argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Deprivation of Citizenship Status — House of Commons, 2019-02-20
Topic: Immigration
Edward Jonathon Davey (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the Home Secretary for his reply. On the legal grounds to remove citizenship because it would be "conducive to the public good", can he set out the criteria he must use to make such judgments on the public good As the Home Secretary knows, the law prevents him from making someone who is British by birth stateless. In November, the Home Secretary lost a case before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on a similar decision made by his predecessor to strip two terror suspects of their British citizenship. Then, as now, the Home Office contended that the two had Bangladeshi citizenship by descent, but the court ruled that that was not the case and that stripping them of British citizenship was therefore unlawful. Will the Home Secretary tell the House what changes have been made to the decision-making process since that case to give him confidence that he is acting lawfully now In removing British citizenship, the Home Secretary is essentially saying, "She’s somebody else’s problem," but in the words of the former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne: "Which other country is supposed to look after her on our behalf?… Can you imagine the fury here if we took a French or Italian citizen who joined Islamic State?" Surely a British citizen, born in Britain, is a British responsibility. The Home Secretary mentioned national security in his answer. Can he explain what evidence he used to conclude that this 19-year-old mother and her new-born baby would be a threat to national security? Will he confirm that the evidence required to prosecute Ms Begum for supporting terrorism is readily available from the media? Will he explain why he is so unwilling to bring her to justice Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House what he expects to happen to Ms Begum’s new-born baby boy? This child is an innocent British citizen, and we have a clear responsibility to ensure his wellbeing. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to uphold that important responsibility?
Antisemitism in Modern Society — House of Commons, 2019-02-20
Topic: Immigration
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The House will know that through my mother I am of Jewish descent, and in 1938 my uncle found a safe haven in this country. Does the Secretary of State agree it is regrettable that this country might lose its good reputation as a safe haven if we continue with this tendency?
Antisemitism in Modern Society — House of Commons, 2019-02-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Is it not the case that we are all responsible for this problem? Sometimes we just say, "Oh, these sorts of things exist," but we do not stand up enough and we do not say loudly enough, each time, that this is totally unacceptable.
No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government — House of Commons, 2019-01-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for letting his party give me a seat in this place, but that is not for today. What he says is quite correct, and he touches on a question I put to the Prime Minister yesterday. So many infrastructure projects in my constituency would not have happened had it not been for European money. Those projects were crucial in halting the terrible drain of our brightest and best who left the highlands and never returned home. That issue remains hugely important to me.
No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government — House of Commons, 2019-01-16
Topic: Other
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for her assurance that the motion that will be brought on Monday will be amendable, and may I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, about how we on this side of the House, and indeed on the Conservative Benches as well, who want to see this matter put to a people’s vote might on Monday be given the opportunity to do so, including the opportunity given to the Leader of the Opposition now that we know there is not to be a general election?
Terms and Conditions of Employment — House of Commons, 2019-02-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Layla Michelle Moran (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Does the hon. Lady agree that the anger felt by young people is palpable? The message that the Government are sending is, "By being younger, you’re not worth as much as someone who is older than you." What kind of message is that for young people?
Citizenship Rights — House of Commons, 2019-01-24
Topic: Immigration
Questions: What steps the Government are taking to secure citizenship rights for (a) UK citizens residing in the EU and (b) EU citizens residing in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Although waiving the £65 charge is, of course, very welcome, it still leaves EU citizens as second-class citizens in a country they have chosen to make their home—if not the citizens of nowhere, in that disgraceful phrase used by our Prime Minister. Would the Government consider covering any reasonable costs that EU citizens might incur in securing their settled status, beyond the £65 charge that has been waived?
TV Licences for Over-75s — House of Commons, 2019-05-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Surely the point is this: we cannot provide financial certainty for the BBC at the expense of the over-75s. Whether or not it was right to give power to the BBC in the Digital Economy Act is not the issue. We have to look at this on the basis of the outcomes, not the processes. Will the Minister not accept that, right now, the outcomes for the over-75s look pretty grim?
Whistleblowing — House of Commons, 2019-07-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Norman Peter Lamb (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I totally agree with the right hon. Lady. Sir Robert Francis, who did the report in 2015, recommended the introduction of "freedom to speak up champions" in the NHS, and that has happened. However, this is an administrative process within trusts that, I am afraid, simply has not worked—that is the brutal lesson that we have to learn For those who are covered by the legislation, the law does nothing to enable a concerned person to speak up in the first place. For example, the law is silent on standards expected from employers, and it offers only inadequate protection after the event—after the person has been destroyed by a cruel organisation. The individual who then tries to pursue their rights under the legislation is too often faced by highly paid lawyers and is pressured into non-disclosure agreements, which, as I indicated, can result in wrongdoing never being exposed. Indeed, we know that the terms of some non-disclosure agreements are unlawful because they seek to shut up the individual and to stop them speaking out, even when a crime is involved Only a tiny percentage of cases that are pursued to the tribunal actually end up with a decision of the tribunal. To succeed, someone must show that the reason—or, if there is more than one reason, that the principal reason—for a dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure. They therefore open themselves up to false claims that other reasons existed. If the tribunal decides that there were other reasons, either the person’s claim is dismissed or their compensation is reduced There is no full definition of the range of disclosures that are covered by the legislation, so the protection is completely uncertain. Disclosure has to be to a prescribed person, but what happens if someone does not know who to report their concerns to? They could easily find themselves entirely unprotected—for trying to do the right thing.
Whistleblowing — House of Commons, 2019-07-03
Topic: Civil Rights
Norman Peter Lamb (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am conscious that I am trying the patience of the Deputy Speaker, and I need to get to the conclusion of my remarks. The brilliant organisation Protect highlights the fact that a number of laws, such as in the utility sector, make it an offence to disclose certain information and include no public interest defence exceptions for whistleblowing. Even if there is awful wrongdoing, the person is prevented from speaking out, because they would commit a criminal offence. That surely has to change The brutal truth is that brave people who do society a service by exposing wrongdoing are not adequately protected, and many have no protection at all. After Gosport, I met the Prime Minister and made the case for reform. I explained to her that these are life or death situations in many cases. I have heard nothing from the Prime Minister at all since then, and that was last summer. It is time for a fundamental review by the Government and for new legislation. Such a review needs to listen to all the interested parties—to the all-party group on whistleblowing, to Protect and to Compassion in Care, which has set out proposals as part of what it calls Edna’s law. All must be involved, and we must look at international best practice The all-party group has a report due out soon. It follows a comprehensive survey, which included getting the views of very many people who have tried to whistleblow, and it will offer vital evidence to the Government. It will propose an office for the whistleblower, which could be of extremely powerful value in supporting people and would be a centre of excellence, providing guidelines to employers, monitoring activities and providing support, advice and training to members of the public, public institutions, private sector bodies and so on. It is a very important proposal I want a commitment from the Minister to undertake a thorough review, because it is long overdue. I also want a commitment to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU, it will at least meet the standards of the proposed new EU directive and preferably go much further. The UK was a pioneer, but the legislation is flawed and inadequate. New legislation to deliver high standards of governance in the public and private sectors is long overdue. We need safe space for brave people to do the right thing; effective mechanisms to hold people to account for wrongdoing that is uncovered, including potential criminal sanctions; and effective compensation and support for those who suffer as a result of speaking out.
Whistleblowing — House of Commons, 2019-07-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Norman Peter Lamb (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the sense one gets from the FCA is that it regards these people as irritants—troublemakers? The people who investigate the allegations of whistleblowers are often people who have been through the revolving door, in and out of banks and the regulator, and so are too close to the people they are supposed to be regulating.
Whistleblowing — House of Commons, 2019-07-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Norman Peter Lamb (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. It was good to work with him in applying for this debate. We have heard about cases in the public sector, such as the one the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) mentioned, and about others in financial services, such as those the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned. It is worth comparing the outcome for those brave people, whose lives, as he says, are destroyed, with the outcome for those guilty of wrongdoing in the banks, for example, who continue to earn a fortune and who no one has touched for their wrongdoing, despite the devastating impact they had on our economy.
Whistleblowing — House of Commons, 2019-07-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Norman Peter Lamb (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the Minister for her very kind comments. I am sure she will come to this, but would she agree to meet us to discuss the case for a review, because I think a review of the legislation—not just guidance—is absolutely necessary? It was a Conservative who introduced the private Member’s Bill, and it could be a Conservative Government who modernise it and ensure full protection for all whistleblowers.
Whistleblowing — House of Commons, 2019-07-03
Topic: Civil Rights
Norman Peter Lamb (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): This has been a remarkably well informed debate, and it is striking that a complete unanimity of view has been presented to the Minister that the law at the moment is not adequate; it is not, in her words, "proportionate", I am afraid. We hope very much that we will convince her; I am pleased that she has agreed to meet us, but we need modern legislation that adequately protects people who do the right thing, because we all rely on them to ensure that we have the best business practices in this country and the best and safest public services. We only get those standards if people speak out, and at the moment we do not give those who do the necessary protection in order to do so Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House calls for a fundamental review of whistleblowing regulation to provide proper protection for a broader range of people.
Housing Ladder — House of Commons, 2019-06-17
Topic: Housing
Timothy James Farron (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Government are failing to meet the housing needs of young people in the south lakes, while ignoring the simple fact that thousands of local houses are sitting empty as second homes. Will the Secretary of State agree to change planning and tax regulations, so that we can limit second home ownership and give our young people the chance of a place to call their own?
Planning Applications: Economic Opportunities and Housing Need — House of Commons, 2019-06-17
Topic: Housing
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Does the Minister acknowledge that one unintended consequence of extending permitted development rights to commercial and industrial property is that a significant amount of housing is now being generated that is below accepted space and safety standards? What action is he taking to correct that?
Recall of Tumble Dryers — House of Commons, 2019-06-17
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Minister has said that modified machines are low risk, yet last year the BBC’s "Watchdog" live consumer programme uncovered cases in which machines had caught fire even after being fixed. Can modified machines be deemed to be low risk, even though they catch fire?
Syria — House of Commons, 2019-03-11
Topic: Immigration
Joanne Kate Swinson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment of these new resources to help people in very desperate humanitarian states in Syria. It is clear from what he says about the interrogation of people who return, and indeed from the Syrian regime’s refusal to let humanitarian aid through, that there is no hope of safe return for refugees in the short term at least. May I ask the Minister about what we do as the United Kingdom to accept refugees? We have promised to take 20,000 through the vulnerable person resettlement scheme by 2020 and, separately, to take 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees. How many of those have to date been resettled in this country, and if the prospects for peace in Syria remain as bleak as they are today, does he think that the programme needs to be extended beyond next year?
Leaving the EU: Local Authority Funding — House of Commons, 2019-04-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Secretary of State will be aware of the Select Committee report published last week that highlighted that local authorities should have new burdens funded in full. It also highlighted the fact that port authorities such as Portsmouth needed substantially more than the average of £136,000 that is being granted to ports. Portsmouth would need £4 million in the case of a no-deal scenario. Will the Secretary of State undertake to provide that funding and to reimburse any costs that have been spent on no deal that have proved to be unnecessary?
UK Fishing Industry: Non-EEA Visas — House of Commons, 2019-04-08
Topic: Immigration
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): We are considering the matter of visas for non-European economic area citizens working in the UK fishing industry—sadly, not for the first time. In fact, I last brought this matter before the House on 11 July. Others have led Adjournment debates on the same topic on different occasions. It has been raised on multiple occasions at Home Office questions, most recently by me. Sadly, now, here at the beginning of April, we are no further forward I will not rehearse the arguments around the necessity for our fishing skippers to be able to employ crew from outside the European Union or the EEA. I suspect that that has been done to death. If we were going to win the argument by raising the issues, we would have won it long ago Tonight, I will gently remind the Minister of a couple of things that she told the House in July. I invite her, when she speaks, to give us something of a progress report. I will then consider the content of the Migration Advisory Committee report from September of last year which, according to the Minister when I last raised this with her, is now the basis on which the Government seek to resist the fairly sensible and, I would have thought, uncontroversial measures that we seek to have introduced.
UK Fishing Industry: Non-EEA Visas — House of Commons, 2019-04-08
Topic: Immigration
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am sure we will all sleep better for that—especially knowing that Her Majesty will now be in a position to give her full attention to the matter of visas for fishing crews I cannot now remember the point that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) made, beyond the fact that I certainly agreed with it. [Interruption.] It was about academia—indeed. It is worth noting that those who serve on the Migration Advisory Committee and those who have been Ministers are all very learned people. I have long held the view that if we sent some of them out in fishing boats, and if we had more skippers in ministerial offices and in the Migration Advisory Committee, the problem would be solved next Tuesday.
UK Fishing Industry: Non-EEA Visas — House of Commons, 2019-04-08
Topic: Other
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): That is the other reason why I thought I would not bother rehearsing the arguments—I anticipated plenty of people doing so in the Chamber this evening. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I congratulate him on it. It is one I have made in the past, as have other hon. Members. It is as true today as it was in July, and it all contributes to my and my constituents’ sense of frustration that now, getting into the middle of April, we are still no further forward.
UK Fishing Industry: Non-EEA Visas — House of Commons, 2019-04-08
Topic: Immigration
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): That has perfect simplicity. I will not get into a conversation, with the hon. Gentleman in particular, on the subject of football—there are very few people in this House who know less about the subject than I do—but he brings welcome news to the House. The point about the previous system is a good one because it also has a bearing on the conclusions of the Migration Advisory Committee about what they describe, I think pejoratively, as "low-skilled workers" To quote from the executive summary again—I will look in a bit more detail at the substantive parts of the report in a second—at paragraph 36 on page 5, the committee states: "We do not recommend an explicit work migration route for low-skilled workers with the possible exception of a seasonal agricultural workers schemes." In fact, such a scheme has subsequently, however inadequately, been introduced. It observes, quite drily: "This is likely to be strongly opposed by the affected sectors." It goes on to say at paragraph 37: "If there is to be a route for low-skilled migrant workers we recommend using an expanded youth mobility scheme rather than employer-led sector-based routes." This is quite telling about the work of the Migration Advisory Committee, because it seems to be suggesting, when looking at sector-based routes, that it rejects such a route because those coming to the UK for these, as it calls them, low-skilled jobs, should then be able to move from sector to sector. It is ridiculous: the idea that somebody is going to come from the Philippines to work in a whitefish or pelagic boat out of Lerwick, and then go and take a job in a bar or picking fruit or whatever, just shows how divorced it is from the reality of what it has been charged with considering. But probably the most insulting part of this piece of work is the reference to youth mobility and a cultural exchange scheme for people aged 18 to 30 from a number of listed participating countries.
UK Fishing Industry: Non-EEA Visas — House of Commons, 2019-04-08
Topic: Immigration
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Indeed. They cannot get crew, so they cannot land fish, which affects jobs in the processing sector. There is a ripple impact, which affects everyone from the shoreside suppliers right the way down the line. Returning to the youth mobility scheme, the Migration Advisory Committee concludes, at paragraph 7.53 on page 118: "If the Government does want to provide a safety valve for the employers of low-skilled workers then an expanded Youth Mobility route could potentially provide a good option. The benefits of this option are that younger migrants are more likely to be net fiscal contributors (because the scheme does not allow dependants) and workers have freedom of movement between employers, which is likely to reduce the risk that employers will use migrants’ visa status to hold down their wages." So, according to the Migration Advisory Committee, the answer to the crew shortages in our fishing ports is to crew boats using New Zealanders and Australians on a gap year. I just wonder what world these people live in. That is insulting, and it is not just an insult from the Migration Advisory Committee; since the Minister and her colleagues rely on the report as the basis for continuing to refuse the most modest and common-sense proposal, it is an insult from those on the Treasury Bench themselves My plea to the Minister is simple. We have made this case time without number. Will she now please start to listen?
Differential Gender-based Pricing — House of Commons, 2019-03-14
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of prohibiting the differential pricing of products and services that are (a) intended for and (b) marketed towards specific genders.
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the Minister for her comments. Research shows that women pay more than men for basic products 42% of the time. Manufacturers claim that this is competition or that more is involved in producing women’s products. Scientists tell us that that is nonsense: we all have the same hair and skin types. Given what she has said about women standing up, will the Minister back my Bill on the pink tax, which is currently going through Parliament, or help to encourage manufacturers and retailers to do away with what is a sexist and outdated practice?