UK Government Overturns House of Lords Changes to Illegal Migration Bill

The Commons voted to reject limits on the detention of children and protections for potential modern slavery victims that had been suggested by the Lords.

Thirteen Conservatives opposed the decision on modern slavery, fewer than had been expected.

The bill now returns to the Lords, who could continue to demand changes or suggest alternatives.

However, if they back down, it would pave the way for the legislation to become law before MPs begin their summer recess later this week.

The bill, which is central to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's pledge to "stop" small boats crossing the English Channel, would place a legal duty on the government to detain and remove those arriving in the UK illegally to either Rwanda or another "safe" third country.

However, the Rwanda plan was ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal last month, and the government is currently challenging the ruling.

MPs have been at odds with the House of Lords over the final shape of the bill, with the Lords repeatedly amending it with opposition peers.

Last week, the Lords voted down nine amendments, including a three-day limit on the time unaccompanied child migrants can be detained before deportation and a ban on LGBT migrants being deported to Rwanda and nine other mainly African countries.

Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick argued that the Lords amendments would have created "exemptions, qualifications and loopholes" that would make the legislation harder to implement.

He said that the power to detain people who are due to be deported is necessary to stop people absconding, and that exempting families with children would leave a "gaping hole" in the system.

However, Tim Loughton, one of 11 Tory MPs to rebel over child detention limits, said that government promises that detention would be for the shortest period possible should be written into the legislation.

Shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock said that the bill was "unworkable" and an exercise in "performative cruelty." He added that Rwanda would only be able to take a tiny fraction of the migrants