argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Housing
Alfred Dubs (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I just put this to him: if children are coming to join family members here, the norm would be that the family member has accommodation to provide for them, so the argument about housing does not apply to that group of people.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, it is a privilege to contribute again to the deliberations in Committee on this important Bill. We agree with all the amendments in this particular group, but I shall speak specifically to Amendment 114 and then Amendment 113 On Amendment 114, I join the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I am sure all other Members of the Committee, in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Dubs for the work he has done over so many years. He is an example and inspiration to us all, with respect to family reunion. The reason I want to highlight Amendment 114 is to lay out the importance of international action on this. That is why the refugee convention is so important to us. We saw the collapse of the world order, if you like, after the Second World War. As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, earlier, the world back then, of all political persuasions and ideologies, did not all split asunder and pull the drawbridge up on their own countries; they said that this was a common problem of such massive importance that they had to work together to achieve anything The 1951 refugee convention is not an old document but still speaks to us and is relevant today. It may have been written in 1951, 70-odd years ago, but it speaks as resoundingly to the people of the world today as it did then. Why do I say that? Like many Members of this Committee, I think Amendment 114 is important because it talks about the United Nations and it talks about international actions. It is a probing amendment —we are not asking the Government to accept it—but it is using the Committee to put pressure on the Government to say, as a senior global power, a member of the United Nations Security Council, a senior member of NATO, a power that has resonance across the world—notwithstanding some of the reputational damage that I think this Bill is causing—that we make a difference. What we say makes a difference In Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan—all of those countries—their refugee problems dwarf ours, let alone if we consider those in Africa. As I think I mentioned before, I went to Angola, where they had a refugee camp of a million people—some of the poorest people in the world dealing with some of the most difficult circumstances. On the border of Syria and Jordan, as I think I mentioned before, there is a huge refugee camp with people pouring across the border to escape war. Those countries—Jordan and Turkey—did not turn their back on those people; they worked to try to deal with it What I am saying about that international response, that international action, such is the difficulty that we are facing across the world—for all sorts of reasons, and we can debate why that is and why that is not—is that if we do not join together, we have got real problems in actually sorting this out. It is beyond the capacity and capability of one country to do that, notwithstanding the attempts. I say this: there will be a nationality and borders Bill 3 and a nationality and borders Bill 4 in trying to deal with this if the UK Government try to deal with it on their own.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Alfred Dubs (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I hate to go over the past, but the whole point of having the Dublin III treaty in the 2017 Act—which was taken out in the 2019 Act, as I said—is that it has to be based on reciprocity. That was a sensible way forward; it is why we wanted to go down that path. That was the path blocked by the Government in the 2019 Act.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Alfred Dubs (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, this amendment is also about children, but it is about children who are in Europe and do not have family anywhere. It is similar to an amendment that was passed by this House and became Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016. There is a long story to that; I will not waste noble Lords’ time on it now except to say that there was quite a lot of resistance then on the part of the Government but, eventually, the amendment was passed and Theresa May, the then Home Secretary, accepted it However, as I understand it, Mrs May did so under the pressure of public opinion because, at the time, people were horrified when they saw dinghies and people drowning in the Mediterranean. They saw a little Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, drowned on a Mediterranean beach. I think that woke up public opinion. The public then came onside and decided that we as a country can do this for unaccompanied child refugees. That is a summary of the history there. Theresa May then summoned me again to see her and said that the Government were prepared to accept the amendment The Government then decided that they would cap the number; it was capped at 480, I think. The Government’s argument was that they could not find more local authorities to provide foster families and foster parents to take in more children—a point that was disproved by Safe Passage, which contacted a number of local authorities and found around 1,500 places. Whether they are there today, I do not know, but they were certainly there at the time. There is a problem, of course: there is increasing financial pressure on local authorities, so local authorities are willing to do it but probably cannot afford to do it. There are difficulties; I can see that. Nevertheless, Amendment 115 says: "The number of children to be resettled … must be determined by the Government in consultation with local authorities." That is close to the wording of the earlier amendment some years ago. The argument here is that, in principle, the Government should accept that we will take a few—only a few—unaccompanied child refugees in Europe, and they should settle on how many and the speed in conjunction with local authorities and with regard to local authorities’ ability to provide foster places. It is a simple proposition. I believe that public opinion is still supportive of it. We have sought support across the political spectrum on this because that is, I am sure, the best way to be successful. Faith groups have been very supportive; altogether, we have a good coalition of people supporting the principle in this amendment and the earlier amendment on Dublin III that I spoke about This amendment makes a simple proposition. It would not be difficult for the Government to say that, where there are unaccompanied children who have nowhere else to go and are stuck, we could take at least some of them—not all of them, but some of them—in this country and repeat the small successes of a few years ago. I beg to move.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, this is the safe-route group and I associate myself with so much of what I have heard already, although I signed the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who is absent. We have heard already about the many ways in which the Government try to have it both ways in the Bill. On a previous group, we heard from the Minister how, for example, European precedent is to be hugged if it is deleterious to the refugee but shunned if it means co-operation and burden-sharing. We have understood that the Government, essentially, want to make it harder with the Bill to get here but if you manage to get here, it will be harder to qualify for protection because we are rewriting the convention The Government tell us that they do not want people coming via unsafe routes, in little boats and so on, yet they do not provide adequate safe routes—or maybe they do, but if so they do not want it to be in statute because while it is important to fetter judicial discretion in statute, Home Office largesse should not be similarly constrained, structured or put in law. This group deals with the final two contradictions in particular: providing the safe routes and putting them in statute. For those two reasons I really hope that the Minister, who I know to be a compassionate and logical person, will see the need for something in statute to go with sentiment about safe routes.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): Before the Minister sits down—to use the convention, although I am glad she is resting for a moment—she talked about this group being about uncapped routes and visas, but many, if not most, of these amendments are probing, as she will appreciate. She will also appreciate, because of her experience in the department, that visas do not have to be uncapped. For example, my noble friend Lady Kennedy’s amendment about emergency visas for human rights defenders is probing that the Secretary of State must do something in the rules about human rights defenders; it is not saying that every human rights defender in trouble around the world must be allowed in as if it is a new human rights defenders convention—my noble friend is just probing and asking the Government whether we can do something in the rules or in some kind of statutory form. The Minister has this massive brief, and I sympathise with her. On the police Bill, she has taken special measures for front-line emergency workers to get extra protection—
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Other
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): I am sorry, but this is not the first time this has happened. I have been here all through Committee with the Minister. This is the second time the Leader of the House has done this when she has not been here—she has come in and it is beginning to feel a bit personal. I want that on the record. The Minister knows what I am getting at and I do not think she thinks I have been taking up too much time in this Committee this evening.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Other
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): There are only five days scheduled in Committee on this Bill. This is by no means the longest Committee stage for a piece of legislation. Perhaps there ought to be a reflection on the Government’s side as to whether they did not seriously underestimate the number of days that were needed for Committee stage.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Other
Alfred Dubs (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to the debate and to the Minister for her stamina in continuing and continuing. I am sure she will go on until the early hours with great strength I will comment very briefly, as is my right. First, we had a very unusual thing happen tonight—
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I support these amendments, to which I was pleased to add my name. I thank the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Helen Bamber Foundation for their help Many of us have already highlighted how provisions in this Bill will seriously harm the mental and physical health of people seeking asylum, through, for example, leaving group 2 refugees living in limbo with uncertain status or by placing people in vulnerable circumstances in accommodation centres that function as quasi-detention and have been shown to have a terrible impact on health The amendments are a positive step that aims to ensure that the physical and mental health needs of people seeking asylum are prioritised and that there is a comprehensive, co-ordinated approach to addressing those needs in line with our obligations under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 to "recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health". Numerous reports and work by organisations such as the Helen Bamber Foundation, Freedom from Torture, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Equality and Human Rights Commission show that people seeking asylum face barriers in accessing services, including health services, throughout the asylum process, from their arrival in the UK to the conclusion of the process and beyond. They are also more likely to have specific healthcare needs caused by distressing experiences in their country of origin and traumatic experience during their journey seeking refuge As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, explained, there are numerous points in the asylum system where the physical and mental health of people seeking protection affects their ability to engage in the process or is worsened by the system we have in place. One particularly troubling example is the detention system, which the noble Baroness has talked about and is the subject of a later group of amendments—I shall scrub what I was going to say about that, given the lateness of the hour I am aware that the Home Office is currently engaging with the NHS, NGOs and other stakeholders through groups like its asylum seeker health steering group and associated subgroups. This is welcome, but much more is needed. The current guidance is inadequate and its implementation patchy. Codes of practice focused on the health and care of people seeking asylum and the responsibilities of all those engaging with them in the asylum system would not only increase the fairness and efficiency of the system but provide better protection and support to those in need of asylum I hope that the Minister will look kindly on these amendments, which I think are part of the solution.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): The two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would require the Secretary of State, first, to lay before Parliament codes of practice providing for guidance to assess the mental and physical health needs of any asylum seeker; and, secondly, to consult before preparing those codes Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which reference has been made, provides that states recognise "the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health." I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for the opportunity to have this debate because the trauma experienced by people who have suffered violence, persecution, forced displacement and separation from loved ones has been a focal point of our debates on many clauses in this Bill. Recent experience has shown, to put it bluntly, a distinct failure by the Home Office to screen or properly care for the physical and mental health of people who arrive to seek asylum The figures showed, I think, that one in five people placed in Napier barracks had to be transferred out owing to vulnerabilities that the department should have screened for and responded to; these included people who had been trafficked and tortured. The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration said: "There was inadequate support for people who had self-harmed."
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in what she had to say, but I would like some clarification. She said clearly that the effect of this clause is to criminalise the act of seeking asylum in the UK, which was the conclusion reached by the JCHR, of which she is a member. Does the Minister agree with the conclusion that this is what Clause 39 means? If she does not agree, what does it mean? If she does agree, I have a conundrum that is a variation of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has twice rehearsed now. He made the point that if an asylum seeker is deemed inadmissible, how do they even get to Clause 11 to be affected by the differential I have the same conundrum around criminalisation. If the very act of seeking asylum makes someone a criminal, how do they even get to Clause 11? I do not understand how Clause 11, inadmissibility and criminalisation interact with each other. It is rather late to go into this but, if the Minister cannot do it now, a letter to all the members of the Committee would be very helpful to clarify this interaction.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for the care he took to try to answer the various questions. Of course, I will withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I have to say to the Minister that there is a very real issue out there around immigration enforcement vis-à-vis victims, those who have been trafficked or those who have been trafficked and subjected to domestic abuse. The system at the moment commands no confidence or trust among a wide range of people who need our support and help. They are terrified of the immigration system. They are terrified that, as soon as they co-operate with the police to help bring criminal gangs to justice, they will be put before an immigration tribunal and forced to leave the country. That may be wrong and there may be protocols that say that that is not correct and police officers who reassure them, but that is the reality of victim after victim I meet and no doubt many others in this Chamber meet. I am sure the Minister will have met victims who say exactly the same. Despite the reassurances, that is what they feel. These are the victims that we speak to—goodness knows how many others there are who hide away for fear of authority and for fear of that enforcement process. The Government are clearly aware of it and believe that what they are doing will change it. To be frank, I have my doubts, but we will see where it gets to. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, justice and immigration offences should make a distinction between those seeking illegal entry and desperate people seeking asylum or who eventually receive it. Immigration offences must also make a distinction between the trafficker and the rescuer. They are two completely different creatures. Surely there is wit and wisdom in government to be able to make a distinction in the Bill in relation to these two categories of humanity I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, on his patience and his eloquence about why putting people’s lives at risk at sea is contrary to international law. I fear that international law is not always the most persuasive argument with the Government so instead I just say: let us not put people’s lives at risk at sea. It is cruel and inhumane. It is not who we are. It is just plain wrong.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for her response, but I must say to her that a letter will not do on the question of people at sea. Her Majesty’s Coastguard is exempted; others are not. It is as simple as that when it comes to saving life at sea. The evidential tests, and everything else the Minister referred to, will not be solved by a letter. The Government will need to bring forward an amendment to the Bill which deals with this situation, otherwise the confusion will continue. We all look forward to the letter, but it will not solve the problem the Minister was trying to solve when addressing the various questions raised about why others should feel protected when they are not exempted in the way the coastguard is. How will they operate when it comes to approaching a boat that is in trouble and full of, say, migrants or asylum seekers? We can only imagine what will be going through their minds. I am sure they will rescue people, but they should not be in the position of not knowing whether they are committing an offence by doing it. That is what the case will be. In certain situations, they actually will be committing an offence. It is not good enough. This matter should be solved by primary legislation, not by a letter, however well intentioned, from the Minister. It will have to be looked at I will also say to the Minister that some of the other things she was saying, about what will happen and who is doing what, are confusing. Let me give one example about the MoD and the Home Office. What is the line of command there, and who is in charge? Will a naval commander report to the Home Secretary on how it is operated? I do not think so. Again, this needs to be clarified. Who is controlling the Border Force? That will go through the Home Office, but what will the MoD expect? The confusion is immense. It is a very real problem with which the Government are trying to deal, and we all appreciate that. I will withdraw the amendment but there is a lot of confusion, which needs to be resolved. The usual surefootedness of the Minister on a couple of those matters will require, as I say, more than warm words and a letter.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has picked up a number of important points with these amendments. I think the crucial one is Amendment 141, which is for an independent review of the efficiency of the system for processing claims. The backlog of asylum claims, as we have talked about—and as the Government actually accept—is one of the biggest challenges we face in this area. We could resolve that problem by speeding up the process, and getting the appeals process right—where I think over half the claims are successful—would do a lot to help the system. If the Government do not accept Amendment 141, what plans do they have to address the problem that it seeks to overcome Every amendment in the group is about fact-finding, evidence and asking the Government to be transparent with data, which is absolutely fundamental to confidence and trust. We all have the problem with data: I quote one figure; the Minister quotes another; you look somewhere else and there is another figure—partly because people use different start dates, different timeframes, et cetera. But getting the data right is really important so that the public can see what is going on, for good or bad In respect of that, Amendment 193 is particularly important, especially proposed new paragraph (b), which seeks to probe. What are the Government going to do about the daily migrant figures in respect of those crossing the channel? We know that the news is extremely bad at the moment. The numbers have increased dramatically and now we read that the Home Office is preparing to stop publishing daily figures and go to quarterly figures. That is talked about as a possible plan. What are the plans with respect to that? It looks like burying bad news. They are embarrassing figures, particularly to the Home Secretary, who says consistently that she will bring the migrant crossings under control. All we have seen is them go up and now we see that the way the Government are going to solve it is by refusing to publish the figures daily in the way that they are now. What is the truth of that, what are the plans and what is going to happen with that? At the end of the day, what is at stake is not whether or not it is embarrassing for the Government but the confidence and trust that the British public have in the figures that we produce and in the Government of the day in dealing with this problem.