THE House of Commons is voting on amendments made by the Lords to the controversial Nationality and Borders Bill.
Here’s a breakdown of the amendments and how MPs are voting on them.
- MPs voted to reinstate proposals to allow the Government to strip people of their British citizenship without notice. Peers had voted to remove the clause from the Nationality and Borders Bill, but the Commons voted 318 to 223, majority 95, to disagree with the Lords.
MPs went on to approve Government amendments to reword this section of the Bill in a bid to ease concerns over how the power could be used.
- Lords amendment five, which aimed to ensure a section of the Bill complies with international protections for refugees, was rejected by MPs by 313 votes to 231 – majority 82.
READ MORE: Race relations will suffer if line isn't held on immigration, says Tory MP
- MPs have voted to reinstate to the Bill a move to treat asylum seekers differently based on how they enter the UK.
Peers had removed clause 11 from the Bill but MPs voted 318 to 220, majority 98, to reject this change.
The Government has argued the planned differentiation in the treatment of asylum seekers, depending on how they arrived in the country, was aimed at discouraging people from travelling to the UK other than via safe and legal routes, given the continuing problem of English Channel crossings.
- MPs voted to reject Lords amendment seven, which had sought to allow asylum seekers to work if no decision has been taken on their claim after six months.
The Lords amendment was rejected by 291 votes to 232, with a majority of 59.
The Government has offered to meet concerned Tory MPs to discuss the issue further.
READ MORE: Scotland needs to 'step up to the plate' in asylum dispersal scheme, says Tory MP
- MPs have voted to reinstate measures that could allow the Government to create an offshore processing system for asylum seekers.
Peers removed this section from the Bill, but MPs voted 302 to 232, with a majority of 70, to disagree with the Lords and put it back in.
- MPs have voted 305 to 230, with a majority of 75, to disagree with Lords amendment 10, which was linked to immigration rules and entry to seek asylum and join family.
- MPs voted against a Lords amendment which sought to guarantee the UK takes in at least 10,000 refugees a year.
This Lords amendment was rejected by 313 votes to 227, with a majority of 86.
- MPs voted 317 to 220, with a majority of 97, to disagree with Lords amendment 13, which had sought to remove the new offence that punishes those who arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
- MPs voted 307 to 217, with a majority of 90, to disagree with Lords amendment 22, which had sought safeguards over the carrying out of age assessments of asylum seekers.
- MPs voted 291 to 214, with a majority of 77, to reject a Lords amendment which would have required support of at least 12 months for confirmed victims of modern slavery or trafficking and where the person is not a UK citizen grant them leave to remain.
- MPs voted 298 to 216, with a majority of 82, to reject a Lords amendment that sought to ditch the requirement for foreigners to have an Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) pass when making a local journey to Northern Ireland from the Republic.
There were no further votes on the Bill in the Commons on Tuesday and it will return for further consideration in the Lords at a later date.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel