Boris Johnson and Priti Patel were tonight dealt an avalanche of defeats in the House of Lords over their “inhumane” crackdown on refugees.
Peers voted to remove the harshest elements of the Nationality and Borders Bill - which will make it harder for people fleeing war and unrest to seek asylum.
In a tense stand-off, peers dealt blows to the Home Secretary’s bids to hold asylum seekers offshore, criminalise those who arrive in the UK without permission, and treat those who crossed the Channel in a dinghy differently.
They also voted to have a target for the number of refugees Britain should resettle each year - and to allow asylum seekers to work after six months if their claim is still being decided.
A Bishop branded the Bill “inhumane” while a former Supreme Court justice said it “flagrantly breaches” the UK’s human rights commitments.
Tory minister Baroness Williams claimed the Bill would send a “clear message” to people who are “abusing the asylum system, that this behaviour isn't worth it."
But the Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev Paul Butler, won a vote saying plans to offshore asylum claims should be subject to approval by Parliament, only after a report is prepared on the costs.
He said: "When people arrive on our shores seeking protection we have a responsibility to treat them as we would wish to be treated if we indeed had to flee for our lives."
He added: "If we move them to other countries for the process of their asylum claims I very much fear a blind eye will be turned to their treatment.
"The inhumanity of this part of the Bill is my primary concern. There are however significant practical and financial concerns.”
Former Supreme Court justice Lord Brown added: "Several of these provisions flagrantly breach our obligations as interpreted by the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)."
It means a stand-off between the Lords and Commons known as parliamentary ping-pong will continue when MPs return from their Easter recess - and could force a compromise before the May 11 Queen’s Speech.
Votes were still going past 10pm, but those which defeated the government at the time of writing included:
- Lords backed by 162 to 141, majority 21, a change which meant the offence of helping an asylum seeker to enter the UK could only be committed if it is carried out "without reasonable excuse''.
- Peers backed by 163 votes to 138, majority 25, removing a broad provision making it a criminal offence to knowingly arrive in the UK without permission, limiting it to only those who breach a deportation order.
- A move to force the Government to publish a numerical target for the resettlement of refugees to the UK each year was backed by 159 to 150, majority nine.
- A demand for unaccompanied child asylum seekers in Europe to be allowed to join a family member legally in the UK was backed by 181 votes to 144, majority 37.
- Peers supported by 176 votes to 153, majority 23, a demand that the controversial proposal to offshore asylum claims should be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament and a report prepared on the costs.
- Peers backed by 179 votes to 152, majority 27, a move that would ensure the UK could not deny asylum to refugees who passed through a "safe'' third country until it had formal return agreements in place.
- Lords renewed their demand by 199 votes to 132, majority 67, that asylum seekers be allowed to work if no decision had been taken on their claim after six months.
- Peers inflicted a further Government defeat aimed at preventing asylum seekers being treated differently based on how they entered the UK. The Lords backed the changes by 191 to 148, majority 43.
- Peers backed by 189 votes to 151, majority 38, a move aimed at ensuring the measures are in line with existing international commitments to refugees.
- They also defeated the Government in demanding extra safeguards over a controversial measure that would allow people to be stripped of their British citizenship without warning. It was backed 209-165.
Refugee campaigner and Labour peer Lord Dubs, who fled the Nazis as a child on the Kindertransport scheme, renewed his demand for unaccompanied child asylum seekers in Europe to be allowed to join a family member legally in the UK.
He said: "I believe that this would lessen the dangerous journeys that young people make to join their families. It might eliminate them altogether.
"If we believe that traffickers should not have opportunities, then providing a safe and legal route is surely the right thing to do.
"I cannot think of any more compelling matter than for a child to be allowed to join its family.
"Family reunion is surely fundamental to what a civilised society should support."
Tory peer Baroness Stroud pressed her call to allow asylum seekers to work if no decision had been taken on their claim after six months.
She said: "There is a danger that in our current system we are penalising these people by not allowing them to work and putting significant stumbling blocks in the way of their integration unnecessarily."
She added that concerns that allowing people to work would incentivise the so-called pull-factor were "exaggerated".
Home Office minister Baroness Williams said allowing asylum seekers to work if no decision has been taken on their claim after six months could "encourage Channel crossings".
She said: "We think this would allow people to bypass the proper process of applying for visas and paying relevant fees to work in the UK. It could also encourage Channel crossings."
Lady Williams insisted the Government has a "clear mandate" to "both protect the integrity of our economic migration schemes and ensure that there is no incentive for people to make secondary movements across the Channel".
She went on: "Academic evidence which I have previously quoted from at length suggested that many do engage in secondary movements primarily for economic reasons. We must instead ensure that our asylum seeker right to work policy supports our objectives elsewhere in the immigration system.
"And we must ensure that it doesn't offer people the opportunity to undercut our position on economic migration policy by simply lodging an asylum claim. That is why our policy is designed as it is. A more relaxed asylum seeker right to work policy creates a back door into our labour market."
Migrants entering the country without permission would only be prosecuted in "the most egregious cases", she claimed.
