European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — Clause 7 — Physical Proof of Right of Permanant Residence in the UK — 22 Jan 2020 at 14:05

The majority of MPs voted against giving non-United Kingdom citizens with a right of permanent residence in the United Kingdom the option of obtaining a document providing physical proof of their residence rights.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.[1]

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

The rejected Lords amendment[2] stated:

  • Leave out Clause 7 and insert the following new Clause—
  • Rights related to residence
  • (1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision implementing—
  • (a) Article 18(4) of the withdrawal agreement (right of eligible citizens to receive a residence document),
  • (b) Article 17(4) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (right of eligible citizens to receive a residence document), and
  • (c) Article 16(4) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (right of eligible citizens to receive a residence document), including making provision for a physical document providing proof of residence.
  • (2) Subsection (1) applies in the same way to—
  • (a) persons within the personal scope of the withdrawal agreement having the right to reside in the United Kingdom, and (b) persons to whom the provisions in paragraph (a) do not apply but who are eligible for—
  • (i) indefinite leave to enter or remain, or
  • (ii) limited leave to enter or remain, by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules (see section 17).”

The original clause 7[3][4], which was retained following this vote, was titled: Rights related to residence: application deadline and temporary protection and began:

  • (1) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for any of the following purposes—

the provision enabled a minister to make arrangements relating to the immigration status of EU citizens, EEA EFTA nationals, and Swiss nationals following the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.

During the debate prior to the vote Government minister interpreted the effect of the rejected amendment as follows[6]:

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

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.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con338 (+2 tell) 0093.2%
DUP0 6075.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 185 (+2 tell)092.6%
LDem0 8072.7%
PC0 40100.0%
SDLP0 20100.0%
SNP0 45095.7%
Total:338 252092.7%

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

NameConstituencyPartyVote
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.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive