Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill — Asylum appeals should be referred to a higher court — rejected — 1 Mar 2004 at 20:45
The majority No voters rejected an amendment[1] to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill.
In the Bill the government wanted to streamline the process of appealing against an asylum decision[2]. To achieve this they decided to stop asylum appeals being referred to a higher court. Instead appeals would be heard by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal who made the original asylum decision in the first place.
The amendment in this vote aimed to remove the part of the Bill that introduced this new system. However, it was defeated.
In moving the amendment Mark Oaten MP explained that:
- 'We will strongly defend the principle of having a tolerant society in relation to asylum and immigration, but the Bill goes even beyond that, attacking some important principles for justice as a whole. It upsets the constitutional checks and balances that we have had in this country for many years. By removing the right to go to a higher court, we could create numerous miscarriages of justice.'[3]
However, David Lammy MP argued that:
- 'An appellant cannot and should not expect there to be an appeal process with multiple stages, through which they can avoid removal. Those who have no legitimate right to remain in the country simply cannot go on responding to every negative decision by mounting a further challenge. We cannot have an endless process of challenge after challenge.'[4]
The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill became law in 2004. Its main aims were to:[5]
- Simplify the process of appeal for asylum seekers
- Criminalise people who arrive into the UK without a valid travel document unless they have a reasonable excuse
- Stop supporting failed asylum seekers and their families if they do not leave the UK
- Allow the government to tag and track asylum seekers
- Provide accommodation to failed asylum seekers who cannot return home immediately
----
- [1] Mark Oaten MP, House of Commons, 1 March 2004
- [2] Clause 11 in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill
- [3] Mark Oaten MP, House of Commons, 1 March 2004
- [4] David Lammy MP, House of Commons, 1 March 2004
- [5] Based on The Guardian's A-Z of legislation
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 are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
| Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
| Con | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2.5% |
| DUP | 0 | 1 | 0 | 16.7% |
| Independent | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50.0% |
| Lab | 301 (+2 tell) | 35 | 1 | 83.1% |
| LDem | 0 | 46 (+2 tell) | 0 | 88.9% |
| PC | 0 | 4 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SNP | 0 | 4 | 0 | 80.0% |
| UUP | 1 | 1 | 0 | 40.0% |
| Total: | 302 | 96 | 1 | 62.4% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by constituency
MPs 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 MP who could have voted in this division
Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote