argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Andrew Fleming (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I think that it is perhaps time for a different view from this side of the Committee. I will briefly deal with Amendments 112 and 113 Amendment 112 refers to "Refugee family reunion". It is a wide-ranging amendment, and I suggest that it is unnecessary and not very wise. We already have provisions for the family members of refugees to come here. As others have mentioned, these allow partners and children under 18 of those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection to join them here, provided that they formed part of the family unit before they left their own country. That seems a reasonable basis for this provision. Of course, the family members do not receive refugee status themselves, so their leave will expire at the same time as that of the sponsor. But individuals on such visas are allowed to work, study and have recourse to public funds, which also seems entirely reasonable Indeed—I will save the Minister a task—we have granted visas to more than 60,000 family members of refugees since 2010. Since 2015, over half of those were to children. This is already a very substantial move in that direction. But widening the criteria still further would, of itself, massively increase those numbers and add still further to the pull factors drawing people to the English Channel, a route that has very little support among the public There is a very strong case for not widening these refugee routes. In the real world, we simply do not have the necessary infrastructure, service capacity, housing or school places. Many refugees are being put into the poorest parts of the UK. In this context, the Home Secretary said to a House of Lords committee on 27 October last year: "We simply do not have the infrastructure or the accommodation." A Member of the other House said of his area: "The impact on housing pressure at local level could cause further tensions if there is resentment about refugees receiving housing assistance at a time of acute … housing shortage."—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/21; col. 40WH.] In setting our arrangements for refuges and their families, we must surely give due consideration to their impact on our own vulnerable communities.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Andrew Fleming (Crossbench, Unknown): I shall go on to Amendment 113, which deals with unaccompanied minors. The main effect of this amendment would be to put a considerable number of children in serious danger. As drafted, it applies only to children already in the EEA, but it would obviously be a major incentive for families now outside the EEA to pack their children off to Europe in the expectation that they could go on to the UK. The amendment is also widely drawn to include nieces, nephews, grandchildren, siblings, spouses—all from families that are very large in any case We have seen how opening this route would encourage minors to make dangerous journeys. In 2016, when there was talk of the UK taking significant numbers of children, the numbers of unaccompanied children literally doubled overnight. That is according to evidence given to the relevant parliamentary committee by the Home Office director responsible in December 2021. We have to consider the wider consequences of this, to which may be added the difficulties already facing the authorities in correctly assessing the age of those claiming to be children. We have discussed this before in Committee and we know that, in the last available year, 1,100 persons claiming to be children were found to be adults. This amendment is dangerous and unwise, and should not be accepted.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Andrew Fleming (Crossbench, Unknown): I entirely agree about the appalling conditions in these refugee camps and the huge number of refugees that are being dealt with. The question that I and others ask is: how can we best use the resources that we can give to the people who really need it? How much more effective would it be to get aid, food and medical attention into these terrible camps, rather than spending huge sums of money on children here who cost the same as a term at Eton?
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Raymond Jolliffe (Crossbench, Unknown): The noble Baroness has twice in my hearing given the figure of 39,000 humanitarian visas for family reunion. Between Second Reading and Committee, I asked a Written Question on how many of those had been taken up, because I foresaw that force majeure, poverty or some other reason would prevent many of them actually being used. I got one of those answers saying, "We really cannot find or give you any figures." Can the noble Baroness be a little more helpful on the real results of those visas?
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Molly Christine Meacher (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I will speak extremely briefly in support of Amendment 116, which for more than 300 refugee organisations is apparently one of their two top priorities in terms of amendments to the Bill. I think it is really important, actually. We have heard powerful arguments for a whole lot of important amendments, but I think the Minister and the Government need to take seriously the views of more than 300 refugee organisations The Government have argued that people in need of protection should come to the UK via safe routes, but these organisations tell me that only 1,000 people came through these schemes last year. Does the Minister agree that that figure is unacceptably low and needs to grow substantially, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just said, if we are to reduce the number of desperate people risking their lives to cross the channel in small boats? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is absolutely right: this is the way to achieve that objective One of the strongest arguments for a resettlement target, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, is that only five families per local authority would achieve that target. With a little funding from the centre, at least, that seems incredibly straightforward. Does the Minister agree that this is a realistic target and that the certainty that this would provide for local authorities is absolutely crucial?
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Sheila Clare Hollins (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I cut my speech rather, because of the time, and I feel that maybe I did not manage to explain adequately. These are people with complex health needs. They are not just like any other patient in the NHS. They have had very difficult experiences and have difficult mental health needs. It is difficult for them to try to explain about their trauma to the first interpreter or the first person assessing them that they meet. This is something where it often takes years for people to trust sufficiently to be able to explain the impact on their situation, their circumstances, and their life chances. This is not just having an assessment and a conversation. It is about building a relationship of trust when people have experienced the most terrible circumstances. That is the difficulty I will give one quick example. One still very troubled lady, whose asylum claim was successful, described her claim and subsequent requests for ongoing support as "seriously retraumatising". The paperwork that she received was confusing and negative in tone, with any success hidden somewhere in the small print. She asked, "Why do they do that to me? Why can’t they communicate with me? Why should I struggle so much? I feel like I’ve been through another fight". This lady feels like giving up, despite the fact that her claim was eventually successful These amendments seek to see people treated fairly, compassionately and with more skill and understanding, so that they have the best hope of healing and settling in the UK. I thank noble Lords who have supported these amendments. I hope that the Minister will think again and accept the spirit of what I have proposed; otherwise, I and others will bring these amendments back on Report I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Kenneth Macdonald (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, Amendment 132A is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, to which I and the noble Lord, Lord West, have added our names. It would require that nothing in Schedule 6 "authorises any action or measure which is inconsistent with the United Kingdom's international legal obligations." The reason for this amendment is that there appears to be a grave risk that pushbacks, as they have become known, would be inconsistent with certain international legal obligations that the United Kingdom has entered into. That is because they may easily conflict with the right of those fleeing persecution to seek asylum, the prohibition on collective expulsion, the duty to render assistance to those in distress at sea and the prohibition on refoulment As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made clear, pushbacks also raise the spectre of other rights violations, including violation of the right to life. This is because such manoeuvres are likely to be extremely dangerous, with a high risk of damage, injury or even drowning. Those who are familiar with the English Channel know that it is not a hospitable place, and we all know that the craft used by these refugees are flimsy and unseaworthy. So this policy, if it were ever to be implemented, courts disaster. It would take just one tragedy to expose this and, I assume, to shame our country before the world The policy is probably unworkable for two reasons. First, boats can be returned to French territorial waters only with France’s consent, which has not been forth- coming and is unlikely to be so in the future. Secondly—some may say to their credit—it seems quite unlikely that Border Force officers would agree to implement the policy. I would like the Minister, if she would be so good, to explain how the pushback policy would be consistent with the right of those fleeing persecution to seek asylum, the prohibition on collective expulsion, the duty to render assistance to those in distress at sea and the prohibition on refoulment. If it is not consistent with those obligations, it is not consistent with international law.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Julia Neuberger (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, in her Amendments 146 and 148. I thank her and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their sympathy, but they too have been sitting here for a very long time, whereas I got here relatively late—admittedly after quite a long day, and I will be here late tomorrow This part of the Bill is seriously concerning. We know, as the noble Baronesses already said, that age assessment techniques are notoriously inaccurate. These so-called scientific techniques are opposed by the BMA, the UNHCR, the Refugee Council, the medical and dental royal colleges and all sorts of associations and many others; I am immensely grateful to all those organisations that have provided briefing on this matter It is very late indeed, and I am extremely glad that we have the time on the record in Hansard. However, I want to quote the Minister in the other place, because it is important that we concentrate on this. The Minister said that "the Secretary of State may only specify a scientific method of age assessment in regulations once she has sought scientific advice and determined that the method in question is appropriate for assessing a person’s age. I expect that scientific advice to also cover related ethical considerations".—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 2/11/21; col. 559.] This kind of age assessment is unethical per se; therefore, we need to question this quite deeply The use of these techniques, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, does not benefit the children or young people concerned, so how on earth can they be justified and ethical? We already know that medical methods used for age assessment can be invasive and potentially harmful—ionising radiation is one example. To make it all worse, the evidentiary burden on local authorities assessing age is increased in the Bill, and they may be compelled to provide evidence to the Home Office even where no doubts have been raised about a child claimant’s age. That means that there is the potential to increase the number of unnecessary age assessments conducted, and the risk that children are incorrectly assessed as adults and diverted to adult reception and immigration processes, which might include detention This really is unethical. Other countries may be doing it—although they are increasingly desisting from it on ethical grounds. I do not believe that we should allow it. It was confirmed in Committee in the other place that the Government will determine that any scientific method is appropriate for assessing a person’s age and comply with all relevant frameworks in relation to the scientific methods chosen. Given this, will the Government put a commitment to obtain written approval from relevant medical and dental bodies on the face of this Bill? That is the very least that we can expect of something that is, on the face of it, so unethical.
Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests — House of Lords, 2022-06-16
Topic: Other
Igor Judge (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I came running along the Corridor but I did not quite get into the Chamber before the noble Lord, Lord True, stood up, so perhaps I may be forgiven for asking this question Normally speaking, it is not a good idea for any individual to be judge in his own cause, whether because as a matter of fact it is a bad idea, or because of the public perception that it is, or may be, or may lead to an inappropriate result. Why is the situation of the Prime Minister different?
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-04-26
Topic: Immigration
Frances D'Souza (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, needless to say, I along with many others am deeply disappointed with the Commons’ decision to reject the amendment that we tabled on Clause 9. In effect, the Government now seek to maintain the legal fiction that previous deprivation orders without notice continue to be valid. This immediately puts many who are suspected of having been trafficked, including women, at risk of return to countries where they may be subjected to torture and/or other inhumane and degrading treatment The amendment simply sought to remove the Government’s power to hold to decisions and actions to deprive, without notice, citizenship orders subsequently declared unlawful by the courts. It remains unclear to me why, if the Government accept that safeguards are necessary—as evidenced by the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and accepted by the Government—these same safeguards do not apply to all deprivation orders.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-04-26
Topic: Immigration
David Pannick (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I too speak in favour of Motion B1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I declare my interest as a practising barrister who sometimes acts in immigration cases As the noble and learned Lord has said, the overwhelming view of lawyers and interested, informed persons is that the provisions of the Bill breach this country’s obligations under the convention on refugees, which this country has signed. Ministers have repeatedly asserted to the contrary that they have failed to respond in any way to the reasoning of the critics.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-04-26
Topic: Immigration
Andrew Fleming (Crossbench, Unknown): I shall be extremely brief, noble Lords will be glad to hear. I should just like to draw attention to the state of public opinion, which is amazed by people arriving on our beaches in their tens of thousands. It was 30,000 last year; it could be double that this year. The public do not like it and they are right. It is very bad for the Government’s reputation. It is not so good for the Opposition either, in that the political system is failing to deal with an obviously very serious question The only way to deal with it is to break the business model of the traffickers. The Rwanda proposal is very far from ideal but for the present we have no alternative. I have to say, therefore, that it has my reluctant support.
Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: Immigration
David Pannick (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I declare an interest as a practising barrister. Yesterday, in rejecting an application to stop the flight to Rwanda, the President of the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed, said: "In bringing that application, the appellant’s lawyers were performing their proper function of ensuring that their clients are not subjected to unlawful treatment at the hands of the Government." Do the Government agree with that? Will the Minister deprecate the criticisms of barristers and solicitors who have acted for asylum claimants in these proceedings, wherever they have come from?
Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Indarjit Singh (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, last week we were given a clear assurance that refugees from Ukraine would not be sent to Rwanda. Does this two-tier system of human rights fit with any sort of concept of equal rights for every human being? While I deeply sympathise with the plight of the Ukrainians, other people are also suffering and all people should have equal human rights Secondly, does the Minister agree with the sentiments expressed by all the Bishops of this House in yesterday’s Times that this policy of sending suffering people—people fleeing for their lives—to Rwanda goes against all the concepts of Christian teachings and, if I may add, the teachings of other faiths too Lastly, does she agree that the whole concept of tearing up treaties, such as the Northern Ireland protocol and now the European Convention on Human Rights, makes us look ridiculous in the eyes of the rest of the world?
Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: Immigration
David Hugh Alexander Hannay (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, is the Minister familiar with the statement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi—he is, after all, the guardian of the migration convention—that the action by the Government was not in conformity with international law? If that is the case, what right do the Government have to elevate their view of international law above that of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, whose job is to guard that convention?
Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: Immigration
John Anderson (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, without getting embroiled in the politics of this, I would be grateful if the Minister could say why Rwanda was chosen and, generally, on what terms. If I heard her correctly, three were in question and were part of the legal process last night, so why did the flight not continue in any event Have the Rwandans given an assurance that they will not further deport refugees to another country? The Minister spoke about Rwanda being misrepresented and that it supports asylum seekers. Would she care to comment on the fact that Rwanda is looking for the extradition from this country of people associated with the genocide in that country? It has been doing so for a very long time, but the UK is not in any way accommodating that request.
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-07-18
Topic: Civil Rights
Simon Woolley (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 118A in my name. Before I make any substantive remarks, I say on the record that, on perhaps the hottest day ever recorded in this country, this Chamber is cooler than the Central line; I was on it this morning. I never thought I could put the House of Lords and being cool in the same sentence. I want to thank a few people who have helped me put these remarks together: L’Myah Sherae, Alfiaz Vaiya and Simon Dixon in Stella Creasy’s office Only through a freedom of information request by the Guardian newspaper do we know that UK schools recorded more than 60,000 racist incidents in the last five years. Many people, including black community and education leaders, accuse the Government of failing to meet basic safeguarding measures by hiding the true scale of the problem. For example, the data from the Guardian excluded 80% of England’s multi-academy trusts. The scale of racial incidents in schools is therefore probably much worse, causing one academic working in this area, Professor David Gillborn from the University of Birmingham, to conclude that we have a racism epidemic in our schools.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 — House of Lords, 2022-07-06
Topic: Immigration
Usha Kumari Prasher (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for moving this Motion of Regret, and for her introduction. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his contribution also. I support all the points they have made, so I will not elaborate on them further. But I want to underline and reinforce the points they made because we are talking about children who have a statutory right to citizenship, and to put so many obstacles in their way seems to me to be totally disproportionate and, as we said, cannot be morally justified Picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I think it would be very helpful if the Home Office published the assessment of what are the children’s best interests, because it would be helpful to know what they are. It would be helpful also if it can provide confirmation, and a more detailed explanation, of the steps being taken to ensure the citizenship rights of all looked-after children are being secured by their local authority Of course, we need to review the application form and guidance to decision-makers on the fee waiver to ensure that the waiver is accessible, because we have heard how complicated it really is. I think the Government need to end the charging of citizenship registration fees at above the administrative cost and the subsidising of the immigration system from statutory citizenship rights. As I said, I do not understand why this should be subsidised through this particular source. They also need to remove the review fee for looked-after children and children for whom a waiver of the registration fee has been granted. These are a few things which it would be helpful if we could actually argue I have not been part of the terrier group so far, but when I saw the regret Motion and had a conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I was moved to stay on and add my support to this regret Motion. I very much hope that we will get some confirmation and some concessions from the Home Office.
Draft Mental Health Bill — House of Lords, 2022-06-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
Sheila Clare Hollins (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, the average stay for people with learning disabilities and autistic people detained under the Act is five and a half years and, shockingly, many people are criminalised during their admission, making their discharge even more difficult. Although removing learning disability and autism from the Act is clearly the right thing to do, does the Minister agree that, unless there is some improvement in the care and support provided in the community to avoid those admissions in the first place, this could put people at risk? That is a concern in the wider community at the moment. We should take them out, but how do we look after people better?