argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Refugees: Mass Displacement — House of Lords, 2022-01-06
Topic: Immigration
Julie Smith (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, has scratched. Therefore, rather than winding for the Liberal Democrats, I am not only opening but speaking a lot earlier, and am down to four minutes, rather than the 10 that I was anticipating. So I will confine my remarks primarily to the situation in Afghanistan As my noble friend Lord Alton said in opening, this is a debate about massed forced migration. It is about push factors, not pull factors. It is not about why individuals might seek to come to the United Kingdom, Germany or other countries, but about the factors that are forcing people to leave their homes, countries and regions of origin The numbers of those people who feel the need to flee are absolutely breath-taking. The pressure that those people who are refugees, asylum seekers or internally displaced—84 million people globally—put on neighbouring countries can be significant. Those who seem to think that the UK has too many asylum seekers—people seeking refuge here—forget that in Turkey, one in 23 people is a refugee. In Jordan it is one in 14 and in Lebanon one in eight. Millions and millions of people feel they need to leave, not to seek a better life in a general materialistic sense but because they are fleeing war, poverty, genocide, hate speech in Myanmar, and Hindu nationalism, which is forcing more than a million Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh In mid-2021, the UNHCR believed that 2.6 million Afghans had already fled their homes. That was before Kabul fell to the Taliban. How many more tens and hundreds of thousands of people have now moved? Could the Minister tell us what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have made of the impact of the US withdrawal on individuals and their families in Afghanistan—not just the date that the 20,000 people under the ACRS might expect to come here, but how many people are being forced to flee? As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, 42% of displaced people are children, and in Afghanistan those people fleeing the Taliban because they worked with the US and the United Kingdom are not just individual men—they would very often be men—but their wives, sisters, mothers and children. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that those people who worked with us, for us and alongside us can be given some sense that they can get out and that they will not keep living in holes without any money? When I say "holes", I mean that. There are individual cases of people who worked for the British Council saying that they no longer have anywhere to live and that they are on a Taliban list. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing at least to deal with this aspect of push migration?
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-01-28
Topic: Civil Rights
Kishwer Falkner (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The noble Baroness referred to my role as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I want to make it clear that in this debate I am speaking in a personal capacity, not representing the EHRC. I was in this House prior to becoming chair so have spoken on these matters in the past.
Economic Crime: Planned Government Bill — House of Lords, 2022-01-31
Topic: Mixed Topics
William John Lawrence Wallace (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The draft legislation over these entities is quite closely linked to this. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that will be wrapped up in an economic crime Bill when it comes, or whether it will be a separate Bill. Perhaps at the same time he could tell us what the relationship is with the overseas territories on the beneficial ownership of these properties. A great many of them are owned by companies based in the British Virgin Islands or other overseas territories. They are sovereign parts of the UK. They seem to have all the benefits of British sovereignty but none of the responsibilities. Are the Government going to ensure that the secrecy of our overseas territories on financial matters is also covered in these Bills?
Economic Crime: Planned Government Bill — House of Lords, 2022-01-31
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The latest full accounts of Aquind Ltd give its directors as Mr K Glukhovskoy and Mr A Temerko. Four years ago, the Minister was a member of the board and at that time it had a controlling entity in the British Virgin Islands. It now has a controlling entity in Luxembourg. The last set of accounts showed a loss of more than £3 million and it paid no tax, yet it was able to find £213,000 for donations to the Conservative Party. Will the Government’s measures, which they say are urgent, also address the source of the wealth of controlling entities registered in the Virgin Islands—or, indeed, Luxembourg?
Health and Care Bill — House of Lords, 2022-01-31
Topic: Mixed Topics
Joan Walmsley (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, a very compelling and, indeed, conclusive case has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and other speakers in favour of this amendment, and I hope the Government will accept it. I particularly commend the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the answer is there for us in science. I have only one question, because I have no intention of repeating all the excellent comments that have been made. This morning, I went into the Bishops’ Bar and picked up a box of lateral flow tests. On the box was written, "Made in China". Can the Minister explain what efforts have been made to ensure that noble Lords, in their attempt to protect others and themselves, are not unwittingly supporting forced labour and slavery?
Data Protection: Immigration Exemption — House of Lords, 2022-01-31
Topic: Civil Rights
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): That this House takes note of (1) the Data Protection Act 2018 (Amendment of Schedule 2 Exemption) Regulations 2022 and the safeguards to protect individual data subject rights, and (2) the Court of Appeal judgment in Open Rights Group and another v the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Relevant documents: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Data Protection: Immigration Exemption — House of Lords, 2022-01-31
Topic: Immigration
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I have asked that these regulations be brought to the attention of the House to highlight what appears not to be an isolated incident of the courts ruling against the Government, requiring the Government to change the law, and the Government not complying fully with the court’s findings. In such circumstances, the only course of action is for a further case to be brought against the Government in the courts to rectify the situation, which clearly costs both time and money and needs non-governmental organisations or philanthropists to bring such an action. Such contempt for the courts should be drawn to the attention of the House, hence this Motion. Liberal Democrats opposed the immigration exemption when we debated the Data Protection Act in 2018. The Government sought to exempt data controllers and let them bypass and restrict fundamental data rights if officials believed compliance with data protection law was prejudicial to the maintenance of effective immigration control through what has become known as the immigration exemption. This could be used by the Home Office to withhold information from those applying for leave to remain in the UK, for example, hampering their ability to challenge Home Office decisions to withhold permission The Court of Appeal decided the immigration exemption contained inadequate safeguards to protect individual data subject rights and was therefore incompatible with the UK GDPR. This SI is an attempt to comply with the judgment. Legal minds greater than mine say that this statutory instrument does not bring legislation into line with the Court of Appeal judgment. The court said greater safeguards needed to be incorporated into legislation and not just placed in guidance, but that is exactly what this SI proposes to do. The court said legislation needed to be clear and precise; not simply the withholding of information which is in the interests of immigration control. The court said the consequences of the law must be foreseeable to those it is likely to affect, unlike this SI that relies on guidance that can be changed at any time, without notice and without parliamentary scrutiny I understand the Home Office has been distracted—have not we all?—by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill. The Minister will no doubt agree with me that we need this Motion like a hole in the head, but we will not allow the totally unreasonable tabling of government business to prevent us from bringing matters to the attention of the House when we believe the Government are not complying with the orders of a court. I beg to move.
Data Protection: Immigration Exemption — House of Lords, 2022-01-31
Topic: Immigration
Timothy Francis Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I want—briefly—to supplement the remarks of my noble friends. As I said in Grand Committee, I commend my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her consistent and determined opposition to this immigration exemption. During the passage of the Bill, we were not able to delete the original provisions, but we are quite clear on these benches that this new SI does not at all reflect the safeguards required by the GDPR and by the Court of Appeal’s decision. As I said in Committee, I can only wonder what kind of advice the Minister has had. How has she been able to convince herself that this SI will not meet the same fate as the previous provisions? My noble friends referred to what Lord Justice Warby had to say, and what needs to be done is extremely clear. I do not think there is any need to repeat what my noble friends have said It is utterly clear that the provisions being put in place do not comply with GDPR—particularly with Recital 41, and certainly not in the way Lord Justice Warby interpreted that recital. The Home Office, regardless of the law, is going forward with this new proposal with an IEPD which is simply not good enough in terms of its legislative status. As both my noble friends said, it adds nothing in the way of safeguards which were already there The Minister seemed to be saying in Grand Committee the Home Office had taken on board the points made by the Open Rights Group and the3million, but that she would ascertain what those points were. Sadly, I have not received a copy of the Minster’s letter, so I do not know what those points are. I hope the Minister will adumbrate those in her response this evening. It is clear that the Home Office is in great danger of having another successful judicial review against it on these regulations Despite our best efforts in Grand Committee, the Minister did not deal with the fundamental issue of the mechanism being used to introduce this form of exemption. We were reminded today in the Commons about what Margaret Thatcher said: "The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty when it’s inconvenient, if Government does that, then so will the governed and then nothing is safe—not home, not liberty, not life itself." Wise words. Bobbing and weaving and ducking—is that not precisely what the Government are doing on this issue?
Data Protection: Immigration Exemption — House of Lords, 2022-01-31
Topic: Other
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reiterating the Government’s position. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her detailed analysis of the issues, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for his support, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. To quote the Minister, I think we will have to agree to disagree. Sadly, another case appears to be inevitable. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Building Safety Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-02
Topic: Other
Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I too welcome the Bill. I say to the Minister opposite that if he takes on board all the wonderful knowledge, expertise and advice that has been offered to him today, he will have a sensational Bill.
Surveillance Camera Code of Practice — House of Lords, 2022-02-02
Topic: Mixed Topics
Timothy Francis Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): That this House regrets the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice because (1) it does not constitute a legitimate legal or ethical framework for the police’s use of facial recognition technology, and (2) it is incompatible with human rights requirements surrounding such technology Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-02-07
Topic: Other
Robert Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Well, if that is the Motion being put to the House, that is fine. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment—although I do so a little grumpily and I shall be keeping a very sharp eye on the Minister.
National Insurance Contributions Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, this group of amendments includes government Amendments 13 and 14, which, as the Minister described, respectively change Clause 3(1) on freeports and Clause 6(6) on veterans, so that any extension to the zero rating of employers’ NICs in these schemes is subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, resolution procedure. Changing negative to affirmative for both these clauses was an important recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and I both asked for the changes that it recommended to be enacted, and I thank the Government for delivering them on Report As the Minister knows, I was particularly exercised by the original drafting of Clause 10, which designates that payments under certain "self-isolation support schemes" should not be included in computing NICs. I have no problem with the principle but, unamended, the clause would have allowed new schemes to be added without any change to the regulations or any reference to Parliament. The Delegated Powers Committee objected that this offered far too much leeway, and recommended that any designation under the relevant parts of Clause 10 should be "contained in regulations" and subject to the negative resolution procedure. Again, I thank the Minister for delivering on that I read the remaining amendments in this group as being technical, and we have no objection. The Delegated Powers Committee will not be fully satisfied by these amendments because certain recommendations have not been agreed by government—for example, the recommendation that the power to modify the criteria for the schemes in freeports should be affirmative, not negative. But we have made progress on some important points, and I hope that the Minister will make sure that the message goes back to those who draft Bills that it is important to take note of the appropriate constitutional balance. He has done so, and I thank him for it.
National Insurance Contributions Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the Minister has not persuaded me. In fact, if anything, most of his speech reinforced my position. We already have a public register of ownership of companies in the UK. We hope that this will be strengthened through verification when we next see this legislation. The Government have committed to a public register of the beneficial ownership of property in the UK. We think that the legislation is sitting somewhere in the department. We hope that it will see the light of day very soon Last week, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, assured us that he had brought the overseas territories to the point at which they were committed to public registers of beneficial ownership by 2023, but here we have a new register which is suddenly not public. We do not need this anomaly or backward step. I do not understand the Government’s resistance. I am afraid that, although I very much respect the Minister, his arguments reinforced my conviction, as I hope that it will have reinforced the conviction of this House, that we need to divide on this issue.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-03
Topic: Immigration
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and I ask the Minister to address in her response a couple of issues, particularly in relation to Amendments 57 and 61, about restricting the placing of vulnerable people in accommodation centres—military barracks. When a similar amendment to Amendment 57 was tabled in Committee in the other place, the Home Office Minister, Tom Pursglove, said it was "unnecessary because there are no plans to place those with children in accommodation centres".—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 21/10/21; col. 295.] If the Home Office has no such plans, which is a welcome commitment, why will it not accept a statutory shield against placing at least children in those centres Wider than that, I am grateful to the British Red Cross, which has reminded us that there is a Home Office policy document, of which the latest update was in May 2021, called Allocation of Accommodation Policy. It has a section on "Asylum seekers considered unsuitable for Napier", which starts with the statement: "Women and dependent children are not suitable to be accommodated at Napier", before listing further cases, including potential survivors of modern slavery, people with a disability and those with complex health needs. The tablers of Amendment 57, which I support, say the list should be longer and should include those under Amendment 61. If the Home Office has these policy commitments, it is my contention that it ought to accept the amendments restricting the types of people who would be sent to these accommodation centres. I would be very pleased to hear the Minister agree and therefore accept at least Amendments 57 and 61.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-03
Topic: Immigration
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am very grateful for the historic information that the noble Lord has provided. My understanding is that, as the years have gone on, the number of successful appeals has increased and the number of first-time decisions to reject application from refugees has gone down. While I do not deny that those might be the overall numbers going back to 2004, in saying that most applicants for refugee status are successful, we are basing it on the last few years—the current trend rather than the historic numbers the noble Lord refers to. I am reminded of heavy-handed policing of football supporters in the 1980s. I remember a football fan saying to me, "If you treat us like animals, we’ll behave like animals". Warehousing asylum seekers may be a short-term gain, but it is likely to create long-term problems.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-03
Topic: Immigration
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but my understanding is that the number of asylum claims a decade or more ago was something like double what it is now. We are talking not about similar numbers crossing the channel in boats compared to those in the past, but about half as many.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-03
Topic: Immigration
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, this is a rare treat: a group with only two amendments. I will speak both to Amendment 64 in my name and to Amendment 65. I am reminded of the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics", but apparently, according to the figures that I have—perhaps we need a Hansard fact-checker, like the BBC has—every year from 2012 to 2019 the majority of asylum seekers in the UK were successful.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-03
Topic: Immigration
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the case for asylum seekers being able to work after a few months is compelling. I am sorry that we have not heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, but I perfectly understand why she is not able to be here. Amendment 65 was admirably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister In the debate on Clause 11, several noble Lords invoked public opinion, saying that it was wary of immigration. I suggest that obliging asylum seekers to be idle, existing in some cases on taxpayer support, is a surefire way to prejudice public opinion against them, especially those apparently fit young men who have been demonised recently. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us that the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a provision of the right to work, and I thank him for reminding us of that.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-03
Topic: Immigration
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Can I intervene on an intervention? What is wrong if those people are allowed to work? If it is then determined that they have no right to stay, they would then have to leave—but, in the meantime, they are supporting themselves, perhaps using their skills and contributing tax. If they are then found not to have a legal claim to stay, so be it. I cannot see what the harm is in the meantime.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-03
Topic: Immigration
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, we have the famous Dubs letter; I do not know why others have not—maybe it was sent to selected recipients I thank all noble Lords from all sides of the Committee for their support for these amendments—with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, whose case seemed to be that public opinion polls in the future might turn on their head from where they are now, with 70% of the public supporting asylum seekers being able to work, and that might be a minority rather than a majority I am losing patience with the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. When he intervened on my opening remarks he accepted that, from 2012 to 2019, the majority of asylum seekers were successful in their applications and that, in 2019, 65% were successful. But in his speech, he maintained that the majority of asylum seekers’ claims were not accepted. It is getting difficult The Minister talked about an impact assessment in due course on the effects on the labour market of this change. What is the Migration Advisory Committee for if it is not to advise the Government on the likely impact of changes in migration policy? The MAC recommends that asylum seekers are allowed to work. The Minister claimed that if the amendments were accepted, it would go against what people voted for in 2019. Is she really saying that in 2019 people voted not to allow asylum seekers to work, particularly in the light of the evidence of opinion polls showing 70% support for the contrary The Minister seemed to claim that allowing asylum seekers to work was a pull factor, but then said it was complicated and more research was needed. If there is evidence that allowing asylum seekers to work is a pull factor, what is it? She talked about other countries making the UK appear more attractive to asylum seekers, yet we have already heard that the UK is an outlier in terms of most other European countries allowing asylum seekers to work. How does that happen? She also said that European countries that allow asylum seekers to work still provide them with accommodation. Asylum seekers could pay for the accommodation that they are provided with if they were allowed to work The Minister’s explanations are not acceptable and we will return to this issue on Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.