argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Arrangement of Business — House of Lords, 2019-03-18
Topic: Civil Rights
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, can the Chief Whip assure us that the suggestion from this House, albeit from only one Member—my noble friend Lord Adonis—that Parliament, which includes this unelected House, should, at the recommendation of an unelected Member of Parliament—my noble friend Lord Adonis—rescind at a stroke a decision that is the consequence of a referendum in which 17.4 million people voted—
Licensing of Operators and International Road Haulage (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-03-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I took a slightly more optimistic view of this SI than the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. However, clarification in plain language will help. Paragraph 2.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum says: "The UK operator licensing regime will generally remain as at present" I wonder whether we could have simpler language than that. My understanding, taken with recent agreement in the EU, is that the situation will be fully reciprocal. I will say it again, because it is a question to which I would like a direct answer. The Explanatory Memorandum uses terms such as "provided that", which enthused me to look up the European Commission—I will not do this again. On 19 December 2018, it published a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on, "common rules ensuring basic road freight connectivity with regard to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the Union" At the end it says that the regulation applies until 31 December 2019, and that it was "done at" Brussels. I do not understand EU law. Is that now a piece of EU law? Does it, together with this SI, mean that in all respects, except the names of these licences, the situation for operators is identical to where we are now, with, of course, the overriding importance that the agreement of the EU is only until the end of the year?
Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-03-18
Topic: Immigration
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): At the end insert "but that this House regrets that the draft Order provides for changes to the status of European Economic Area nationals entering or resident in the United Kingdom that should be made with the full scrutiny of both Houses in the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill; and that Her Majesty’s Government have failed to provide details on the practicalities of the varying types of leave to remain, including how they will be enforced, the length of an application process for extended leave to remain, and the impact on individuals who may be asked to prove their status".
Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-03-18
Topic: Immigration
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Minister is so liked and respected in the House that we were all sitting here listening with complete attentiveness to every word she said, and it was only when the word "Dublin" was mentioned that we realised we were dealing with the wrong instrument. We all like the Minister very much and know that she is very busy outside the House as well An immigration Bill is going through Parliament, and there is a theme here: yet again, we feel that the Government are hiding from scrutiny and have come up with a patchwork of complicated law through secondary legislation, which we do not think is the right thing to do. They will argue that these provisions need to go through very quickly but, as we have heard, the immigration Bill provides for the end of freedom of movement, so the provision in the order for automatic leave to enter for EEA nationals after freedom of movement has ended can come into force only once the Bill has been passed into law. The timescales are identical, so these provisions should have been up for debate and amendment in that legislation The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised questions about how the three-month period will be enforced because, as the Minister said, those entering the country will not be stamped on entry. I have heard the term "light-touch enforcement" used. Could we have an explanation of what that means in practice? The House of Commons was told that to remain longer than the initial three months, an EEA national would have to apply for temporary leave to remain for up to 36 months. After that, they would have to apply through the new immigration system that should be in place by then. Can we know how long an application will take for temporary leave to remain? If a person goes over the initial three months while waiting for leave to remain, what happens then EEA nationals will be over here under three different systems: settled status, the three-month visa and temporary leave to remain for longer than three months. In light of the Windrush scandal, are the Government doing everything they can to ensure that individuals with the right to be here are not routinely and wrongfully challenged or adversely affected, and that they will have no problem proving their right to be here if necessary? This is a most regrettable statutory instrument, which is why I have tabled my amendment. I beg to move.
Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-03-18
Topic: Other
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment. The inconsistency, the lack of scrutiny and the whole basis on which the Government are making the regulations are the issues in question for me. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said much more eloquently than me everything that I wanted to say and I agreed with every word. The only thing I would add is that I am equally confused by the position of my own party on these matters, but that is probably for another place. I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-03-18
Topic: Immigration
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states that the Home Office anticipates that loss of provisions of the Dublin regulations will have a minimal impact on how those seeking asylum in the UK are handled, yet the British Red Cross, which does invaluable work with asylum seekers in the UK, has raised real concerns in its briefing. I propose to raise just one—that which it says concerns it most As I understand it, the Government have committed only to maintaining the Dublin III regulation for unaccompanied children. Of course, that is welcome. However, it will leave many who are currently able to use Dublin III’s family reunion provisions excluded. In 2018, of 1,215 Dublin III arrivals, only 159 were unaccompanied children under Article 8, and 869 were wider family reunion cases under Article 9, which allows people who claim asylum in another Dublin member state to join a relative in the UK who has been granted protection. Will the Minister give a commitment that the Government will retain these Dublin protections in our domestic law post Brexit? I believe that this would require an amendment to our family reunion legislation. This would give substance to the Home Office’s assurance that loss of the Dublin provision will have minimal impact—or, in the words of the Explanatory Memorandum, "a small impact on net asylum transfers" If the 2018 pattern continues, we would otherwise be excluding more than 70% of Dublin III arrivals if this commitment is not given. Is this really what the Government intend?
Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-03-18
Topic: Immigration
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, this SI makes changes to 21 separate pieces of primary legislation. Again—and this has been a running theme through many of the SIs today—that is just wrong. Can the Minister explain why there is no suitable Bill which this could have formed part of? Can she also explain why the immigration Bill passing through the other place is not a suitable vehicle Putting these changes in a Bill would have allowed Members of this House and the other place to scrutinise exactly what they mean for each of these different Acts, and to table amendments if necessary. If we are to be told that these are just technical, that is fine—we get technical matters in legislation all the time and, as noble Lords will know, they are nodded through without any fuss. But it is this House which should take the decision, not the Government, on whether they should be nodded through or not I am aware of the concern about how the rules affect individuals. It is sometimes almost impossible for lawyers, judges and Home Office officials to understand the rules and regulations, let alone the average person applying for a visa with or without the help of legal aid. Good parliamentary scrutiny helps to improve legislation, but by bringing these instruments forward in this manner the Government are not allowing themselves the benefits of that, as there are many experts in this House who can help the Government improve what they want to do It could also be said that the instrument seems to be overreaching itself. The immigration Bill has not yet completed its parliamentary passage—it has certainly not got to this House. This statutory instrument makes changes for a post-Brexit immigration landscape that is not yet assured.
Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-03-18
Topic: Immigration
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): Before the Minister moves on, can I be clear that the Government will look at the broader family reunion position? Can she give us an assurance that the aim will be that there should not be any diminution of rights for family reunion that currently exist under Dublin III?
Services of Lawyers and Lawyer’s Practice (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-03-18
Topic: Other
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): Before the Minister sits down, obviously I was throwing questions at him that he may not have been able to answer, so will he perhaps cover those that have not been answered in a letter to me in due course?
Veterans: Investigations — House of Lords, 2019-05-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating that Answer and for its sensitivity at such a delicate moment for the peace process in Northern Ireland—if only others would be as sensitive in their remarks. I hope that he agrees that it is one thing, and quite right, to protect veterans anywhere from vexatious claims and to support them in general, but that it is quite another to create blanket immunities or statutory time limits in relation to very serious matters in breach of our international obligations.
Liaison Committee Report — House of Lords, 2019-03-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s comments. Indeed, I recall her intervention last year I need to place on record once again, on behalf of colleagues, our concern and regret that the decisions taken by the committee did not include an inquiry into national identity cards. This is certainly the third year, perhaps even the fourth, that this committee has refused to entertain the idea of such an inquiry. It has been blocked again by the usual coalition of Liberal Democrats, who historically have opposed the introduction of national identity cards, and Conservative members of the committee. When the coalition was running the country, the Conservatives were forced by the Liberal Democrats to back down and abolish Labour’s programme I am also told that members of the committee are advised—indeed, I think it is some members’ view—that it is not necessary for Members to indicate the scale of support in the House for inquiries that they are suggesting. I challenge that; I believe that is quite wrong. I believe it is for Members, when submitting subjects for inquiry, to be able to indicate the scale of support. In the case of national identity cards, support came from right across the political spectrum, from left to right. It came from those with more liberal views on social issues as against those of a more conservative disposition. It came from Brexiteers and remainers. Brexiteers were particularly interested as they see ID cards as important in conditions of restrictions on free movement and management of entitlements, which are at the heart of much of the Brexit debate. Equally, remainers call in aid experience of the benefits of the introduction of these cards in other European states. The stats are very interesting. Of a European population of 742 million across 28 states, only four states have resisted their introduction: Switzerland with 8.5 million, Denmark with 6 million, Liechtenstein with 37,000 and the United Kingdom with 66 million, a total resistance of just over 10% throughout Europe Next year, we will try again, but I do not live in hope any more. Persistence simply is not paying, and it is very hard to know how to proceed. Right across this House, people often ask me when we will get this inquiry. This political resistance within the committee—which is now obvious to everybody—requires the reforms suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.
Liaison Committee Report — House of Lords, 2019-03-28
Topic: Other
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, it may not have escaped the notice of some Members of this House that I can be awkward from time to time. I am a member of the Liaison Committee and I ask some awkward questions sometimes, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, can confirm. However, I think that the Senior Deputy Speaker has conducted this whole exercise in an impeccable way, has always been willing to look at changes, and I am sure will be willing to consider the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I certainly want to look at it. We changed the system this year to allow wider consideration and more input from Members. The staff carried out a very detailed scoping exercise in a very professional and fair way to make reports to us My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours knows that I, personally, support his proposal. However, the committee had 27 different proposals and they were all very good, including that from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. My noble friend Lord Williams also put forward a good proposal, which I supported. At the end of the day, we had to come down on three on them and it was a very difficult decision. If my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours puts his proposal forward again next year, I will again support it. But I hope that he and others will understand that this is not an easy exercise and accept a view from a member of the awkward squad: that a member of the establishment, namely the Senior Deputy Speaker, did a very difficult job in an exemplary manner on this occasion.
Liaison Committee Report — House of Lords, 2019-03-28
Topic: Other
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): Does the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker really believe that 11 people, some of whom are taking political positions—that is certainly the case with the Liberal Democrats and the government representatives on the committee, which I have always objected to—should take decisions on their own which command so much of the resource of this place? Why does the committee resist seeing lists of people in support of particular recommendations when it knows that those lists reflect views right across the House? Those views will surely influence decisions taken by the committee on the subjects that they pick.
Liaison Committee Report — House of Lords, 2019-03-28
Topic: Civil Rights
John McFall (Labour, Centre-left): The noble Lord and I are at variance on this. He is, in fact, at variance with every other member of the committee too. I will go over the noble Lord’s case because it is an important aspect. The committee and I were very mindful of the proposal for national identity cards and we were careful in our consideration of it. As the noble Lord knows, his proposal did not make it on to the shortlist, but it was considered for post-legislative scrutiny as part of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. I know that when that was conveyed to the noble Lord he was almost immediately not content with it and expressed his lack of support for it in subsequent discussions with officials The scoping note was prepared for the committee and therefore focused principally on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. As an alternative, the noble Lord proposed post-legislative scrutiny of the Identity Cards Act 2006, which is no longer in force. The committee considered that alternative proposal and agreed not to recommend it, on the basis that the Act itself was no longer on the statute book and that, in this instance, scrutiny would be further hampered by the fact that some records had been destroyed shortly after the repeal of the Act The Identity Documents Act 2010 introduced a range of measures which provided for the repeal of the Identity Cards Act 2006, the cancellation of all existing ID cards and prohibition of issuing any further ones on or after the date on which the Act was passed, and the destruction of information contained within the national identity register within two months from the date on which the Act was passed. So a lot of that information was no longer available. The Act was repealed and the committee said it was not worth pursuing the matter. When I conveyed that decision to the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked me whether, in these circumstances, we would consider the identity card proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. We had 27 submissions and eliminated all but eight. However, the entire committee and I accepted the request from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. So, rather than a short leet of eight, we had a short leet of nine. The submission from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, went to the final hurdle as one of the nine, but it failed at that point because the majority of the committee was not in favour of that inquiry I agree that we need to reform. The review of committees is there; I am happy to take things forward. With the will of the House, we can change this; we can have more submissions. That is for the longer term; I appreciate the constructive comments that have been made today and am willing to listen to more Members’ comments so that we have greater engagement.
Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-03-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): As the Minister knows, we have devolved other powers to the Scottish Government and Parliament, particularly over welfare. Having demanded these powers, and we having spent time considering and delegating them, they are not exercising them. They have said, "No, we cannot do it; we cannot carry out these powers because we just do not have the facilities or the ability to do it". They have wasted our time, disillusioned the Scottish people and created tremendous problems. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Scottish Parliament and Government are ready to deal with these forestry powers, because they certainly were not ready to deal with the welfare powers that we devolved to them?
Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-03-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
Neil Forbes Davidson (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the forestry sector is a significant contributor to the Scottish economy, to the extent of some £1 billion. It also imposes opportunity costs resulting from the tax treatment of forestry and from the externalisation of costs pursuant to the effects on the rural road network during harvesting. So an important responsibility is given to Scottish Ministers and, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes observed, it is important that this is exercised sensibly Article 3 deals with Scottish Ministers and cross-border arrangements. Given that there will be mixed responsibilities where, for example, a single forestry unit straddles the border, will the Minister identify the extent and distribution of responsibilities between Scottish Ministers and their English counterparts? As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, identified, this may also affect other matters such as squirrels. I understand that a memorandum of understanding is envisaged, but what is to be the guiding principle for the division of responsibilities, and how would any differences between the authorities be resolved? One notes the reference to arrangements as between Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Natural Resources Body for Wales. What is to be regarded as the content of any such arrangements, and how will arrangements with Northern Ireland be governed? There is already an allusion to that point. In Article 4, on forestry commissioners and the cross-border arrangements, what is envisaged as being the new relationship between Scottish Ministers and the forestry commissioners? Specifically, what arrangements are envisaged? Given that the forestry commissioners’ functions will no longer be exercisable in Scotland, this may be a significant issue In Article 5, on renewable energy installations, the Scottish Ministers’ functions will extend to promoting electricity produced from renewable sources. There is concern in Scotland that biomass energy, which was originally hoped to be substantially dependent on forestry thinnings, has now become dependent on using mature trees as the raw material for pelletisation. Beyond the order, will there be any guidance or control that Scottish Ministers may deploy to discourage this practice? In the same context, will recently expressed concerns over the health effects of wood smoke be subject to Scottish Ministers’ guidance, so far as the Minister is aware?
Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-03-28
Topic: Public Lands
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): Before the Minister concludes, I wonder whether he can help me. I should know the answer to this and apologise if it has been made public and I have missed it. What is happening to the staff in the Forestry Commission building in Corstophine and what is happening to the building itself? As I understand it, it has been the headquarters of the Forestry Commission for the whole of the United Kingdom, run from Corstophine in Edinburgh by some excellent staff. As I said, perhaps I should have known this or asked about it earlier, but I want to make sure that they are being looked after and that something sensible is being done with the building.
Commonwealth — House of Lords, 2019-03-28
Topic: Civil Rights
Frank Ashcroft Judd (Labour, Centre-left): The noble Lord will remember that our visit to Uganda together was very difficult in some ways. There was a profound feeling among British parliamentarians about the treatment of homosexuals in Uganda. We had to handle this very prominently during our visit. When we talk about common values, we must be more honest about what are common values and what are not.
Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-03-21
Topic: Other
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I was hoping that the Minister would answer my question and give me some indication of how much of her very valuable time she spent dealing with what my noble friend has now disclosed was 90 statutory instruments, and how many officials in the department have been occupied in this task, which might well not have been necessary.