The bill made its way through the house of commons with barely a whimper. Granted that the bill was severely guillotined and whole chunks of it were not debated in committee.Yet it was expected that the left MPs would put up a hard fight, it was not to be. None of what was said by left MPs opposing the bill is worth quoting.

The real fight took place in the most unexpected quarter, the House of Lords. Nearly all those who spoke were critical of the bill, only a tiny few had anything good to say about it.

The Lords whips anticipate completing all stages of the Bill in the Lords before rising for the Summer Recess. As the Commons rise on the 24th July, they will not be able to consider Lords' amendments until October. There are likely to be a number of Lords' amendments carried which the government will want to overturn in the Commons. Therefore the government will be looking to get rid of any Lords amendments and get Royal Assent to the Bill by October 24th or thereabouts.

All of the above is subject to the Lords not insisting on re-instating their amendments in October, thus causing the government to back off or lose the whole Bill.

Quotes below from the debate in the House of Lords.

==========================================

Baroness Anelay: . . . . We believe that a large part of the chaos is caused by the paper chase and the people chase around the UK as appeals move people and paper from place to place.

. . . . . . . . What goes wrong at the start of the application process arises from there being not enough appropriate legal advice and not enough reliable, judicially accepted country risk assessments.

Lord Desai: . . . . . As was shown in a UN report two or three years ago, Europe will need something like 150 million to 200 million extra people in order for the age distribution to be sustained to a point where pensions are easily affordable. That report had to be suppressed. I believe that, for obvious reasons, the EU asked the UN not to release it.

. . . . . It is a paradox of globalisation that we readily welcome the free movement of capital-indeed, we strongly urge other countries to adopt free movement of capital-but are very reluctant to adopt the free movement of labour.

. . . . . . we send back economic migrants who are perfectly rational creatures and who would help us if they came to our country. But we cannot admit economic migrants. We can admit only people who come here involuntarily because they are in trouble. Therefore, we discourage voluntary migration and encourage involuntary migration. That is a paradox which we should consider more carefully.

Lord Judd: . . . . . Candidly, I am far from relaxed about the distinctions drawn between refugees in general and asylum seekers, and indeed between them both and so-called economic refugees and migrants. The anxieties, stress, pressures and suffering which lead economic refugees or migrants to move can be appalling. Here in the United Kingdom if a steel mill or a car plant closes, the people thrown out of work who go off in search of a new life for themselves and family elsewhere in the country are seen as model citizens. Yet despite all our rhetoric about a globalised economy, the people who have no alternative but to do the same thing across frontiers are frequently regarded as pariahs-the very term "economic refugee" or "economic migrant" can be used to denigrate.

We have the free movement of capital across the world, but not of labour. So long as that imbalance remains unaddressed, there will be an inevitability about people-trafficking, fed by human need and economic forces as the market adjusts itself.

. . . . . . We have rightly called for tough action against cynical and cruel traffickers, but at the same time we have enjoyed the menial low-paid services provided to the economy and to society by illegal immigrants.

On children, the Bill does not self-evidently reflect the spirit of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Indeed, it is distressing that the Government have entered a reservation on that convention as it applies to refugee children.

Baroness Uddin: . . . . . I congratulate my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for changing in the White Paper the basis of immigration policy, founded on racist principles for the past 30 years or so, to one based on the UK's economic and social needs.

. . . . . . I wish to state that I do not believe that a policy of deterrence, which has as its consequence making life miserable for asylum seekers in this country, is either effective or humane.

. . . . . . The proposal-inserted at the last moment in the Commons by the Government-to remove failed applicants before they can exercise a right of appeal is, I am advised, contrary to Article 32 of the UN convention relating to the status of refugees

Lord Lester of Herne Hill:  . . . . . The Joint Committee on Human Rights has not found it necessary to draw attention to so many serious issues affecting human rights in any of our previous reports. It is highly regrettable that, because of the inexcusable delay in the Home Office's reply to our questions, our report had to be published too late to inform the debates in the other place, so that detailed scrutiny can take place only in this House. My noble friend Lord Dholakia and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, rightly drew attention to that point in their criticism of the regrettable features of the Government's handling of the Bill in another place.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws:  . . . . . My Lords, many of us who take a close interest in asylum issues are saddened that the Government have been seduced by right-wing demagoguery into making the recent changes to the Bill.

Lord Greaves:  . . . . . My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred to the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill 1968-the Kenyan Asians Bill. I remember catching the train from Manchester to join a demonstration in London against that measure. I remember marching side by side that day with Mr Peter Hain, who seems to be on the other side now.

. . . . . Throughout Europe, democratic politicians are running scared at what they perceive as the rise of the populist right. Some of its views are populist; some are downright racist; some are overtly fascist. The view is being put forward that, in order to counter the threat of these people-it is a very serious threat-we have to adopt sufficient of their policies, agenda and rhetoric to counter their challenge.

However, there are those of us who believe that this is a fundamentally flawed strategy. If one is fighting fascists and racists-which many of them are-or merely fighting the right-wing tabloid populism of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express in this country, the way to do it is to stand up and to argue rationally with them, to challenge them, to take on their argument, and to put forward rational and sensible policies. We should not assume that if this is what the focus group says, this is what we have to do. There are times when politicians have to provide leadership and educate the focus groups instead of simply listening to them.

. . . . -the National Asylum Support Service is as incompetent and inefficient as it has been since it was first set up. It has been operating for two years. Some parts of it may have improved, but others have got worse.