Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill — Remove a clause which allows immigrants to be removed on national security grounds — rejected — 7 Feb 2006 at 17:20

Lord Thomas of Gresford voted in the minority (Content).

The majority Not-Contents rejected an amendment[1] to the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill. The amendment would have removed a clause which gave the government the power to deport immigrants and/or asylum seekers on national security grounds[2]. The clause also enables this to be done so that any appeal against the decision would take place overseas.

In tabling the amendment Lord Dholakia explained that:

  • 'A large number of organisations working in this field are of the view that the case for new legislation in this area has not been made and that the new provisions fail to respect rights and civil liberties. Existing immigration law contains ample powers to deal with those who pose a threat to national security... The clause would result in unfairness for the appellant, who, having been deported, would not be present in the United Kingdom while the national security case against him or her is heard.'[3]

However, Baroness Ashton of Upholland argued that:

  • 'Decisions to deport individuals on national security grounds are taken only after the most careful consideration. If the assessment is that the person constitutes a threat, we think it is better to remove the person at once and readmit them if the appeal is allowed rather than to permit them to remain here continuing to pose that potential threat until after the often lengthy—frequently very lengthy—proceedings are concluded. That is what the clause seeks to do. It provides for the speedier removal of individuals who threaten this country's national security. It does this because it provides that the appeal would normally be able to be brought only from outside the UK.'[4]

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill became law in 2006. Its main aims were to:[5]

  • Restrict appeals from those are refused entry to the UK to work or study. Only rejected asylum applications can have a full appeal
  • Criminalise employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants
  • Allow biometric data to be taken from people entering the UK
  • Requires that asylum is refused to anyone who is involved in terrorist activities

----

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Not-Content)Minority (Content)Turnout
Bishop0 13.8%
Con3 32.9%
Lab132 (+2 tell) 063.2%
LDem0 44 (+2 tell)62.2%
UUP2 066.7%
Crossbench17 914.4%
Total:154 5730.5%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

Lords for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible lord who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Party | Vote

NamePartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive