argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-06-20
Topic: International Affairs
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, on behalf of the serried ranks behind me I enter a note of dissent and say how surprised I am that the Bill is returned to us this evening before your Lordships have even had a chance to read the Hansard account of what was said in the House of Commons just three hours ago, still less to consider it. Our Printed Paper Office in mid-afternoon did not even have a copy of David Davis’s critical Written Ministerial Statement published at 1pm. I had to tell the Printed Paper Office that I thought it existed and the Printed Paper Office had to tell me to go to the Vote Office in the House of Commons to get a copy because none was available in your Lordships’ House Throughout the passage of the Bill I have made an issue of these important procedural points, at the cost of making myself less than wildly popular with the Whips, because, as is becoming increasingly clear, what is happening on the Bill is a dry run for the decisions that Parliament will take on the EU withdrawal treaty—or the lack of a withdrawal treaty—in the months to come. Those decisions are probably the most important that we will take in our time as Members of this House and this Parliament and I therefore wish to put on record what I think many Back-Bench Members of your Lordships’ House believe, which is, first, that it should ultimately be for the House and not for the Whips, still less for the Government, to decide when and for how long we debate these vital matters of state, and secondly, that we should not bow to the instructions of the Government Chief Whip when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is behaving unreasonably.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-06-20
Topic: International Affairs
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): I am not giving way. The noble Lord spoke at huge length on Monday and I am taking my opportunity to speak To my great surprise, this satisfied Mr Grieve. All I can say, having, like other noble Lords, spent more than 100 hours in this House on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, is that I simply do not trust the Government to uphold these constitutional conventions. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, David Davis and Jacob Rees-Mogg are not interested in parliamentary conventions; they are ruthlessly determined on a hard Brexit. It is not only them; the Prime Minister now routinely ignores resolutions of the House of Commons —because she so often loses them—and has propounded a remarkable new constitutional doctrine that the Government regard themselves as bound only by statutes, not by other resolutions of the House of Commons It was precisely because of this dangerous new doctrine of government sovereignty trumping parliamentary sovereignty—
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-06-20
Topic: International Affairs
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I have made it very clear that I am not giving way to the noble Lord It is precisely because of this dangerous new doctrine of government sovereignty trumping parliamentary sovereignty that those of us standing up for parliamentary democracy sought to enshrine these key procedural issues in the Bill. It is a sad day for Parliament that we did not succeed and that we may now be dependent on the Government to observe conventions that they have so far been unwilling to preserve I will make one final point on the position of this House. We have been remarkably assiduous on this Bill. I think it is true to say that we have spent longer debating it than any other Bill in our entire 800-year history—and, tellingly, we spent about 50% longer debating it than did the House of Commons. As a long-serving member of your Lordships’ House, perhaps I may be allowed to say that our besetting weakness in this House is self-congratulation. It is not helped by the fact—I learned this trick as a Minister—that making a great show of congratulating the House on the brilliance of its revision is a seduction technique to minimise the extent of that revision In defence of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, he has not gone in for much seduction, but there has been far too much self-congratulation on the other Benches of this House in the face of the reality of the situation that we face. The reality, as I see it, is this. We are presently on course for a hard Brexit and there is still no provision in statute to prevent such an outcome. On the contrary, the Government, with wafer-thin majorities—but none the less sufficient majorities—in the House of Commons have fought off all attempts at setting new national policy on a sensible and credible course. The truth is that for those of us in both Houses of Parliament who favour a sensible Brexit, and a people’s vote to allow the people to stop Brexit—
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-06-20
Topic: International Affairs
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am drawing my remarks to a close. My noble friend can speak in a minute The truth is that those of us who favour a sensible Brexit or a people’s vote to allow the people to stop Brexit have suffered an unmitigated defeat on this Bill. Victories are not made up of accumulated defeats. We need to start winning soon or the country will lose very badly when the British people are forced into a hard Brexit that will make everyone poorer in only nine months’ time.
Nuclear Sector Deal — House of Lords, 2018-06-28
Topic: Energy
Christopher Suenson-Taylor (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the announcement and this nuclear sector deal, as it will become an important part of the Government’s industrial strategy. It is excellent news for the nuclear industry. Britain was the world leader in nuclear technology, and this has the potential to put Britain back into a more competitive position against other nuclear nations. I stress to the Government that they must deliver on their commitment, announced today, to achieve these aspirations. Huge sums are being invested by the US and China. Will the Government work with these very large programmes overseas It is good news for R&D and the international fusion programme at Culham, and for the development of SMRs. That there is a launch event with the Minister, Richard Harrington, in Trawsfynydd underlines the industry’s importance in the north Wales-Cheshire economy, where there is no hard border. Being in the north-west, I know this will be very safe. I ask the Minister whether Trawsfynydd will be the site for a G4 reactor. It is good news that emphasis will be given to innovation. If the UK is to be on the leading edge, the Government must commit the sums necessary I ask the minister that his department commit that the Government will look at all technologies in developing better ways for decommissioning and all technologies available for SMR, even established technologies, such as pebble-bed or HTR, which the Chinese will soon be commissioning as the first in the world. Can the Government give these assurances? How deep is the Government’s commitment? Could the UK become a centre for manufacturing?
Nuclear Sector Deal — House of Lords, 2018-06-28
Topic: Energy
John Anderson Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Statement. It is the first positive Statement on civil nuclear power we have had for some time. It is a sad reflection that Britain was a world leader in this field and squandered that position, disastrously for future energy policy. Will our existing knowledge and future development of small modular reactors enable Britain once again to be a world leader in future nuclear technology? If so, the Statement is even more welcome.
Nuclear Sector Deal — House of Lords, 2018-06-28
Topic: Energy
Anthony Gueterbock (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Minister welcomed the various technologies being proposed for future nuclear, but is he aware that the technology being used at Hinkley Point is a French one that is not approved, for safety reasons, in the power stations they are building in France or in Finland? He mentioned the cost of electricity in relation to Swansea Bay, but the cost to the consumer of Hinkley Point will, I believe, be one of the highest of any production we have in this country. Can he make sure that the technology for all these proposed future nuclear stations is proven before massive amounts of money are spent?
Police and Crime Commissioners — House of Lords, 2018-06-28
Topic: Law and Crime
William Bach (Labour, Centre-left): I shall sit down, but I will just say that I am honoured to be a police and crime commissioner in a fine force with an outstanding chief constable. The jury is out as to whether this is a lasting solution to this issue, but I think it should be given many more years’ chance.
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2018-09-11
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Davies (Labour, Centre-left): Have the Government heard from any of the countries currently enjoying free trade agreements with the European Union, or do they know by any other channel that any of those countries are going to propose, or have proposed, any changes in the provisions of those treaties when they apply simply to the United Kingdom and the country concerned as a new, bilateral agreement?
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2018-09-11
Topic: Foreign Trade
Roger John Liddle (Labour, Centre-left): Surely one of the main concerns of the manufacturing industry is what will happen to rules of origin in British trade agreements with countries such as South Korea, when the EU rule is that 55% of cars have to be manufactured domestically yet we manufacture only 40% of our content domestically. Surely this is highly relevant to Brexit and the economic damage that Brexit could cause to a sector of our economy on which 1 million jobs depend. Therefore, to say that the Bill has nothing to do with Brexit is very strange.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-07-10
Topic: Law and Crime
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, at Second Reading, it was widely acknowledged around the House that there were practical arguments for expanding the flexible deployment of judges, including some temporary judges appointed outside the usual Judicial Appointments Commission selection process, to a wider pool of courts and tribunals. However, the appointment of temporary judges as a principle should be approached with caution. Further, it is important to view flexible deployment in general through the prism of the Government’s wider programme of reforms and cuts. Given the planned savings on judicial salaries, we have to ask whether the provisions are at least in part a short cut to make up for a shortfall—even a crisis—in the recruitment of permanent judges that will become a de facto cost-saving measure. Any trend towards an increasing reliance on temporary judges would be worrying. Temporary judges, most likely seeking permanent appointment, are by their nature less independent than their permanent counterparts The Government should surely provide greater evidence of the need for these provisions, such as the detail of the changes in business demand referred to in the impact assessment and the reasoning for the proportionality of these measures. If introduced, it is surely a reasonable requirement on the Government to ensure that proper training is made available for these temporary appointments whose deployment will involve oversight of areas of law new to the personnel concerned. This is already a routine practice in the deployment of judges in the Crown Court: the paucity of Crown Court judges with a criminal law background is well acknowledged and, arguably, none the less regrettable. There is no argument against proper provision of support and training to those less practised, temporary judges or, indeed, permanent judges deployed in new areas. Given the backdrop of major cuts to the MoJ, the need for effective and proper training is all the more acute to ensure the quality of judicial practice. That is why I am probing with this amendment and I beg to move.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-07-10
Topic: Law and Crime
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance as to process and to other noble and learned Lords for their exposition of the responsibilities on the Lord Chief Justice, the Judicial College and so on. I have yet to be reassured, however, about the adequacy of funding for this training or the adequacy of funding to the MoJ to deal with, among other things, this recruitment crisis. I fear that we may have to return to this matter but, for the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-07-10
Topic: Law and Crime
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, currently the Bill provides that regulations under Clause 3 shall be made under the negative resolution procedure and then interact with rules of court to be made and come into force without the need for parliamentary scrutiny altogether. This stipulation of which judicial functions may be delegated and to whom, and an authorised person’s requisite qualifications or experience, is to be provided with quite light parliamentary scrutiny. I would be grateful to the noble and learned Lord or the noble Baroness if they would say a little more in their reply about the relationship between the regulations and the rules for those purposes Since the fall of the Prisons and Courts Bill last year, there has been no parliamentary scrutiny, even by the Justice Committee, of the Government’s ambitious programme of expensive modernisation measures or the associated court closures and staff cuts. By providing that regulations in the Bill be made under the negative resolution procedure, the Government seem once more to be seeking to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny, even in relation to quite significant changes to our justice system At Second Reading, in response to similar concerns, the Minister said that, "the purpose of primary legislation is to implement law, not to review that which we can already do".—[Official Report, 20/6/18; col. 2053.] On reflection, I respectfully disagree with that constitutional analysis. To my mind, the legislative process is to create law and certainly, at times, to review, direct and even constrain government policy, particularly when it has the potential profoundly to impact on our justice system. Without careful scrutiny and additional safeguards, this governmental drip feed may be capable of eroding some of our most fundamental institutions. I beg to move.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-07-10
Topic: Law and Crime
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 6 and 7. These amendments in aggregate stipulate that authorised persons must have the following minimum legal qualifications: to be, "a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive with more than three years’ experience post-qualification", as recommended by the Law Society. Clause 3 delegates judicial functions to authorised staff, which must be understood in the broader context of the wider reform agenda and the austerity measures behind it. The savings generated through the proposed reforms will arise only through the reduction of the court estate, together with savings in judicial salaries. Further proposals include the relocation to new off-site service centres of many case management functions, listings and scheduling, which currently take place within court buildings with the benefit of on-site judicial supervision. The implication has to be that these off-site service centres will be supervised by authorised staff and not by judges. Concerns about that eventuality are hardly assuaged by the assurance in the related policy note that authorised staff will remain under the supervision of the judiciary if the judiciary are not on site.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-07-10
Topic: Law and Crime
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that. I certainly do not seek to place a straitjacket on reasonable management of the court system, but I am still concerned about the breadth of this power to delegate judicial functions in particular. These amendments, which are probing at this stage, are all of a piece. In the light of the further debate to come, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-07-10
Topic: Law and Crime
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am once again grateful to the Minister and to other noble Lords for engaging in the argument for the amendments. I fully understand that this is all about efficiency, but that is not completely reassuring in the context of the biggest cuts to any department, even in a time of significant austerity I fear that the public outside this Palace think of the adjudication of contested matters in a court as a judicial function. That is the general perception of the public of what happens when there is a dispute between parties in the courts. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest, for example, that only a judge should be responsible in court for depriving someone of their liberty, or indeed, for making orders involving large sums of money. Noble Lords will forgive me for saying that even some of the more trivial decisions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, could be far less than trivial in a given context. I am being offered the reassurance of the procedure rule committee, but delegating judicial functions to non-judges is not a matter of mere procedure I am afraid that I feel this is a question of principle, to which we may have to return again on Report. But for the time being, at least, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-07-10
Topic: Law and Crime
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): Once more, I am grateful to the Minister and other noble Lords for engaging with this argument. I do not wish to bore your Lordships’ with this, but there are some really serious concerns at play. I am told to be reassured by the rule committees, and of course I hold the rule committees in enormous esteem, but the rule committees cannot provide the funding that would avoid pressure to overdelegate to underqualified people in the future. When I raise these concerns, I am told that I must not worry because of the rule committees My second concern is that the public have a real and reasonable expectation that significant contested decisions in a court will be made by a judge; or, if not, at least that there would be a right of appeal or review before a judge. In the light of the repeated reassurances in the context of different attempts to constrain delegation in the Bill, we will have to return to this issue on Report. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-10-29
Topic: International Affairs
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): As I understand it, this Motion is debatable and divisible. Before we consider whether to divide on it, it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would explain to the House why it is necessary, and as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said earlier, I hope that he will do the same for all the important statutory instruments that appear before us as a result of Brexit. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord’s explanation as to why the House should pass these regulations.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-10-29
Topic: Law and Crime
John Davies (Labour, Centre-left): I know that the noble Lord will be very familiar with the quotation I was mindful of in what he just said, which was Voltaire’s great phrase: I disagree totally with what you say but would defend with my life your right to say it. In that situation, you might disagree totally with what an organisation stands for. I greatly disagree with what a lot of organisations stand for but would defend—I think to the death—their right to say it. Does this not resolve the matter that the noble Lord has just put to the House? You can at the same time urge the decriminalisation of an organisation that has up to then been regarded as a terrorist organisation while not agreeing whatever with the views that it holds.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-10-29
Topic: Law and Crime
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): Before the Minister responds, perhaps I could clarify that point. She is saying that in the example of the photograph with a Daesh flag in the background but where the person does not realise what the flag is, the publication of that picture would not in itself be an offence because you would take into account things such as the message that accompanied the Facebook post—for example, a message saying, "I’m here with my friend and having a drink"—so all those things would be considered together. I think that is what the Minister is saying.