text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Nationality and Borders Bill - Before Clause 11 - Compliance with the Refugee Convention - Direct Travel and Prompt Presentation Assessments
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  @ MP voted aye against being more lenient when assessing if a refugee had "come to the United Kingdom directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened" and "presented themselves without delay to the authorities", not to put the onus of proof on the Government, and not to give due weight to the best interests of children and family unity, in relation to such determinations, and not to require the law to ensure refugees should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.
  
  @ MP voted no to be more lenient when assessing if a refugee had "come to the United Kingdom directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened" and "presented themselves without delay to the authorities", to put the onus of proof on the Government, and to give due weight to the best interests of children and family unity, in relation to such determinations, and to require the law to ensure refugees should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.
  
  
  The majority of MPs voted against being more lenient when assessing if a refugee had "come to the United Kingdom directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened" and "presented themselves without delay to the authorities", not to put the onus of proof on the Government, and not to give due weight to the best interests of children and family unity, in relation to such determinations, and not to require the law to ensure refugees should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.
  
  
  
  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 amendments 6D, 6E and 6F
  
  The rejected amendments in question stated:[4] 
  
  :6D 
  :Page 13, line 44, at end insertâ
  :â(2A) A refugee is not to be regarded as failing to comply with the requirement in subsection (2)(a) if, in coming to the United Kingdom, they have stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom with the intention that the stopover in the intermediate country was to be a brief transit on the way to the United Kingdom.
  :(2B) A refugee is not to be regarded as failing to comply with the requirement in subsection (2)(b) if they had good cause to delay the point at which they presented themselves to the authorities.â
  
  This rejected amendment would have provided exemptions from classifying a refugee as someone who had not "come to the United Kingdom directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened" and "presented themselves without delay to the authorities", a classification which would permit the Government to treat them differently from others.[2] 
  
  :6E
  :Page 14, line 6, at end insertâ
  :â(4A) It shall be for the Secretary of State to prove a failure to comply with the requirement in subsection (2)(a), (2)(b) or (3), as the case may be.â
  
  
  This rejected amendment would have put the onus on the Government to prove someone had not had not "come to the United Kingdom directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened" and "presented themselves without delay to the authorities" before classifying as having done so and treating them differently as a result.[2]
  
  :6F
  :Page 14, line 32, at end insertâ
  :â(8A) In accordance with section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, no such immigration rules shall lay down any practice or differentiate in any way which would be contrary to the [https://www.unhcr.org/uk/1951-refugee-convention.html Refugee Convention].
  :(8B) Immigration rules implementing this provision must take due account of the best interests of children and the fundamental right to family unity in all cases.â
  
  This rejected amendment again relates to treating refugees who have not "come to the United Kingdom directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened" and "presented themselves without delay to the authorities" differently from those who have.[2] 
  
  
  In relation to the 1951 convention: "The core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom."[5]
  
  
  
  
  --
  
  
  * [1] [https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3023 Parliament's webpage on the  Nationality and Borders Bill], Parliament.uk
  * [2] [https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/44307/documents/1132  Nationality and Borders Bill, as brought to the House of Lords, from the Commons, on 9 December 2021], Parliament.uk
  * [3] [https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/44460/documents/1174 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] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0308/210308v2.pdf Lords amendments to the Nationality and Borders Bill on 26 April 2022], Parliament.uk
  * [5] [https://www.unhcr.org/uk/1951-refugee-convention.html 1951 Refugee Convention], UNHCR.org
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  