Peers vote down controversial measures, marking a major setback for the government’s asylum and nationality proposals.

Central elements of Priti Patel’s contentious Nationality and Borders Bill have been rejected in the House of Lords, a move celebrated by campaigners as a “victory for compassion.” The government has been urged to reconsider its approach after peers voted against provisions that penalise refugees based on their arrival method (Clause 11) and allow citizenship removal without notice (Clause 9).

Clause 11 proposed treating asylum seekers differently based on their route into the UK, denying full refugee rights to those arriving via unauthorised means, such as small boats or trucks. Refugees in this category would only receive temporary status without benefits or family reunion rights. Critics, including the UNHCR, warned this breaches the 1951 Refugee Convention.

During a Lords debate, ministers defended the clause, arguing it would still protect refugees but distinguish between those who claimed asylum directly and without delay. However, senior Conservatives, including David Davis and Dominic Grieve, criticised the policy as “dangerous” and in violation of international obligations. Peers voted to remove Clause 11 by 204 to 126.

Clause 9, allowing the home secretary to revoke British citizenship without notice for reasons like national security or public interest, was also rejected. Critics argued this power disproportionately affects ethnic minorities and risks Windrush-style injustices. Maya Foa of Reprieve highlighted the Lords’ stand against what she termed a “power grab.” Peers voted 209 to 193 to remove this clause.

Campaigners welcomed the decisions. Sonya Sceats of Freedom from Torture called the votes a “clear message to abandon cruel and inhumane policies.” Enver Solomon of the Refugee Council praised the rejection of Clause 11 as “a victory for humanity and refugee rights,” urging the government to respect the Lords’ stance.

The bill, now significantly altered, will return to the House of Commons for further votes in the coming weeks. Critics hope MPs will heed the Lords’ objections and strike down these contentious provisions for good.

Panel Requests Classification Details on Records Withheld From National Archives

The US House Oversight Committee has escalated its investigation into the documents recovered from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, focusing on the classification status and preservation of records that legally should have been handed over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Committee Chair Carolyn B. Maloney sent a letter to NARA, highlighting potential violations of the Presidential Records Act and other federal laws. The letter emphasised the need for additional details regarding the contents of the 15 boxes of records Trump failed to deliver as required by law.

“The information provided so far indicates that former President Trump and his senior staff may have repeatedly breached legal requirements for record preservation,” wrote Ms Maloney. She added that further information is necessary to assess the scope of the issue and consider potential legislative changes to protect presidential records.

The panel’s request includes identifying any classified materials and detailing the level of their classification. It also seeks information about any documents that were reportedly torn, destroyed, or mutilated during Trump’s tenure and subsequently handed over to NARA.

Initially, reports suggested the boxes contained mostly non-critical items, but it was later revealed that they included significant correspondence, such as letters between Trump and world leaders like Kim Jong-un.

Amid the growing controversy, Trump and his allies attempted to shift the narrative by invoking claims from a court filing by special counsel John Durham. They alleged Hillary Clinton had orchestrated illegal surveillance during Trump’s presidency. However, these claims were debunked, and the focus returned to the Mar-a-Lago records.

The Oversight Committee’s investigation aims to uncover the full extent of any misconduct, ensuring accountability and the preservation of records for public transparency.

Scottish Conservative Leader Acknowledges Mistake and Implements Changes

Douglas Ross, the MP for Moray and leader of the Scottish Conservatives, has avoided disciplinary action after failing to declare additional earnings while serving as an MP.

The matter arose when Mr Ross did not record his full salary as an MSP or his earnings as a Scottish Football Association referee. Acknowledging the oversight, he referred himself to the Standards Commissioner in November last year.

On Friday, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards Kathryn Stone concluded that Mr Ross’s omission was not an intentional attempt to mislead the public. She also noted that he had implemented new procedures to ensure such errors would not occur again.

The undeclared earnings amounted to £28,218.57, comprising £6,728.57 from officiating 16 football matches during 2020 and 2021 and £21,490 from his additional salary as an MSP.

Following the ruling, Mr Ross issued a statement accepting responsibility for his actions: “As soon as I realised this mistake, I provided all relevant information to the UK Parliament and reported it to the Standards Commissioner. I have apologised and take full responsibility for this error. I want to reiterate my apology and assure everyone that I have taken steps to prevent such issues in the future.”

He also confirmed that his MSP salary continues to be donated to charity and has been declared on time since November, along with any earnings from his refereeing duties.

The judgment brings an end to the inquiry, with Mr Ross’s swift admission and subsequent actions playing a significant role in the resolution.

Critics argue the legislation marginalises LGBT+ communities and poses risks to vulnerable students.

Attempts to amend or block the controversial “Parental Rights in Education” bill in Florida, often dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, were rejected by Republican legislators. This proposed law seeks to restrict “classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity” in schools.

Key Provisions and Opposition
The bill prohibits discussions on sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grades or in ways deemed “not age-appropriate.” Advocates of the bill, led by Republican State Rep Joe Harding, assert that it empowers parents by giving them greater involvement in education-related issues.

However, critics argue the measure is homophobic and transphobic. Democratic State Rep Carlos Guillermo Smith, Florida’s first openly LGBT+ Latino legislator, criticised the proposal as sending a message to LGBT+ individuals that “they are not wanted or seen.” Rep Michele Rayner-Goolsby added, “This legislation diminishes our humanity and isolates LGBT+ families.”

Failed Amendments and Concerns
Efforts to remove references to “sexual orientation or gender identity” from the bill were unsuccessful. Proposed amendments, including collaboration with LGBT+ advocacy groups and legal protections for students, were also voted down.

Opponents have raised concerns about the law’s ambiguity, asking who determines age-appropriateness and how it might impact LGBT+ students seeking support at school. They also warned that the bill could expose vulnerable children to harm, particularly those from unaccepting households.

LGBT+ Advocacy and Mental Health Risks
Equality Florida, an LGBT+ advocacy group, described the legislation as a tool to stigmatise and isolate LGBT+ individuals while creating fear among educators. A statement highlighted that the existence of LGBT+ students and parents “should not be treated as a taboo topic.”

Research underscores the potential harm. A Trevor Project report revealed that LGBT+ youth exposed to inclusive education were 23% less likely to attempt suicide. Conversely, LGBT+ young people remain significantly more at risk of self-harm than their peers, with an alarming suicide attempt occurring every 45 seconds among those aged 13 to 24 in the US.

Calls for Reconsideration
Democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups have urged Florida legislators to abandon the bill. Critics, including Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, warned of its isolating effects, stating, “If passed, this law will deepen the struggles of vulnerable LGBT+ children, with devastating consequences.”

The bill is one of numerous proposals across the US targeting LGBT+ communities, reflecting what some see as a broader effort to politicise and control classroom discourse on gender and sexuality.