argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Other
David Wolfson (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I really do not want to get into a procedural battle. I was trying to be both helpful to the Committee, given the time and pressure, and respectful, I hope, to the noble and right reverend Lord. I reiterate the offer, which I think is appropriate.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
David Wolfson (Conservative, Centre-right): I am certainly not trying to be flippant. What I am saying is that we have a refugee convention that sets out our international obligations. We are abiding by those international obligations. It may—I underline "may"—be that a convention entered into in 1951 is not absolutely suitable for the world of 2022. That might be the answer. At the moment, however, my focus as a Justice Minister is on making sure that this country abides by its international obligations, and that is what we are doing. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): Going back to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, first, I did not disagree with his point about reciprocity but I made it clear at the time that we were of course leaving the European Union. I have consistently said, and repeat now, that we will try to negotiate with the EU on UASC family reunion, whether that is across the EU or bilaterally with states. I cannot go any further on the negotiations, but we continue to try to do that. I hope that answers his question On family reunion visas, we can grant them, but the noble Lord asked about tracking whether people use them or not. I assume people apply for the visas because they need them and want to reunite with family in the UK, and whether they use them or not—I have just received an answer: all 39,000 have been taken up, so I hope that satisfies the noble Lord. I was just wondering how we could track whether someone had used a visa or not, which might be quite difficult I move to Amendment 114, on returns. Once again, we have a number of safe and legal routes to the UK that did not require a negotiating mandate. Our resettlement schemes have provided safe and legal routes for tens of thousands of people to start new lives in the UK. In particular, the mandate resettlement scheme recognises refugees who have a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them. This is a global scheme and there is no annual quota. These routes work alongside the UK Government’s commitment to increasing co-operation internationally, and we continue to seek to negotiate on returns with EU member states, as I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Timothy Kirkhope (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, Amendment 116 is in my name. I thank my noble friends Lord Shinkwin, Lady Stroud and Lady Helic for their support. We propose a workable, sensible and impactful solution for the Government to meet their stated objective, as set out in Explanatory Notes, "to enhance resettlement routes to continue to provide pathways for refugees to be granted protection in the UK." Introducing a carefully designed, long-term global resettlement scheme with a numerical target will have the effect of meaningfully expanding safe routes for the world’s most vulnerable refugees.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
John Horam (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am not sure that I should support a Liberal Democrat policy this evening; none the less, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said about the importance of targets. I am sure that one of the reasons that local authorities are reluctant to accept more people is the uncertainty that they have at the moment. They genuinely have a shortage but, inevitably, they hold back when they do not know exactly how many are expected I have long argued for targets in this area; I think they are an important part of it precisely because you need sensible planning, frankly, and this could be a way forward. Whatever the numbers may be, we ought to have a proper debate each year on refugees, asylum seekers and immigration as a whole, in which the Government’s plans are set out and we can all make a contribution, in the Commons as well as here, and decide what should be the targets for the following year. This would give everyone, including local authorities, some confidence and certainty about what they are expected to do I am afraid I do not think that that will actually reduce the numbers of people coming across the channel—I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on this point—for the reasons that I spelled out previously. Demand is so great that people would still try to cross the channel, even if we expanded the number, for certainty, of people coming across under safe schemes. None the less, the idea of having transparency and target setting is very valuable.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): I will probably refer to my colleagues in the FCDO for further information on that, but I shall certainly take those points back It is important at this stage to take into account our capacity in the UK to support people, as I have said, so that we can continue to resettle people safely and provide that appropriate access to healthcare, et cetera. Sorry, I have just gone back on my speech; I was talking to the noble Lord about the VPRS and the whole issue of genocide. I shall provide further information on all that—but I would add that we cannot support these amendments, which would create an uncapped route, whereby anyone anywhere could make an application to enter the UK for the purposes of making an asylum claim. The UN estimates there to be around 82.4 million displaced persons worldwide. Under these proposals, UK caseworkers, who already have a stretched workload, would be bound to undertake an in-depth examination of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of individuals’ circumstances to assess the likelihood of their protection claim being granted, as well as seeking to understand factors, including the individual’s mental and physical health, their ties to the UK, and the dangers that they face. This suggestion is totally unworkable I remind my noble friend that the number of people we are able to support through safe and legal routes depends on a big variety of factors, including local authorities’ capacity for supporting refugees. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, acknowledged that, and acknowledged the extreme stress that they are under. An unlimited, uncontrolled scheme such as that which my noble friend proposes would overwhelm our already very strained asylum system, as well as our justice system, and put significant pressures on to our local authorities Finally, Amendment 119E seeks to bring the UK resettlement scheme into statute and produce a report on refugees resettled through the scheme annually. In a non-legislative way, we have already done resettlement schemes operating outside of the Immigration Rules and on a discretionary basis, providing the flexibility to respond to changing international events. As demonstrated through the VPRS, we have stuck to and exceeded our commitment, and we will continue to build on the success of previous schemes; the numbers resettled annually will depend on a variety of factors. I hope, with that, that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Other
Natalie Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): It is genuinely not the noble Baroness, but we also need to work together —please—to get this Bill through. It is an important Bill. All noble Lords absolutely have the right to say what they want, but we also need to get this through. I am sorry, but can we please focus on that? We will let everyone speak, but please be aware of the time and what everyone else needs to be doing tonight.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Other
Natalie Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very sorry to the noble Baroness; that was not my intention at all and I am very sorry she feels that way. It is absolutely not the case. All I can say is that we have now reached the time we are at. We must try to make progress; we must all work together to do that. I say on the record that I am very sorry to the noble Baroness—it is nothing to do with her and I am very sorry she feels that way.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but I should respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, because I think he is about to wind up. We have generally done specific schemes for specific purposes and in responding to specific crises. We have the VPRS, the VCRS, the UK resettlement scheme and the ARAP scheme, and we will be doing the ACRS. They have all been non-statutory and I was trying to explain that we will be continuing in that vein for specific purposes, so that we can accommodate the most vulnerable. I hope that partly answers her question.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Andrew Sharpe (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her amendments, which would insert two new clauses concerning the introduction of codes of practice to underpin the Secretary of State’s approach to identifying physical and mental health needs in the asylum system. It may assist if I clarify why the Government believe that these amendments are unnecessary Asylum seekers are already entitled to access medical services, including those related to mental health, that are provided by the NHS, in the same way as British citizens and other permanent residents. The Home Office provides accommodation and subsistence support to all asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, but medical services—including those related to mental health and trauma—medical assessment and treatment are provided by the NHS. At every stage in the process, from initial arrival to screening, and to the substantive asylum interview, our approach is to ensure that the healthcare needs and vulnerabilities of asylum seekers are identified and taken into consideration where it is appropriate to do so. We ask a broad range of questions —in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—in the screening interview to establish a claimant’s needs, including any vulnerabilities or well-being needs. Claimants have signposted to them additional sources of support and advice as appropriate. Where any safeguarding concerns are identified, the Asylum Safeguarding Hub will look to make referrals to relevant bodies and signpost relevant organisations to the claimant As I say, where needs are identified we ensure that there is access to professional care, and assessments are conducted by professionally trained healthcare providers. While the Home Office clearly considers it vital to safeguard all aspects of asylum seekers’ health, the responsibility for assessing health issues rests with the statutory agencies of the NHS and social services. Therefore, we do not believe there is any need for further regulation in this area. Asylum seekers have every opportunity for their needs to be identified. The standard of care they would receive as a result of those needs is identical to that received by a British citizen—we should all, at this point, pay tribute to the work of the NHS. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to withdraw her amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 121 and 122. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for lending her support in signing Amendment 122. As the noble Baroness set out, and as we heard from the Deputy Chairman, if Amendment 120 carries favour with the Committee, Amendments 121 and 122 could obviously not be moved I intend these amendments to probe my noble friend the Minister. The thinking behind this is that it represents the concerns expressed to me by Law Society of Scotland, to which I am grateful for drafting the amendments and the wording that it has used. Rather than just deleting the offending wording in new subsections (D1) and (E1), I am proposing to delete "arrives in" from the relevant sections of Clause 39 and insert "enters" instead Clause 39 of the Bill adds a new component to the existing offence of illegal entry, and subsection (2) thereof adds new subsections to Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. New subsection (D1) makes it an offence for someone who "requires entry clearance" to arrive in the UK without "a valid entry clearance". An entry clearance is a visa issued before travel, because it becomes leave to enter when the person enters the UK. The burden of proving that a person holds valid entry clearance lies on that person. This is of concern, given that EU citizens are not routinely given any physical evidence of their entry clearance if they apply using the UK Immigration: ID Check app—no visa vignette is placed in their passport. So the key addition to the offence provision is to make arrival an offence The Explanatory Notes clearly state: "The concept of ‘entering the UK without leave’ has caused difficulties about precisely what ‘entering’ means in the context of the current section 24(1)(a) of the 1971 Act." Entering is defined in Section 11(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, which I recall studying at the University of Edinburgh some time ago, as disembarking and subsequently leaving the immigration control area. Arrival is not given any technical legal definition, so it will simply mean reaching a place at the end of a journey or a stage in a journey. So it is unclear whether a person needs to reach the mainland in order to arrive in the United Kingdom My first question to my noble friend is: can she clarify at what point a person arrives in the United Kingdom? The Explanatory Notes and the separate definitions of the United Kingdom and United Kingdom waters seem to suggest that arrival on the mainland is necessary. The new provisions will allow prosecutions of individuals intercepted in UK territorial waters and brought into the UK, who arrive in but do not technically enter the UK, as set out in paragraph 388 of the Explanatory Notes.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Robin Granville Hodgson (Conservative, Centre-right): I shall intervene very briefly because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has reminded us, it is 11.04 pm. I am concerned about the impact of this amendment, if accepted, on fairness. We want to try to encourage people to go through the major routes, first, because it is fair and everyone is treated equally and, secondly, because if they try unofficial ways then they put themselves at risk from people smugglers, the Channel and other methods of illegal entry. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and indeed the Minister whether this would not undermine a fairness element of the system by allowing people who choose to behave in a certain way to jump the queue and take advantage. If that is the case, surely that is undesirable from the point of view of both policy and their personal safety.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank again all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. I will start by addressing Amendment 120. I am grateful to the noble Lord and the Joint Committee on Human Rights for drawing attention to this complex problem caused by changes in the way that people have sought to come to the UK through irregular routes, particularly through the use of small boats Many of the individuals involved are intercepted in UK territorial seas and brought into the UK because they are in distress and need help. It is right that we do so, but the interception means that legally they arrive in, but do not enter, the UK. The effect of this amendment is to prevent the prosecution of those arriving migrants who are visa nationals and whose actions mean that they did not and could not arrive in the UK and seek entry as required The UK is currently experiencing a serious problem of small-boat arrivals with migrants crossing from the continent, sometimes in the process recklessly and unnecessarily endangering themselves and others in small craft which are unseaworthy or wholly unsuitable for the crossing. Many of these vessels break down or founder and are intercepted and rescued by UK personnel on safety of life at sea grounds. The rescued migrants are generally brought to Dover, including pregnant women and children We need to reduce the allurement of the UK as a destination of choice for those who disregard readily available opportunities to seek refuge at earlier points in their journey, and thereby call into question their motives for travel to the UK. We wish to encourage migrants to apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach At this point, I want to be absolutely crystal clear about our intentions regarding the offence of arrival without entry clearance. This new offence for people arriving in the UK without the required entry clearance applies to everyone who requires entry clearance for entry on arrival to the UK. This offence will cover all asylum claimants who arrive without the necessary entry clearance. As a matter of law, refugees will be in scope of the offence, but decisions on prosecutions are a matter for the relevant UK prosecution body, which will take into account the public-interest test The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked whether every illegal entrant would be liable for prosecution the moment that they arrive in the UK. This is not an attempt to prosecute every illegal entrant. Prosecutions will focus on egregious cases, such as cases where the individual has entered in breach of a deportation order or was previously removed as an illegal entrant or an overstayer. We intend to take a firm stance on such cases in order to prevent inadvertently rewarding such individuals with granted leave, rather than punishing their abuse of the system.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): I have just outlined our policy intent. I was just going to go on to answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. There is a need to seek prosecution where there are aggravating circumstances. For those who arrive without permission and who are not granted refugee status, Immigration Enforcement will continue to remove such individuals from the UK as soon as reasonably possible. On the prosecutions, the aggravating circumstances might include: causing danger to themselves or others, including rescuers; causing severe disruption to services, such as shipping routes or closure of the Channel Tunnel; or cases of persons who have previously been removed from the UK, such as failed asylum seekers. We will take firm action against those who put others in danger by their actions or against those who have arrived in the UK without permission on previous occasions.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): I take both noble Baronesses’ point but I hope I have tried to signal what the intent is through my explanation On Amendments 121 and 122 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I thank her for drawing attention to the problem under UK law caused by the difference between entering the UK and arriving in the UK. I should explain that "entry" is defined by Section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971 and involves disembarking in a non-approved area or disembarking and subsequently leaving the immigration control area. Where a person is detained and taken from the area or granted immigration bail, they are not deemed to have entered the UK. The Court of Appeal has held that an asylum seeker who merely attempts to arrive at the frontiers of the UK to make a claim is not entering or attempting to enter the country unlawfully in accordance with the definition of entry in Section 11. This means that individuals who are subject to immigration control and who step foot in the UK because their small boat was rescued by Border Force in the English Channel do not enter the UK in a technical sense—they simply arrive. To provide the CPS with the ability to prosecute appropriate cases when proportionate and in the public interest, Clause 39 must refer both to those who enter the UK and to those who arrive in the UK I appreciate the concerns raised today but I am convinced that the amendment, if accepted, would simply encourage others to make those journeys across the channel and encourage those who facilitate that journey.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): I will go on to explain that in just a minute, if my noble friend will bear with me. In fact, I will explain it now. When do you arrive in the UK? Basically, it happens when you reach the UK’s internal waters. The new offence will be attempting to arrive in our territorial waters, which is 12 nautical miles out. To clarify, internal waters are defined by UNCLOS. On Amendment 123, at the forefront of our minds are the migrants whose lives are being placed at risk by criminals who act to exploit and endanger them. Clause 39(4) is aimed at those criminals. We must take action to prevent and prosecute people-smuggling. The law as it currently stands accounts only for unlawful "entry" and not "arrival" into the UK. A person who facilitates the arrival of migrants rescued at sea and brought to a UK port where their only intention is to claim asylum, in accordance with a recent Court of Appeal judgment, does not commit an offence under Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971. The Court of Appeal ruled that this is because the intention of the migrants is not to enter the UK illegally.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am sorry to labour the point, but may I just confirm that my noble friend is saying that the Government will go after the criminal gangs but will not seek to criminalise the innocent refugees in the boats?
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): I am saying that a person who facilitates the arrival of migrants rescued at sea and brought to the UK port where their only intention is to claim asylum in accordance with that Court of Appeal judgment does not commit an offence under Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971. The Court of Appeal ruled this because the intention of the migrants is not to enter the UK illegally. I am glad I have clarified that again.