Nationality and Borders Bill — Schedule 3 — Removal of Asylum Seeker to Safe Country — 20 Apr 2022 at 17:48
The majority of MPs voted to enable someone to be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom while their asylum application is pending.
MPs were considering the Nationality and Borders Bill.[1][2][3]
The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:
- That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 53B.
Lords amendment 53B stated:[4]
- Page 88, line 14, leave out “falling within subsection (2B)” and insert “prescribed by an order under subsection (2B)”
Had it not been rejected this amendment would have impacted Schedule 3 of the Bill[2] titled: Removal of asylum seeker to safe country. The provision which would have been impacted stated:
- (2A) This section does not prevent a person being removed to, or being
required to leave to go to, a State falling within subsection (2B).
Amendment 53B would have worked with amendment 53C to empower ministers to produce a list of states considered safe to which individuals could be removed pending consideration of their asylum claim, rather than permitting such removals to states coming under the definition of a safe country in the Bill.
Taken alone, support for amendment 53B, would leave the Bill ineffectual so leaving the position as set out in Section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as at 31 December 2020 which was that someone may not be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom while their asylum application is pending.
--
- [1] Parliament's webpage on the Nationality and Borders Bill, Parliament.uk
- [2] Nationality and Borders Bill, as brought to the House of Lords, from the Commons, on 9 December 2021, Parliament.uk
- [3] Explanatory notes to the Nationality and Borders Bill, as brought to the House of Lords, from the Commons, on 9 December 2021, Parliament.uk
- [4] Lords Message in connection with the Nationality and Borders Bill on 5 April 2022, Parliament.uk
- [5] Asylum seekers: the permission to work policy, House of Commons Research Briefing, 21 January, 2021, Parliament.uk
- [6] Section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as at 31 December 2020, Legislation.gov.uk
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 (Aye) | Minority (No) | Both | Turnout |
| Alba | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50.0% |
| Alliance | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Con | 300 (+2 tell) | 5 | 0 | 84.8% |
| DUP | 2 | 0 | 0 | 25.0% |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 1 | 4 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 163 (+2 tell) | 0 | 82.5% |
| LDem | 0 | 12 | 0 | 92.3% |
| PC | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SDLP | 0 | 2 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SNP | 0 | 42 | 0 | 93.3% |
| Total: | 303 | 234 | 0 | 84.3% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by party
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
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote |
| David Davis | Haltemprice and Howden | Con | no |
| Simon Hoare | North Dorset | Con (front bench) | no |
| Andrew Mitchell | Sutton Coldfield | Con | no |
| Bob Neill | Bromley and Chislehurst | Con (front bench) | no |
| William Wragg | Hazel Grove | Con (front bench) | no |