argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Windrush Generation — House of Lords, 2018-04-24
Topic: Immigration
Doreen Lawrence (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I have been listening to the debate for a while. I had no intention of speaking but I have been sitting here and thinking about when the Windrush residents first came here and how they suffered with accommodation, jobs and all the signs in the windows saying, "no Irish, no blacks, no dogs". Now here we are again, almost 70 years later, talking about the same people who travelled here and are facing deportation and everything else. These people are suffering a double whammy. They should never have been put in this position, because they came here as British citizens. They were invited here, yet here we are now, talking about hundreds of people being deported and what we should do. This should never have happened. This country was never told in the first place that these people were invited here to build the country up; they did not just come here. The residents of this country never understood why the Windrush people came here in the first place.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Other
Dorothea Glenys Thornton (Labour, Centre-left): I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness. In fact, several noble Lords who are much more expert on this have already mentioned that aspect. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I do not think I need to say anything more. I think this amendment is the remedy. I hope that the Government will respond positively to it. The case is unanswerable.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Other
Dorothea Glenys Thornton (Labour, Centre-left): I have already written to the Minister asking for a meeting to discuss this issue and have copied the letter to many noble Lords. It is important that we have the meeting before the next stage of the Bill.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Other
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, will the Minister take the message from this House that we are very happy to have this burden imposed on us? Although we appreciate his concern at the weight of business which we might have to undertake if we had to pay attention to primary legislation in respect of fees and charges, we will be very happy to assume that heavy burden.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Robert Stevenson (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Clement-Jones, for their contributions. The interesting exchange we have had here went a bit wider than we perhaps needed to do on this Bill. But I am afraid that it reflects our concern on two, or perhaps now three, sides of the House that we may have missed something quite important in relation to the Data Protection Bill and its assurance of the fundamental rights involved in it The Minister said that she felt that the Government had fully implemented the GDPR through the Data Protection Act—but I do not think that is right. This is for another time, but the amendment to Clause 2 that was made on Report, which we welcomed and signed up to, flagged up that the Government had not quite yet got to the bottom of the argument. The rights deficit that arises with the failure to ensure that Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is in place as a back-stop or underfloor element to the Data Protection Act means that there may be dangers going forward. That was the starting point for this amendment. If it is possible to see it more fully worked in the way that was suggested creatively by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, building on an earlier suggestion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, with the Bill picking out high-risk areas in our public life which need to be given extra protection, that might be a solution to one of the issues raised.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Robert Stevenson (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, because it allows me to refer back to the recently received JCHR report, Legislative Scrutiny: The EU (Withdrawal) Bill: A Right by Right Analysis. I am sure he is familiar with it. It says, if I can find the paragraph—I will talk quickly until I do—that there is still some doubt as to whether the treatment accorded to Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is covered in the Data Protection Act. The report says: "The Government … relies heavily in its analysis", on the GDPR, "as a means of incorporating Article 8 of the Charter into domestic law. The GDPR and the Data Protection Bill contain numerous rights for data subjects. However, the Bill does not explicitly incorporate Article 8 … Given the vast number of exemptions and derogations from these rights provided for in the Bill, there is a question as to whether the Bill offers protection that is equivalent to Article 8 of the Charter" I put it to the noble Lord that this is an open question I know that I am straying into territory that we do not need to, but I started doing that because I was aware that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition had not yet arrived to take the Statement. I have now been caught going a bit further than I should have, and I apologise to your Lordships’ House. I will sum up quickly. I accept the good intentions from the Minister. May I suggest to her that it might be worth one further discussion on this issue before we finalise our consideration of this Bill and the Data Protection Act? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Salisbury Incident Update — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Immigration
Helena Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): I just wanted to put it to the House and the Minister that the Magnitsky law has not been fulfilled. For example, opposition is still being made to the Bill on visas that I put before the House just before Christmas. We are not seeing visas being refused to government officials travelling here from Russia. We know who many of them are—they own properties in Belgravia and apartments all over London—but we are not refusing them visas. The likelihood is that Putin would take really seriously our measures to prevent them coming here and taking part in activities here with impunity.
Salisbury Incident Update — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Lawrence Whitty (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I would not like us to leave the subject without mentioning the more particular situation. I happen to have spent several hours in Salisbury this weekend, and the calm—perhaps slightly depressed, but nevertheless calm—-and normal way in which individuals and businesses carried out their work in Salisbury despite the dramatic news on the media was incredible. You would not really have known that there was anything worse than the bad weather to keep people away from the centre of the city. Does that not underline the need to ensure that any further statements about the possible danger to individuals who were in the city are handled with great care and are given in due time, not adding to the anxieties of the population?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Other
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): Since he has started speaking, would it not be better for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to speak fully now and tell us what he was going to say? That would give us much more to respond to and might indeed shorten the debate.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Other
Roger John Liddle (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate and I have sat patiently all day listening to excellent discussions, but what brought me to my feet was when noble Lords opposite started laughing at the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. The issue that he raises is extremely serious and it does not justify the Chief Whip, who I think is an excellent chap, laughing at him.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Roger John Liddle (Labour, Centre-left): I understand the noble Lord’s explanation, and I will not speak for 11 minutes. However, I will say something and ask the Minister serious questions. The facts have been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the Government are perfectly well aware of these facts. They produced a paper on customs arrangements, I think last July or August. What work has been done on developing the proposals in those papers? If the Government were serious about developing what the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, wants, they would have presented a proposal to Brussels in the last couple of months. In December, in the agreement that the Prime Minister is so proud of—I was delighted that it occurred —it was said that joint work would be done on the Irish border and the other issues to draw up a draft withdrawal agreement in the coming months. What work has happened? How many meetings were there between British and Commission officials before the Commission produced its draft withdrawal agreement? If the Government had a clear view of how the problems set out by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, could be addressed, they would have come forward with a compelling alternative proposal to what the Commission has come forward with. Can we therefore please have a balanced, sensible explanation of what the Government are doing and why they refuse to face facts and produce objective reports on how they will deal with very serious economic issues?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Barbara Young (Labour, Centre-left): I am not sure that the evidence stacks up on that. I have been seeking clarification from Defra for over a year now on just a simple list of the issues that might be subject to statutory instrument, and I have been unable to get that from the department. Perhaps the Minister might like to prod departments to reflect the terms she just stated.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Philip Alexander Hunt (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the noble Lord talks about statistical nonsense, but does he think that the current representation of the Liberal Democrats in your Lordships’ House bears any resemblance to the votes cast at the last election? Is that not nonsense too?
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): The noble Earl said he did not want to waste time and that is why he did not take part in the Division. May I help him by saying that I am happy to accept his amendment? It does not do anything, but it seems to me that it does not do any harm either, so in order that we can move on to the next group of amendments he can rest assured that I accept his amendment. Therefore, I suggest that he concludes his remarks.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Angela Smith (Labour, Centre-left): If I may assist the Committee, the House cannot vote on a Motion that has been withdrawn; it can vote only on a Motion that is before the House. The noble Viscount may have some very wise, erudite and sensible comments that the Committee is longing to hear, but would they not be best made on an amendment before the Committee that has not been accepted by the mover?
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, this group of amendments includes a number which would kill the Bill. Amendment 5 would leave out subsection (2) and Amendment 24 would leave out subsection (3), but if we leave out subsections (2) and (3) we would not have much of a Bill left. In truth, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is confirming my suspicion that he is trying not to improve the Bill but to kill it, so I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Peter Snape (Labour, Centre-left): I urge the noble Viscount not to take any more interventions because by doing so he rather underlines the need for the abolition of hereditary peerages. If he sticks to the script, as he does, he will be out of order because he is defying the Companion. Will he address his remarks to the amendment that we are discussing at present rather than indulging in reminiscences with his colleagues?
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I just make a procedural observation. There will be tens or hundreds of thousands of people watching our proceedings on television either today or this evening. Are they not entitled to know that most of the people who have spoken in this debate are actually hereditary Peers, defending their interest? I suggest that from now on during this debate, each person who rises to speak who is a hereditary declares that interest so that the public outside know exactly what is happening today in Parliament?
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): I am afraid the noble Lord needs to attend rather more frequently before he makes interventions on what happened when. The Bill was passed. There were long discussions and long debates; I do not object to that. However, what is happening here is a deliberate attempt to do in Committee what should have been done at Second Reading. These are age-old procedures and I respect them enormously: First Reading, Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading. To do what is being done now in Committee is an abuse and it should stop.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the noble Lord, of all people, should know that we will debate Amendment 33A when we reach it. If I start responding to amendments we have not even reached, we will go on even longer.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): I think I am right in saying that the noble Earl is the 20th Earl of Caithness and his title goes back many centuries. Instead of speaking here, would it not be better if he went back up to Caithness, got down on his knees and thanked the Lord that he lives in the United Kingdom and not in France, where they had a rather more ruthless way of getting rid of their aristocracy?
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): I want to speak on behalf of my noble friend. He served as a Member of Parliament with great distinction for many years and looked after the interests of thousands of people; he deserved to get here.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, unfortunately, the contributions that have been made have to be dealt with even though they clearly do not address this group of amendments. Changing the Standing Orders does not alter the fundamental reason why these by-elections must end. A key argument, which has already been made, is that changing the Standing Orders will not alter the gender balance of the people who sit in the Lords currently as hereditary Peers. As my noble friend rightly reminded us, people are watching this debate and, I guess, wondering what on earth is going on, so we need to remind them of the facts. Of the 92 hereditary Peers in the House at the moment, one is a woman and she supports my Bill. It is worth remembering as well that in the 19 years since the original Act was passed, the situation has got worse. There were four women among the original 92, so the whole operation has got worse during the 19 years of this temporary measure. It has no prospect of getting better under the present system, and Standing Orders do not touch this because, of the 198 people who are currently on the register of hereditary Peers, just one, coincidentally, is a woman. None of these amendments addresses that. Do we really say that in 2018 we should continue with a system, even when the size of the House is diminishing overall, in which 92 protected places are virtually exclusively male? I hope that before anyone speaks on any of these amendments to try to improve the unimprovable, which is the current system of by-elections, they will address that problem and why they continue to support an effectively men-only 92 bloc that cannot be reduced, and which will not be reformed unless my Bill goes forward.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I remember distinctly, because it was only 20 minutes or so ago, that when we began discussing this group, the lead amendment of which is Amendment 6, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, devoted most of his speech to Amendment 10, which is in this group. He has been in this House for 40 years or something of that nature, though not as long as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, so he knows we have dealt with this group of amendments. Of course he may want to speak to his point at a later stage of the consideration of the Bill, but he has already addressed the specific point of this amendment within the group that we have now disposed of. I respectfully suggest to him that we should move on to the next group, which begins with Amendment 11.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Genista Mary McIntosh (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether further time will be available for the Committee stage of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott? That may be something that exercises the people who are interested in it.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Robert Maurice Lipson Winston (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Although I personally have every sympathy for the Bill of my noble friend Lord Grocott, and I would like to hear whether he feels that there is a way of getting it through the House, the second Bill raises some very significant ethical issues which it is important to discuss. The conscientious objection Bill is not a trivial measure and it is right and proper that we discuss it in Committee, as arranged by the usual channels.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, although I am no longer a proper member of the usual channels, I can tell the Committee that, in discussions with those channels, it was decided that the fair thing to do was to split today between the two Bills. In answer to the question from my noble friend Lady McIntosh and without betraying any private discussions, I have every reason to believe that further time will be made available for the Committee stage of my Bill, which has the overwhelming support of the House.
Conscientious Objection (Medical Activities) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Michael Cashman (Labour, Centre-left): I wanted to develop the noble and learned Lord’s theme of recognising the objection then allowing someone else in the chain—in the pool of services—to take that on. However, Clause 1(2) says that: "For the purposes of subsection (1) … ‘participating in an activity’ includes any supervision, delegation, planning or supporting of staff", so that would prohibit the very approach the noble and learned Lord has outlined. In addition, not that I belong to any religious group at all, but Buddhists approach these issues with the concept of right belief, right livelihood.
Conscientious Objection (Medical Activities) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Dorothea Glenys Thornton (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, to add to that, in the debate at Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord suggested that there need to be amendments to the Bill, but the movers of the Bill have not brought forward any of those amendments to allow us to have that discussion.
Conscientious Objection (Medical Activities) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Daniel Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): The present Bill seeks to introduce a restatement of the law concerning conscientious objection. As far as I am aware, there has been no specific Bill in Parliament with a title such as this, even though it is restricted to medical practice. Conscientious objection springs from conscience—the moral sense of right and wrong—and it is a principle of human rights recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. For 70-odd years, we have regarded this as a basic human right, not an excepted privilege from the norm The question for the Committee is whether it is appropriate in principle to treat conscientious objection in a narrow test or in a wider test. The Bill advocates a wider test than that which has gone before. However, because it does so and because what went before has been said to be a narrow test, the Committee has to decide what the present principles should be in terms of tests. We are here not to vindicate the judgment of the Supreme Court but to exercise legislative judgment about what is fair and reasonable in applying human rights in our society Doogan was specifically about the relationship between Sections 1 and 4 of the Abortion Act 1967. Was the conscientious objection provision in Section 4 consistent in its scope with what was envisaged in Section 1? This Bill puts that aside. It effectively replaces Section 4 of the Abortion Act and, if necessary, on Report that section can be repealed by an amendment to this Bill. So we are not rehearsing history here; we are establishing what is right for the future In the judgment of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, agreed to by the other judges, Doogan expressly declined to look in detail at the Human Rights Act. It was a decision based on the co-extensiveness of parts of the statute. It does not dictate what this House should or should not do What should we do? First, Article 9 of the Human Rights Act, which is now part of our legislative framework, applies to our deliberations. Article 9 expressly enacts a freedom of belief, religion and conscience. It is not a sideline addition; it figures in all these declarations. What is meant by conscience?