A Tory minister has been accused of playing "nastiness Olympics" to win over the right-wing press with plans to lock up refugees who arrive in small boats.
Health Minister Helen Whately was savaged by fellow Question Time panel members over "morally indefensible" proposals to detain migrants in military bases and "prison" barges.
Journalist Ash Sarkar challenged the Tory MP on the Illegal Migration Bill and how it could lead to pregnant victims of persecution and war and rape giving birth "in what is effectively a glorified camp or prison".
"That's not who we are as a country. That's not the best we can do for people who are fleeing the Taliban, or who are fleeing Syrian prisons or who are fleeing persecution in Iran," she said.
"No Government does that because they think it's morally good. No Government does that because they think it is particularly efficient or effective.
"You're doing it because you've committed yourself to this nastiness Olympics because you want a pat on the back from the Daily Mail and the human cost of is obscene."
Panellists were responding to a question on whether they agreed with the Archbishop of Canterbury who earlier this week launched a scathing attack on the "morally unacceptable" plans.
Archbishop Justin Welby told the House of Lords the legislation "fails to live up to our history, our moral responsibility and our political and international interests".
But Ms Whately said she disagreed with the Archbishop's views.
She said: "The thing that I think is morally wrong is the status quo. The thing that I think is morally wrong is thousands of people risking their lives and paying people smugglers to come to the UK, not only putting their own lives at risk and money into organised crime, but also making it harder for us to do what we really want to do, which is offer asylum to people who really need it.
"So what we need to do is stop that route. We've got to stop the boats coming here. We've got to make that model for the people smugglers no longer be economically viable."
Shadow Leader of the House of Commons Thangam Debbonaire said: "I agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury when he says it's morally unacceptable and politically impractical, this bill.
"And I also agree that it is completely dangerous and wrong for people to be forced and feel forced to put themselves in the hands of very dangerous routes and criminal gangs who are exploiting them and the system that isn't working.
"We have to have a better way of dealing with this crisis, dealing with the backlog, tackling the criminal gangs, admitting that their Rwanda experiment has gone horribly wrong because that's it's obviously not working. It's not deterring anybody."
Ms Debbonaire pointed out that ministers needed to focus on "making safe and legal routes actually work".
Reverend Richard Coles echoed her words: "This is a line that falls infrequently from my lips, but I agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury. As a matter of fact, I think the bill is politically unworkable. I think it is legally doubtful and I think it is morally indefensible.
"I think it's morally indefensible because I think it effectively cuts off routes for asylum seekers, genuine asylum seekers to find asylum in this country.
"I think the way to do that is to go after people traffickers, and it's not to penalise the people who are seeking to escape from unimaginably tough circumstances in all sorts of places around the world to come here.
"Now, if there were safe and legal routes for them to do that, adequately, that would be fine, but there simply aren't. And to make them, if they arrive illegally, therefore inadmissible as asylum claimants, seems to me to be the morally indefensible part of it."
Rev Coles said not offering legal routes "demeans us" and is also "legally very dodgy", adding: "So I'm with Justin Welby I think on this one."
* Follow Mirror Politics on Snapchat , Tiktok , Twitter and Facebook .
