The UK has a long and proud tradition of welcoming refugees, said the Home Office minister Tom Pursglove as he opened the debate on the consideration of House of Lords amendments to the nationality and borders bill. He went on to single out the Kindertransport, Afghanistan and Ukraine.
It sounded wonderful, only none of it was quite true. The Kindertransport became part of our history because we weren’t quite so welcoming to Jewish men and women in the late 1930s.
Then there was Afghanistan, where we had done bugger all for ages before the prime minister decided he was keener on rescuing mutts than saving Afghan interpreters.
And for several weeks the UK lagged behind the rest of Europe in its response to Ukraine and it took the country’s citizens to shame the government into upping its game. Still, we get to write our own history and we tell ourselves the stories we want to hear.
But even if his rose-tinted account had been accurate, Pursglove was in the chamber to say that enough was enough. No more Mr Nice Guy. No more Britain being a soft touch. The time had come to be cruel to be kind. Or better still, to be cruel.
So he was there to put the House on notice that the government was going to ignore all attempts by the Lords and the opposition to water down the bill. No ifs, no buts. He and Priti Patel were fed up with listening to woke liberals. Stupidity and viciousness are clearly contagious in the Home Office.
None of it made much sense. One amendment was to be voted down just for the hell of it. Much to the confusion of Stuart C McDonald, the SNP’s home affairs spokesperson. He wanted to know why the government was so keen to get rid of legislation committing the UK to fulfil its obligations under the UN refugee convention when the minister was insistent the UK would always go out of its way to meet them.
Where was the harm in maintaining an amendment that committed you to doing what you said you were going to do anyway? Which was why he couldn’t help being a bit suspicious that the government wasn’t being entirely honest about its intentions.
Pursglove ploughed on, aided and abetted by Tory MPs Lee Anderson and Jonathan Gullis, whose mistrust of foreigners is second only to their hatred of soft-hearted members of the opposition.
All three would be first in line to bang up a Ukrainian who had made the fatal error of fleeing the war without first having filled in the necessary visa forms. It would be wrong to give refugees the right to work after six months because that would only encourage more illegal migrants.
And their only worry about using a wave machine to push refugees back to France was that they might enjoy it too much. It might make them feel as if they were at Alton Towers.
Most importantly, it was vital that the government should be able to continue to pursue the option of processing refugees and asylum seekers offshore. And that included children, if they showed up with their families. Preferably somewhere many thousands of miles away. That would make sure only the most determined and desperate tried to get to the UK.
Sadly, Pursglove had to admit that the bit of paper on which the Home Office had calculated how much all this was going to cost had gone astray. Which was probably just as well, observed shadow Home Office minister Stephen Kinnock, as the real cost would be about £1m a head.
For that money you could fly refugees into the country first-class, buy them a house, give them £100k to make them feel at home and still have some change. But hey, you can’t put a price on making life unpleasant for people fleeing persecution.
Kinnock also made the fatal error of suggesting the government had Ascension Island in mind as a potential processing centre. Pursglove was outraged. Ascension Island had turned down Priti Vacant’s request and the Home Office was busy looking for another country to take our asylum seekers.
Tory MP Tim Loughton decided he had had enough. He was fed up with Labour being so negative about the government’s exciting new immigration plans. So what would he do?
Kinnock looked at him as if he was an idiot. Read my lips. He would be voting to retain the Lords’ amendments. Not ideal, but the best he could do under the circumstances. Oh, and also he wouldn’t go around insulting other EU leaders as the Suspect had made a habit of doing. Oddly, it might prove easier to solve an international problem by working with other countries.
Not all Conservative MPs were won over by Pursglove’s arguments. There again, his delivery is so monotone that it’s a wonder he doesn’t put himself to sleep. Or perhaps he does. It would explain a lot.
Damian Green pointed out quite reasonably that if the government didn’t provide any safe routes for refugees – these were done for those fleeing Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen – then they would inevitably end up taking unsafe ones. And a civilised country was duty-bound to provide safe routes. Though this was Johnson’s and Patel’s UK he was talking about.
David Davis focused on offshoring refugees, pointing out that it had been a humanitarian disaster in Australia, with thousands of children suffering from mental health problems. Pursglove looked confused. Surely that was the whole point?
The most impassioned speech of the day was made by Liberal Democrat Tim Farron, who called the bill a “traffickers’ charter” and said that voting for it was voting for more deaths in the Channel.
Refugees weren’t coming to the UK because it was so wonderful, but because their lives at home were so unbearable. It was the worst piece of legislation he had seen in 17 years, he said.
No matter. The government comfortably won the votes to throw out the Lords’ amendments. The UK had chosen to make itself a nastier, more unfriendly country. Or just maintained a not-so-proud tradition.
