Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill — Commons Amendments and Reasons — Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C) — 16 Apr 2024 at 17:30
Moved by Baroness Chakrabarti
6D: Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new Clause-“Decisions in individual claims(1) Where credible evidence displaces the conclusion that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country, section 2 does not prevent-(a) the Secretary of State or an immigration officer from deciding (under any applicable provision of, or made under, the Immigration Acts) whether the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons to which the person belongs,(b) a court or tribunal considering a review of, or an appeal against, a relevant decision to the extent that the review or appeal is brought on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons to which that person belongs, or(c) a decision-maker considering whether there is a real risk that the Republic of Rwanda will remove or send the person in question to another State in contravention of any of its international obligations.(2) The court or tribunal may having heard from, or having taken all reasonable steps to hear from, the Secretary of State, grant an interim remedy that prevents or delays, or that has the effect of preventing or delaying, the removal of the person to the Republic of Rwanda, providing such prevention or delay is for no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case.(3) Section 54 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is disapplied for the purposes of this Act.(4) In this section-“interim remedy” means any interim remedy or relief however described (including, in particular, an interim injunction or interdict);“relevant decision” means a decision taking by the Secretary of State or an Immigration officer (under any applicable provision of, or made under, The Immigration Acts) that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question.””
Ayes 253, Noes 236.
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.| Party | Majority (Content) | Minority (Not-Content) | Turnout |
| Bishop | 5 | 0 | 20.0% |
| Con | 1 | 208 (+2 tell) | 72.3% |
| Crossbench | 44 | 13 | 33.1% |
| DUP | 0 | 5 | 83.3% |
| Green | 2 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent Labour | 1 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Judge | 3 | 0 | 33.3% |
| Lab | 117 (+2 tell) | 0 | 68.8% |
| LDem | 71 | 0 | 86.6% |
| Non-affiliated | 5 | 6 | 20.0% |
| PC | 2 | 0 | 100.0% |
| UUP | 0 | 2 | 100.0% |
| Total: | 251 | 234 | 59.6% |
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
| Name | Party | Vote |
| Baroness Fairhead | Con (front bench) | aye |
| Lord Butler of Brockwell | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| Lord Carrington | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| Viscount Colville of Culross | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| Viscount Craigavon | Crossbench | no |
| Lord Craig of Radley | Crossbench | no |
| Baroness Deech | Crossbench | no |
| The Earl of Erroll | Crossbench | no |
| Lord Evans of Weardale | Crossbench | no |
| Lord Greenway | Crossbench | no |
| Lord Hogan-Howe | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| Earl Peel | Crossbench | no |
| Lord Ravensdale | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| Lord Vaux of Harrowden | Crossbench (front bench) | no |
| Baroness Ashton of Upholland | Non-affiliated (front bench) | aye |
| Lord Cashman | Non-affiliated | aye |
| Baroness Kennedy of Cradley | Non-affiliated (front bench) | aye |
| Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick | Non-affiliated (front bench) | aye |
| Lord Smith of Finsbury | Non-affiliated | aye |