argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Easter Recess: Government Update — House of Lords, 2022-04-25
Topic: Law and Crime
Natalie Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Baroness’s question involved a lot of "ifs", and I am afraid I am not going to speculate. The police investigation is under way. What I can say on the basis of what has happened is that the Prime Minister has offered a full and unreserved apology, he has made it clear that he respects the outcome of the police investigation—as I said, that is still under way—and he has paid the fine that has been issued to him and has apologised fully.
Easter Recess: Government Update — House of Lords, 2022-04-25
Topic: International Affairs
Natalie Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sure that if the Prime Minister said he would study it, he will. What I can say is that we are continuing to gather evidence to assist ongoing investigations into crimes committed in Ukraine, such as the ICC investigation. We have led 41 states to refer atrocities to the ICC and we are providing additional funding to it. UK military and police are providing technical assistance to the investigations. The Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit has commenced the collection of evidence, and we are working very closely with the Ukrainian Government. We have also appointed a former ICC judge, Sir Howard Morrison, as an independent adviser to the Ukrainian prosecutor-general, and we have welcomed the OSCE’s Moscow Mechanism report, which is the first independent report to identify evidence of potential Russian war crimes in Ukraine I reassure the noble Baroness that we are leading action in this area and we will continue to do so, because we want to ensure that all perpetrators are brought to justice for crimes that have been committed in Ukraine.
Health and Care Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-03
Topic: Social Welfare
Syed Kamall (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank all noble Lords who have raised important points in this debate; I also thank them for accepting some of the amendments that we have tabled in response to their engagement. That engagement was very constructive, and I hope that as they look to hold the Government to account we will continue to have engagement on these issues First, I shall deal with a couple of specific questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, again asked about the identifier. As I have made clear, the report will include an explanation of the Government’s policy on a consistent identifier for children. It will also include our approach and actions to implement the recommendations in the report We all agree that the principle of a consistent identifier is right, but there are complex issues in applying that consistent identifier in safeguarding children. This is why we want to investigate all the issues thoroughly in a report that will be laid before Parliament a year after commencement. There is one issue in which I am personally interested—I am sure noble Lords will remember that I geeked out on this one. I think there are some technical solutions, but I can also see some technical unintended consequences. I myself will look very closely at the report, especially at the technical solutions Like other noble Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lord Shinkwin; it is good to see him back. I thank him for engaging with me—almost from his hospital bed, I think, which demonstrates his commitment to these issues. He talked about speech and language therapy, and the Government recognise the importance of communications needs, and the important part that they play in children’s development. We will work with stakeholders on the development of guidance, and ensure that we engage with the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.
Health and Care Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-03
Topic: Social Welfare
Michael Farmer (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and other noble Lords, for their support, and I thank the Ministers for helping on the direction of travel for family hubs, and for family hubs being included in statutory guidance for integrated care services and bespoke guidance specifically covering family help. However, we are talking about the bronze medal position. Gold medal is primary legislation, silver is secondary, and statutory guidance is bronze, although at least we are on the podium. As the Minister said, this is ongoing. They are awaiting the review of children’s local care evaluations from 75 local authorities. I will be with them on the journey. That is all that I can say, as it is ongoing Amendment 75 still presents a possible risk of imposing an additional burden on local authorities in their delivery of local services. Given that I have mirrored what the Children Act 1989 says regarding now defunct family centres, the Government should really consider amending this themselves if it inappropriately burdens local authorities. In any event, I welcome the Government’s movement. I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Health and Care Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-03
Topic: Government Operations
Andrew Lansley (Conservative, Centre-right): I am most grateful to my noble friend and for the support of noble Lords for the concept. I hope the CQC will find that this assists it in ensuring that it remains independent in how it goes about its job, and, indeed, how it derives indicators of quality and fitness for purpose. I take my noble friend’s point about what objectives might be. They might be, for example, objectives of the nature of the service that the review should cover so the Government might have some national priorities. I think the word "priorities" would have been sufficient. I confess to my noble friend that I did not understand why the Secretary of State might come in and direct the CQC to change its indicators. It would have been perfectly reasonable for the Secretary of State to have waited and seen what the CQC said. The CQC will clearly change its indicators from time to time as technologies and services adapt, and it could have been trusted to do it. I will not press the point and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 69.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 — House of Lords, 2022-03-03
Topic: International Affairs
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on all his efforts and those of Ministers in his and in other departments in both places. However, there is a concern in the country that the inevitable delay in passing the legislation which came into effect on 1 March has perhaps meant that a number of assets have been able to be moved. Are the Government concerned about this Looking at SI No.194—I hope I have identified it correctly—I understand that provision will be made for medicines and humanitarian aid to reach Ukraine. I want to press my noble friend as to what routes will be used. There are reports that pharmacies in Ukraine are already facing a shortage of medicines. There will need to safe routes in We can only imagine the level of injuries and casualties that are having to be dealt with at this time. Is there any way in which some of the casualties can be evacuated to neighbouring countries? Is it the Government’s desire to send teams of medically qualified people out from the United Kingdom to assist with this humanitarian effort?
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 — House of Lords, 2022-03-03
Topic: International Affairs
Patience Wheatcroft (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I congratulate the Government on having gone further and faster than they had originally planned once the gravity of the situation became clear. Although this may be the largest ever package of sanctions from the UK, can the Minister explain to the House why there are so few individuals on our sanctions list compared with the EU’s? Why, in a particular spirit of generosity, are we allowing 18 months from when the legislation comes into effect for those who wish to sell their houses and get the proceeds out of the country to do so?
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 — House of Lords, 2022-03-03
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Garnier (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness’s last remark. I was on the Joint Committee on the Draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill, which sat in 2019. Clearly, 18 months is far too long if Clause 3 of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill is to have any immediate effect Is there any possibility of having a look at the enemy aliens Act of 1914? Of course, this is not an exact parallel, but there may be suitable provisions within that old legislation, which was renewed in 1919 after the end of the First World War. Could my noble friend’s officials perhaps look at this legislation to see if there are any useful provisions which could be modernised and brought forward to be of value nowadays—accepting that the United Kingdom is not "at war" with Russia While the measures which my noble friend has just announced are hugely valuable, there are three groups of people on whom we need to apply pressure, given that the Ukrainians are actuarily unlikely to win a fighting war, brave as they are and incredible as their resistance has been so far First, when the ordinary Russian public are queuing for bread in Moscow because the Russian economy has collapsed, they will begin to wonder why and they will begin to ask why Russian state television and other state-controlled media operations have been less than candid about why the Russian army has gone into Ukraine, its level of success and the number of their children who have been killed. I understand that the Russian army moves, when it can, not just with armoured vehicles, artillery and infantry but with mobile crematoriums, so that the soldiers who are killed are immediately disposed of and the Russian public do not get to know about the huge numbers who have been killed.
Health and Care Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-03
Topic: Government Operations
Andrew Lansley (Conservative, Centre-right): We all know that when these proposals come forward, there is a lot of local pressure. In many cases, it will be local pressure that is transmitted to the Secretary of State by Members of Parliament who are—
Health and Care Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-03
Topic: Government Operations
Andrew Lansley (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, in particular for the helpful explanation of the impact of the response to the consultation published yesterday, which I think moves us in the right direction on the service conditions in the standard contract on that point. I am grateful for my noble friend’s assurance on Amendment 98 as well. Clearly the power is available in the regulations to make sure that the non-discriminatory element of the procurement regulations can be brought forward in due course, so it need not be in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 98.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
Philippa Stroud (Conservative, Centre-right): Could my noble friend outline his thinking on, for instance, the proximity of Nauru to Australia and whether that is not more the equivalent of saying that France or another European nation would be the location of the offshoring, rather than, say, Rwanda, which is on completely the other side of the world? Could my noble friend perhaps acknowledge the differences and unpack that for us a little?
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
Patrick Cormack (Conservative, Centre-right): I am most grateful and apologise. Can my noble friend say whether she expects that, by the time we reach Report, she will be able to answer that question? Can she also say whether there are any countries with which we are close to agreement and, if so, what countries those are?
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: International Affairs
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): I cannot say what countries we are in discussion with, other than confirming to my noble friend Lady Stroud that we are having some very positive discussions with France. On the other question, I cannot acquiesce to going further at this point, because I do not want in any way to make comments that might put children in danger. As I have just said to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, I will write in as much detail as I can following Committee.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
David Wolfson (Conservative, Centre-right): On the first point, the position at the moment is that you have a reasonable likelihood test; what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, called the holistic test. What is going on here—and what should be going on—is that we have sought to identify a number of discrete questions and we have applied the appropriate standard of proof to each of them. On the second point, the noble Lord is absolutely right in that a serious crime was defined as one that meant 24 months’ imprisonment and we are now defining it as 12 months. We believe that that is appropriate and remains consistent with our refugee convention obligations I am not sure whether I should formally have said that I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): What I encouraged noble Lords to come up with at Second Reading were solutions, not new routes. I have consistently said, and written to noble Lords on this, that we have a number of very good safe and legal routes.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): I was just going to go on to say that we would be working the Crown Prosecution Service with regard to the new offences in the Bill. Although I related the press release referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to new offences, the press release that he referred to is related to the existing offences, and not the proposed new offences. I just thought that I would clarify that.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): I had a note about that but I was so fixated on answering the other question from my noble friend and others that I forgot to answer the noble Baroness. She said that she was uncomfortable about making it an offence to breach ETA rules before they have even been commenced. The offence will not come in before we have the rule.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Robin Granville Hodgson (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, my noble friend referred to the National Police Chiefs’ Council producing guidance. This is not a statutory body, and one of the issues I have with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is that the guidance and positioning in relation to parliamentary scrutiny needs to be very clear because, as has been pointed out, it is a very important matter. When I hear that a tertiary body which is actually a limited company—it is not even a quango—is going to be involved, my confidence is not increased. I hope that, if we are going to talk further about this, we are going to make sure that a proper degree of parliamentary scrutiny occurs both if the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pushed his amendment and if my noble friend wanted to proceed along the lines he described to the Committee just now.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): My brain has also gone to mush—let us all just reveal here—but I thought that she originally asked about the purpose of the provision, and I thought I was answering that. Hopefully, I will also get on to answering her points later The bodies or individuals who provide assistance in search-and-rescue missions and who are acting on behalf of, or co-ordinated by, Her Majesty’s Coastguard, are protected from prosecution for the offence of facilitation. A defence is also provided for seafarers acting in good faith, where their assistance is not co-ordinated by the coastguard. This puts it beyond doubt that organisations and individuals who rescue those in distress will not be convicted of people-smuggling offences. A separate defence is also available for masters of ships who discover stowaways on board after leaving port and who then dock in the UK, as long as they appropriately notify the authorities It should also be noted that we are retaining the defence available to persons acting on behalf of organisations whose aim is to assist asylum seekers and who do not charge for their services The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about people acting outside UK territorial seas. If the act is co-ordinated by HMCG or equivalent, they are protected from the offence. If they are intercepted and brought into territorial waters, we would not prosecute unless there were egregious factors such as the ones we talked about earlier. However, it is right that, in investigating a serious offence, all available evidence be considered and all relevant behaviours taken into account. We are at present limited by an unrealistic requirement to show financial gain that does not take account of the reality of international organised crime. Under the amendment, by retaining for gain we would place an unrealistic burden on our law enforcement officers and prosecutors in seeking to bring to justice those engaged in these activities I turn to Amendments 126 to 128. I understand the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, that in such circumstances the masters of vessels should not be charged with a facilitation offence. I assure her that those international obligations were taken into account, including the one she mentioned, in drafting new Section 25BA of the 1971 Act. If the masters of vessels act independently of Her Majesty’s Coastguard, we have provided a defence for persons who show that they had to assist an individual in danger or distress at sea at the time between their first being in danger and their being delivered to a place of safety on land. To the noble Baroness’s point, that defence means that we will assume that, in such circumstances, masters of vessels are telling the truth and acting in good faith unless we can disprove it beyond all reasonable doubt, but it is right that we should be able to investigate in any event. That is designed to stop people smugglers from pretending to rescue migrants with the intent of escaping prosecution.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): It is probably important to be clear here that an offence has not been committed. There is no defence to the offence. There is defence in court, and it could be established by the courts only that an offence had been committed. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, it is an evidential burden only. If I can move to Amendment—
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): Rescuers have to prove to the evidential burden. In order to prosecute, we have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. In proving to the evidential burden, there is no offence committed if the defence is proved. Noble Lords look confused.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Government Operations
Andrew Sharpe (Conservative, Centre-right): I think I said that the first set of statistics of that type will be published this month, in February. Discretion needs to be maintained to ensure that we can respond to new and emerging issues. I do not know when the decision was originally taken.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Law and Crime
Keith Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): As the noble Baroness anticipated, I will be going on to deal with the point that she raises There has been criticism of the unscientific basis for this. We have recently set up a new Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee to provide the Home Office chief scientific adviser with independent scientific and associated ethical advice recommendations for best practice and advice relating to issues raised by stakeholders on the implementation of scientific methods. The Home Secretary will decide about scientific methods only after considering the Home Office chief scientific adviser’s advice. The range of experts included in that committee is broad and includes medical statisticians, paediatric social workers, anthropologists, paediatricians, radiologists and psychiatrists As for the matter of allowing for an adverse inference to be drawn by a decision-maker if an individual refuses to undergo a scientific age assessment as specified in regulations without reasonable grounds, the Government recognise that there may be good reasons for refusing to undergo such a scientific age assessment but, where there are no good reasons for refusing consent, it is entirely right that the decision-maker can make that negative inference. Failure to provide for this would allow someone who deliberately and falsely claimed to be a child to simply refuse to co-operate and face no consequence, and that would undermine our ability to mitigate safeguarding risks. The drawing of negative inferences has precedent—for example, in measures bearing on access to welfare assessment In answer to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the figures that I have are that, in relation to age disputes in the years 2016 to 2020, where such disputes took place, in the majority—54%—the result of the evaluation was that the person claiming to be a child was an adult.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
Lucy Neville-Rolfe (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I have no wish to delay the House at this late hour, but this is an important provision on which I am seeking assurances from my noble friend the Minister The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that any visa provisions in future trade agreements can come into effect only if they are approved by both Houses of Parliament. The need for this has arisen because of reports that the Secretary of State for International Trade plans to grant visas in trade agreements; for example, to Indian nationals as part of the proposed trade agreement with India. As I remember from earlier discussions on trade with India, with which I was involved some years ago, this is what that Government have always wanted I am uneasy about this. Visas, whether for study or anything else, are a matter for nationality law, not for trade agreements, and would need to be separately approved, as I have proposed. In the absence of assurances, I will want to return to the matter on Report. I beg to move.
Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
Lucy Neville-Rolfe (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments on visa penalties and for the debate. I found what he said about trade reassuring on sovereignty. I am less happy on the application of CRaG, because of course that gives us a vote only on a whole trade agreement. It is the provisions on visas or immigration that worry me. If a favourable trade agreement were presented to Parliament, obviously Parliament would not want to vote against that, so we have a little problem. It is late; perhaps I can reflect further on the matter in the coming weeks before we come back on Report. I thank my noble friend for his answer, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.