argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 — House of Lords, 2022-03-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I welcome these measures on behalf of these Benches and I thank the Minister for maintaining contact and giving advance notice These are both the culmination of weeks of lobbying from Parliament to have sight of further measures but also, as noted in this short debate—including by the Minister—the start of a process. They are of a differing character, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, indicated. Perhaps these are now of a more strategic nature which will be medium and long term, and perhaps they will have a different characteristic from the sanctions regime that we have put in place, which is different from what the EU scheme envisaged The noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, rightly raised a number of weeks ago with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in the Home Office, why, as my noble friend Lord Fox indicated, we had not been using existing legislation. It has been highlighted for a number of months that the weak point in the global efforts against money laundering and kleptocracy is in fact the UK. Therefore, questions such as that of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, are quite right. There is a niggling fear that the UK is still behind the US and the EU in making sure that there is, as the Foreign Secretary said a number of weeks ago, no place to hide for kleptocrats. However, as we have seen, because the Government have now, due to persuasion from Parliament, brought forward the first of the economic crime Bills, there have been, regrettably, plenty of places to hide.
Health and Care Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-03
Topic: International Affairs
Joan Walmsley (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, China has been found out. Thanks to surveillance and other types of technology, and courageous on-the-ground reporting, it is clear that China does use slave labour. As we know, the UK has a duty under the genocide convention, and there is strong evidence that much of the material produced by slave labour, even possibly by genocide, is being used by NHS staff—and even by noble Lords ourselves when we use lateral flow tests, since we are not confident about where they came from. They come from areas where there is serious risk of genocide and as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, it is not necessary to determine genocide in order to be obliged to do a risk assessment and take action; and we are not doing enough of that. Over half of these products come from places where there is no conflict, so action against conflict is not adequate. More needs to be done. We must not fail to do it because it is more convenient to buy products to keep us safe without investigating how they are produced. Our safety must not be on the backs of people whose rights, and even their lives, are being taken from them The same applies to organ-harvesting from unwilling donors. There is incontrovertible evidence that it is not just happening but happening increasingly, and it absolutely has to stop. My noble friend Baroness Northover made a strong case that the exhibiting of cadavers should not happen in a civilised society, and I hope that the Minister is going to tell us how the Government are going to stop it.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I have an associated point, to save the Minister bobbing up and down too much. I entirely take the point about non-political crime. I just wanted to make it clear that I was referring only to that bit of the Bill when I mentioned the case. I was not suggesting that it was the prompt for the whole of this part. But can the Minister explain more about the impact of our leaving the EU? Does that give us a legal opportunity, or is this happening because it is a convenient political point in the calendar, as it were?
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the fact that I am going to say that I could not agree more with my noble friend Lady Ludford and will not add to that should not be taken to reduce the strength of that view I added my name to Amendment 122 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for the reasons she explained. After I did, I realised that there is a question to be asked about new subsection (E1), which makes it an offence for someone knowingly to arrive in the UK without an ETA, an electronic travel authorisation; I would say that it would be the same to enter, but I am not sure it would be possible to enter the UK without an ETA I feel very uncomfortable about new subsection (E1) which makes it an offence to do something under the ETA rules when we do not have those rules. The ETA is not in effect yet. Your Lordships may think it right, when we see what the scheme is, that an offence be created—but not at this stage.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. The Minister seems to be suggesting that this offence is going to be focused on the most egregious cases, but surely that is not a decision for government; that is a decision for the Crown Prosecution Service. Are the Government therefore giving instructions to the independent Crown Prosecution Service on which cases should be prosecuted and which cases should not?
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I just realised that what I meant to ask was whether the Minister has any comment on my point about creating an offence relating to the ETA before we really know how the ETA will operate.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, there are two amendments in this group. The first, Amendment 124A, is about offences under Clause 39, which cover the majority of immigration offences. It seeks to provide a mechanism whereby victims of crime can safely report offences to the police without fear of the police sharing that information for the purposes of enforcing offences under Clause 39. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, explained, if the Government are serious about going after the people smugglers, they need to protect the victims of those people smugglers so that those people can come forward and give evidence against them and convict them Amendment 140 is specifically about preventing the personal data of victims of, and witnesses to, domestic abuse from being used for any immigration control purpose. This is not just about domestic violence but about rape and sexual exploitation, all of them offences where victims are reluctant to report to the police what has happened to them for fear of not being believed. They are offences where there is universal agreement that more needs to be done to encourage victims and survivors to come forward, to charge those responsible and to convict the guilty I was a serving senior police officer when I was the victim of domestic violence and even I did not report it, so imagine what it must be like if victims or witnesses are also concerned, rightly or wrongly, about their immigration status, particularly where the perpetrator exploits those concerns to threaten the victim or witness that if she reports the abuse to the police, he will make sure that they are reported to the immigration authorities —let alone about the police passing on information unprompted by the suspect It is about priorities. I know that everything is a priority for this Government—whatever the Oral Question is about, the Answer is invariably "X is a priority"—but surely it is more important that a perpetrator of domestic violence and other unreported offences is convicted than that those instrumental in bringing the offender to justice are deported or removed. Of course, some might find that their concerns about their immigration status are unfounded, but you should not have to be a victim of crime to find that out The Government must do two things. First, they must not allow, as the amendments suggest, the personal data of migrant survivors of domestic abuse and other underreported crimes that are provided or used for the purposes of seeking or receiving support or assistance to be used for immigration control purposes Secondly, the Government should establish safe and confidential ways for people to establish their immigration status so that they can make informed decisions about taking steps to regularise their situation. That might even mean voluntary return, but they would maintain control. In other countries, helping overstayers to leave voluntarily is shown to be very effective compared with enforced removal. We strongly support the amendments.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Unless my brain has gone completely to mush at this late hour, I do not think that I objected to that at all. My point was about the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and breaching international law.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am terribly sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but there is no exemption for a rescuer from the offence. The person could be arrested and charged, because the defence is only for someone who is charged. Any rescuer is at risk of being arrested and charged, and having to prove in court that they were a genuine rescuer.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My understanding is that the Crown Prosecution Service makes decisions on the basis of the public interest and whether there is a 50% or more chance of conviction. To convict somebody, the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. For the person to be charged and to face a court hearing, that is not the standard of proof the Crown Prosecution Service applies. It is when it believes it has a 51% or more chance of conviction.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Minister is talking about evidential levels: the evidential level the prosecutor has to prove, versus the evidential level the defence has to prove. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about Her Majesty’s Coastguard being exempt—it does not commit an offence under this legislation. Anybody who is operating outside of working with it is not exempt. They can be arrested and charged, and then they have to prove that they were a genuine rescuer. That is the point.
Procedure and Privileges Committee — House of Lords, 2022-06-16
Topic: Law and Crime
Joan Walmsley (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the noble Lord raises a point that we might all be concerned about. I think Back-Benchers would like to know about these trigger points. I had not noticed that they were there. Back-Benchers would need to know what the criteria are, because people would always want to avoid them. There needs to be total agreement about the level of offence that would contravene one of the points. Perhaps the House might decide to accept such a trigger point, or perhaps it might not.
Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests — House of Lords, 2022-06-16
Topic: Foreign Trade
Claire Tyler (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): We read in the press today that it was indeed a trade issue that finally pushed the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, over the edge rather than partygate. Indeed, it was said at one point this morning that it was to do with commercially sensitive measures that would lead to a "purposeful breach of the Ministerial Code" Is the Minister able to cast any light on this?
Pig Farming — House of Lords, 2022-06-16
Topic: Agriculture
Angela Harris (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, especially on biosecurity, although I did not quite catch all that he said a moment ago when talking about the highest risk imports and border checks, which he says are adequate; we will see I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this very interesting debate and who have supported my concerns about the pig farming industry. My noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, have neatly summed up the contributions of your Lordships, so I will not repeat them. I look forward to continuing discussions on this important subject in the future.
Ukraine — House of Lords, 2022-06-16
Topic: International Affairs
Benjamin Stoneham (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I also welcome the actions that the British Government have taken to support the Ukrainian nation and its people, including welcoming the provision of multiple launch rocket systems. However, sometimes I get the impression—and the flavour of this Statement indicates this—that the Government think they are the only leading supporter of Ukraine. Actually, we as a nation should be more interested in partnerships being strengthened through this action with other nations, particularly through NATO and with the EU, because that is the organisation that is right on the doorstep of Ukraine We know that Russia is using hunger as a weapon of war, with the continued Russian blockade on Ukrainian Black Sea ports, where 98% of Ukrainian grain and wheat exports are harboured. We know that this is a deliberate tactic of war that will have catastrophic global reverberations. Is the UK involved in plans to release those grain stocks, particularly over land? Who are we working with to secure vital future food supplies from these sources The war in Ukraine and the global fallout that it has caused are a crisis of epic proportions, which makes the Government’s actions on international aid even more bewildering. Does the Minister really believe it is still appropriate to cut the international aid budget by 35%, as laid out in the Foreign Secretary’s international development strategy? How much of the £220 million pledged to Ukraine has already been delivered, and what impact has it had on the war and the humanitarian crisis? Is that money being kept quite separate from our normal overseas aid plans The Liberal Democrats campaigned hard to put pressure on this Government for the golden visa scandal to be ended. It saw thousands of visas granted to Putin’s associates, who laundered their dirty money and reputations in our country—the very same people whom the Government have now sanctioned. For months now the Government have told us that the review into the scandal will be published in due course, but little clarity has been forthcoming. Why are they delaying the publication of that report? Will the Minister confirm a timetable for publication? We welcome the concept of a Marshall aid plan, but, to be effective, that requires the wholehearted support not just of this country but principally of the USA and the EU. What discussions are taking place with the EU so that there is a genuine partnership to make best use of the limited available resources? Obviously Ukraine is likely to be the principal beneficiary of this aid but, given the migration, the problems in Ukraine’s economy and the impact in Europe, partnership in Europe is very important to the success of any Marshall aid programme. Will the Government please comment?
Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: International Affairs
Navnit Dholakia (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, Rwanda has been mentioned on a number of occasions and we now know the cost involved in detaining people there. Which other countries have been approached for similar arrangements and what has been the refusal rate?
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: Education
Dominic Hubbard (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I have listened to what the Minister has said, having not joined in on the debate on this amendment before. Are we saying that specialist schools which stand out from the normal run of schools are not expected to join because it goes against their ethos or because they do not fit in terribly well but that it is a jolly good idea if they do? This is a little confusing. We need some clarity before we move on. Effectively, the Government are saying that joining a multi-academy trust is a good idea but that these schools do not have to, but they then say that they want every school to join one. Can the Minister clarify this?
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: Education
Sarah Virginia Brinton (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am a signatory to Amendment 86 in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Storey, who unfortunately cannot be in his place today. Our amendment requires the funding formula to be accompanied by an assessment of the funding to support pupils disrupted by Covid and the ability of schools to support such pupils. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for going into a lot more detail than I propose to do this evening I want to make two points. The first is a broader one. The extra funding for post-Covid catch-up is welcome, but how much of it is essentially baseline budget, and what is the impact of that on small rural schools, versus the highly targeted catch-up funding for those pupils who need it? I will discuss one particular group of pupils in a minute I note that the notification on all schools and colleges that will receive the extra funding for catch-up, published by the Government recently, talks about the additional investment also supporting the delivery of a £30,000 starting salary for teachers, alongside a further £1.8 billion dedicated to supporting young people to catch up.
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: Education
Susan Garden (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend, who has raised some very serious issues. I will speak to Amendment 84 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Storey. This would require the funding formula to provide for transport costs for 16 to 18 year-olds on the same basis as those eligible children up to the age of 16. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for sort of agreeing with this amendment It is so important that children from poorer families should be helped to remain in education and training beyond the age of 16. The Liberal Democrats wish to introduce a young people’s premium, based on the same eligibility criteria as the pupil premium, but a portion of it would be paid directly to the young person aged 16 to 18 to support them with travel and other education-related costs. It is entirely logical that the core funding rate for full-time students aged 16 to 19 should match that of secondary school pupils The UK faces a serious skills deficit, with many business leaders expressing concern that too few workers have the necessary skills to meet their future job needs. We need young people to enter the work market having learned relevant skills while in education. We also call for grants rather than loans for those over 16. Those entering the workplace, as well as adults, are unlikely to want to take on repayable debt. Government support for enhanced education and training would benefit not just individuals but the country too We recognise that transport costs currently present an insurmountable barrier to many people who want to learn and achieve. Transport costs across England can be extremely high, and the availability of discounts or free travel for children and young people varies considerably by geographical location. This means that, in many places, and particularly in rural areas—my noble friend Lady Humphreys will say more about this shortly—transport costs can pose a fundamental barrier to children and young people accessing the education and training which is most appropriate to their abilities and aspirations Since the abolition of the education maintenance allowance, or EMA, the only outstanding student support is extremely limited. A young person can apply from their college or school sixth form, but it is not guaranteed; it is discretionary and cannot be relied on. It is not sufficient for the numbers who require support, and not necessarily sufficient for transport costs, let alone wider needs. It would certainly not be enough to cover transport costs for potential further travel to undertake work experience placements, for instance, as required by the Government’s beloved T-levels This is a very modest proposal which would have an enormously beneficial effect on many young people, and I urge the Minister to accept it.
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-06-15
Topic: Education
Christine Humphreys (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am pleased to follow my two noble friends. I wish to speak to Amendment 85, in the name of my noble friend Lord Storey, to which I have added my name. This amendment requires that the funding formula be accompanied by an impact assessment on state-funded schools in rural areas I live in a rural area of north Wales and, like other noble Lords, fully understand the vital importance of rural schools for their communities. If schools are forced to close, young families will not move to an area and this is not conducive to building the thriving, forward-looking rural communities that we wish to see. Rural schools are also an important employer. Even a small school with a handful of teachers will provide a range of other jobs—for example, in administration, caretaking, cooking and teaching assistance—that would be lost if the school closed. Crucially, as with other services, pupils should be able to access their schools within a reasonable travel time However, children in rural areas across England, such as Devon, are being short-changed and taken for granted by this Conservative Government. With the challenges ahead of us as education recovers from the pandemic, we cannot allow such children to be left behind in its wake. Why do I believe that children in rural England are being short-changed and are in danger of being left behind? According to the House of Commons Library, schools in Devon receive £345 less per pupil than the national average across the UK. This difference in funding obviously has an impact on school budgets, which needs to be analysed and recognised through an impact assessment. Any adverse impact of the funding formula on staffing and the quality of education provided, for example, needs to be assessed and addressed So much can be done to help rural schools. An impact assessment could help point the way forward, to fund schemes such as those my Liberal Democrat colleague Kirsty Williams implemented in Wales when she was Cabinet Secretary for Education. I know that this Schools Bill does not apply to Wales because education there is devolved, but I cite it as an example. In government, Kirsty Williams introduced a rural schools strategy, including a £2.5 million per year grant for rural and small schools to be used for improving digital technology, supporting collaboration between schools or providing administrative support in schools—