argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Criminal Cases Review Commission (Information) Bill — House of Lords, 2016-05-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill—which is something of a misnomer in review of the eminent rank that he achieved in his professional life. The Bill confers powers on the commission to obtain, with the leave of the court, material that may assist it in the exercise of its important functions in reviewing the validity of convictions I suspect that the Guardian may not be the Minister’s journal of choice for reading at breakfast, or perhaps at all, but by coincidence it published last week a disturbing critique by Eric Allison, its respected prisons correspondent, of the working of the commission. The report was prompted by a decision of the Court of Appeal that two men who had served 24 years in prison between them after being convicted of crimes that they did not commit were not entitled to compensation. This outcome perhaps reflects a flaw in the system rather than in the court’s judgment, and I invite the Minister to undertake a review of the position with a view to empowering the courts to order compensation where they deem it to be appropriate after quashing a conviction. The article contains further disturbing material. The commission now receives 130 applications a month, while in addition the universities that run the Innocence Project receive two or three a week. Of course, not all of these will be justified, but it would appear that the commission is struggling to carry out its important role. The commission’s chair says that for every £10 being spent on a case 10 years ago he now has just £4 with which to carry out the work, while the workload has increased by 70%. It is true that only a minority of cases are referred, but of those, 70% succeed on appeal Mr Allison is sceptical about the implicit conclusion that most claimants are making false claims, not least because while a claim is pending they will not get parole or better conditions. But even if that were wrong, justice surely demands more support for the commission’s work, not least when one of the contributory causes of wrong convictions is inadequate legal support during the original trial. Given the potential impact of legal aid cuts on the preparation and conduct of trials, that is something that may get worse, I hope that the Minister, who has facilitated the passage of the Bill and to whom the House is indebted in that respect, will discuss these matters with the commission and ensure that it has the resources required to carry out its duties effectively in this important area of the criminal justice system.
Licensing Act 2003 (Her Majesty The Queen’s Birthday Licensing Hours) Order 2016 — House of Lords, 2016-05-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose of the order, which we support. I had better indicate that right at the beginning, since the Minister may get the impression from some of the points I want to raise that perhaps we do not support the order—so I say from the start that we do The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the outcome of the consultation on the order. It states that all the "partner agencies" that were consulted replied in the affirmative to the three questions being asked, with the exception of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. It seems that the APCC considered the order, "disruptive to planning police resources", and felt that it posed an, "increased risk of alcohol-related disorder" I have to say that its concerns are immediately swatted aside in the Explanatory Memorandum in one sentence: "However, the Government is not aware of any evidence of alcohol-related disorder during periods covered by previous Licensing Hours Orders" It is interesting that there is no impact assessment to address this point and that related to police resources, among others. It is also interesting that the organisation whose concerns have been, frankly, so abruptly dismissed by the Government in the Explanatory Memorandum is the one that represents and speaks on behalf of the elected police and crime commissioners, whom the Government created to increase public accountability of the police and to ensure that, through them, public concerns could be reflected and addressed. The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that, if the elected, accountable police and crime commissioners—who should know what the impact of the order may be in their own areas better than the Government—express concerns that are contrary to the Government’s stance, their concerns will carry little weight Perhaps the Minister could comment on that and, in the absence of an impact assessment, perhaps he could at least expand on the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum—which I quote again—that, "the Government is not aware of any evidence of alcohol-related disorder during periods covered by previous Licensing Hours Orders" Does that sentence mean that in the additional hours covered by previous licensing hours orders there were no incidents at all throughout the country of alcohol-related disorder? If that is the case, frankly, that is unbelievable. Or is it meant to mean that the total number of incidents of alcohol-related disorder on the nights when there were extended hours under previous orders was no greater in total than the number of such incidents on a normal night without extended hours?
Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 — House of Lords, 2016-05-05
Topic: Environment
Margaret Beryl Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for what the Minister has said, but he did not answer the critical question of why the Government did not foresee this. They created regulations that were predicated on the Green Deal, in the knowledge that they were already questioning the future of the Green Deal. It would have made sense to anticipate that when the original regulations were drawn up in 2015. We would not be in this situation now, had the Government had a little more foresight. Will the Minister respond to that?
BBC Charter White Paper — House of Lords, 2016-05-11
Topic: Technology
Raymond Collins (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the response to the Urgent Question. As we have heard, the White Paper will be published tomorrow. However, the pre-briefing over the last few weeks has, in my opinion, been extremely unhelpful. It makes me wonder whether the strategy is to make it sound so awful that the not-so-bad outcome becomes acceptable The Secretary of State reassured my noble friend in the other place that the White Paper would pass the three key tests that many noble Lords in this House have set for the White Paper’s impact on the BBC: financial independence, editorial independence and maintaining programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain. I hope that the noble Baroness will reassure us that proper time will be set aside for a full debate in addition to the Statement tomorrow. But irrespective of the debate, what opportunity will Parliament have to challenge or remedy proposals if it finds that the White Paper fails to reassure noble Lords on independence Does the Minister think that government appointments to a new unitary board, which would have responsibility for editorial decision-making, would pass the test for the BBC’s independence? Also, organisations as big and as broad as the BBC need time to implement change and the independence to do so. Therefore, does the Minister really believe that it is in the interests of the viewing public to conduct a review every five years, which will inevitably mean the BBC focusing resources on that rather than on making popular programmes that we all enjoy? Does the Minister believe that the introduction of this five-year review will enhance or diminish the BBC’s independence?
BBC Charter White Paper — House of Lords, 2016-05-11
Topic: Technology
Genista Mary McIntosh (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, if the Minister is really unable to tell the difference between a state broadcaster and an independent broadcaster, we have great reason to be worried. However, will she please return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Alli and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler: that it is not really good enough to refer to the important issue of whether there will be a vote on proposals for the BBC as merely a matter for the usual channels? It is not that kind of vote we are after. Could she please try to answer the question?
Hillsborough — House of Lords, 2016-04-27
Topic: Law and Crime
David Blunkett (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I crave noble Lords’ indulgence for a moment while I say where I come from. I was a new Member of Parliament covering the area around the Hillsborough stadium in 1989 and I am now married to a doctor who was a volunteer in the hospital in Sheffield on that evening. I myself visited some of those who were injured that weekend I commend the Statement and I commend the families and those working with them for seeking and gaining the truth and looking for justice. I hope very much that the work of Bishop James Jones will be able to incorporate the proposals of my noble friend Lord Wills, which were debated three months ago in this House and to which I contributed. I hope that the Minister agrees that they would contribute towards meeting the challenge of ensuring that families in circumstances such as these do not have to go through what those families have gone through over the last 27 years. I have a question for the Minister. In dealing with the immediate future, it will surely be crucial that the people of South Yorkshire, many of whom played a signal part on that day by taking people into their homes, letting them use their landlines and, in many cases, running people back to Merseyside, do not now pay the penalty of costs arising from further investigation and work on top of the costs that have been incurred. Nor should members of the force, most of whom are dedicated, committed officers, find themselves in a situation where they cannot carry out their duties properly. Would it not be a fitting tribute if we were able to move forward with sensitivity and rationality in ensuring that the people of Merseyside receive the justice and truth that they have sought, and that the people of South Yorkshire do not find themselves penalised, financially or in terms of policing, because of what happened 27 years ago?
Hillsborough — House of Lords, 2016-04-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Stewart Martin Wood (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Minister said earlier that we would have to wait until criminal cases had finished before we—to use his phrase—"consider" phase 2 of Leveson. However, I remind him of what the Prime Minister said after phase 1 of Leveson in November 2012: "When I set up the inquiry, I also said that there would be a second part to investigate wrongdoing in the press and the police".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/12; col. 446.] He went on to say: "It is right that it should go ahead, and that is fully our intention".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/12; col. 458.] I understand why criminal cases have to proceed before phase 2 can begin. However, can the Minister assure us that it will begin once those cases have finished, and that the Government will not then reconsider whether it should happen at all?
Hillsborough — House of Lords, 2016-04-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Oliver Faulkner (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I may be the only member of your Lordships’ House who was present at Hillsborough 27 years ago. I subsequently gave evidence to Lord Justice Taylor’s inquiry and to the Hillsborough Independent Panel. I join all other Members in commending both the Statement and the contributions from all sides of the Chamber today. This House has matched the mood perfectly. I think that the victims’ families will feel that they have been vindicated, certainly as far as this House is concerned. I have just one question. Does the Minister agree that what has made the victims’ families’ agony so much more unbearable has been the refusal by the South Yorkshire police force, consistently over the last 27 years, up to and including the period of the inquest itself, to put up their hands up and admit that they were at fault?
Hillsborough — House of Lords, 2016-04-27
Topic: Technology
Dave Watts (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister is aware of the damage that was done by the media over this issue but one individual, Kelvin MacKenzie, has special responsibility. Does the Minister agree that no broadcaster should employ Kelvin MacKenzie, given his past record?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am sorry to delay proceedings, but I am a little confused by Amendment 1. As I understand the Bill, the banning order offences are to be specified in regulations which we have not seen. They will define the nature of the offences that can lead to a banning order. Under Clause 14(2), if a banning order is made against a corporate body, it must be made at the same time in the case of "any officer" involved in "the same offence". Under Clause 13(1)(c), the banning order applies to people involved in "property management work", yet the amendment seeks to exclude people employed under a contract of employment. The Bill goes on at page 26 to define who these employees are. They are defined as, "any director, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or … any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity" How can we possibly exclude people who are the directors of a company? I understand that it is quite usual for directors themselves to have contracts of employment. Are they somehow to be excluded from responsibility which might lead to a banning order when in fact they may well have taken the decision that led to the banning order having to be introduced? I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the position One of the problems is that in the Bill there are references to different groups of people, but I think they are actually all meant to be the same—that is, people who are involved in property management, people who are property managers and people who are officers, and I think that there is another category as well. Perhaps the Bill should have been clearer in defining these particular different individuals and describing them in one particular form instead of under three different headings.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-27
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): I chose the CPI because it is generally the Government’s preferred option. I thought it might be pushing the boat out a little too far to go for RPI. However, if the amendment is carried, I hope very much that the noble Lord will have a word with his colleagues in the other place and improve on it in the way he suggests. I would be perfectly happy with that outcome and I suspect he is more likely to persuade them than I am. I beg to move the amendment as it stands at this point.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-27
Topic: Social Welfare
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I support Amendment 8 because I have still not been given a satisfactory explanation for why the thresholds have been reduced from those that were used in the voluntary scheme. There is no evidence base for that. However, my main reason for speaking now is to seek clarification on a point raised by the Minister on Report and to reiterate a concern that I have raised all along Twice on Report, at cols. 470 and 472 on 18 April, the Minister said that tax credits, child benefit and disability living allowance would not be taken into account as income. That is welcome, but as she knows, DLA is gradually being replaced by the personal independence payment and only those who are currently of retirement age will continue to receive DLA in the long term. Can she confirm that PIP will also be excluded, because otherwise the commitment to disregard DLA is not worth very much? She also made it clear that other exemptions would be made in the regulations and kindly referred to the case I made with regard to those with caring responsibilities and people who are subject to domestic violence. Is she yet able to say, first, whether carer’s allowance will be exempt under the regulations and, secondly, what provision will be made to protect those whose accommodation has been adapted, either for reasons of accessibility or under the domestic violence sanctuary scheme?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-27
Topic: Social Welfare
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and for moving this amendment. As other noble Lords have said, this has come a long way and we welcome that, but in some ways it has not gone far enough. I thank the Government and noble Baroness for what she has proposed today. It would be helpful when the noble Baroness responds if she can repeat her remarks about disabled people and elderly people. I think I was distracted and did not quite hear what she said.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-27
Topic: Government Operations
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): That is not what the amendment says. It does not draw a distinction between the two classes of employee that the noble Viscount has referred to. He is drawing a distinction between directors and what he calls normal employees, and it is not clear from the amendment that that is what he is doing there.
Armed Forces Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I worked out before this evening that Amendments 1 and 2 were, in fact, Amendment 3 in Grand Committee on 1 March. Mindful of the guidance in the Companion, that arguments fully developed in Committee should not be repeated on Report, I took the trouble to read the report of the Grand Committee. At the time, I indicated that I was to some extent attracted to some of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I said: "I am putting a burden on the Government, today and perhaps in subsequent meetings and in writing, to argue the case for why we should not move in the general direction of these amendments and make the whole process for the defendant more analogous to that of a civil court".—[Official Report, 1/3/16; col. GC 48.] I still cleave to that general direction. The Minister then made a spirited defence, stretching from col. 50 to col. 54, which I read and also found persuasive in the sense that making small changes is likely to have unforeseen consequences which might be difficult. I have heard nothing today to change my general direction of travel. The Government should consider examining in the Ministry of Defence, perhaps in concert with the Ministry of Justice, whether the decision-making process where the citizen is on trial—the member of the Armed Forces becomes a citizen at this point—should not be closer to the civil system Moving in that direction would create some significant change and there may well be some significant consequences. I am not convinced that today’s amendments would not have unforeseen deleterious effects. Accordingly, these Benches will not be able to support them. We ask the Government to think seriously about the arguments that have been brought forward in Committee and on Report, and to look at the extent to which there should be some movement towards the citizen when on trial having much closer rights and a similar process to the civilian courts.
Armed Forces Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Alan William John West (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am still on the active list. I have been for 50 years now, and will remain on it until I die, unlike the noble Earl. I have been president of a court martial and on a court martial board, and have been court-martialled myself. I have also read Hansard from the previous debate. Although the system is not broke, we do need to look at possible changes, but we need to be very wary about how we move forward. I thought the arguments deployed by the Minister in Committee were very convincing.
Armed Forces Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-27
Topic: Government Operations
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, discharging our responsibility as the Opposition, I have carefully read the Minister’s letter of 11 April and studied the 21st report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and Amendments 3 and 4, and I am satisfied that they meet the committee’s concern. They have our support.
Armed Forces Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-27
Topic: Government Operations
James Donnelly Touhig (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, we have had a short but very good debate, with some very well-founded comments. The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about confidence were very important. In my view, the best way to get confidence is transparency. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised wider issues about the complaints covered by the amendments. He is right, and the Minister has indicated that the review that will be carried out will cover the kind of things that he is concerned about. We certainly welcome the Minister’s response to this debate. It has showed, from Committee to Report, that the Government have listened, taken on board the views of colleagues all around the House, and are prepared to act. They should have our full support, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Armed Forces Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-27
Topic: Education
Frank Ashcroft Judd (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, of course I thank the Minister for his very full reply. I listened to his admonishments about the things that he believes I have got wrong. I am afraid that I do not accept those admonishments and suggest that a report would give him the opportunity to set out in more detail for all to see the evidence behind what he keeps emphasising is the commitment to education. In saying that, I will again put on record how much I admire the dedication and work of many of those doing what is required of them. But even at this stage of the debate, and within all the constraints of practice, I wish to comment on the important points which the Minister has made before I close Functional skills provided by the Army are not the equivalent of GCSE grades D to G, as the Wolf Review of Vocational Education made clear. GCSE courses are longer and much more involved than functional skills courses, despite their notionally comparable educational level. They are an interim qualification only, designed to lead to GCSEs. In a House of Commons debate on 25 November 2013, it emerged that no more than 20 soldiers across the entire Army of all ages had gained a GCSE in English or maths in each of the past five years. I emphasise: 20 soldiers of all ages These are just some of the facts which do not altogether substantiate the fulsome position that the Minister likes to take. I hope that he will forgive my drawing this to his attention. A report would give him an opportunity to refute in detail, with evidence, the criticisms and to establish his case There is much I could say about complying with all relevant children’s legislation. However, I will just point out that the Armed Forces are exempt from most relevant legislation. As an employer, the forces, for example, are not required to ensure that all staff who work in direct contact with children have criminal record checks, despite living alongside recruits in training camps. No sixth form, public school or state school would be allowed to do that The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was a little concerned by what I said about the recruitment process. I wish that the reality of the experience bore out what he claimed. There is no obligation on recruiters to meet parents or guardians at any stage in the process. Minors can be enlisted without their parent or guardian having attended any meeting with Army staff or any selection event. A signed consent form is required at the very end of the process but the Armed Forces have no way of verifying that the signatures are genuine. Neither parent nor guardian—