🛥️🤝🚫 Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Fifth sitting)

• The session focused on discussing Clause 18 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which proposes a new offence for endangering lives during sea crossings to the UK.

• Matt Vickers (Conservative) proposed amendments to change the criteria of the offence from specific acts to the use of unseaworthy vessels and increase the maximum penalty to 14 years. These amendments aimed to criminalize everyone arriving on small boats, not just those committing specific acts that endanger lives.

• Opposition members argued that such broad criminalization was unworkable and that the focus should be on targeting criminal gangs, not asylum seekers. They highlighted the complexities of distinguishing between exploited migrants and those involved in criminal acts.

• The SNP proposed an amendment to exclude asylum seekers from the offence, emphasizing that the clause unfairly targets asylum seekers rather than the gangs organizing the crossings. This amendment was seen as potentially protecting those who engage in criminal activities while claiming asylum.

• Concerns were raised about the practicality of prosecuting offences occurring in chaotic situations on small boats, and the potential for unintended consequences, such as criminalizing individuals acting in self-preservation or to help others.

• The Minister for Border Security and Asylum defended the clause as a response to increasing instances of dangerous behavior during crossings, such as violence and intimidation. She argued that the new offence would deter such acts without criminalizing all migrants.

• The Minister rejected suggestions to increase the sentence to 14 years, stating that a six-year sentence was appropriate and consistent with existing immigration law sentencing frameworks.

• The Committee voted against all amendments, and Clause 18 was ordered to stand part of the Bill, indicating that the new offence of endangering lives during sea crossings will proceed as originally proposed.

The disagreement displayed during the session can be rated as a 3 due to the presence of distinct opposing views primarily centered around the proposed amendments to Clause 18 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. The session does not show extreme polarization (which would warrant a higher rating), but there is evident debate and contention around the practical implications and effectiveness of the amendments.

Several key points of disagreement were evident in the session:

1. Conservatives’ Amendment 17: The Conservative party proposed amendment 17, which sought to expand the definition of the offense to include merely entering the UK illegally using an unseaworthy vessel. This was met with significant opposition from other parties. For instance, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Dame Angela Eagle, criticized the amendment as unworkable and excessively broad, suggesting it would lead to the criminalization of everyone on such vessels, which she deemed ‘nonsense.’ This opposition was also echoed by other members, such as Pete Wishart from the SNP, who labeled it as a ‘ridiculous and unworkable proposition’.

2. Amendments 15 and 16: The Conservative amendments 15 and 16 aimed to increase the maximum penalty for endangering lives at sea from six to fourteen years and from five to fourteen years respectively. These proposals were met with counterarguments from the Minister, who argued that such a drastic increase could deter prosecutors from pursuing charges and might disrupt the coherency of the sentencing framework within the Immigration Act. Other members, like Will Forster from the Liberal Democrats, compared the proposed 14-year sentence to those for other serious crimes and questioned its rationale.

3. SNP’s Amendment 5: Pete Wishart’s amendment 5, proposed by the SNP, would exclude asylum seekers from the scope of the new offense. This proposal highlighted a different aspect of contention, centered around the impact on asylum seekers. While the intention behind this amendment was supported by some members due to the humanitarian concern for asylum seekers, others, like Chris Murray, expressed concerns that it might inadvertently protect those engaged in serious criminal activities who claim asylum upon arrival.

4. Evidence and Implementation: A recurring theme of disagreement was around the practicality of implementing the new offenses and gathering evidence. Members such as Pete Wishart questioned the necessity and effectiveness of introducing a new offense when existing laws, like gross negligence manslaughter, could already address the dangerous behaviors mentioned. The Minister responded by citing new, more aggressive behaviors that the new clause would target, indicating a clear disagreement on the sufficiency and effectiveness of current legislation versus the need for new provisions.

While there were divisions on these issues, the session also included moments of agreement, such as the shared concern over the dangerous nature of channel crossings and the need for effective legislation. However, the presence of multiple contested amendments, each sparking detailed debate and opposition, reflects a moderate level of disagreement, warranting a rating of 3 on the scale of disagreement.