are expected to ask MPs to overturn all three defeats when the Bill returns to the Commons.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments