argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Income Tax (Charge) — House of Commons, 2021-10-28
Topic: Energy
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Does the right hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that the Budget had so little for the potentially huge industry for the UK of offshore floating wind energy? He talks about delay. If we delay, we will lose out to other countries in that race, and they will not show any mercy on that front.
Income Tax (Charge) — House of Commons, 2021-10-28
Topic: Energy
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Further to my intervention on the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), it is all about delay. One of the terrifying aspects of delay is that we have the skills in Scotland—welders, fabricators, pipe fitters—but the people with those skills are ageing. Every year that goes by, we are missing the opportunity to educate the next generation, the young people who came to the reception on UK renewables in the Commons yesterday. That is another reason why we cannot countenance delay at any price.
Disabled School Leavers: Professional Development — House of Commons, 2021-12-06
Topic: Labor
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Bath and North East Somerset Council, together with Bath College and Virgin Care, run a partnership called Project SEARCH to help young people with physical and learning disabilities to develop the skills that they need when they want to access the employment market. I pay tribute to that project, but far too many disabled people nationally face huge difficulties in accessing employment after leaving school and the support that they get at school. Will the Minister support a successor programme to Kickstart that is particularly tailored to disabled young people? Will he make recommendations and work together with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2021-12-06
Topic: Education
Questions: I was grateful to the Minister for Further and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) for meeting me last week to discuss the lack of post-16 educational opportunities in the Bolsover constituency. Does she agree that in order for the next generation of young people in Bolsover truly to reach their potential, it is vital that they can access the full suite of educational choices locally?; Even before the pandemic hit we knew that getting more young people into science, technology, engineering and maths subjects was vital. Now that we seek to build back better, what are my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench doing to get more young people, and especially more young women, throughout the United Kingdom into STEM subjects?; The post-Brexit Nobel laureate scheme was touted as a way to get the best and brightest scientists into the UK but has failed to attract a single application. Will the Secretary of State explain the reason for this complete failure? Could it be the Home Secretary’s hostile environment?;   The Government are taking necessary and precautionary steps to deal with the omicron variant, but can my hon. Friend reassure the House that, whatever happens with this virus, he will not shut primary schools and nurseries? It is impossible for children this young to learn properly online and the damage that it does to their education and wellbeing is immense.; Some schools have not received an inspection for more than a decade, and material changes during that time, such as a new senior leadership team, could have had a significant impact on the quality of education being provided. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that parents have access to the most up-to-date picture of their children’s education?
Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Covid-related pupil absences have risen by about 47% over the past fortnight and many schools are struggling with staff absences, too. Given that we know that good ventilation is key in schools, can the Minister give us an update on the Bradford pilot that was started earlier this year? What is going on with regard to air purifiers, when will that trial report and will he implement its findings?
Arthur Labinjo-Hughes — House of Commons, 2021-12-06
Topic: Social Welfare
Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, the sentiments expressed within it and the actions he is taking. Like everyone else, I have found the details of this case harrowing, not least because Arthur was the same age as my daughter. It is just unbelievable, and my thoughts are with all those who knew and loved him. Given that we know that among the social worker workforce there is a high turnover rate, a 7.5% vacancy rate and a quarter of that workforce is due for retirement in the next 10 years, will the Secretary of State commit, whether through this review or the MacAlister review, to looking at the recruitment, retention and training of social workers? Given that their workload has gone up while there have been some £2.2 billion of cuts to social services over the past decade, will he commit to whatever resources it takes? We cannot put a price on a child’s life.
Armed Forces Bill — House of Commons, 2021-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Would the Minister care to comment on something that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who chairs the sub- Committee, said? She said: "Military women are being denied justice. It is clear to us that serious sexual offences should not be tried in the court martial system." I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Trade — House of Commons, 2020-02-12
Topic: Foreign Trade
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): If the Secretary of State truly values the trade between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, why is he prepared to countenance a situation in which we would lose frictionless trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Budget — House of Commons, 2020-02-12
Topic: Foreign Trade
Wendy Anne Chamberlain (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Over the weekend, Kingsbarns distillery in my constituency won the "Best Lowlands Scotch, 12 years and Under" award at the world whisky awards. However, the impact of US tariffs continues to impede the growth of the Scotch whisky industry in my constituency and across Scotland. Will the forthcoming Budget include provisions to help our distilleries to compete internationally, despite those stifling tariffs?
Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-02-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I, too, put on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who has kept me updated in recent days. In the wake of the two recent terrorist attacks, it is absolutely right that the Government look at the legal framework to decide whether it is adequate. Like the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), I was caught up in the 7/7 bombing. I was on one of the tube trains behind the one that was blown up at Russell Square, and I remember the unbearable heat that came from the blast. I was also in this place during the Westminster lockdown. The hon. Gentleman is right that many of us have been affected by acts of terrorism, but with respect, many of us nevertheless come to this debate with slightly different views This Bill does three things. First, it brings about an end to automatic release and applies that retrospectively. That is overdue, but very welcome. Liberal Democrats have said before, and we say again, that this part of the law is currently wrong, and it is right that this House seeks to change it. The Government are rushing this Bill through to get to Royal Assent before the end of the month and before the scheduled release of other terrorists. However, this part of the Bill alone, on ending automatic release and applying that retrospectively, would achieve the Government’s goal—and, indeed, the priority of all of us to keep the public safe. This part of the Bill alone would stop the release of terrorists without Parole Board agreement. It would be possible to adopt just that part of the Bill for it to be a change in the administration of a sentence in a way that is compatible with the rule of law However, the Bill tries to do two other things that, I think it is fair to say, are problematic. The second thing it tries to do is move the point of release from the halfway point to the two-thirds point for future offences. Of course, it is the natural instinct of all of us to have bad people locked up for longer, but who would want somebody locked up for longer if there was evidence that that could in fact make them more radicalised and more dangerous at the point that they are released?
Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-02-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. Much of the evidence suggests that what helps the deradicalisation process is not only how people are treated when they are incarcerated, but the amount of time they have on licence in order to find a home, rebuild family connections and do all the activity outside prison. There is evidence to suggest that the time on licence can make more of a difference to reducing reoffending rates and deradicalising people.
Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-02-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point, which relates to both capacity and what can be done in prisons and while prisoners are on licence to ensure that they are deradicalised and to assess their behaviours As I was saying, there is currently no evidence that longer periods in prison have any rehabilitative effect, and there is some evidence to suggest that they might be counterproductive. For all of us who put national and public safety first, that should be very worrying The third element of the Bill is retrospectivity. Retrospectively applying the first part of the Bill, to end automatic release, is fine, but retrospectively moving the release point is problematic. The Government and some Members today have pointed to individual parts of case law, but there is a long-established principle against the retrospectivity of criminal laws. The Government have suggested that this is only about changing the administration of a sentence, whereas legal commentators have pointed out that the Bill arguably also changes the scope of the penalty. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law said in its briefing circulated to Members this morning: "By effectively overturning judicial decisions about sentencing the Bill also comes uncomfortably close to legislative interference with the judicial function." The last point that I wish to address is the speed with which the Bill moves forward and the reasons for it. As I said, nobody wants these prisoners to be automatically released, and the first part of the Bill would tackle that and keep the public safe, but there is a reason why we debate and scrutinise laws in both Houses and have specialist Committees to look at our laws. We know that fast law can make bad law, and there is an even greater risk of that happening when four of the parliamentary Committees that would have scrutinised the Bill—the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee, the Justice Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee—have not yet been appointed.
Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-02-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in my opening remarks, I made the point that this was a very overdue change. In fact, we have had many years where we have seen the effects of increased radicalisation in prison simply because of a lack of resources both for our prisons and for our parole service, so he is right to point to that element That leads me very nicely to my next point: because of the speed of the passage of the Bill, there is not sufficient opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny. I would argue that, in the absence of adequate pre-legislative scrutiny, hon. Members should all sign up to a system of post-legislative scrutiny. Others in this debate have called for a review mechanism. The Government say there is other legislation coming down the line, but we know that legislation can slip, so I will finish by asking the Government to think again about this particular point to make sure that we have sufficient post-legislative scrutiny and that this law—
Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-02-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman is right that this legislation will of course be scrutinised in due course, but it is vital and right, because we are moving on with it so quickly, that we write into law a statutory review in one year’s time I conclude by saying that there is a danger that Bill will become a law of unintended consequences. In summary, we welcome the end to automatic release and doing so retrospectively—that is a good move—but we have concerns about changing the release point, particularly if that ends up allowing people to be released who are more dangerous than before. There are also questions to answer about the impact on the rule of law in applying retrospectivity to the release point.
Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-02-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am not seeking to press new clause 3, but I am seeking reassurances from the Minister relating to the purpose behind it and a commitment to post-legislative scrutiny In my earlier remarks, I made the point that fast law can be bad law. In the absence of an opportunity for thorough pre-legislative scrutiny, we absolutely must have post-legislative scrutiny. There are relevant examples of where this has happened: the Immigration Act 2014 was controversial, so it contained the same requirement as exists in new clause 3; and the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which was rushed in in response to a court ruling, included a sunset clause of 18 months. I am not asking for a sunset clause, but new clause 3 sets out clearly that we would like the opportunity for a statutory review after one year. The person conducting that review should be appointed after consultation with the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and they should have professional experience relating to imprisonment for offences of terrorism New clause 3 does not seek to outline the scope of such a statutory review, but I would like to give the Committee some examples of the kind of matters that could be covered by it. Such a statutory review could ask whether the extra time the terrorists spend in prison is being used to de-radicalise them. Are they actually receiving an effective de-radicalisation programme or, on the contrary, are they potentially becoming more dangerous? It could look at whether the Parole Board has the resources to cope with the extra demands put on it. It could look at whether terrorist prisoners are being failed by the Parole Board and whether they are being released at the end of their sentence without any supervision on licence. It could look at whether the probation service has the staff and resources it needs to ensure effective supervision during the shorter period that offenders spend on licence. It could also perhaps look at whether the change in the release point affects the sentencing decisions made by judges As I said earlier, there is a risk that because of the lack of opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny there is the possibility that this becomes a law of unintended consequences. I know there are proposals for legislation down the line, but we also know that legislation can get delayed. It would be absolutely right for the House to insist on post-legislative scrutiny by virtue of a one-year statutory review. Who knows, the review might even identify things that could be included in future legislation.
Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-02-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): We are having a very interesting and mature debate about getting this right, and of course it is paramount that we make sure the public are safe, but I do not understand what speaks against a review to make sure we get it right. Even if other legislation comes further down the line, why not have that double security?
Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-02-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The issue is not just that there should be a review, but who should conduct that review. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about various Select Committees, which, as we know, have a very broad workload. Does he agree that it is important to ensure that there is an independent review, conducted on our behalf by someone who is independent of the House and has experience in relation to the sentencing of terrorists?
Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-28
Topic: Agriculture
Timothy James Farron (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Minister’s own Department’s figures recognise that 85% of livestock farm income comes through basic payments. Of course, this 12-month stay of execution will be welcomed by many of my farmers, but from next January, he is planning to phase out BPS, and the danger is that there will be no certainty about its replacement before 2028. Does he not worry that we will lose many livestock farmers during that seven-year transition, and does he agree that he should therefore delay the phasing out of BPS?
Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-28
Topic: Agriculture
Timothy James Farron (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is making some important points. As things stand, we are certain that the BPS will begin to be phased out in 12 months’ time, and there is a possibility that we will have the environmental land management scheme by 2028. In principle, he and I probably agree that scheme is a good thing but, in practice, it does not yet exist. Does he agree there is a danger that, in the seven-year transition, we will lose many of the farmers we need to deliver those public goods?
Criminal Law — House of Commons, 2020-01-28
Topic: Law and Crime
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Yes, GBH with intent—so we are talking about incredibly violent criminals. But the Government’s own assessment of these proposed laws says that they could increase prison overcrowding, introduce significant costs and lead to increased prisoner violence. The gravest risk, however, is that prisoners spend more of their sentence in prison and less time on release with a licence, which could actually lead to an increased risk of reoffending. Although we are all sympathetic to the victims of crime, who may feel like justice has not been done, we absolutely must not introduce an increased risk of violence and reoffending after offenders finish their term. Instead of talking tough on crime, will the Government follow the evidence and do what is necessary to prevent crime and reduce reoffending?
Criminal Law — House of Commons, 2020-01-28
Topic: Law and Crime
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am grateful to the Minister It is important that victims get justice, and that it is seen that justice has been done, but the Liberal Democrats worry about the language that is being used, because there is not enough emphasis on rehabilitation. Will the Minister come forward to point out how effective rehabilitation is actually going to work—in addition to tougher sentences, if that has to be the case?
Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-21
Topic: Agriculture
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Further to the points raised by other Members, long-term planning is very important for farmers. They might, for example, plan to build a hay shed two years hence. Moreover, any lowering of the value of the pound would have an impact on farmers, because the price of fertiliser would go up and any machinery not made in the UK has to be imported. May I appeal to the Government, therefore, that the value of the pound be calculated into any sums as they are worked out for our farmers?
Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-21
Topic: Agriculture
Timothy James Farron (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Farmers are at the forefront of tackling climate change—they see the climate changing before their eyes, they are the eyewitnesses to our changing planet and the damage being done. In the uplands, in Cumbria and elsewhere, it is they who have the ability to help to protect the towns and villages from flooding by planting more trees, managing the land and more generally ensuring the carbon sink that will help to protect our planet. Without them, who will maintain the backdrop to the tourism economy in Cumbria, which is worth £3 billion a year and employs 60,000 people? Indeed, 80% of the working-age population of the Lake district currently earn their living there How can farmers be expected to invest in the long term if they can only look ahead one year at a time? Like most farmers, I accept that in the long term BPS needs to be replaced by public payment for public goods— no argument there—but "public good" needs to be defined widely enough for farmers to make a living, especially farmers in the uplands of Cumbria. I am not saying, therefore, that we should scrap ELMS and keep BPS forever, but I am saying that the Government should not delude themselves into thinking they can make radical change as seamlessly as they appear to think The Bill is necessary and we will support it—not just not oppose it—but it does not answer the need to pave the way for a new system. The Government cannot be permitted to do the bare minimum to fulfil the obligations of the withdrawal agreement, with no thought to the impact in real terms. The Government must protect British farming and therefore the environment—and therefore food security, rare breeds, heritage, landscape, our tourism economy—so will the Government now commit to transition arrangements that allow farmers to survive that transition? In short, I say to the Government: do not remove a penny of BPS from anyone until ELMS is available for everyone.
Prevent Programme — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Law and Crime
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I welcome what has been said about the error of judgment being acknowledged by the police. However, further to what other hon. Members have said, I stress that if such an error of judgment can take place the effect is unfortunately to undermine confidence in Prevent and to raise questions about the culture within which it is operating. On the review, what steps will be taken to ensure there is not a culture that allows such an error of judgment to take place and to undermine an important operation?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-22
Topic: Technology
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The shadow Minister has referred to poor communications. As I have mentioned many times in this place, they are very bad indeed in my constituency. Broadband is at best indifferent. I suggest to the House therefore that many EU citizens are being disadvantaged when trying to get into the system at all because of where they live.