argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, people do it for different reasons and that is where the difficulty lies. If we do not extend the offence of facilitating a breach of immigration law to include facilitating arrival, we cannot hold people smugglers to account for such actions. Organised criminal gangs are sophisticated. As I said, they know that if they ensure that their human cargo is put into the unenviable situation of requiring rescue, the facilitators behind such events can escape prosecution and this is the loophole that we are trying to close I have spoken to Amendment 124 and think it is sufficient to rely on the existing safeguard of prosecutorial discretion to meet our international obligations, rather than to provide an express defence for Article 31 to be applied. In cases where a statutory defence is not available to a refugee, the purposive and humanitarian aims of the refugee convention should be borne in mind by the CPS when considering the public interest test. With that explanation, I hope, the noble Baroness will feel free to withdraw her amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): Maybe I was not being clear, but I was trying to describe the law as it currently stands. I have just repeated twice to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that, as it currently stands, anyone who facilitates the arrival of migrants rescued at sea and brought to the UK port where their only intention is to claim asylum does not commit an offence. Clearly—under Section 25A of the Immigration Act 1971, and because the intention of the migrants is not to enter the UK illegally—it creates a lacuna for the organised criminal gangs, because they can get round it in that way.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Andrew Sharpe (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for having tabled their Amendments 124A and 140, and for again giving the Committee a chance to discuss this important topic. Noble Lords will recall that this issue was debated at some length during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill, as referenced by the right reverend Prelate Indeed, Section 81 of what is now the Domestic Abuse Act requires the Home Secretary to review the processing of domestic abuse data carried out by certain public authorities for immigration purposes, to prepare and publish a report setting out the findings of that review and to lay a copy of that report before Parliament. We conducted that review last year and the report was published on 15 December. The review examined the legal framework and policy considerations concerning the data-sharing arrangements between the Home Office and police in respect of migrant victims and witnesses of crime with insecure immigration status, as well as the wider considerations of public policy relating to policing and crime, including domestic abuse. During the review we engaged extensively with the police, the domestic abuse and modern slavery sector, the domestic abuse commissioner and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner Taking all that into account, and all the evidence provided, the Home Office review recommended establishing an Immigration Enforcement migrant victims protocol, which has been referred to in this debate, to give greater transparency to migrant victims and their dependants on how their data will be shared. The protocol will set out that no immigration enforcement action should be taken against that victim while investigation and prosecution proceedings are ongoing and the victim is receiving support and advice to make an application to regularise their stay. It will set out, in line with the code of practice for victims’ rights, what information and signposting could be offered to migrant victims to help them regularise their stay and thereby reduce the threat of them being subjected to coercion and control.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Andrew Sharpe (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I remember the debate on the fact that it is not a statutory body. I also remember that it is being reviewed at the moment, I think by the chief executive, so there will be more to say on that in the future The Government are of the view that the amendment is unnecessary, given the provisions in the Domestic Abuse Act, the findings of our review, our plans to publish an immigration enforcement migrant victim protocol and the joint code of practice with the NPCC, notwithstanding the points that my noble friend has made. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I will start with Amendment 125. I agree with the need to protect those acting with good and honest intentions in bringing asylum seekers to the UK and to see that they are not treated in the same way as organised criminal facilitators. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for raising this point Noble Lords will know that, historically, individuals have felt compelled to take compassionate action, and the Government applaud all those who acted throughout history, often at grave personal risk, to bring people to safety. It should also be noted, however, that they were often working with the knowledge of the Home Office and charitable organisations. We have always worked with and listened to humanitarian individuals and bodies that aid and assist refugees, victims of modern slavery and other vulnerable people, and we will continue to do so I reassure the Committee that those working openly and transparently with the published aims of an organisation that does not charge for its services to assist asylum seekers, and under its direction, need not fear these measures. However, individuals taking action that ignores lawful controls may well be liable to prosecution. We will very carefully examine the individual circumstances of each case and work with the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland, and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, which will determine whether a prosecution is proportionate and in the public interest. That relates to the point made by the noble, Lord Paddick, and I will come to that point when we talk about turn-arounds later To be clear, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, our purpose in removing gain from this offence is more readily to target people-smuggling, where organised crime gangs will conceal their tracks and make it as difficult as possible to prove that they are gaining financial reward to the standard required for a successful prosecution. We also note that the amendment we tabled at Report in the other place to protect members of the RNLI from the scope of the offence of facilitation, while acting in line with the principles of saving lives at sea, was welcomed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): What I was trying to say was that, unless we can disprove it beyond all reasonable doubt, the defence has to establish that someone assisted an individual in danger or distress at sea in that time. Therefore, the burden is higher on us than it is on the defendant.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Other
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes. The point I am making, in response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is that the defence would be to the evidential burden only and we would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt—the burden is different.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): Would the Committee be content if I wrote further on this matter? Excellent I am not quite sure where I had got to. Amendment 128A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, gives me the opportunity to explain the defence provided to persons who are not acting under the co-ordination of HMCG but who can show that they assisted an individual in danger or distress at sea at any time—I think I have just said that It is appropriate to set a clear timescale of when the defence will apply to assistance to those in danger or distress. This means a starting point from when the person was first in danger or distress at sea and ending at the time when the person was delivered to a place of safety on land. It does not include assistance given before the assisted individual is first in danger or distress. This is to make it more difficult for unscrupulous criminal gangs to benefit from the defence by either changing their operations to pick up migrants immediately after they have left the French coast and then ferrying them to the UK, or claiming that they are assisting migrants before they reach a point of being in danger or distress at sea by providing life jackets—possibly at additional cost—when they begin their crossing.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Lucy Neville-Rolfe (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 193 in my name, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts for their support. Indeed, I should say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Green, more broadly, as he has been kind enough to speak more brilliantly than I could have done to amendments in my name during my lonely period of Covid isolation. I am also grateful for the good wishes of others in my absence Noble Lords will know of the importance that I attach to numbers and to reporting in all Bills that we scrutinise in this House. My Amendment 193 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that information is regularly published on immigration, including data on both asylum and other immigration—just to clarify to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—and also weekly figures on those entering the UK across the English Channel. I note that I might have drafted that more generously to include other sea routes used by small boats bringing migrants to the UK, as the dreadful people smugglers shift to any viable sea route I have tabled the amendment for two reasons. First, many years ago when I was the home affairs adviser in the Downing Street Policy Unit, I discovered just how difficult it was to get up-to-date figures out of Croydon. The International Passenger Survey improved things, but I believe that it is no longer routinely completed at UK points of entry. I need to understand from my noble friend the Minister what data the department is now collecting on immigration and asylum, how often this is published and how up to date it is when it is published. Since Brexit, the system has changed. It makes it doubly important to have proper data, and to have it regularly—I think there is agreement across the Committee on that. I worry that that is now lacking. This matters, whatever your position on immigration. It is vital to have adequate provision of housing, schooling and other aspects of the care and employment of migrants. We also need to know how the population is growing or steadying Secondly, there have been reports in the media that the regular daily or weekly count of migrants crossing the channel might be discontinued, possibly as part of a move to give the Royal Navy control of enforcement. I have no issue with the latter—my son is in the Navy Reserve and the British Navy warms our hearts. However, I cannot accept this needless reduction in transparency It is too late to argue about what has been said by the previous speaker, but I have sympathy with some of the amendments in this group, in so far as they relate to the provision of proper data. Everyone—from the Secretary of State herself to hard-working Members of this House—needs to have reliable and regular facts. Brexit is an enormous change and we need to be sure that the flow of migrants—some welcome, some less so—is turning out as anticipated.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Lucy Neville-Rolfe (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my noble friend for the helpful tour d’horizon, but I think he was saying that the weekly figures for the numbers of those entering the UK across the channel will now cease and be replaced by quarterly figures. If I have misunderstood that, perhaps he could let me know. It would be helpful before Report to see some examples of the various statistics that he outlined, to see whether they actually supply the data that we feel we need for the future, to monitor developments in this important area.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, the Secretary of State has discretion to waive the full capacity requirement, and the introduction of this amendment would make it a statutory requirement rather than a discretionary power for the full capacity requirement to be waived if doing so would be in the applicant’s best interests I know that prior to the change made in 2006, UKVI sometimes had to refuse an application even where, in the opinion of the applicant’s carer or responsible family member, it would have been in the applicant’s best interests to grant it and the applicant met all other relevant criteria. This was clearly an undesirable position and we think it has been rectified successfully by the introduction of the current discretionary powers, since when no applications have been refused solely on full capacity grounds. This indicates that the 2006 change has been more than adequate in allowing decisions to be taken in the best interests of the applicant, in line with the principles set out in the mental capacity legislation and the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 It is not the only area of nationality law that is discretionary. It is right that the Secretary of State’s ability to waive the full capacity requirement is discretionary in nature, to allow her fully to consider all the relevant factors which apply to the applicant. But where it is in an applicant’s best interests, we expect UKVI to continue to exercise discretion over the full capacity requirement, employing the necessary sensitivity and flexibility in the consideration of applications. We do not believe the proposed amendment would serve any more practical benefit than is already derived from the existing provisions. I hope the noble Baroness, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will withdraw the amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Lucy Neville-Rolfe (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 151, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and speak to my Amendment 151A. I think it is fair to say that I have been utterly appalled by the number of asylum seekers pretending to be children—more than 1,100 migrants in the 12 months to September 2021, according to Migration Watch. I understand that this represents a big rise in this fraud, with 66% of concluded decisions in the year to September 2021 being persons who are 18 or over. This is despite the fact that many arrivals arrive without documents. The number will of course grow as the numbers across the channel in boats grow—assuming we can get at those numbers There are also substantial incentives for adult asylum seekers to be treated as children, such as the granting of housing and wider support. However, it is the wider implications that are worrying me. Mature boys put alongside vulnerable girls in schools can wreck their progress and even lead to abuse. Mixed ages in social care are a recipe for disaster. And it can be worse than that: the Parsons Green bomber pretended to be 16 when he was much older The noble Lord, Lord Green, tabled his amendment because he believes that the system for checking the age of asylum claimants is so loose that it gives the benefit of the doubt to those saying, without proof, that they are minors. So I think there is some agreement that there is a problem here. But all of that is a long way of saying that we must have an extremely rigorous system of age assessment, and I look forward to hearing from my noble friend how this will be achieved in practice. I particularly support new subsection (3) proposed by Amendment 151 which, if adopted, would prevent those of undetermined age being placed alongside minors in schools or accommodation, because this is at the heart of my concern From listening to today’s debate, it is obvious that this is an area of widespread concern—and for different reasons, depending on your perspective. I therefore tabled Amendment 151A, which would require a review of the age assessment provisions after two years to ensure that they are effective in providing a robust system of age verification. A report will be made to Parliament so that we can all assess progress. I hope that this simple idea will find favour with the House.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Robin Granville Hodgson (Conservative, Centre-right): I have just two sentences, really. I think it is unfair of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, to disregard Migration Watch’s evidence in the off-hand way that she does. If she thinks it is inaccurate, that is one thing, but as an organisation it produces figures for which there is an evidential basis. It should not be disregarded just because it raises uncomfortable truths I understand the ethical concerns raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Neuberger, and others. On the other side of the scale is the question of maintaining public trust and confidence. We have a system that works clearly. It is important that we should bear that in mind, so the provisions of Amendment 151 seem to have some sense. In particular, I think that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s suggestion of a review when we have had a chance to see how it all works, watch the evidence, hear the experts, look at the problems, and see what works well or not so well is an excellent idea. I therefore hope that the Government will think about Amendment 151A as providing some bridge between the two sides of this particular argument.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Keith Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): I hear what the noble Lord has to say. As I say, the figures that I have bear on a broader field, from 2016 to 2020. Perhaps the discrepancy, if there is one, can be explored in terms of writing, if the noble Lord is content These reforms also provide for a right of appeal where there is a dispute as to each age assessment, and such an appeal will be heard in First-tier Tribunal, which will replace the current route of judicial review, which we anticipate will find a more cost-effective and quicker way of hearing these important matters In relation to Amendment 148, there is nothing in existing law precluding the ability of decision-makers to use scientific methods of age assessment in appropriate cases. We are aware of a number of cases in which dental X-ray examinations have been used. Clause 51(9) clarifies the pre-existing legal position that scientific methods that may not have been specified by the Secretary of State under subjection (1) may continue to be used where appropriate. However, a negative inference from a person’s refusal to undertake a non-specified method cannot be taken under this clause.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Andrew Sharpe (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for explaining her Amendment 151B. We should recognise that the Immigration Rules and decisions about visa requirements are sovereign national powers which rest with the Home Secretary. I sympathise with my noble friend’s desire to retain national control over visa policy. We took back control of our borders when we left the European Union. We now have the freedom to set our own rules in the interests of the UK Trade and immigration are separate policy areas. The UK does not routinely discuss immigration in trade negotiations. Comprehensive free trade agreements typically include provisions on so-called mode 4 trade in services. These set the terms for the temporary movement of service providers between parties to the agreement. Immigration policy, as opposed to mode 4, is our overarching approach to long-term immigration and border controls My noble friend has expressed concerns about the Government’s free trade negotiations with India. As is standard in such agreements, I expect we shall explore more mode 4 provisions. These could support British and Indian businesses and consumers in our negotiations with India. It is not a one-way conversation. UK business stakeholders have identified mobility issues affecting UK service suppliers seeking to go to India. We may seek to address these in our negotiations, just as we have done in our free trade agreements with other partners, such as Japan, Australia and the EU. We would expect to do the same in any future comprehensive free trade agreements. Any agreement will be consistent with the points-based immigration system. We will not compromise the principles or functioning of this system.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Other
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, just before we go, I say on behalf of us all a very big thank you to clerks, staff of the House, the doorkeepers, the team in the Box and all the officials who have helped us tonight.
Procedure and Privileges Committee — House of Lords, 2022-06-16
Topic: Other
Patrick Cormack (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the Senior Deputy Speaker really mean that this will happen in the middle of the week when strikes are likely to affect attendance in the House? If he does, I hope another date will be thought of.
Procedure and Privileges Committee — House of Lords, 2022-06-16
Topic: Civil Rights
Michael Bruce Forsyth (Conservative, Centre-right): Perhaps I can just read my noble friend something on improvements to Hansard online: "Hansard enhancement work is scheduled for the end of this year and includes adding a feature to Lords Hansard and Commons Hansard online that alerts readers to potentially offensive language within the content. This comes from recommendations made by the House of Lords Inclusion and Diversity team." Would my noble friend undertake to look at this?
Houses of Parliament: Co-location — House of Lords, 2022-06-16
Topic: Other
Nicholas True (Conservative, Centre-right): I have not asked the Leader of the House personally, but if the noble Lord looks at the record, he will find that it is not my habit either to brief newspapers or, frankly, to read them. I sound a bit like the judge who did not know who the Beatles were, but I have slightly better things to do. The day after this report appeared, I was before your Lordships’ House and I think I made the position very clear for the Government. I have made the position clear again for the Government—the whole Government. Who said what to whom at any time I cannot answer but, as the responsible Minister, I have given the House a very clear response.
Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests — House of Lords, 2022-06-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Nicholas True (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, my noble friend makes interesting suggestions, as he always does. The recent changes have potentially very much strengthened the role of the independent adviser. On the role of the Prime Minister, it was made very clear again this morning by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and, as I said, in the House previously, that normally the Prime Minister would accede. The exception referred to in the House is national security, which would be in certain cases a reasonable exception.