argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, it is late but that does not make this clause or these amendments any less important, although whether at this hour I make any sense is another issue The amendments in this group seek to stop the proposed change from it being a criminal offence to "enter" the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance to "arriving" in the UK without a valid entry clearance. I may have got this wrong but perhaps the Minister will confirm that an example of that is someone transiting through Heathrow Airport who remains airside and then departs on another flight without going through immigration control. The UK border is the e-passport gates and the staffed Border Force control points, so someone transiting has clearly arrived in the UK but has not entered it, or at least they will not have entered the UK unless and until they have passed through the UK border. Similarly, those detained or granted immigration bail are not considered to have entered the UK even after they have left the immigration control area. With the change that the amendments seek to prevent, anyone who claims asylum in the UK territorial seas or at the UK border will be committing a criminal offence, whereas now they do not The Government have made much of the "first safe country" principle, which does not actually exist, wrongly interpreting it to mean that people cannot even transit through another country in order to claim asylum in the UK without their claim being deemed inadmissible. This change goes even further. Even if an asylum seeker flies direct from a war-torn country, or a country where they are being persecuted, and arrives on a flight at Heathrow, for example, they will commit a criminal offence. Arguably, that is the case even if they have a visa or do not need one but arrive in the UK for a different purpose—that is, to claim asylum. For example, someone coming from a country where a visa is not required to visit the UK as a tourist for six months or less who then claims asylum at the UK border could be regarded as not having valid entry clearance, as they are allowed to enter the UK for the sole purpose of visiting as a tourist. As I said on a previous group when I drew the analogy with the misuse of drugs, almost all the provisions in the Bill are targeted at the users—asylum seekers, the victims of war, of persecution and of people smugglers—and not the real criminals of the piece, who are the dealers, or in this case the people smugglers. When I was a police commander in Lambeth, I got into trouble for using undiplomatic language when I suggested on social media in relation to drugs that we needed to help the users and screw the dealers. The more serious point here is that criminalising victims is not the way forward. We support all the amendments in this group that seek to change that. Amendment 124 seeks to extend the statutory defence based on Article 31 of the refugee convention to any new offence—but the new offence should not stand part of the Bill.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness again but surely it must be possible to draft an offence specifically to target the facilitation of someone seeking asylum, rather than potentially criminalising everyone who arrives in the UK seeking asylum.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am left rather breathless by some of that, as I think some other noble Lords are. Section 25A of the 1971 Act, on helping an asylum seeker to enter the UK, makes it an offence if a person "knowingly and for gain"—that is another issue of course— "facilitates the arrival or attempted arrival in, or the entry or attempted entry into, the United Kingdom … and … knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the individual is an asylum-seeker" Are we are being told that that is inadequate? I am really puzzled by the need for this provision in the Bill as expressed this evening—even if expressed in a way intended to reassure those of us who see the provision as a very big problem. Can the noble Baroness give us an explanation of where the lacunae are in Section 25A and precisely how this new offence will be operated?
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the noble Baroness has, in her normal manner, made a very good attempt to justify Clause 39, but I think she is on a very sticky wicket. All noble Lords who have questioned, critiqued or criticised this clause have made a very good case. I am not persuaded that the breadth of this, which could criminalise everybody who arrives seeking asylum, is necessary. The Minister has talked about egregious cases of people who were already deported as failed asylum seekers as well as smugglers and traffickers. I still did not understand her reply to my noble friend, because the read-out of Section 25A of the Immigration Act as it stands refers to arriving as well as entering—perhaps I will need to read Hansard to understand that As of now, I must admit that I am not persuaded of the need for this extremely broad power. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, it is the last resort of—I will not say "scoundrel"—a Government who want to cover all the bases, however unjustified. To then leave it up to the CPS whether it prosecutes within such a wide range of possibilities seems unwise. The bottom line is that it is against the refugee convention, which I have read out, to penalise someone who seeks asylum. As others have said, Clause 39 in effect makes it impossible for someone to arrive to claim asylum without attracting the possibility of criminal penalty. That is, frankly, outrageous under refugee law and practice. I am afraid I remain as horrified by this clause now as I was when I moved the amendment, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw it.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Other
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, it is right to put on record that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has been sitting here for over nine and a half hours in order to say that. It adds to the weight of his points, which I very much support, and I know that colleagues will speak to this.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 130, 131, 133 and 135, which all stem from JCHR reports Amendment 130 aims to restore the Government’s original intended drafting. That said that the Secretary of State could authorise action only in respect of certain vessels if the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which my noble friend Lady Jolly mentioned, permitted it. However, a government amendment in Committee in the other place deleted that provision. The Minister might like to explain to us why the Government did that. In any case, Amendment 130 prefers to restore compliance with international law in giving orders to foreign ships. After all, the Ministerial Code requires Ministers to comply with the law, including international law, and that must surely include the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Amendment 133, like Amendment 132, is designed to ensure that powers in maritime enforcement, including any force used, cannot be used in a manner that would endanger life at sea—which is pretty self-explanatory. If the Government cannot accept that, it would be rather shocking Amendment 131 seeks to ensure that pushbacks are used against unseaworthy vessels—again, a bit of a no-brainer Amendment 135 aims to put liability in any civil proceedings squarely with the Home Office, not with an individual immigration or Border Force official. There are significant risks that the powers introduced in Clause 44 and Schedule 6 may break human rights law. The Bill seeks to remove civil as well as criminal liability from officers. This means that anyone suffering harm would have no recourse to an effective remedy. The Government would escape being held to account for killing or injuring a person through negligence or gross negligence. Such impunity is unjustified. It is contrary to various provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights and the HRA. Amendment 135 clarifies that, although individual officers may not personally be liable, the Home Office retains responsibility, accountability and liability in any civil proceedings. I suggest this is where it should lie.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I shall overlap with my noble friend in speaking to the proposal that Clause 47 should not stand part, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. It is about immigration bail and immigration detention—I am starting to feel that I am in detention myself The JCHR expressed in a report a few years ago its "serious concerns about the detention decision-making at the Home Office", and recommended that such decision-making should be independent, to distance it from decisions on removals and deportations. The fact that over a period of three years, from 2019 to 2021, the Home Office paid out £24 million in compensation to 914 people that it was found to have locked up unlawfully bears out the wisdom of the JCHR’s recommendations Clause 47 adds additional matters to the existing practice to which Home Office decision-makers and the First-tier Tribunal must have regard when making decisions on immigration bail. Clause 47 says that nonco-operation with the immigration process should be a factor, but detention should be used only if it is necessary and proportionate. Given that the decision-maker must already consider whether a person is likely to comply with bail conditions—as my noble friend mentioned—failure to co-operate can be taken into account in that context if relevant. Taking it into account when not relevant could result in arbitrary detention, in breach of Article 5 of the ECHR The NGO Bail for Immigration Detainees observed to the JCHR that, since Part 2 introduces new strict procedural time limits, people who fail to comply with them would be at risk of being deemed to be nonco-operating with the immigration process, and thus at risk of being and staying detained rather than getting bail. This appears both unjust and expensive, and I therefore suggest, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that Clause 47 should be struck out of the Bill.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s amendments seek clarification on the destination to which a person is to be removed and propose that the notice of removal should be 15 and not five days, to give enough time for the person to put their affairs in order, among other things, before removal —whether the notice is a first notice or a replacement notice. As my noble friends have explained, Clause 47 is about immigration bail and, again, as in previous clauses, directing decision-makers to place inference on whether a person has failed without reasonable cause to co-operate There is no need, other than for propaganda purposes, to place such a requirement in primary legislation. A bail decision, like all other bail decisions, should be based on the likelihood of the subject to surrender to bail. The behaviour of the subject—for example, a lack of social ties or a fixed address, or the fact of having absconded in the past—may give indications as to whether they are likely to surrender to bail, but this clause is unnecessary, other than for the purpose of a right-wing Government crowing about how they are going to be tough on those fleeing war and persecution. It should not stand part of the Bill.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Other
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, given the hour, I shall say simply that I am grateful to the Minister, as always; her careful and detailed responses deserve to be read properly when one can see the print. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply, although clearly some of the answers have not met a favourable response from the Committee. I have a couple of points. First, we need to understand why the Home Office appears to have been much more effective and efficient 10 years ago than it is now in the number of claims processed, the backlog and the number of successful appeals. Despite his reply, we are still no further forward in understanding why that was the case and he gave no indication that we would ever know. It is important to know, because a lot of the Bill is about reducing the number of asylum claims to relieve the pressure on the Home Office—but it was dealing with twice as many claims 10 years ago The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, was concerned about the statistics I was asking for not being comprehensive. He talked about concerns about overcrowding. Some 94% of immigrants to this country are not asylum seekers and refugees, and 94% of this Bill is about asylum seekers and refugees. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, Amendment 139 is another suggestion from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I move it in the name of, and at the invitation of, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs I am not sure why this amendment is in this place because it actually refers to Part 1 of the Bill, but anyway, that is a mystery. Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State the discretion to grant British citizenship or British overseas territory citizenship to adults where they would have had that citizenship but for historical unfairness or other exceptional circumstances. Clause 7 specifies that it applies to adults only where they are "of full age and capacity" Requiring a person to be of full capacity in order to benefit from these provisions would seem to discriminate, potentially, against people who do not have full capacity. Section 44A of the British Nationality Act provides that where full capacity is required, it may be waived if that is "in the applicant’s best interests." This is obviously welcome, but it is not immediately obvious why those lacking full capacity should not always have the requirement for full capacity waived if it is in their best interests. Hence, the proposed amendment is to Section 44A of the BNA so that the Secretary of State "must", not "may", waive the requirement for a person to have full capacity if it is in the applicant’s best interests, so as not to unfairly disadvantage those lacking full capacity.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the Home Office is inordinately fond of discretion rather than the clear rules which would mean that applicants and other users knew where they stood. This reminds me of the debate we had last week on comprehensive sickness insurance: although there was a welcome concession by the Minister on one aspect—family reunion—she said that no application for naturalisation had been refused on the ground of a historical lack of CSI. The Home Office was relying there on "we have never refused it", just as it is here. Well, if you have never refused it, you do not need the discretion, and it could become a rule, as Amendment 139 specifies. That would mean that everybody was clear about their rights and did not have to gamble, sometimes paying fees, without knowing how the discretion will be used. However, the Home Office turns round and says that it has never refused anybody, which is meant to earn Brownie points. It seems to me that it is all one way: the Home Office wants to keep its discretion, keep people in the dark and maybe make them pay fees, without knowing if they will get what they are paying for It is late and I am quite cross—and on that note I hear what the Minister says and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I remarked some time ago that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, had sat through nine and a half hours of debate. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, has sat through over 11 hours waiting to speak to this group of amendments, and I really feel I should let her go first—but I am not going to. My noble friend Lord Paddick and I oppose all the clauses in Part 4 standing part. I am well aware that noble Lords would like something quite cursory, but in opposing this whole Part of the Bill, I think I need to explain why The first of the clauses is Clause 38, which is, you might say, pre-sequential on the other clauses. The basis for all our objections may be summed up in the heading to Clause 51, "Use of scientific methods in age assessments". This is not a scientific subject. Any noble Lord who has looked years later at school photograph will understand that. I was always at the back because I was one of the tallest in the class. My best friend, two months older than me, was tiny and she had to sit on the ground in front of the first seated row. We are not all the same and we do not all develop in the same way and at the same rate We are told by the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, a coalition of more than 60 organisations—and the point is made by others in the sector—that even those from similar ethnic backgrounds, who have grown up in the same social and economic environment, display significant physical, emotional and developmental differences. It says: "These differences can be exacerbated by experiences of adversity, conflict, violence and the migration process." I am glad that it mentioned that last. Noble Lords will appreciate that those are all factors which, as far as I know, were not experienced by a class of girls in Manchester in the 1960s, so that did not account for all the differences.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I will speak to Amendment 147 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and support Amendment 151C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I share the dismay of others that we are discussing a whole part of the Bill between 2.15 am and, maybe, three in the morning. We are being punished because we want decent scrutiny of this Bill. The refusal of the Government to allow us the extra day we need in Committee is disgraceful Anyway, given the difficulties with assessing age, occasionally young adults may be treated as children. However, as long as there is good supervision in children’s placements, this is less of a risk than when children are incorrectly treated as adults and placed in immigration detention alone, accommodated with adults and with no safeguarding measures A significant number of disputes are not actually about whether an individual is a child or an adult but about whether they are a 15 or a 17 year-old child, so they are not relevant to whether the individual will be categorised as an adult or a child. Current Department for Education statutory guidance states that local authority age assessments should be carried out only when there is reason to doubt that the individual is the age that they claim, and "should not be a routine part of a local authority’s assessment" The Association of Directors of Children’s Services says that they should not be undertaken unless "absolutely necessary". Clause 48 would result in almost every child without recognised documentation going through the age assessment process. That is excessive Amendment 147 would delete Clause 51(6) and (7), as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, so that refusal to consent to scientific procedures should not feature in an assessment of credibility. The British Association of Social Workers calls that part of Clause 51 "grotesque coercion"—I think that another organisation also referred to coercion—and one can see why. Amendment 151C, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and supported by me and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, would rightly impose strict conditions on any procedure. I expect that we will hear more about that Age assessment is not susceptible to a scientific silver bullet. It needs a multiagency holistic approach. Scientific methods can be very invasive and even traumatic for a young person, and are hugely controversial. The Government seem to be seeking a quick fix, but it will not work and is neither legitimate nor—as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said—ethical. In addition, the Government are leaving themselves a lot of scope to legislate by regulations. If it were not this time in the morning, I would have said more, but I will leave things there.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, like the tightening of restrictions on claims of modern slavery, which we will come to in a future group, here we have another solution in search of a problem, although here the proposed solutions are dubiously credible, as noble Lords have said Yet again, the Home Office statistics are misleading. In cases where the age of the child is in doubt, it transpires that the person concerned was in fact an adult in less than half of cases in 2019, and that was only in cases where those concerned were suspected of being an adult. Instances of adult asylum seekers claiming to be children in the hope of preferential treatment certainly does not justify the measures set out in Part 4; they are disproportionate to the problem they seek to solve I am surprised that we have got this far in the debate and that nobody has mentioned the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health—
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Other
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the figure that I quoted was for 2019, which is the most up-to-date figure. That is perhaps why there is a difference between the figures that the Minister has and the figure that I quoted.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have registered our opposition to Clause 69 standing part of the Bill. These are penalties for unco-operative countries—refusing entry clearance, treating an application as invalid, levying extra fees—in fact, two pages of provisions if the country does not co-operate in the return of its nationals by the UK. I knew it would be late by the time we got to this group. I did not anticipate 3.07 am, but here goes Clause 69 says a lot about how we see our place in the world. Global Britain we are not. This is more about imperialist Britain—"We know best, and if you do not co-operate with us, we will penalise your citizens" —an excellent way to make friends and influence people and so useful when negotiating a returns agreement. Frankly, I am ashamed. Will that do?