argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Gender Recognition Act Consultation — House of Lords, 2020-09-25
Topic: Civil Rights
Anthony Young (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, as can be seen from today’s debate, this is a controversial issue. I want to see a fair deal for transgender people and their ability to identify as trans. However, I believe that there is a balance to be struck, and the Statement issued by the Government is a balanced approach. I would welcome a comment from the Minister as to whether any further guidance needs to be issued on NHS wards, for example, which I think have proceeded on the basis of self-identification; there may be other examples. I welcome the reference to women’s refuges, and I echo the Minister’s final point: I hope that this debate can take place in an atmosphere where all views are respected.
Gender Recognition Act Consultation — House of Lords, 2020-09-25
Topic: Civil Rights
Philip Alexander Hunt (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I welcome the Statement and the aim of improving healthcare support for transgender people, but I would like to follow up my noble friend Lord Young’s point. The fact is that a number of public bodies have made policies which make it almost impossible to provide the single-sex spaces that are allowed under the Equality Act. Will the Minister urgently look at guidance to those public bodies about ensuring that they act within the spirit and the law of that Act?
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020 — House of Lords, 2020-09-25
Topic: Civil Rights
Doreen Lawrence (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, one thing that has to be said about the statutory instruments being discussed today is that, whatever their good intentions, they are certainly complicated. Obviously the author felt a duty to be both precise and comprehensive, otherwise we would not have in Statutory Instrument No. 828 the laborious definition of an "elite sportsperson" or of all that the word "vessel" can mean—although the sub-paragraph does not refer to the old proverb about empty vessels As we look back over the months and survey the statutory instruments produced by the Government on restrictions on gatherings, we have concluded that the whole policy has become an unholy mess, a confusion of mixed messages and tentative, half-baked decisions. Any scan of media cuttings from the north of England in the past few days will expose just how much bewilderment there is among the local population about what is or is not permissible and what is or is not wise. The spate of legalisms contained in the statutory instruments is directly responsible for that state of affairs. We need more clarity for people, not more jobs for lawyers One has to wonder whether we would be in a happier situation if greater flexibility were to be embedded in the legislative process here. I think we might all agree that each statutory instrument before us today is a cumbersome and unwieldy tool—a perfect metaphor for the Government’s utterances on social gatherings since the very first version of lockdown.
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Dianne Hayter (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Chief Whip for tabling these Motions, which we undoubtedly support. In fact, we welcome the proper time to discuss the Trade Bill that this allows, prior to Report. However, it raises the question of the seriousness with which our amendments are then considered by the House of Commons. On another Bill, the all-important Agriculture Bill, we see that our so-called Curry amendment has effectively been deemed to need a money resolution. However, it was the Government, not the Speaker, who "considers it probable that the … cost to public expenditure would be significant (and would go beyond what could be met under existing authorisation … by the Secretary of State)." That statement by the Government begs two questions. First, what is the limit? Secondly, what is the Government’s estimate of the cost of Amendment 18? The result of this estimation—the figures which we have not seen—effectively denies the House of Commons the chance to consider amendments sent by your Lordships’ House, whether it is the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Grantchester or any amendment that will emerge on the Trade Bill Certainly, should key amendments passed by your Lordships’ House be set aside, perhaps a bit peremptorily without proper consideration, the Government should not be surprised if the proponents of those amendments use ping-pong to find a way of ensuring that the issues are properly debated in the other place So we welcome this Motion on the Trade Bill but, looking forward, we need to be clear that devices will not be used to set aside amendments, should they be passed by your Lordships’ House.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-12
Topic: Immigration
Alfred Dubs (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, it seems a long time since we debated this Bill on Report. I am now speaking to the amendment to Clause 6 in my name. This is a technical change and need not detain us for long. The amendment is intended to achieve settled status for children in care and care leavers. It deals with the identification of such children and the problems they may have with applying for their status—indeed, dispensing with pre-settled status and moving on to settled status On Report, the Minister raised concerns about the original wording of the amendment, particularly the phrase "is deemed", suggesting that this would mean that children and young people would have no secure evidence of their immigration status. The amendment before us today removes the phrase "is deemed to have", with which the Minister specifically stated that she was unhappy, and replaces it with "on notification by the local authority to the Home Office that they are such a child, must" I hope that by setting out the process of identifying and supporting these children through the EU settlement process, this amendment would remove the Minister’s concern over automatic entitlements and the problem that these children would not be able to prove their immigration status in the future. In the first instance, we would expect that local authorities would be required to identify these young people, after which they would be granted settled status through the EU settlement scheme. This would allow these young people access to the evidence that they need to prove their rights and entitlements in the long term. This House has always championed the rights of the most vulnerable children, especially those in the care system. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-12
Topic: Other
Alfred Dubs (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am delighted with the Minister’s positive response. I say in passing that I wish we had had such a positive response to a number of other amendments, but that may be too optimistic on my behalf.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-12
Topic: Other
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): Along with my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I thank the Minister and congratulate her on her stamina and patience throughout consideration of the Bill, if not, perhaps, on the number of government concessions. We also thank her for her typical willingness to meet and discuss matters relating to the Bill; that is much appreciated. We appreciate, as well, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the work of the Bill team. In addition, perhaps I may be permitted to thank Grace Wright in our office for all her work and invaluable advice on the Bill This Bill has of course had its own unique incidents, not least the temporary hiccup over the voting arrangements. Let us hope that that remains unique to it As the Minister said, the Bill now goes back to the Commons—in my view, certainly a better Bill than when it left the other place. All that we can now do is wait to see what the Commons make of the amendments passed by your Lordships’ House I reiterate on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark and myself our thanks to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the Bill team, and indeed to all noble Lords who have participated in the lengthy and interesting debates during the passage of the Bill.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North East of England) Regulations 2020 — House of Lords, 2020-10-12
Topic: Other
Dorothea Glenys Thornton (Labour, Centre-left): I think the Minister will find that we are supposed to be discussing the north-east, rather than the face coverings. It does not make any difference—I am quite happy to do them that way round, but we might get confused.
Arrangement of Business — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
John McFall (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing; others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House Oral Questions will now commence. Please will those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Arrangement of Business — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Richard Oliver Faulkner (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing; others are participating virtually, but all Members are treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
International Travel — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Richard Oliver Faulkner (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, we now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers are brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was not present for the start of this item of business so I call the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Immigration
Richard Oliver Faulkner (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House This is day two in Committee on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or "before the noble Lord sits down" are not permitted During the debate on each group I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin Clause 4: Consequential etc. provision Amendment 14
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): I did email; I do not know where it has gone. Oh sorry, I did not email Question Diary I thank the Minister for explaining how certain words have been used in previous legislation, but it would be helpful if she could write to me and place a copy in the Library of the House with some examples, just so that we are absolutely clear. I know she was able to give an example now, but that would be very helpful.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Richard Oliver Faulkner (Labour, Centre-left): We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 20. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. I think there is a technical problem with that which I hope we can resolve in the next few minutes Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate. I should inform the Committee that if Amendment 20 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 21 Amendment 20
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Richard Oliver Faulkner (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, we have a technical problem with emailing the Table. I propose that the Committee adjourns for 15 minutes, in the hope that we can sort out the problem. If it is necessary to adjourn again, we will do that. The Committee will resume just after 3.15 pm.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Richard Oliver Faulkner (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the email problem has not been resolved entirely, but we do have a short- term solution. Members, whether in the Chamber or participating remotely, who wish to speak after the Minister on this amendment or indeed subsequent ones, can use the alternative email address, relating to the Grand Committee, that is in the guidance notes that govern today’s session. If they send their request to the Grand Committee email address, that will find its way to the Table here and they should be included in the requests to speak after the Minister. Let us hope that works. We were about to hear from the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I am sure it has not escaped the Minister’s attention that there is some concern in the House about Clause 4, not only from the Delegated Powers Committee but from every speech we have heard so far, I think, apart from the Minister’s. It will carry on in further criticism that Members will have later. I am sure the Minister understands that and will take it back. I hope that there will be some progress when we get back to these issues contained in Clause 4 on Report. With that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Richard Oliver Faulkner (Labour, Centre-left): We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 22. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the Grand Committee address on the guidance notes during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate Amendment 22
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Richard Oliver Faulkner (Labour, Centre-left): It may be helpful to the Committee if I remind noble Lords that we are debating a group of amendments in which Amendment 22 is the lead. It is of course possible to speak to the other amendments in the group, but at this stage it is not possible to move them individually.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Richard Oliver Faulkner (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am pleased to be able to advise the Committee that we seem to be back to normal with the emailing of the clerk, so Members who wish to speak after the Minister should use what they thought was the correct route at the beginning.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Genista Mary McIntosh (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, was withdrawn from the speakers’ list in error and is ready to speak now, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Immigration
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): I want to come back to the question of evidence—I was the one who asked for it. I thought the Minister was about to give it because he referred to my question; however, he then started talking about those coming in boats across the channel—what is the connection? We do not have the right to work, so why is that evidence in favour of the Government’s justification? Would he accept the widespread consensus that the best way to reduce the pull factor of the channel would be to increase the legal routes enabling asylum seekers to come to this country? Could I also respond to the point the Minister just made, that we will have to wait for evidence until this review is completed? The review has been going nearly two years. The Minister knew we would raise this question during the debate; I would have expected the Government to have some evidence in support of the case they are making now, rather than having to wait any longer.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Jill Pitkeathley (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 23. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division, should make that clear in the debate Amendment 23
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Immigration
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I declare a family interest in the issue raised by the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, the wording in the Bill means that British citizens who moved to the EU or EEA while we were a member will lose their right to return to this country—their country of birth—with a non-British partner or children unless they can satisfy financial conditions that many may well find difficult or impossible to meet. Amendment 23, to which I am a signatory, seeks to address this situation I do not wish to repeat the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, in moving this amendment. I agree with everything that he said. I hope that as well as responding to the arguments that he made, the Minister will also comment on his point that the change is, in effect, retrospective, since it is our country and our Government who are changing the rules that apply to our citizens on this issue. When they made their personal decisions to move to the EU or EEA, the rules, as they currently apply, may well have been a factor in making that decision; it is our Government who are now apparently seeking to change those rules No doubt the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will also comment on a further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight. He said that it appears that the new UK rules that will apply to British citizens in the situation that we are talking about will be much tougher in their terms than those that apply to EU citizens with settled status in respect of their ability to bring their dependants to join them in the UK. No doubt the Minister will confirm, in the Government’s reply, whether that is the case.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Jill Pitkeathley (Labour, Centre-left): We now come to Amendment 25. I remind noble Lords again that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate Amendment 25
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Jill Pitkeathley (Labour, Centre-left): We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 26. I again remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear during the debate Amendment 26
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Immigration
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I hope the Government’s response to this amendment, and indeed to the next two, might reveal something about their intentions and objectives as far as the new points-based immigration system is concerned. I feel there is a lack of consistency on behalf of the Government about how crowded or otherwise they believe this country actually is. When it comes to the planning White Paper, and the opposition there appears to be to it from within the ranks of the Government party, one of the responses you get is that it is only a very small percentage of this country that is being built on. Yet when it comes to an immigration system, one senses that the Government base it on the fact that this country is too crowded. There appears to be a contrast, depending on whether they are talking about the planning White Paper or the immigration system, in what their view is on how crowded or otherwise this country actually is at present I hope that when the Government reply we shall find out a bit more about their statement that their points-based immigration system will reduce migration. An answer on that might address some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. The Government have never told us the basis on which they reached that conclusion—in spite of the comments of my noble friend Lord Adonis, and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, at Second Reading, which suggested that the contrary would be the case Over the past decade we have heard policy statements about reducing migration to below 100,000, but those statements—I will not go into whether they were sensible or otherwise—were followed by a rise in net migration, including, and not least, from outside the EU, where freedom of movement does not apply I hope that when the Minister responds to this amendment we will get a very clear statement from the Government as to exactly why and how they happen to believe that their new points-based immigration system will lead to a reduction in migration—if that, rightly or wrongly, is their policy objective. Such a clear statement is badly needed, and could be given right now.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-09
Topic: Other
Genista Mary McIntosh (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 27. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear during the debate Amendment 27