division_name: Nationality and Borders Bill
motion: <p class="indent" pid="c243.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;evidence supporting the effectiveness of this approach is limited&#8221;,</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c246.2/7" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;Value for money of the policy is dependent on it being effective as a deterrent. Evidence of a deterrent effect is highly uncertain and cannot be quantified with sufficient certainty to provide me with the necessary level of assurance over value for money.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c250.0/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;For the avoidance of doubt,&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c250.0/6" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;and must be&#8230;given effect as such.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c250.0/8" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;I truly believe, as do many others, that several of these provisions flagrantly breach our obligations as interpreted by the UNHCR&#8221;.&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2022-04-04">4 April</phrase> 2022; Vol. 820, c. 1882.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="c250.0/11" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;quite wrong to suggest that there was no need for this amendment because the courts would anyway deal with the challenge to the legislation based on suggested non-compliance. I repeat: the amendment is vital. The courts otherwise cannot go behind the definitive clauses in the Bill and would have to apply them, compliant or not.&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, House of Lords, <phrase class="date" code="2022-04-04">4 April</phrase> 2020; Vol. 820, c. 1883.]</p>