The government is wrong to cling to its cruel migration bill - Alf Dubs

'I’m a 16-year-old orphan from an African country escaping a war and religious persecution and I have a sibling living legally in the UK. What is a safe and legal route for me to come to the UK?'

The British home secretary, Suella Braverman, could not answer this question from Conservative MP Tim Loughton last November. One of the many problems with the illegal migration bill ricocheting its way through parliament is that it offers no answers to this question.

Last week was a long one for those of us in the Lords scrutinising the bill – not the first to be acclaimed as providing the answers to small boat crossings (the nationality and borders bill promised the same and failed to deliver).

“Ping pong”, as it is known, describes the process whereby the Lords amend legislation that is sent back to the Commons, which may decide to send it back to the Lords. This goes on until the Commons agrees with the Lords, or the Lords concedes that the democratically elected chamber should get its way.

In the case of this bill, 20 amendments were passed in the Lords in the first week of this month and sent back to the Commons, where they were all effectively rejected. So back the bill came. The Lords sat well into the night and returned nine amendments, which had overwhelming support across the spectrum. They were proposed by Conservative peers, religious leaders and opposition members. Peers hoped that, by offering such a solid cross-party response, these amendments would have a better chance of being accepted by MPs.