argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
James Michael Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): The CPTPP comprises a dynamic mix of nation states, from like-minded Commonwealth countries to rapidly developing economies. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the UK’s accession will encourage further expansion of the trade bloc to the benefit British exporters?
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Elizabeth Mary Truss (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is right that it is an agreement of which many people want to be a part. In fact, other countries are looking to accede alongside the UK. One reason that our friends and allies across the world want us to join is that they see the UK as a key asset to CPTPP.
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: International Affairs
Elizabeth Mary Truss (Conservative, Centre-right): I have been clear about my position on ISDS, but in the EU negotiations that are being conducted by our lead negotiator, David Frost, we are very clear we are not having a level playing field with the EU. One of the reasons for Brexit is so we can decide our own regulatory policy independently.
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Simon Richard James Fell (Conservative, Centre-right): I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The agreement goes much further than the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement of 2018 and there is much to like about it, not least for businesses in Cumbria that want to trade out and into the world. What assurances can she give me that we will not go back on our high food and environmental standards in joining this agreement?
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Elizabeth Mary Truss (Conservative, Centre-right): We are absolutely committed to our high standards. That is one of the reasons why countries and people around the world want to buy British products. They trust British products, they trust the Union Jack flag, and they appreciate what we offer. Let me be clear: any change to domestic legislation resulting from any trade agreement would need to be voted on by this House, so there is a clear parliamentary process to make sure that any change has full support, but we will not be lowering those standards.
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Transportation
Thomas Patrick Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): On the topic of East Anglia, I am sure my right hon. Friend will recognise the importance of a port at Felixstowe and how it needs to have the infrastructure necessary to step up to help Britain achieve its global potential. Will she commit to working with Highways England to make sure that its ridiculous plan to close a bridge when it is windy is stopped, so that we never have to go through another windy period in winter when our town grinds to a halt because road freight from the port of Felixstowe has to go through a town centre and not across a bridge?
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Andrew Theakstone Percy (Conservative, Centre-right): I welcome the accession to the CPTPP, which could be good news for UK dairy farmers. Canada, which is a member, has a lot of unused quota and there are not many other dairy producers in the partnership, so there is a huge opportunity for UK dairy there. More important, though, is transitioning the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement, because this will be a medium to long-term ambition. Where are we on the transition arrangement for CETA?
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Elizabeth Mary Truss (Conservative, Centre-right): I had a good conversation with my Canadian counterpart, Mary Ng, last week to talk about, first, our mutual commitment to free trade, but also how we are going to improve our trading relationship with Canada.
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Agriculture
Ben Everitt (Conservative, Centre-right): Conservative Members are optimistic and positive about the opportunities ahead. We have heard about the opportunities for our dairy farmers, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the opportunities for our arable sector in striking a deal with the Japanese, whose desire for British malt is insatiable, at a time when so much malting barley is sat in the sheds and warehouses of our brewers and farmers? We should be excited about opening up these new markets.
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Elizabeth Mary Truss (Conservative, Centre-right): We have in this country a clear procedure for determining our trade agreements and a clear treaty-ratification process, which I think works well. We are committed to working closely with Scottish Members of Parliament and Scottish businesses to make sure that every part of the UK benefits from our trade-negotiation strategy.
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Dehenna Sheridan Fareham (Conservative, Centre-right): When I think about trade deals, I think about the benefits that deals like CPTPP will bring to exporters in my patch, such as Equus Leather in Winston, which my right hon. Friend visited with me a few months ago. As she is a champion of global Britain and of free trade, does she agree that UK businesses want the UK to sign up to CPTPP and cement our relationships with top economies such as Japan, Australia and New Zealand?
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession) — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Foreign Trade
Elizabeth Mary Truss (Conservative, Centre-right): Equus Leather is a fantastic business, but the fact is that it currently has to fill in lots of forms when it wants to export not only to America but to other parts of the world. I want to get dedicated SME chapters to get rid of that red tape, so that companies can focus their efforts on producing fantastic products that people around the world want to buy.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Fiona Claire Bruce (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 8, leave out "20" and insert "46" This amendment would extend the minimum legal period for a divorce from six months to one year (with the additional six weeks between the conditional and final orders).
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Fiona Claire Bruce (Conservative, Centre-right): This Bill is a bad Bill. It sends out the wrong message at the wrong time. No-fault divorce is really state-approved unilateral divorce. Ministers like to say that it is all about the divorce process and not about marriage. They are wrong. The removal of fault sends out the signal that marriage can be unilaterally exited with no available recourse for the party who has been left. The public get it, even if Ministers do not. In the "Finding fault?" national opinion survey, 71% thought that fault should remain in law. That is a survey on which, in other respects, the Government have relied in bringing forward this legislation. Even in the Government’s own consultation, 80% opposed the proposals, and the Bill was not even in our manifesto.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Quentin Fuller (Conservative, Centre-right): I am learning a lot from my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for her contribution. She will be able to inform me better, but one thing that occurred to me is that in the process of divorce—I am talking about friends of mine who have been through this—all the voices are about separation. That could come from the legal profession, to which I mean no disrespect, or from friends who get drawn into separate camps, but there does not seem to be much space for conciliation in the most important contract that two people will ever make. Does new clause 1 seek to address that disparity, and the way that such forces work in those difficult circumstances?
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Fiona Claire Bruce (Conservative, Centre-right): In my view, it is important to ensure that service is recorded. Service can be made by someone who professionally serves notice and then registers that fact at court. At present, the process of service has to be evidenced before the divorce proceeding process continues any further. All I am asking is that we have the same regulations now Even the Law Society, which supports the broad principles of the Bill—to my regret, as I am a member—is supportive of both parties having the same minimum period, so this is a very serious point, which needs to be addressed. As it stands, the 20-week period starting on application is, I believe, defended by Ministers because it makes the process simple. However, in this Bill’s simplicity lies its harshness or, as the noble and learned Baroness Deech has said in another place, its brutality. The shock for many people of being divorced within six months will be hard enough. The shock of being divorced in little over six weeks would be wholly unjust. The Lord Chancellor has said that he will work with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to address this point. I await the Minister’s reassurance on this, which will need to be very strong to counter my view that this amendment to protect vulnerable respondents needs to be on the face of the Bill I now turn briefly to amendments 3 and 5 and new clause 2. Amendments 3 and 5 would ensure that there are no discussions about financial settlements in the 20-week period— or ideally, a longer period if amendment 1 is passed—unless both parties agree, or there is an application to court for interim maintenance and financial injunctions. The point of these amendments is that they give a breathing space for the parties to dialogue. Sadly, there is no requirement for this in the Bill—a litigation- free period in which it is hoped the parties may take counsel and try to establish whether they could be reconciled New clause 2 would require the Government to report annually on the impact of this Bill on divorce applications and marriage support. It would require them to report to this place on the impact of the Bill and, importantly, on those who are vulnerable, whether financially or otherwise, including children, and, equally importantly, on the availability and take-up of counselling and support services for those involved in divorce proceedings across the country In conclusion, as I am sure colleagues will now be aware, I fundamentally oppose this Bill. It does not promote fairness or justice, as I have sought to explain. What is fair or just about someone being able to just walk swiftly away from their relationship responsibilities, especially if children are involved, with no dialogue and without being held to account? Nothing in this Bill will help to reduce the inherent pain of the ending of so many relationships—of the rejection, the loss, the severance of a relationship that started with so many high hopes. This is a sad day for this House and my saddest in 10 years here.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Rosie, and to follow the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) I listened with great care to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I have great respect for the sincerity with which she expresses her views. I have to say that I profoundly disagree with the fundamental basis of her analysis, but I do not mean that with any disrespect to her or others who take a different view. This is not a Bill on which we should be judgmental, any more than we should be judgmental in relation to divorce itself. The Bill is, to my mind, a sensible one. It reflects reality, which is often painful—painful not least for the parties and for their families. As I said on Second Reading, I start from the proposition—it also informs my approach to these amendments—that nobody gets married setting out to get divorced. Divorce arises only as a result of a great deal of hardship, heartache and heart searching In my experience, as a constituency MP and lawyer—I did not predominantly practise family law as a lawyer, although I did a bit at one time, and I have many friends who continue to do it at every level—divorce is not undertaken lightly, any more than any relationship breakdown is undertaken lightly. When it happens, however, it is better that it should be done with the minimum of conflict and the minimum of confrontation. Over the years, we have made reforms to the law of divorce to try to make it closer to the reality of the society in which we live, because, ultimately, that is what law has to serve. In this regard, I support the Bill for attempting, and succeeding in large measure, to do that. So although I understand that the amendments are well intentioned, I cannot support them.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
John Henry Hayes (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend will, of course, understand from the personal experience of his constituents and from other experience that he has enjoyed that the acrimony he described is often about the dispersal of assets and the custody of children. It is not about the process of divorce; it is about the business of divorce. The custody of children and the agreement about assets will continue regardless of the process. Acrimony is a feature of the human condition, not a legal process.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): The only part that I agree with my right hon. Friend about is the fact that acrimony can be a feature of the human condition. I am afraid that I have to profoundly disagree with the rest of his analysis. I regret to have to say that a divorce process that entrenches confrontation absolutely has the reverse effect to that which he suggests. The reality is that the acrimony, sadly, has arisen in the course of the breakdown, which, all too often, may have been a long time coming and may have happened for a number of reasons, which cannot be laid necessarily always at the door of one party or the other. But the law, as it stands, does not fit that reality fairly and sensibly. Whatever its intention, it actually makes matters worse, so I do have to part company with my right hon. Friend on that There is much to be said— I will take it out of turn but I think it relates to the principle of this—for the various amendments that relate to improving the attempts to support marriage and conciliation. I understand that and hope the Minister will have more to say about what more we can do in that regard. The truth is that, by the time we get to the issuing of the proceedings for divorce, the horse has bolted. We should do more to prevent that from happening and help couples when they run into difficulties at the beginning, but that is not what this Bill is changing.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Andrew Edmund Armstrong Selous (Conservative, Centre-right): Do I detect from what my hon. Friend has said that he is supportive of new clause 1 and amendment 7, which are, in fact, identical in terms of marriage and relationship support? That has always been a feature of this aspect. It was part of the Family Law Act 1996. Is he supportive of what those two amendments are trying to do?
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): I think it rather depends on the grounds on which the petition is abandoned. If someone was coerced into abandoning a petition, I would not regard it as something to celebrate, to be perfectly frank, as that would be allowing a coercive party to win. That may not be the case in most instances, but that is a reality as well. The evidence also shows that about 10% of petitions do not proceed to their final conclusion, but that is very often because of procedural reasons, and sometimes because of no co-operation on the part of the respondent. With respect, I am not sure that that is the best argument Unfortunately, and as has been pointed out, amendment 1 appears simply to delay dealing with an issue that needs to be resolved. It is merely reinserting and increasing the time period. The longer the period goes on, the greater is the likelihood of conflict and hardship, and the greater is the risk that the stronger partner—whether financially or emotionally—in a relationship that has not always been happy and who may have verged on being coercive or been outright coercive, will have all the cards in their hands. The longer it goes on, the more they can push back against the person who is seeking to leave an unhappy relationship and genuinely move their life on. I do not believe the amendment would have the effect my hon. Friend seeks of making the divorce process easier or better.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): Unfortunately, that is also true. I think most of us will have seen that in our surgeries It is also worth saying that the pilot information meetings held under the Family Law Act 1996, which was passed but never brought into force, indicated very strongly that, by this stage, very often people have made a decision and want to move on. In reality, there may be another family, or a new relationship has started. People should not be forced to point a finger of blame. A law that requires that is doing no social or ethical good Amendment 3, in effect, restates and retains the fault- based approach. That is opposed by Resolution—an admirable body—and not supported by the Marriage Foundation either. I simply do not think that professionals believe that anything is gained by this approach.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not think the Bill adds to that problem at all. If it exists, it can exist in any profession and can be dealt with by proper regulation. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, that the current situation makes that problem worse, because people have to go through what is rightly described by the research from the University of Exeter as a legal farce—a legal ritual of saying, "What is the minimum form of words that your client will accept that will meet the legal test to enable us to get divorced?" That is the sort of thing that can be taken advantage of and it is where the unscrupulous will come in. Removing fault removes the ability for the unscrupulous person to play upon fault, be they a purported adviser or a party to the divorce. Maintaining that approach and resisting these amendments, however well intended, is important and I urge the Government to do so It is important to look at the international comparisons. In England, a disproportionate amount of reliance is placed upon fault as the grounds for divorce. There are other grounds for divorce, but because it is complicated at the moment some 60% of divorces in England are based upon allegations of adultery. By that stage, people have split up and are often living apart. There is the business of having to point the finger about who did what. My old pupil master, whom I believe I mentioned on Second Reading, was around when we still had to go through the charade of getting an affidavit from a chambermaid or the receptionist in a hotel to prove divorce. It was a demeaning business and thank God we got rid of that. Maintaining a fault system, which, as I say, entrenches conflict, does us no credit as far as that is concerned.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my hon. Friend accept that there is only one ground for divorce, which is irretrievable breakdown, and there are five areas where one can adduce evidence of that irretrievable breakdown? Should we not be concentrating on that one issue: irretrievable breakdown?
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): It seems to me that that is precisely what the Bill is seeking to do. The problem is the requirement to prove the following facts to support that because, inevitably, that evidential requirement elides into the grounds, and the conflict created by the need to prove one or other of those facts is the difficulty. So I think that the Bill is moving in the direction that my hon. Friend, with his own experience in the law, will probably wish us to go.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2020-06-17
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): If the ground is made out that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, I think most people would say that there is no merit in seeking to go beyond that. I know it is suggested that there ought to be some finding of fault on the record. This is not a criminal process and I do not think that helps anyone. Ultimately, the court process is not there even to assist someone in a measure of trauma, I have to be blunt about that. That is not what the court process is there for. By all means, help people when their relationships get into trouble and do more than we already do. I would not support the Opposition’s amendment in the form in which it currently appears, but I hope the Minister will have more to say about what can be done to make access to legal advice more readily available to people when their relationships start to fall apart and when divorce looms. Legal aid was withdrawn from divorce overall. I understand the financial reasons behind that and I understand the argument that, if we move to a system where we do not have the level of confrontation, it may not be necessary in many cases, given the other changes—the online portal and other matters—to go down the route of requiring lawyers at every stage.