argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Natalie Bennett (Green Party, Left): My Lords, I rise with great pleasure in following the three noble Baronesses who have proposed this amendment Outside Yarl’s Wood detention centre, at the "Set Her Free" protest, I listened to some incredibly powerful and moving speeches from women who had been detained in that centre and had then come back to protest. They spoke about what the experience was like and what they had been through. They showed huge bravery. We talk a lot about trauma in your Lordships’ House; you could hear the trauma in those women’s voices I see that the noble Baroness the Minister will not be answering this question, and I do not necessarily expect her to remember this, but in June 2020 when I was still a new Member of your Lordships’ House, she was kind enough to have a one-on-one call with me after I went with the South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group to Urban House in Wakefield, where the conditions were absolutely dreadful. We saw SYMAAG trying to pick up the pieces after the failure of government services to meet the most basic provisions That is why I want to make this particular point: much of the provision covered by the noble Baroness’s amendment is currently being filled, patchily and inadequately but desperately bravely and with huge effort, by voluntary groups such as SYMAAG, as well as many others like them around the country. They cannot possibly do an adequate job, but they do an amazing job. The point I want to make to the Minister is that, with adequate government provision, those groups could do so many other positive things to build communities and be an active growth force instead of just trying to plug the Government’s gaps There is a real long-term cost. If we look at the financial cost of the lack of provision that this amendment provides for, the long-term cost is far greater than the cost of providing care for desperate people who are in our society and are our responsibility.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Natalie Bennett (Green Party, Left): My Lords, I am sure the Committee will be pleased to hear that I am not going to engage with all the ways in which I disagree with the perspective of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots. I will address these amendments specifically While I do not necessarily disagree with the intention in Amendment 138 to seek more information, this is entirely in the wrong place and creates confusion. Despite the Long Title of the Bill being about immigration, it is overwhelmingly focused on issues of asylum and refugees. As we have said in other debates, mixing up the right to asylum and the refugee commitments we have made over the course of decades with issues of migration is a real category error. Amendment 138 should not be here I particularly want to comment on Amendment 141, which is a call for a report on the operation and effectiveness of the Home Office. In relation to subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, a disturbing perspective is that one of the Home Office’s great problems is that it has two jobs: one is to police and control; it is also supposed to facilitate and assist people coming to the UK when they arrive here. Given its association with the phrase "hostile environment", it is known for controlling and policing, rather than for facilitating and assisting. Following the Windrush scandal, the Green Party proposed that the Home Office should be split into a ministry of the interior, focused on law and order, and a department focused on providing support and assistance for refugees and migrants. That would make a lot of sense. Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which talks about efficiency including fairness, addresses this to some degree. However, if we are to have any kind of assessment of the Home Office, we cannot look at one side without looking at the other Given the hour, I shall stop there.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Natalie Bennett (Green Party, Left): My Lords, I express the Green group’s support for everything said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee, Lady Lister, Lady Neuberger and Lady Ludford, and for all the attempts to rein in the Government’s intention here. We have all received many briefings addressing this, but I shall refer to that from the British Association of Social Workers, which speaks of the Government "ploughing ahead despite warnings from the sector" As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, those warnings of course include the absolute medical experts in this area. If we were to take advice here from either the medical experts or Migration Watch, I know which I would take I want to make one observation and take the Chamber back 12 hours to when the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, in an Oral Question on international development, spoke about a child being born in Sudan on the floor, with the umbilical cord severed with a stick. Think about what the life of a child growing up in those circumstances is like. That child will probably look, sound and behave differently from a gently nurtured child in the British environment. It may be hard to identify their age, but they are still developmentally a child. They still have the vulnerabilities of the British child; indeed, given all the experiences that they have likely been through, it is not hard to imagine that they have far more vulnerabilities, which we have a responsibility to protect. That responsibility is moral, but also legal.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Natalie Bennett (Green Party, Left): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was utterly to the point and delivered a very clear message which left me slightly surprised in how quickly she managed to do it We are talking about penalising individuals who might want to visit a grandchild, or come to study, who do not have control of their country’s visa regime. We are saying that we are going to cut those people off on that basis. We are saying, "Country X has to do what it is told." As the noble Baroness said, this is no way to be a global citizen, as, indeed, is the case with many parts of this Bill However, I will finish this evening, given the hour, by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on democracy and trade agreements. I hope she will embrace democracy around all elements of trade agreements.
Building Safety Bill — House of Lords, 2022-04-26
Topic: Housing
Natalie Bennett (Green Party, Left): My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and to hear that he intends to keep a close eye on this, because that will clearly be needed well into the future I rise to offer Green support for Motions D1 and H1 and to make a single point about how I see these fitting together. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others said that the leaseholders are the absolutely innocent parties here—but, more than that, it is important to say that they are the injured parties. They have been injured over years and years of stress and worry, both financial and about their physical safety, given where they are forced to live. Think about going to bed every night fearful about what is going to happen. They are the victims of the policies of successive Governments who have allowed the building industry to act as a cash cow rather than a provider of secure, affordable, decent homes There are still a lot of steps down the road, but if we pass Motions D1 and H1 we give those leaseholders and owners the clarity and certainty that they will be looked after, whether or not their building is under 11 metres, and that they will not be hit with a bill that they still cannot afford to pay, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said I was tempted to say that your Lordships’ House should put one last heave behind the Building Safety Bill, but then I thought that was a slightly unfortunate metaphor in the context we are talking about. I will pick up what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said: the campaigners have done so much work and have fought so long and hard on this. Let us buttress that and put in the final supports they need to get the Bill we should have.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — House of Lords, 2022-04-26
Topic: Civil Rights
Natalie Bennett (Green Party, Left): My Lords, I rise briefly to offer the Green group’s support for Motions A1 and B1. Another thought the police might have to consider is the historical place: how their judgment might be judged, both at that moment and later in history I have on my office wall a cartoon from Punch about the suffragettes. It has a whole series of episodes from a Minister’s day. It starts with the Minister in his bath. The suffragettes shout "Votes for women" through his window and he jumps up in horror. He then goes on the golf course. The suffragettes leap out of a bunker and shout "Votes for women". He then breathes a sigh of relief when he gets to the House. The suffragettes appear through his window, shouting "Votes for women" I do not know whether the Minister knows "The March of the Women", one of the suffragettes’ anthems. It starts: "Shout, shout, up with your song! Cry with the wind for the dawn is breaking … Loud and louder it swells, Thunder of freedom" Noisy protest has been, and is, a central part of our democracy. It has been a central part of creating our democracy. Protest—having your voice heard—is not and must not be a crime.
Food Insecurity in Developing Countries due to Blockade of Ukrainian Ports — House of Lords, 2022-07-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Natalie Bennett (Green Party, Left): Well, I have one sentence, to finish, about that transnational land ownership. In the Victorian-era British Empire, men who stood in this very Chamber forced Indian soldiers, abused into submission by the vicious repression after the Great Rebellion, to guard trains that were taking away desperately needed food from their wives and children, to be shipped to these shores—
Slavery and Human Trafficking (Definition of Victim) Regulations 2022 — House of Lords, 2022-07-20
Topic: Immigration
Jennifer Jones (Green Party, Left): My Lords, I support the regret amendment and I wish we could use something stronger. It has been a long slog since December 2019 with all the legislation that has come through and this little painful reminder of the Nationality and Borders Bill is part of the problem that we have had to face. A lot of this legislation is cruel and uses new definitions for things that we thought were settled some time ago These regulations seem to be deliberately drafted to disregard the international norms around slavery and trafficking; they create special UK definitions that limit government assistance to a narrow category of survivors. Regulation 2(2)(a) has already been mentioned. It specifies that when determining whether somebody has been enslaved you have to consider "any of the person’s personal circumstances … that significantly impair the person’s ability" This is victim blaming, pure and simple. The Government are proposing that normal people who can "protect themselves" from being subjected to slavery are unlikely to be genuine victims of enslavement. I do not understand why any Government would do this to people who have been trafficked In my view, the Government do not want to help enslaved people; they simply want to label these people as illegal immigrants or economic migrants and deport them as fast as possible. It is a cruel piece of legislation, giving effect to a cruel policy The lack of consultation is quite appalling and I echo all the requests for the Minister to explain that. If there had been consultation, I think this would be a very different set of regulations. I think the problem here is that the Government do not actually intend to support all victims of slavery and human trafficking and I think that diminishes us as a nation.
Schools Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-07-12
Topic: Other
Natalie Bennett (Green Party, Left): My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this unplanned and, I think, quite fruitful debate. I particularly thank Members opposite, including the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Wei, who expressed support for my direction. I note the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, who brings vastly more experience to your Lordships’ House than I do on the way forward here. I also take on board the comments from the noble Lords, Lord Knight, Lord Kennedy and Lord Addington, in particular, about the amount of work that has gone into Report. I fully acknowledge that. I shall not push my suggestion to a vote at this point. I think the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, is something we can talk about and consider as a way forward on whether we proceed with Third Reading. For the moment, I am not quite sure what the form is, but I withdraw my proposal.
Procedure and Privileges Committee — House of Lords, 2022-07-05
Topic: Other
Jennifer Jones (Green Party, Left): My Lords, as the first woman to speak in this debate, I would like to say that I support the original idea from the Procedure Committee. I thank the Senior Deputy Speaker for bringing this to a vote, which I was very concerned about. This does not go far enough for me. I think we are limiting ourselves by starting so late in the day. I also apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for attempting to reply in his place. I am really sorry about that. I will do my best not to do it again, but that is not a promise, just a hope Society has changed and this House is not keeping up with society. There are people here now who actually have happy home lives. We do not want to stay for social stuff. We do not want to be collegiate. We want to do the job and then go home perhaps and have a glass of wine with our partner rather than, forgive me, other noble Lords For me, it is a dinosaur move. Before noble Lords take offence at the idea of dinosaurs, they were an incredibly successful life system. They lasted millions of years. But, of course, they were defeated by a climate catastrophe that they did not realise was coming—just let me throw that in there.
Procedure and Privileges Committee — House of Lords, 2022-07-05
Topic: Other
Jennifer Jones (Green Party, Left): Yes, there was no Green Party I have visits at all times of the day. I would be interested in knowing the exact details of educational visits and I personally will set some up for schoolchildren, I hope when the House of Commons is actually sitting so that they are not excluded from there The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said lots of things that I disagree with. One of the things he said was that the House of Lords is held in contempt. My experience is that the House of Lords now has more credit given to it than it ever has since I joined—admittedly I am a new Member of only nine years.
Procedure and Privileges Committee — House of Lords, 2022-07-05
Topic: Other
Jennifer Jones (Green Party, Left): Then it is the House of Commons that really needs to change its procedures. I will look in Hansard and check what the noble Lord said I speak as an old woman here. The noble Lord, Lord Moore, used the term "old women" pejoratively. Perhaps I can urge him not to do that again.
UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-07-04
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Natalie Bennett (Green Party, Left): My Lords, it was not my intention to speak on this group but, given that all the non-government speakers have been from the other side of the House, I felt I should offer an argument from this side of the House that is perhaps 180 degrees opposite to that presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but, none the less, makes an argument for either Amendment 6 or Amendment 24 The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested that she preferred private bankers to public bankers. Private bankers have been left to provide the direction for our economy and society over the past few decades and look where that has got us: we are having to talk from all sides of the House about the urgent need to level up and to tackle poverty, inequality, our climate emergency and the nature crisis. Therefore, we need to make sure that the bank is not crowding out private finance. If it is, it is spending money in the wrong places. It needs to be doing things that are innovative and different from what we have been doing up to now. That is why I encourage either the mover of Amendment 6 or those speaking to Amendment 24 to consider testing the opinion of House, and I offer them Green support.
National Security and Investment Bill — House of Lords, 2021-04-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Natalie Bennett (Green Party, Left): My Lords, I will be brief, but I wanted to speak in this debate having spoken on similar amendments in Committee. I oppose Amendments 11 and 12—I will reserve judgment on Amendment 13 until I have heard the full debate—and find myself in the unusual position of supporting the Government’s proposed legislation and opposing changes to it The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in introducing Amendment 13, talked about the pressure from bureaucratic processes; these amendments are trying to impose a pressure for speed. We hear talk of not wanting these rules to slow things down or to have too many limits or controls. This very much reflects the kind of language we have heard about "cutting red tape". I always go back to the words of the hazards at work campaign: better red tape than red bandages. What are referred to as red tape are very often the rules that keep us safe, protect us and ensure our security, in the terms of this Bill I wanted to make sure that the Government hear voices from the other side in this debate, saying that we have to privilege the public good and national security. Processes must take as long as they need to take to be done properly and have full and proper scrutiny.
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill — House of Lords, 2021-01-12
Topic: Other
Natalie Bennett (Green Party, Left): I thank the Minister for her answer. I am aware this may not be entirely popular in the House, but I really feel this is an important issue the Government have not got to grips with. I am aware we have a long evening ahead of us, but none the less, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Domestic Abuse Bill — House of Lords, 2021-04-21
Topic: Other
Jennifer Jones (Green Party, Left): My Lords, I had a few calm sentences worked out in response to this Motion, and completely scrapped them once I read the Commons disagreement amendments in lieu and reasons, because the reasons that the Commons have given for rejecting our amendments are absolutely pathetic I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, of whom I am very fond, when he says that non-lawyers should not get involved in lawyerly debates. Here in your Lordships’ House I see lawyers arguing ferociously about tiny issues on opposite sides of the Chamber. Lawyers often do not agree, and therefore at times we have to have some common sense.
Domestic Abuse Bill — House of Lords, 2021-02-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Natalie Bennett (Green Party, Left): My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I agree with him that these two amendments, Amendment 174 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, and Amendment 182 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Hunt, are complementary and, I would add, an essential part of the Bill to make it the complete package. Your Lordships are trying to make the Bill the best that it can be I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in reflecting on the valuable advice given by the designate domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales throughout the Bill. That advice noted that, while the BEIS best practice guide offers suggestions and advice that pretty much reflects these two amendments, its recommendations are only voluntary. Yet if we look around the world and, as we so often do, at New Zealand, we see an example of a place where this is part of the statutory provision that gives workers the protection they need. I note the TUC submission to that BEIS review of this issue. It included something that is probably covered by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, if not explicitly spelled out: the need for flexible working arrangements. We can well understand that, in the turmoil of surviving and escaping domestic abuse, flexible work might well be essential.
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2021-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Natalie Bennett (Green Party, Left): My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for tabling Amendment 23. My noble friend and I do not usually speak on the same amendment, but there is a particular range of issues that I want to speak to on this one—issues that no other noble Lords have addressed. I am talking about controlling advertising, a fast-rising area of concern When I talk about advertising I also mean some of the broader online issues such as product placement and payments to influencers, which are effectively indirect forms of advertising. This is where I agree with a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, yesterday, which may surprise the House. He expressed concern about differential controls on advertising for broadcasters in the UK, which do not apply online. Yet we know that consumption of media is very much blending now; indeed, the divisions between broadcast and online material, from consumers’ point of view, are pretty artificial these days In some areas we already have quite tight controls in the UK for broadcasters and others—on smoking advertising, for example, as well as some controls on gambling advertising, and limited controls on alcohol advertising. We have also seen, particularly in the London underground, controls on the advertising of unhealthy food. As we start to face up to our role as chair of COP26, and face the climate emergency and the nature crisis, a broader concern about advertising is rising, in relation to its place in driving consumption, and driving the destruction of our planet The amendment is about children in particular. It is Green Party policy that all advertising directed at primary school age pupils, who psychologists tell us cannot distinguish between advertising and programmes, or editorial content, should be banned. In the online context, it should be possible to create a situation in which we can protect children up to a certain age from online advertising I note that just before Christmas, on a question about gambling advertising, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, speaking for the Government, said: "We very much welcome moves by the major platforms that give individuals greater control".—[Official Report, 14/12/20; col. 1518.] over gambling advertising. Should a future Government decide to enforce even the rights of users to block advertising, I suggest that we do not want to see trade Bills stopping that happening I conclude by referring to what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said. What we are talking about here is giving guidance and democratic control—sovereign control—to our trade negotiators in future trade deals.