argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2021-07-06
Topic: Labor
Helene Valerie Hayman (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am glad we gave the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the opportunity to have her fix of controversialism for the day—although I was rather surprised to hear what I innocently thought was a reasonable set of probing amendments, on an issue of globally recognised seriousness and urgency, described as some sort of Stalinist implementation of a political hobbyhorse However, be that as it may, I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive response. I am glad to know that we have, within the department with responsibility for COP 26, a Minister who is taking this Bill through the House. I have absolutely no doubt about her seriousness and good faith in wanting to ensure that the issues which so many people from so many sides of the House have raised today are taken seriously; that we equip our economy to respond to the direction of travel in future; and that our young people, and those whose working lives are changed, have the ability to go forward in other new jobs in the future I suspect the Minister will not be surprised if I say I am not totally satisfied with the argument that we do not need anything in the Bill. I am slightly emboldened by my experience so far on this issue—in fact, I feel like a cracked record in taking this forward. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, spoke about the work we did on a cross-party basis on the Financial Services Bill, where we had exactly the same sorts of debate with the Government reassuring us of their good faith and their ability to do things external to the Bill. Eventually, through discussion, we managed to find a way forward to put something into the Bill. We did the same thing on the Pension Schemes Bill, where we had exactly the same arguments that it was not necessary to do this. I am delighted to say that now, if I ever I go to a meeting or listen to anything about pensions, I hear Ministers proudly proclaiming how, in the year of COP 26, we are the first country in the world to include climate considerations and net-zero in legislation on pensions I am encouraged that we may be able to take this further. I hope that we can do so on a consensual basis and that, perhaps, between Committee and Report, we will be able to have discussions with the Minister about whether that is possible. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2021-07-06
Topic: Education
Alastair Bruce (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, my name was initially omitted from the list for this group. My reaction when I found I had been reinserted at number 17 was, "be careful what you wish for". I am not sure I have a lot to add to what has been said. I very much welcome the amendments that seek to ensure that the voices of independent training providers, SMEs and the self-employed are heard in the LSIP process. I particularly await the Minister’s response to Amendment 40 from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, which would require the Secretary of State to report annually "on the performance of employer representative bodies." This seems to raise important questions of the accountability of ERBs, and indeed LSIPs. I hope the Minister might tell us what sort of reporting will be required for LSIPs and how their performance will be measured—against what criteria and by whom. What will happen if they are seen not to deliver the results expected? Much more fundamentally, I strongly echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about how the system will actually work in the real world, as described by both those noble Lords I also notice that the Bill includes quite a few duties and requirements for colleges and other education providers to meet—there are all sorts of things that they have to do—but these seem somewhat less prominent when it comes to LSIPs and employer representative bodies. I also welcome the paragraph (b) proposed in the Amendment 36 of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, which goes a little way to redressing the balance by enabling colleges and other providers to challenge LSIPs if they are not happy with them.
Professional Qualifications Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2021-06-22
Topic: Government Operations
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Patel. I too wish to support all the amendments in this group, but I shall particularly mention Amendments 45 and 46, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I like these amendments because they are directed precisely to an issue which affects two of the regulatory functions that I had when I was Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, as I mentioned at Second Reading The word "regulator" is defined in Clause 16 as meaning a "a person having functions under legislation that relate to the regulation of the profession in the United Kingdom"— a broad definition. The Lord President is such a person. But he does not exercise those functions on his own. His function, in essence, is to supervise or oversee the other regulator which in each case is the professional body itself. The definition does not draw that distinction, but it is relevant to what Clauses 8 and 9 require the regulators to do. The information to which Clause 8 refers is held by the professional bodies, not by the Lord President Amendment 45 addresses itself exactly to the function that the Lord President can perform, which is to ensure that the professional body does what Clause 8 requires. That makes very good sense. There is no need for him to duplicate what the professional bodies are asked to do—which, if the Bill remains as it is, would be its effect. All that is needed is to identify what the Lord President should do as overseer to ensure that the information is made available. The same is true as regards Clause 9. Here too duplication of what the professional body is being asked to do is unnecessary. What Amendment 46 requires of the Lord President is just the kind of thing that he does frequently throughout the year to ensure that the professional body is doing what it is required to do For these reasons, I am grateful—indeed very grateful —to the noble Baroness for bringing these amendments forward. I do not need to comment, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, gave, on Amendments 63 and 68. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the amendments to which I have been speaking make very good sense and will improve the Bill, which in its present form is, for reasons I have hinted at, highly unsatisfactory. I hope that he will feel able to accept them.
Professional Qualifications Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2021-06-22
Topic: Government Operations
Narendra Babubhai Patel (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, to add to what my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has said, I will concentrate mainly on Henry VIII powers, which apply to other clauses in the Bill, not just Clause 13. Henry VIII clauses allow Ministers to amend or repeal provisions in an Act of Parliament using secondary legislation. I tried to look up what the laws might say about Henry VIII powers being adopted. For those not familiar with them, Halsbury’s Laws of England provides the following description: "As a general rule, primary legislation amends other primary legislation but leaves subordinate legislation to amend itself; subordinate legislation frequently amends other subordinate legislation, but mostly does not amend primary legislation Powers conferred by statute cannot be assigned without statutory authority, and whether they can be delegated depends on the construction of the statute. It will be assumed by the courts that Parliament does not delegate legislative or other power unless it does so by express provision or unavoidable implication; and provisions conferring power will be construed strictly against the person on whom the power is conferred An Act of Parliament may contain a power to make subordinate legislation which in turn can amend the enabling Act or another piece of primary legislation. The clause of the Bill containing such a provision allowing primary legislation to be amended by secondary legislation is commonly termed a ‘Henry VIII clause’ and the power itself is likewise called a ‘Henry VIII power’"— terms familiar to us all. It goes on: "The normal principles of statutory construction apply to Henry VIII powers but the courts will apply a restrictive interpretation if there is any doubt as to the scope of the power." The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who is speaking on this group, may wish to comment on that.
Professional Qualifications Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2021-06-22
Topic: Government Operations
Roger Thomas (Crossbench, Unknown): It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and his analysis of Clause 13. I do not wish to add to it, because each of the words used in that clause is deliberately used by parliamentary draftsmen for purposes that, at the moment, I do not fully understand. My objection to the clause—this is why I support the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Patel—is that this is yet another piece of framework legislation with extensive Henry VIII powers, unclear as they are, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, pointed out. There are occasions when one can see a justification for Henry VIII clauses or wide regulatory powers, but we have to ask about the context, and the context of this Bill is the professions, however broadly we define them. It is essential that professions be regulated under a structure approved in detail by Parliament, simply because we must be certain, first, of the quality of the professions, and secondly, of the scope of the restrictions. Thirdly, we must be certain that the professions are completely independent of government interference, given the reliance the Government place on them and the need for them to be steadfast in their independence and independent advice and statements to government The debate earlier this afternoon on Amendment 45 showed the fallacy of trying to do what the Government propose. It is only because this Bill—framework though it is and vague though it is—has been fully subjected to parliamentary scrutiny that some of the really difficult issues and the lack of preparation have come out. I dread to think what will happen when we move to looking at the way the Bill is to operate under regulations. It is clear, then, that the regulations will not subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny. What can be worse than passing what I regret to say, with due deference to parliamentary counsel, for whom I have the highest respect and have had the pleasure of working with on many occasions, is a wholly unsatisfactory and poorly prepared Bill? But a draftsman is not to be blamed for that. The blame lies with those who give the draftsman instructions This is the kind of Bill on which Parliament must now take a stand. We should not be legislating without good primary legislation that sets out the detail, so that we are sure how the regulatory powers are to be used. We should curtail the use of these powers in relation to matters of great importance to the prosperity and health of the nation, and that is the independence of the profession I therefore warmly support the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Patel, in this regard. I have not added to what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said about Henry VIII powers because I do not think I could have improved upon his eloquent explanation.
Professional Qualifications Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2021-06-22
Topic: Government Operations
Roger Thomas (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, the issue on which I speak will be brief and parallels what I said earlier on Clause 13. It is important to keep this Bill as defined as possible. This amendment tries to do that by forcing the Government to explain why the relatively simple issues on Wales cannot be dealt with in the Bill. If there is a real need for the consent of Ministers of the Crown for Welsh Ministers to exercise powers, can a reason be given As the Minister knows from her own experience, the Welsh devolution settlement is extremely complicated, and all this part of the Bill does is make it even more complicated again. I can see no reason why the consent of Ministers of the Crown is required for just two regulators in Wales. Therefore, if there is no real need for these powers, this clause should not be in the Bill. Otherwise, I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I hope the Government can explain why this clause is needed and, if there is no satisfactory explanation, remove it.
Professional Qualifications Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2021-06-22
Topic: Government Operations
Ilora Gillian Finlay (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I think I should start by saying "Diolch yn fawr iawn" to the Minister for her reply I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for supporting me and the noble and learned Lord, Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in this amendment. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, and for her interpretation when she described it as "any passing Minister" being able to make some power, which is how it did feel when I read this in the Bill. As has been said, the devolution settlement is indeed very complicated, and the problem is that the Bill appears to worsen those complications. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, really put her finger on it in explaining what is, in some ways, the delicate nature of all this. I look forward to having a written reply from the Minister, because this is very complicated indeed. I do not think that we have clarified it adequately and, following that letter, I may well want to come back to it on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Professional Qualifications Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2021-06-22
Topic: Government Operations
Narendra Babubhai Patel (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which would insert a sunset clause into the Bill. Why do I say that? Because many of its clauses, as we have already discussed, take Henry VIII powers and the intent of those clauses is not quite clear. The sunset clause overview states that a such a clause provides an expiry date for legislation: "Sunset clauses are included in legislation when it is felt that Parliament should have the chance to decide on its merits again after a fixed period." Sunset clauses let Parliament reassess the legislation at a later date, once it is clear how it has been used in practice and how suitable it is to the policy challenge at hand The introduction of a sunset clause is also a useful method of reaching political compromise. It is clear from our discussions that we do not quite agree with a lot of the clauses. Reaching political compromise in the case of a controversial or sensitive provision allows the Government to make the provision they need for the time being, while building in a statutory guarantee of review of and parliamentary control over the Bill. In that respect, it is also good for the Government: they get their Bill through but it includes a sunset clause to allow Parliament greater scrutiny I was interested to see the guidance on the use of sunset clauses. The Government published guidance, through BEIS, on the better regulation framework in March 2020. This was written for government departments and explains how the better regulation system should operate. Section 1.5 of the guidance provides the following information on the use of review and sunset clauses: "At an early stage in policy development, government departments "will need to consider whether either a statutory review clause is required or a sunset clause is appropriate … Sunset clauses are not a requirement, but a tool for policy makers to use where they are deemed appropriate and impose an automatic expiry of the measure on a specified date … and ensure scrutiny of the decision on whether or not to renew the regulation." On that basis, a sunset clause is the ideal way to deal with this Bill and the powers it takes through its different clauses, and I therefore support it.
Afghanistan — House of Lords, 2021-08-18
Topic: International Affairs
Igor Judge (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, for me, the recriminations can wait: the urgent question is the humanitarian crisis. I want to take just one example of aspirations which have turned out to be based on paper-strong foundations which we in the western world have laid down A few years ago, when I was Lord Chief Justice, an international meeting was held in London for women judges from all over the world. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, was presiding over it. When five judges from Afghanistan answered the roll call, the entire meeting acclaimed their pioneering courage Today, we truly appreciate how much courage was indeed needed. There are just under 300 female judges and magistrates in Afghanistan. Today, you can forget about security of tenure, whether for women or for men: the rule of law has been shattered. My particular concern today is for the personal safety of every one of those women judges. To establish decent foundations in Afghanistan, on the basis of our support, each one of them had the temerity—from the point of view of the Taliban, the sinful effrontery—to sit in open public courts; contrary to sharia law, to sit in judgment over men, to give judgments against men, to pass sentence on men; and to imprison Taliban terrorists, murderers and rapists. All those men are now free and will dress up their revenge as a debt they owe to their God The peril those brave women are in is terrifying. They were our allies in the war against barbarism. We went into Afghanistan and have left Afghanistan because we act in accordance with our loyalty to our allies; we do not desert them. We must not desert those women—these allies who we have left behind.
Afghanistan — House of Lords, 2021-08-18
Topic: International Affairs
Michael Hastings Jay (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, all of us involved over the last 30 years in one way or another in policy towards Afghanistan will feel pretty gutted at the events of the last few days. Many of us have seen at first hand the courage and commitment of our soldiers, diplomats, aid workers and others and, of course, of the Afghan men and women with whom we worked. There will, of course, come a time to look at how we got to where we are now—and, indeed, the circumstances in which military intervention may be justified. In my view, today is not the day to do that. But I do hope that out of all this will come a foreign policy based more on cold realism and less on rhetoric I will make three points. First, we must, if at all possible, maintain an embassy in Kabul, provided, of course, that our people are safe. Without it, we lose influence and understanding—and neither of those can we afford. I hope that Laurie Bristow, for whom I have the highest admiration, can stay. Can the Minister give us any assurance on this, at least of the Government’s intention Secondly, we must offer and seek to deliver—not easy, I know—humanitarian aid. Thirdly, we must work with others—the EU, the US, China, Russia, Afghanistan and Afghanistan’s neighbours to try to ensure a stable Afghanistan that is not a breeding ground for terrorists. There is surely a common interest here and the UN will have a key role to play, as the noble Baroness mentioned in her opening speech No one knows what sort of Taliban regime will emerge from the present crisis, nor how coherent it will be. With others, we may be able to affect things; on our own we will not. It will be a hard slog and it will be unglamorous, but it may just make a difference, and we owe it to those who have given so much.
Afghanistan — House of Lords, 2021-08-18
Topic: International Affairs
Peter Ricketts (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Jay, in paying tribute to the work of Sir Laurie Bristow and the British embassy team in Kabul during these dangerous days. I also fully agree with other noble Lords who have spoken about the need for Britain to be a major player in the looming humanitarian crisis and for a resettlement scheme which enables large numbers to come quickly to this country, particularly vulnerable women and those who are at acute risk because they worked with us in Afghanistan. They trusted us to stick with them, and we have let them down. We also face the reality that to ensure safe passage for vulnerable people, we will need to deal with the Taliban authorities, which is a point to bear in mind when it comes to issues of recognition I want to touch on the strategic implications of what has happened, starting with NATO. Good allies need to be honest with each other, so it needs to be said that the American handling of Afghanistan these last two years has been a decisive contribution to the current disaster. President Trump’s decision to negotiate with the Taliban undermined the Afghan Government. President Biden’s decision to set an arbitrary deadline to suit US political purposes has really knocked the morale of Afghan security forces and triggered the unravelling of events that we have seen in recent days. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hammond, that the low-level western security presence over recent years provided reassurance to the regime and deterrence against Taliban adventurism, at low risk to western forces. That is all now gone. The chaotic scenes in Kabul are on a par with Saigon in 1975, except in that case, the humiliation was American; in this case it is shared with all American allies Our objective in Afghanistan was never simply to deny safe space to the terrorists. The first ISAF mission that the UK commanded in 2001 set out with a wider objective. The name itself is significant: the International Security Assistance Force. That is the mission that many allies went into Afghanistan with, in solidarity with the Americans. They stuck it out for 20 difficult years, and we have left precious little security behind Confidence in NATO has been damaged. China is the main beneficiary of President Biden’s decision. "America is back" now sounds rather hollow—"America is backing down" fits the case better. The British priority must be to address the damage done to NATO, to rebuild effective political consultations within NATO, and to focus on European security and the risk of Islamic terrorism in Europe. Rather than tilting to the Indo-Pacific, that is where the UK needs to put its national security energies In the light of the sorry end to the Afghanistan mission, we also need to rethink how the West can use force in the future where it is necessary to protect its interests, as it surely will need to do again somewhere, sometime.