Nationality and Borders Bill — After Clause 15 — Safe Third State: Commencement — 20 Apr 2022 at 17:48
The majority of MPs voted not to require the United Kingdom to have at least one formal safe-return agreement with another state before empowering ministers to rule an asylum claim made by a person who has a connection to a safe third State inadmissible.
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 8B.
Lords amendment 8B stated:[4]
- After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
- “Safe third State: commencement
- (1) The Secretary of State may exercise the power in section 83(1) so as to bring section 15 into force only if the condition in subsection (2) has been met.
- (2) The condition in this subsection is that the United Kingdom has agreed formal returns agreements with one or more third States.
- (3) A “formal returns agreement” means an agreement which provides for the safe return of a person making an asylum claim (a “claimant”) to a State which is party to the agreement, where the claimant has a connection to that State.
- (4) This section, and the condition it imposes, cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”
Section 15 of the Bill provided that The Secretary of State may declare an asylum claim made by a person (a “claimant”) who has a connection to a safe third State inadmissible.[2]
--
- [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
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 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 37.5% |
| Green | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 1 | 4 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Lab | 0 | 164 | 0 | 82.0% |
| LDem | 0 | 12 | 0 | 92.3% |
| PC | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SDLP | 0 | 2 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SNP | 0 | 40 (+2 tell) | 0 | 93.3% |
| Total: | 301 | 236 | 0 | 84.3% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by name
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 |