UK Borders Bill — Give support to failed asylum seekers and their families — rejected — 11 Oct 2007 at 13:23

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall voted with the majority (Not-Content).

The majority Not-Contents rejected an amendment[1] to the UK Borders Bill. The amendment would have repealed a section[2] in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.

This section withdraws support for failed asylum seekers and their families. This occurs when the asylum seeker has not taken reasonable steps to leave the UK. It also limits the grounds on which asylum seekers can appeal against this decision. In this vote the Content voters aimed to remove this section but were defeated.

In moving the amendment Lord Roberts of Llandudno argued that the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004:

  • 'withdraws all benefits from failed asylum applicants and their families. It was mentioned the other day that this legislation is in total breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 guarantees every child health provision, but that is to be withdrawn. Article 26 gives every child a right to social security, but that is breached. Article 28 on education is breached, and there are other breaches as well.'[3]

However, the government disagreed saying that:

  • 'I entirely accept that the reasoning behind these amendments is well intentioned. They seek to address a perceived gap in support for those whose asylum claims and appeals have been unsuccessful and who no longer qualify for asylum support. However—this is a very important point—we should not forget that there are already options available for failed asylum seekers who find themselves in this position. There is no reason for people refused asylum to be destitute. They can choose to return home, as it has been found that it is safe for them to return. Those making a voluntary return are eligible to receive the world-leading re-integration assistance that is provided by the International Organisation for Migration on behalf of the Home Office.'[4]

The UK Borders Bill became law in 2007. Its main aims were to:[5]

  • Impose biometric identity documents on non-EU immigrants
  • Automatically deport foreign nationals if they are imprisoned for more than one year or commit specific offences
  • Give immigration officers powers to detain, search and seize assets of suspected illegal immigrants

----

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 28.3%
Con0 31.5%
Lab97 (+2 tell) 245.9%
LDem0 39 (+2 tell)52.6%
UUP0 133.3%
Crossbench7 98.5%
Total:104 5622.8%

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
Lord Judd Labaye
Lord Plant of HighfieldLabaye

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