argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-08
Topic: Immigration
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): We also think that the provisions in Clauses 76 and 77 are unnecessary and in fact ought to be removed from the Bill The Bill requires the Tribunal Procedure Committee to give the tribunals the power to fine individuals exercising a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation, or an employee of such a person, for "improper, unreasonable or negligent" behaviour. There are issues about wasted costs. As has been said, this change could certainly affect the willingness of lawyers and solicitors to take on difficult cases for fear of risking personal financial liability. As far as we are concerned, the immigration tribunals already have all the case management costs and referral powers that they need to control their own procedure In Committee I asked how many of the cases dealt with by the immigration tribunal over the last 12 months fall within the category of unreasonable behaviour, for which the Government would expect these costs orders measures to be activated. I thank the Minister for his letter in response, which states in the second paragraph that: "It is not, however, possible to say how many cases dealt with by the Tribunal within this period fell within the category of unreasonable behaviour. This is because we do not hold data on the number of cases where behaviour or circumstances could have been considered unreasonable, but where no costs order was sought, or considered by the tribunal of its own initiative." I have to say that that letter simply confirms that the Government have no hard evidence to support their assertion that the provisions of Clauses 76 and 77 are necessary, because of the reasons set out in the letter, which I quoted and which indicate a certain paucity of hard evidence to support the Government’s position I will be interested in the Government’s reply to see whether they challenge my interpretation of the content of the letter of 3 March which the Minister was good enough to send to me. However, certainly, in the absence of a government response saying that their letter did provide the hard evidence to back up their view that the provisions of Clauses 76 and 77 are necessary, I must say that it is very difficult to understand why they are bringing forward the provisions outlined in those clauses.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-08
Topic: Immigration
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I express our wholehearted support for the amendment and the extension of the BNO scheme to young Hong Kongers. I congratulate all noble Lords around this Chamber, from all parties and no party, who have campaigned on this issue. I thank the Government for their decision and the progress that has been made, which has led to agreement all around the House.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-08
Topic: Immigration
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I will leave Amendment 78, in the names of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and others, to them. I will speak to Amendment 77 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith We have been trying for some time to rectify the issue where those who have served our country are charged extortionate fees to settle here, among the communities that they have served. Since we debated this in Committee, the Government have moved a small way and announced that veterans who have served six years will no longer be required to pay visa fees for leave to remain. That is welcome but, frankly, not enough, and it is not what has been called for by the Armed Forces community and Members of both Houses, including some from the Government Benches The Royal British Legion said: "Whilst we welcome the news that these fees will be waived for some Commonwealth Service personnel, this proposal still leaves many Armed Forces families facing severe hardship. We strongly urge the Government to go further and scrap these unfair charges for everyone who has served for at least four years and their immediate family members." Currently, a veteran who wishes to settle here with their partner and two children will be charged around £10,000, the vast majority of which is profit for the Home Office. The Government’s policy change amounts to a 25% discount, when a veteran has served over six years. Even in these cases, it will cost more than £7,000 for a family of four to settle in the country for which a veteran has risked their lives in service, and we ask the Government to look yet again at this—because I do not believe that they have got this right, and nor do many others. It is not right for the Home Office to make a profit from veterans who are exercising their right to settle here with their children. This is not a party-political issue, and it is not an immigration issue; it is an issue of how we treat those who have served this country and how we fulfil our pledges in the Armed Forces covenant. I beg to move.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-08
Topic: Immigration
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I will briefly say that, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I agree with most of what many noble Lords have said. The need for accurate immigration data is absolutely fundamental to any discussion on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made this point: one of the things that is important is to distinguish clearly between immigration, asylum and migration. All that gets conflated into one, which is not helpful to the debate or the discussion, and it simply confuses people. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister the Government’s position on data. Irrespective of the debate that we will have about policy, if we are going to build trust, that data basis is essential not only for the public but for us to understand the policy prescriptions that we will debate between ourselves This is in line with Amendment 81 of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe: on trust, whatever the rights and wrongs, the decision of the Government to abandon the daily figures for migrants crossing the channel was a disaster in public relations terms, because people knew that the Government were failing on it. It was going up and up, and the Government were making prescription after prescription, in terms of policy, to try to deal with it. In the end, they brought the MoD in, in a confused way where we are still not sure how that is meant to work, and they are going to quarterly figures. What people say to me, and what I think—to be perfectly blunt, although I am not a cynic—is that the Government would not have acted as quickly as that if the numbers were going in the right direction; that is what people think. If people think you hide figures when they are bad, and publish them only when they are good or meet your policy objectives, it is no wonder there is distrust among the public about official statistics The amendments before us are absolutely essential. They ensure that we have data which is accurate, objective, allows us to make decent policy decisions, and is a basis for our debates. Can the Minister say something about what the Government’s policy is on data? Also, what is happening with respect to the migrants crossing the channel? What is the figure today, compared to what it was a couple of weeks ago? When can we expect the next figure? When the Government are seeking to build trust in passing the Bill—controversial in its own right—why on earth have they taken the decision, which is hard to comprehend, to produce figures on a quarterly basis? It simply looks as though they are hiding bad news.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-08
Topic: Immigration
Douglas Hacking (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am wholly familiar with Governments siphoning off funds raised for one purpose and using those funds for a quite different purpose. I was particularly conscious of that during my years as president of the Civil Court Users Association, when the Government collected very large funds on the issue of writs and the like needed in the litigation process, and then used that money in a quite different sector of the court system I am also familiar with the disproportionate fees, compared to the administration costs, involved in the process of obtaining British citizenship. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has already given examples of that which I willingly adopt. I am aware too of this problem for a rather more personal reason, in that young members of my family, who have very little resource, have been in the process of obtaining British citizenship and have been heavily penalised—not by £1,000 but by £2,000 and more. They were young, and the family were able to provide the necessary support. But that is an example of the rampant unfairness My recollection—I cannot put my finger on it exactly—is that one of your Lordships’ committees recently investigated this problem and issued a report, in which it said specifically that the correct level of fees involved in the obtaining of British citizenship should be based on the administration cost and nothing else. However, the practice continues, and the provision contained in this amendment to Section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014 is very well drafted and sets out precisely what should be done. It reads as follows: "in setting the amount of any fee in relation to registration of British citizenship the Secretary of State … must not set that amount at a level beyond the Secretary of State’s estimation of the administrative costs of the function to which the fee relates" There cannot be a fairer or more precise way of addressing the problem, and I congratulate the tablers of this amendment on the care and precision with which they have done it Since I have not tabled this amendment, it is not for me to make the decision about whether a Division should be called. That is a matter for those who have brought it forward. I look down at the leaders of my own party to see how they are going to participate in this issue—we have not heard from the noble Lord on my side what position my party is taking I would, however, discourage a Division at this time of night. Certainly, when I was last in the House, a number of years ago, if you put forward an amendment at Report and it had been defeated in a Division, you were not entitled to take it further—to Third Reading, for example. The fact is that those who will be voting in whatever Division is called are not in this House and have not listened to the arguments. It is a kind of routine form of voting, not the measured form of voting that happens after listening to the arguments.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-08
Topic: Immigration
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I join other noble Lords and various noble Baronesses from across the House in welcoming Amendment 83, as tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Lister. There is universal agreement that fees should not be a barrier to citizenship. I think the Government probably agree with that, so the only plea I make is that they act on it to make sure that fees do not act as a barrier. The Government have the power to do something about this. They can hear what people think about the importance of citizenship as a social glue in our society, and the reverence we all have for it, yet a barrier is placed because of the fee. The Government have it in their power to resolve it. Let us do it.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I will just make a couple of remarks about this amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Hollins, which I support. It is a shame that we are right at the end of the evening—or in the middle of the night, or in the morning, or whatever—because it is one of those amendments that raises a number of really important questions for the Government. It is really quite an appropriate way—not at this time—to end the Report stage, because it encompasses so much of what has been debated on the Bill so far We are talking about people who are traumatised, fleeing war, risking their lives; people who have lost their homes and loved ones, experienced extreme violence, and children who have been trafficked and exploited. One of the criticisms throughout the passage of the Bill so far is that we are debating measures that we believe would remove support from these people, damage their credibility, penalise them for not providing evidence neatly to a deadline, as we heard earlier, and make it harder, for example, for modern slavery victims to report abuse. That is a point of difference between us I am sure the Minister will say that of course, people will take account of trauma, and they will interview, meet and discuss such issues with these individuals and support them in a way which reflects that. But what this really important amendment is driving at is the absolutely essential need to have a trauma-informed approach. If the amendment does nothing else but remind those who work with victims and survivors that that sort of approach is the best way forward, then it has served its purpose.
Health and Care Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-07
Topic: Other
Ruth Henig (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, may be moving the next amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, is taking part remotely and I invite her to say whether she wishes to move the amendment Amendment 143
Health and Care Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Philip Alexander Hunt (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who summarised a variety of amendments, none of which seemed to have much connection at all to each other. I should have declared my interest as a member of the GMC board but, of course, under the rules of the House, I am not allowed to comment on anything to do with the GMC On my Amendment 144B, all I would say is that the Minister is absolutely right that the CQC is not there to investigate complaints. The fact is that, if you are a relative of a resident and you are concerned about quality so you complain, you are then threatened that you will not be able to visit if you carry on doing it. You cannot go to the CQC, effectively, the ombudsman is far too remote and long-distance, and the provider does not have a satisfactory complaints system. That is the problem. We still have to find a solution. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Procedure and Privileges Committee — House of Lords, 2022-06-22
Topic: Other
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): Before the noble Lord responds, can I just say that in respect of the Lord Speaker’s duties and the issues regarding school-age children and other matters, nothing is unexpected in this new draft of the Companion? I offer my full support to the Senior Deputy Speaker, and I hope the House can now quickly agree this report. We have important business to discuss today.
Procedure and Privileges Committee — House of Lords, 2022-06-22
Topic: Other
Stephen Benn (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I welcome the Senior Deputy Speaker’s Motion to approve the report and the idea that the online version should, at any moment, be the most up-to-date version. Can I ask one quick question about paragraph 8? If a Member withdraws her or his Question before the day it is due to be asked, does that Member lose their right to ask the set number of Questions in each year? Is that withdrawn Question counted as one of the number you are allowed to ask in any given year?
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-06-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Estelle Morris (Labour, Centre-left): I have a very quick question before the Minister sits down. She talked about making sure that people have the relevant safeguarding qualifications and going through the process. Whose responsibility is that? Does the parent of a home-educated child have a legal duty to do the checking or does that power and responsibility lie with someone else? If it was a school, it would be the school’s responsibility. I am not sure whose responsibility this is.
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-06-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Janet Alison Whitaker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I have in Amendment 143G a very simple provision that, on acquittal for breaching a school attendance order, that particular school attendance order dies—no ifs, no buts. Surely, natural justice mandates that the court’s decision is respected for that specific attendance order.
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-06-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Janet Alison Whitaker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, although this amendment was scheduled to be in the last group, amendments have been moved around a bit. I am sorry I missed it. The rationale of Amendment 143J is that attendance policies should respect protected characteristics—that is, those that are cardinal to a child’s identity and enjoin small, short absences such as for religious or other festivals or necessary travel by parents. I beg to move.
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-06-22
Topic: Other
Jonathan Mendelsohn (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 171C and 171D. I strongly support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, as well. I think she has a very correct estimate of the challenges and has presented some situations that are rather familiar in how they will be used to try to circumvent the Bill. I express my thanks to the Minister for her courtesy and for the time with her and her officials to discuss the matters raised in these amendments.
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-06-08
Topic: Other
Christine Blower (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, given the lateness of the hour, I will comment but briefly. Notwithstanding that some of us on these Benches have found this a difficult Bill to amend in the way we might have wanted, I hope the Minister can see that, by proposing the super-affirmative procedure, we are seeking a way through so that we can improve the Bill, at least from our perspective, although I hope that, on reflection, the Government might also consider that the Bill will have been improved.
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jenny Chapman (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, we accept the reason given by the other place for rejecting Amendment 1, but we continue to disagree on the substance. I place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for his work on this amendment. His sparkling curiosity and polymath tendencies, combined with his government experience, make him ideally suited to this issue. He has been incredibly generous with his time and knowledge, and I am grateful to him for that The noble Lord, Lord Browne, suggested a sensible amendment to protect benefits arising from the UK’s creativity and ingenuity in ensuring that the taxpayer—the investor—retains the benefit of it. The majority of noble Lords agreed with my noble friend when we tested the will of the House. In the absence of any measures enabling sufficient scrutiny of ARIA’s activities, we felt we needed this amendment. We are clear that the benefits of ARIA’s investments must be felt in the UK. Lords Amendment 1 would have assisted in this; it would have given ARIA the option to treat its financial support to a business as convertible into an equity interest in the business, and thus to benefit from intellectual property created with ARIA’s support It would also have enabled ARIA to require consent during the 10 years following financial or resource support if the business intended to transfer intellectual property abroad or transfer a controlling interest to a business not resident in the UK. As my honourable friend Chi Onwurah said in the other place, we have to acknowledge that currently "the UK does not provide a sufficiently supportive environment for innovation start-ups to thrive. That is why we have already lost so many of them."—[Official Report, Commons, 31/2/21; col. 89.] It is welcome that Ministers have said they agree with our concerns. It is just unfortunate that the Government did not want to take this opportunity to act on our shared concerns and seemed to lack the resolve to do anything about it on this occasion. Finally, I wish the new leadership of ARIA and the agency itself well. We look forward to the innovations and inventions that it is able to bring us.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-09
Topic: Other
Winifred Ann Taylor (Labour, Centre-left): Would the noble Lord acknowledge, as my noble friend has proved, that, in the circumstances about which he is talking, the Government had a majority for an election? Therefore, this amendment would not have created the difficulties that he is suggesting.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Reid (Labour, Centre-left): Out of courtesy to the noble Lord, I will check the record, but my distinct recollection was that he said that we want a system where power flows from the ballot box to the Executive. Not only is that contrary to everything we believe, by omitting Parliament in the middle of it, but it is the basis of every bad dictatorship that Europe has produced—referendums and power flowing from the ballot box to the Executive. That is the extreme case or course, but it is, in essence, precisely the difference between the arguments on the two sides today, in which we believe that on major issues, which now in the British Parliament include the declaration of war, the people who should make the decision at the end of the day are those in Parliament, not the Executive. All the power that the Executive receives is because they can control or, rather, call on a majority in Parliament. Should the Executive cease to have the confidence of Parliament, whether on policy, war, peace or the Dissolution of Parliament, the Executive cannot proceed unless they can change the mind of Parliament. That is a simple argument that applies to the most important things that Parliament can decide. I would argue that the Dissolution of Parliament is one of those issues.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-09
Topic: Other
Angela Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I find the noble Lord’s comments quite offensive. He is suggesting that it is inappropriate for your Lordships’ House, having debated this issue for significantly longer than the other place, to suggest an alternative. That is perfectly reasonable and normal. The arrangements that he says should be in place are in the Bill. They are also untested, because it does not return us to the situation as before. I ask him to be a bit more careful in his choice of words and his attitude to the House discussing such issues.