Rishi Sunak forced to back down on refusal to set up new safe and legal routes before ‘stopping the boats’

Rishi Sunak has been forced to climb down on his pledge to only open new safe and legal routes for asylum seekers after “stopping the boats”, amid a Tory rebellion.

An amendment to the Illegal Migration Bill will see the government commit to setting up new alternatives to small boat crossings within six months after the law is passed.

It follows calls by Conservative MPs led by Tim Loughton to ensure that people left with no option but to pay smugglers to cross the Channel are not detained and deported under the government's plans.

In a separate rebellion, former prime minister Theresa May and ex-Tory party leader Iain Duncan Smith have lodged a backbench amendment to exempt modern slavery victims who have been abused inside the UK from the controversial scheme.

Ministers previously vowed that no new routes would be set up until they had “stopped the boats”, but Home Office lawyers revealed on Wednesday that a new record of 56,000 arrivals are expected this year.

The prime minister previously told parliament that capped alternatives to Channel crossings would only be created after “we get a grip on illegal migration”, adding: “We can only have that conversation and implement those routes once we have proper control of our borders. That is what we must deliver first.”

Home secretary Suella Braverman confirmed the government’s schedule last month, telling MPs: “When we have stopped the boats, the bill will introduce an annual cap, to be determined by parliament, on the number of refugees the UK will resettle via safe and legal routes.”

But The Independent understands the government will now be backing an amendment mandating the creation of new safe and legal routes within six months of the bill passing.

It came after Mr Loughton pulled back from forcing a Commons vote on a previous amendment with cross-party support and the backing of former justice secretary Robert Buckland and Tory grandee Sir Bob Neill, which threatened a heavy defeat for the government.

It stated that ministers must “establish and define safe and legal routes to be open to refugees and asylum seekers with a legitimate claim to be able to come to the United Kingdom legally” and made clear they had to be additional to those already in place.

“This is nothing new and it is not rocket science,” Mr Loughton told parliament last month. “Safe and legal routes are the obvious antidote to the problem.”

Parliamentary committees, experts and charities have long been calling for changes to give asylum seekers alternatives to small boat crossings, which the National Crime Agency has said are driven by “supply and demand”.

Under British law, people must be physically present in the UK to claim asylum but there is no visa to legally reach the country for that purpose.

The government has been pushing to declare small boat migrants “inadmissible” for consideration because they passed through safe countries and previously changed the law to make arriving in British waters without permission a crime.

Bespoke schemes for Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong were designed to bypass the asylum system and do not grant people refugee status, and Tory rebels have been calling for options for refugees from other countries.

Other amendments being considered by the government include an attempt to empower ministers to ignore European Court of Human Rights orders stopping the deportation of asylum seekers.

The Independent understands that the move has been agreed in principle with Downing Street but not yet signed off by the attorney general, amid concerns that it could spark legal changes and make Britain an international pariah.

The government is also considering concessions over the detention of children, families and pregnant women, which have wide cross-party support.

Its amendments are expected to be published on Thursday or Friday, ahead of the Illegal Migration Bill’s return to the House of Commons next week.