argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): I just want to be clear: the Government are moving from daily statistics on the number of migrants crossing the channel to publishing those quarterly. When is that going to happen? Has it happened already? Where was it announced? What is the reason for the change?
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): Why is it happening? So far as transparency and trust in the Government’s figures on migration and what is clearly a difficult problem are concerned, why do they believe that the public would see this as anything other than burying bad news? Does the Minister believe that the Government would have changed the figures to quarterly if they were really good?
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Other
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, we have little to add. This seems to be a common-sense change that embeds an existing waiver, so that it applies in all cases where it is in a person’s best interests. It would be helpful if the Minister could detail for the House what is practically understood by "full capacity" and give examples of situations in which this requirement may be waived.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Other
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, it is late, but we need to spend a little time on this whole part of the Bill. Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour and the few Peers who are here, we should not underestimate the number of people across the country who read our deliberations and debates and use them to inform their own views and to find out where the Government and others stand. It is important that we do this.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I will not say much about this amendment, but the title of Clause 69 is astonishing: "Removals from the UK: visa penalties for uncooperative countries" Although we are rushing through clauses such as this, we will have to come back to it on Report. There are significant questions to be answered. Significant powers are given to the Government in the Bill How is pressure to be applied on the Governments of unco-operative countries with a view to improving their co-operation on removals from the UK? Where has this come from? What assessment have the Government made of it? Who else does it? What effect has it had? These are the sorts of things that, in Committee, you should go into real detail and find out about I have one specific question, which was also raised in the Commons. There is concern that the measure could shut down safe and legal routes to the UK by impacting on the granting of family reunion visas from certain countries as part of a resettlement scheme. This type of visa is overwhelmingly granted to women and children. When I read Hansard, I was grateful that the Minister in the Commons put on record and assured honourable Members that "given talk of penalties and exemption, family reunion will be an exemption to the penalties"—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 2/11/21; col. 567.] included in Clause 69. Given the importance of family reunion, as has been outlined in our discussions, will the Minister repeat this commitment—that Clause 69 will not, in any way, impact on the visas given for family reunion, even those from designated unco-operative countries?
Procedure and Privileges Committee — House of Lords, 2022-06-16
Topic: Civil Rights
John Reid (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I support the noble Lords who have already spoken. Only a few months ago, it was brought to our attention that the way these things were being handled, as regards contributions by Members of your Lordships’ House, was in clear breach of the Bill of Rights and the conventions on freedom of speech for parliamentarians that had stood for several hundred years. I have no idea whether the new Companion will have addressed that issue or not; the only way to find out is to have the relevant sections and changes produced before this House and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, have a full debate on them This is not a peripheral issue. It is the central issue of the role of parliamentarians and their right to speak as they see fit, provided that the Chamber itself is content with it. It cannot be right to have some sort of trigger point system—presumably based on artificial intelligence—setting up an alarm when something is said that is deemed not to be right by others outside this House. It is in clear breach of centuries of convention.
Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill — House of Lords, 2022-04-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Frederick Ponsonby (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, on a very significant Bill. With my other hats on, as a family magistrate and youth magistrate, I do see the impact of children getting married. It is highly to be desired that this Bill be passed, and I congratulate her on the work she has done and also the many organisations that have been campaigning on this issue for many years.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-04-26
Topic: Immigration
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, in moving Motion B1 as an amendment to Motion B, I also support other amendments Extra-parliamentary events since your Lordships’ last consideration make anxious scrutiny today even more important. I refer of course to atrocities in Ukraine and the Maundy Thursday MoU with Rwanda, but also to the unsuccessful Home Office attempts to assert public interest immunity, or secrecy, in the High Court over parts of the subsequently withdrawn little boats push-back policy. Contrary to everything both Houses, voters and desperate refugees were led to believe, the Government always knew that there was no legal basis for repelling a boat containing souls declaring a wish to claim asylum The importance of such matters being justiciable in court is therefore clear. From her answers to yesterday’s PNQ, I am glad to say that I do not think the Minister disagrees with that. Nor, to his credit, did the Minister in the other place present any policy difference on that point. He repeatedly asserted ongoing intentions to comply with international law, and specifically to comply with the refugee convention and ECHR together I have listened—and indeed pre-empted the constitutional concerns that the Minister just set out—and redrafted to make the refugee convention protection in the Bill no more, but no less, than that already provided for in law by the ECHR, thus making the new Amendment 5D even more respectful of the primacy of the other place and reasonable than its predecessor amendments. I beg to move.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-04-26
Topic: Immigration
Alfred Dubs (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I support the bulk of these amendments, particularly the Motion moved by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I want to make some very brief comments because this is not a Second Reading debate, thank God I think the Minister said that the practice of claiming asylum in the first safe country one reaches is accepted Europe-wide. I would challenge that because the bulk of the refugees who have come to Europe have come through safe countries, whether they are the 1 million Syrians who went to Germany or the Ukrainians who are on their way to this country and elsewhere. That proposition, I am afraid, does not stand One theme that I have noticed in the debate this afternoon is the question of the validity of the 1951 Geneva convention. The Government, while accepting the convention in theory, seem to be challenging it all the way along the line. When the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees makes a statement about the Geneva convention, we should be very careful before we challenge it, because who else has the international authority but the keeper of that convention: namely, UNHCR? When the UNHCR is critical of what is happening as regards Rwanda, we should listen to it.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-04-26
Topic: Other
Douglas Hacking (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I have listened to a debate of extremely strong argument and extreme persuasion, but I think it is now time that we got on with the task of sending back provisions of this Bill to the other place for it to reconsider. It is very touching for me to stand up for a moment here, because it is the 50th anniversary—exactly, to the day—of my maiden speech in this House.
Building Safety Bill — House of Lords, 2022-04-26
Topic: Housing
Sue Hayman (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for the constructive amendments that the Government have tabled at this stage and for listening to the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Blencathra, who have been very helpful during the passage of the Bill. However, there are still concerns outstanding, as has just been said, so I will speak now to my Motion H1 as an amendment to Motion H We on these Benches have consistently argued that all leaseholders should be protected from the cost of remediating historical cladding and non-cladding defects and the associated secondary costs, irrespective of circumstance. Although we fully acknowledge that the waterfall system set out in Schedule 8 provides leaseholders with a far greater deal of protection than was proposed when the Bill first came to us, when it was originally drafted, it does not protect all of them fully. Just as importantly, the Bill does not provide redress for the countless blameless leaseholders across the country who have already been hit with huge bills and have paid out significant sums as a result That is why I have tabled Motion H1 to reduce leaseholder contributions to a maximum of £250. I am aware that the Government have said that leaseholder contributions are fair in principle because they will apply in only a very limited number of cases. The Minister has said that leaseholders will pay up to the cap or a proportion of the cap in only a minority of circumstances. However, if it is only a very small number of cases that we are talking about, why are the Government so reluctant to provide proper and full support? For many people, £15,000, or £10,000 as the cap currently stands, is simply an impossible sum to find Leaseholders have refused to give up. They recognise more than anyone that the situation they face is simply not fair, and your Lordships’ House recognised that by supporting the amendment that I tabled on Report. I ask for noble Lords’ continued support in agreeing Motion H1 and, in so doing, to acknowledge the determination and persistence of the leaseholders and cladding groups that have been pressing for redress in this matter. In sticking rigidly to the position that a minority of leaseholders will have to pay sums that, although capped, are still significant, in order to resolve a scandal that they played no part in causing, we believe that the Government are not acting equitably and will not ensure that the most vulnerable leaseholders will be protected. Our Motion H1 would provide such protection. If the Minister is unable to accept it, we will seek to divide the House, with a view to ensuring that all leaseholders are fully protected.
Health and Care Bill — House of Lords, 2022-04-26
Topic: Other
Margaret Eileen Joyce Wheeler (Labour, Centre-left): Leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on Lords Amendment 80 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement; do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 80A to 80N in lieu; and do not insist on its Amendments 80P and 80Q instead of the words so left out of the Bill to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 80R, and do propose Amendments 80S and 80T in lieu—
Health and Care Bill — House of Lords, 2022-04-26
Topic: Other
Margaret Eileen Joyce Wheeler (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, time is short. The Minister has once again failed to respond to the evidence and the concerns that have been so forcefully expressed throughout the passage of the Bill. I wish to move Motion D1 and test the opinion of the House.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — House of Lords, 2022-04-26
Topic: Other
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): Leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment 73; do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 73C to the words restored by their disagreement to Amendment 73; do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 74A to its Amendment 74, on its Amendment 74B to that Amendment in lieu, and on its consequential Amendments 74C, 74D, 74E, 74F and 74G; do insist on its Amendment 87, and on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 87E, 87F and 87H to the words restored to the Bill; and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 73E in lieu of Lords Amendment 73 and in their Amendment 87K to the words restored by their disagreement with Lords Amendment 87."
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — House of Lords, 2022-04-26
Topic: Civil Rights
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): No. As an aside, I googled double-gazing companies, just in case the Minister wanted a hand with that. However, I thought that was not taking this, or dealing with this, with the seriousness it needs. I get criticised for using humour but the reason I do so is not to trivialise an important point of principle; all I am doing is saying that I am quoting from a government document on the website, available and updated for the benefit of this deliberation. The Government have got their way on a whole range of different issues; it is the right of the Commons, as the Minister pointed out, to have its way as the elected House. We have an absolute right, though, as the House of Lords, to push right until the last minute on things that are nonsensical. The "too noisy" provision is a nonsense. Protests are about noise The police have perfectly adequate powers; they arrest people for making noise, using breaches of the peace and so on. The government document says that the trouble with a breach of the peace is that it does not have very much power, except that the police can arrest you. I would have thought that being able to arrest was adequate. I do not know about other noble Lords but I have never been arrested. I suggest to this House that for the vast majority of people, believing that they were going to be arrested would be a pretty serious threat to them. For the vast majority of people, that would stop them. The Government’s document says that it is not an adequate power. My view is that the power of arrest is a pretty important power that the police can use The right to protest is a fundamental right of democracy—a fundamental right that all of us, including me, have used—and one that involves making noise. The Government have got their way in respect of place and conditions, not only on processions but on assembly. We pushed back and the Government have now made a further concession to have a review after two years as to whether this "too noisy" provision has worked. It is time for us to push back again and say that the provision is a nonsense; it is ridiculous. It does not work, it will not work and it is not needed. I hope that when it comes to a Division, noble Lords will consider this a step too far in allowing the police to act to control protests, processions and marches. I beg to move.
Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robert Maurice Lipson Winston (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, this disgraceful Statement is made more disgusting by the crocodile tears which are shed by the person who is making the Statement and the pseudo call on a kind of democratic decision. Does the Minister not recall that this is reminiscent of another decision made by the British Government? I speak as a British subject, loyal to the Crown, and as a British Jew. I remember very clearly that boats that went to Palestine in the 1940s were turned back under the most cruel circumstances, with the inevitable death of those migrants who were seen to be illegal by the Government. This is a disgraceful example of continuing policy, and it seems to me that the Front Bench should not be sitting there but should be hanging their heads in shame.
Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, first, does the Minister agree that the courts yesterday, domestically and in Strasbourg, were dealing with the narrow question of whether people should be sent off pending the substantive consideration and judicial review in July? Secondly, does she agree that, while I was disappointed by courts in London and her side was disappointed by courts in Strasbourg, what we in your Lordships’ House do not do is have a go at the referees—the judges—because we happen to be disappointed on a given day? Thirdly, does the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, agree that the European Convention on Human Rights was drafted in principle by Conservative lawyers as part of Churchill’s legacy and that in these difficult times, domestically and in Europe, we should keep faith with the Council of Europe and keep our commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights?
Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: Immigration
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium has expressed grave concern that, because of the Government’s flawed approach to age disputes, it is already seeing children who have been detained as adults and issued with a notice of intent to remove them, despite Home Office assurances to the contrary. What steps are being taken to ensure that no unaccompanied asylum-seeking child is wrongly removed as an adult?
Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: Civil Rights
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, saying in answer to my noble friend that we are committed to a Bill of rights for this country does not answer the question about the European convention. Britain initiated the European Convention on Human Rights and Winston Churchill was one of its architects. The great advantage of it is that it holds other countries to an international standard. If we are going to ask countries such as Turkey, Hungary and Azerbaijan to adhere to standards, we have to do so as well. To suggest—even to hint—that we will withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights is an absolute disgrace. If it happens, this country will not be able to show its face in any international fora again.
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: Other
Jenny Chapman (Labour, Centre-left): I will press the Minister. Should those amendments that she comes back with on Report, which is how I interpret what she has just said, be as substantial as we would hope and expect given our concerns, which I appreciate she says she had heard, would she perhaps consider reconvening the Committee for us to examine those new amendments? We expect that they will substantially alter the way the Bill is currently drafted.
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the specific question my noble friend Lady Chapman asked was about a quite common procedure in this House: if very substantial changes are proposed between Committee and Report, involving large numbers of new clauses et cetera, it is common that a Committee stage should be resumed to consider those precise additions so that the conversation can take place under Committee rules rather than Report rules. I know that the Minister cannot decide on the procedures of the House, but she is—I hope my saying so does not ruin her career—a very accommodating Minister, as far as she is able to be, who does listen to the House. Having listened to most of the Committee so far myself, it is quite clear that many issues need to be discussed if and when there is some clarification about the content of the Bill. That needs to be discussed in Committee.
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-07-18
Topic: Other
Stephen Benn (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, that is one of the reasons why I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. This is not just about a particular Bill; it is about the way we do business. As I am just about to finish my first parliamentary year in this House, and, as other noble Lords have said, a situation of this kind has not arisen before, I would not like to think that this would set a precedent in any way for the way in which the House considers its business in future. When it comes to what I might call negotiating leverage, one day is a derisory offer to the House; with no disrespect to the Minister, that is not good enough. There is great merit in not agreeing to allow a date for Third Reading to be set at this stage.
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-07-18
Topic: Other
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, it is quite clear that the Bill has been badly received across the whole House. Whole chunks of it have been taken out and it is in a very poor state, and it is clear that it should not have come here at all because it had not been put together properly. I am sure the Minister has heard that; it is not the first time that these views have been expressed. We will have a new Government in September, and then it will be up to the Prime Minister. This Bill may disappear completely—we do not know I have been part of the usual channels now for 13 months, and I hope still to be here in September—in one or other part of the usual channels. I will spend my summer working with colleagues in other parts of the House to ensure that the points raised by colleagues are fully understood by the Government, so that we can work together, bring things back and have a system that everyone is happy with. The Minister has heard how dissatisfied the House is. I am sorry, but I think that is important One thing I have learned as Opposition Chief Whip is that the forthcoming business can change from day to day, never mind what is going to happen in September. Particularly in March and April, the forthcoming business was changing literally every day. The fact that it is listed for September does not necessarily mean that it will happen then. We do not know. We will have those discussions then As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has mentioned, we have the other protection of his Motion. I am sure that if Third Reading is tabled and he is unhappy with it, his Motion will be tabled for the House to consider. There are many barriers in place to make sure that the House can make its views known if it is unhappy. I am sure the Minister has heard how unhappy the House is.
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-07-18
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): I gently remind the noble Lord of the Companion, which says that speakers "are expected to keep within 15 minutes" That is not a formal limit but an advisory one. It says that "on occasion, a speech of outstanding importance, or a ministerial speech winding up an exceptionally long debate, may exceed" the limit, but the noble Lord has now been going on for 17 minutes.