argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Fisheries Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-06-22
Topic: Environment
Barbara Young (Labour, Centre-left): When I originally read this amendment, I thought I supported the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for an independent review if there was disagreement among the fisheries policy authorities. However, the more I thought about it, the less I liked it. The problem with independent reviewers is that the selection of them does not always do the business, especially when environmental, economic and social considerations need to be balanced within a requirement for sustainability. Independent reviewers are often identified as having come from one or other of the sectors involved, and their background is deeply suspected by people from the other sectors We have just had a perfect example of that in the recent so-called independent review of HS2 costs and benefits, with the result that ancient woodlands are being comprehensively trashed along the length of England. So I hope that the Minister will meet the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and come up with some other good idea for working through disagreements between the fisheries policy authorities that does not involve independent review.
Fisheries Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-06-22
Topic: Agriculture
Christopher Suenson-Taylor (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, Amendment 11, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raises an important question in relation to the formulation of joint fisheries statements. Indeed, what happens if the authorities disagree on the policies to be included or their suitability in relation to the overall fisheries objectives? This is an area where we tried to tease out a little more detail in Committee, albeit with a focus on the Clause 9 power for authorities to make transitional provision. My concern then was to ensure joined-up policy-making rather than dealing with a formal dispute between different parties. However, the essence of the problem is the same. With different authorities working on different areas of policy, what mechanism is or should be in place should differences occur The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, proposes an ability to refer matters to an independent review that would report in a relatively short timeframe. Such an approach would not necessarily resolve the differences of opinion, but it would at least provide an external arbiter whose findings each body would have to take account of. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the process envisaged under the current formulation. If he does not agree with the approach suggested in Amendment 11, will he acknowledge that this may require further thought as the Bill progresses through the Commons?
Universal Credit: Court of Appeal Judgment — House of Lords, 2020-06-29
Topic: Social Welfare
Maeve Christina Mary Sherlock (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, universal credit works on fixed assessment periods. But if, like NHS workers, you get paid at the end of the month, you can find two pay days falling in one universal credit period. The system then assumes that you have had a 100% pay rise and slashes your benefit, or even stops it altogether, thinking that you are now too rich to need it. We have raised this with Ministers repeatedly, but to no avail. It should not take four single mums going all the way to the Court of Appeal to have this obviously daft policy declared irrational. How will the Government find and compensate all those who have lost out? When will the system be changed to stop this happening in future?
Universal Credit: Court of Appeal Judgment — House of Lords, 2020-06-29
Topic: Labor
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, last week, the Minister promised MPs that "everything is on the table",—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/20; col. 1462.] except, it would seem, the monthly assessment itself, even though it does not align with the reality of the working lives of the many claimants paid more frequently, and bases a month’s entitlement on personal circumstances from a single day. This is another example of irrationality and inflexibility. As well as fixing the immediate problem urgently, will the Government undertake a longer-term review of the monthly assessment?
Universal Credit: Court of Appeal Judgment — House of Lords, 2020-06-29
Topic: Law and Crime
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Minister, who is usually very helpful on these kinds of questions, has not answered the questions put by my noble friend. If the computer system is as agile as she and her colleagues keep claiming it is, why can it not resolve this single issue quickly and give these people the justice they deserve? When will she answer the single, simple question: when will it be resolved?
Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-06-29
Topic: Government Operations
Charles Falconer (Labour, Centre-left): I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. There is no dispute between us; all three amendments should be approved, to reflect the changes resulting from removing the wider power. The Minister repeated his argument for why that power should be there. We have had this argument three times now. It was rejected when he put it to the Delegated Powers Committee, rejected when it was put to the Constitution Committee, and massively rejected when it was put before your Lordships’ House, so there is no point repeating it again. The Minister said that we should be dealing with subsequent conventions by secondary legislation. We have made amendments in this Bill to the three conventions that we are bringing in today. We could not have done so if his Clause 2 powers had been there. I hope that he will bring back what was the view of everybody in the Chamber, apart from him—namely that the Clause 2 power should not be there.
Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-06-29
Topic: International Affairs
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I enjoyed the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, especially when, having made a couple of political points, he asked us to cast political points aside. It is nice to see that he is in his usual jolly form I am very pleased that the Government have decided to remove Clause 2 and Schedule 6 from the Bill. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. We would not want to give the Government carte blanche on any agreement, especially at a time when the Civil Service is being taken over by political ideologues—friends of Mr Cummings. But, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, having made a couple of political points, I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, on the state of play in discussions with the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories, have any memoranda of understanding been agreed, and what does he expect the final outcome to be Secondly, as a delegate from this Parliament to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe I noted that paragraph 5 of the Explanatory Note states that "Agreements containing PIL rules may also be negotiated through the Council of Europe." I am keen to know what agreements would come into that category. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond today, but if he cannot, I would appreciate his response in writing.
Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-06-29
Topic: International Affairs
Jack Wilson McConnell (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, these are sensible amendments and I support the Bill as it now stands. There was an interesting exchange on Report in relation to devolution issues, particularly in relation to Wales following the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hain. It was an informative debate. During that discussion, I raised the issue of the arrangements in place to involve the devolved Governments in the discussion of international treaties. There is a commitment in the concordat between the UK Government and the devolved Governments to ensure that there is prior consultation in relation to appropriate international treaties In that debate on my noble friend’s amendment, I asked specifically if it might be appropriate at some stage for us to move towards an institutional framework for the involvement of the devolved Governments in the agreement of negotiating mandates for international treaties, rather than simply a preference from Government to Government on consultation. I heard the response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on that day and I read it again afterwards. The Government’s wording is carefully chosen. He said: "We are very conscious of our responsibilities under the devolution settlements, and our approach in this area is always to seek to engage early and often when any questions arise. It is my view that such an approach of early engagement is the best way to make consultation genuinely meaningful."—[Official Report, 17/6/20; col. 2251.] That is of course very sensible. But will the Minister reflect on the opportunity for this and other Bills that will come before us as a result of our departure from the European Union and other factors to prompt us along the road of a better institutional framework for the engagement of the devolved Governments in negotiating mandates for international treaties? Perhaps, outwith a piece of legislation that might just polarise us in debate, there might be scope for a debate on this in your Lordships’ House in the future.
Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-06-29
Topic: International Affairs
John Mann (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, it is a little disconcerting to end up being thought by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Garnier and Lord Falconer, to be on the side of the angels, but I concur with the consensus that has emerged on the Bill. When we left the European Union, we did not leave in order to give the Executive more power. The argument that was put was that power would be transferred back to the British Parliament. There is a substantive difference between Parliament and the Executive in our democracy, and it would behove the Government in future to be significantly less reliant on so-called Henry VIII powers. That is not taking back control of democracy; it is ceding control to the Executive. That will come back and bite the Executive politically in the view of the general public at some stage in future. I am pleased that we have a consensus today Finally, I add to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, to clarify what the situation will be in relation to Northern Cyprus.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-06-29
Topic: Technology
Robert Stevenson (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, Amendment 4 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Livermore. The amendment is an attempt to get the Government to say more about what happens to people who feel that they qualify for an upgrade to the standard set, apparently, by the USO, which is 10 megabits per second. Who pays for what, and what alternatives exist, such as the perhaps too little-known community fibre partnerships Shortly after Committee, I received an email from someone caught up in this issue. He told me about his experiences, which, I suspect, are not unique. He had to prove, first, that his existing service fell below the standards set by the USO. The official figures seemed to indicate that he was receiving a better service, and therefore did not qualify—apparently quite a common mistake. Who decides this? It seems that Openreach is both judge and jury in its own case. What rights do individuals have Having proved that he did in fact fall below the USO, alternatives were suggested to my correspondent, but they proved technically infeasible. He was, therefore, left with no option but to consider a co-payment approach that would cost him just over £18,000—not an insubstantial sum None of this seems very fair, so I have some questions. What alternatives do people living in isolated, and indeed not so isolated, houses have? Who decides on co-payment costs: what they are and how they should be shared? The legislation suggests "reasonable" costs: who defines "reasonable"? Is there any appeal or ombudsman process to this? What role might community fibre partnerships play in sharing costs and offering a better service? Should they not be given more prominence than they have had until now, in this area? I do not necessarily need a detailed response to these questions. I know that the department is already in correspondence with the person who contacted me, and I am grateful for that. A letter would be sufficient at this stage. I will not be pressing this amendment to a vote, but I beg to move.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-06-29
Topic: International Affairs
David Blunkett (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I had intended to make a substantive contribution on human rights, the much broader foreign policy and trade implications, and on where this country stands, but in light of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the wind-up of the Minister, I see no point making that speech this evening. Therefore, I will rest for another day.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-06-29
Topic: International Affairs
Peter Hain (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for her gracious and generous intervention—or speech. Having long campaigned for human rights globally, especially against apartheid, where I called for commercial sanctions against the regime and complicit companies, I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his compelling speech and for co-ordinating Amendment 5 and tabling it on a cross-party basis I support, to the point of voting for it if he calls for a vote, its objective, which is to ensure that Huawei has to respect human rights in order to operate within the terms of the Bill. The Chinese state, which sponsors Huawei, has made at least 1 million Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang the victims of mass internment, torture and a brutal assault on their human rights. President Xi is now also, some say deliberately, allowing a coronavirus outbreak to plague Uighur Muslims, who are herded into these internment camps—cramped, with terrible sanitation and medical facilities—and are therefore very vulnerable, in what is an ideal breeding ground for Covid-19. The important point is—I end on this—that, as the German scholar Adrian Zenz shows in his report, Huawei is a part of the security services in Xinjiang; in other words, this giant corporation is complicit in all the horror, and this amendment seeks to end at least that, within the terms of this Bill.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-06-29
Topic: Technology
Deborah Wilcox (Labour, Centre-left): This amendment would serve a necessary purpose: the delivery of 1 gigabit per second broadband to every home by 2025. It is an ambition stated by the current Prime Minister, but what is the hesitation? The lack of bold leadership and ambition to get this done is of concern. Amendment 7 builds on an amendment tabled by Liberal Democrat colleagues in Committee but is significantly wider in its scope A review of the impact of the Act would require consideration of the suitability of other parts of the Electronic Communications Code in facilitating the Government’s aim of universal access to high-speed broadband. It is clear from some of the stories and examples raised during this Bill’s passage that for a variety of reasons there are significant obstacles to meeting the Government’s target. As such, I hope the Minister will recognise that Amendment 7 is designed to be helpful and to bring us closer to the destination that we all agree on The country has a mountain to climb after the serious damage sustained to the economy during and after this health pandemic. Millions of lives will be affected by the implications of unemployment and a contracting public sector. The UK, ill prepared for the onset of the virus and constantly playing catch-up during it, has to try to regain momentum in delivering a fair and balanced economy to benefit the majority of its citizens. The recovery programme that must be implemented after the pandemic will be utterly dependent on how we connect ourselves and the wider world. As it is expected that working from home will continue for some and develop and reproduce, we need good and reliable internet speeds across the country to support this. The universality of the service, so that it is available to all irrespective of location, is also an important point, raised previously by my noble friend Lord Adonis The mix of cybersecurity-focused big business, a critical mass of small enterprises and GCHQ-recognised academic excellence, promoted by the Welsh Government’s strategy, is presently located in my home city of Newport There must be an evaluation of the impact, over at least a six-month period, to aid the recovery of the economy after Covid, and residents of houses in multiple occupation should not be treated less favourably in any aspect that inhibits the rollout of this vital public service. While steps to improve rollout of new infra- structure to multiple-occupancy dwellings is welcome, I ask the Minister what plans the Government have to deal with issues in rural areas. I therefore speak in favour of the amendment.
Charitable and Voluntary Sector — House of Lords, 2020-04-30
Topic: Social Welfare
Jill Pitkeathley (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I do not need to tell any Member of your Lordships’ House that charities are the eyes, ears and conscience of society: they mobilise, they provide, they inspire, they advocate and they unite. I have worked in or with the sector for most of my long working life, and I chaired the House of Lords Select Committee on Charities. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing about this debate and congratulate him on its extremely significant timing When my Select Committee reported in 2018, it was recognised that we were living in a time of profound change and that the environment in which charities were working was altering dramatically. How much more is that the case now? We should never forget that charities are not, and should not be, in existence to preserve themselves. Their only reason for existence is to serve the individuals and communities that they were created to serve. Those communities, such as the poor, the sick and the disadvantaged, are more in need than they have ever been—perhaps since the beginning of the welfare state—as a result of Covid-19 The £750 million pledged by the Government is very welcome but it is nowhere near enough to reflect the money that charities have lost. For years, charities have been urged to diversify their income streams and to find new ways of financing their work, but now those very ways—their shops, their social enterprises and their partnerships with businesses—are all under threat What changes will the Government make to existing support measures for businesses, to make them more suitable for charities? Will the Government understand the urgent need for immediate support for charities, which are already running through whatever reserves they have and may well close entirely? Indeed, many would have done so already if it were not for the committed staff and volunteers on whom the sector depends Also, thinking beyond today, will the Government commit, through DCMS and the Treasury, to continue to work closely with charities and their representatives to ensure that this sector, which I do not—[Connection lost.]
Charitable and Voluntary Sector — House of Lords, 2020-04-30
Topic: Social Welfare
Deborah Wilcox (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, on 27 March the Welsh Government announced an initial fund of £24 million to support Wales’s voluntary sector in response to the pandemic. The fund will support three distinct areas of activity: helping charities and third sector organisations financially through the crisis by providing direct financial support; helping more people volunteer; and helping volunteering services by supporting third sector organisations as well as strengthening essential third sector infrastructure, including the Volunteering Wales platform The primary issue for charities, however, is survival. After 10 years of austerity, they had already been cut to the very bone before this situation hit. Sickness levels of staff in charities have gone up, while organisations have seen an increased need for services, and calls for mediation and safeguarding are rising exponentially. Charities are also having to spend vast sums on PPE and sanitation products The charity Llamau works with young homeless people in Wales, and its chief executive, Frances Beecher, recently told me that her staff, who are working with vulnerable and already traumatised young homeless people struggling with lockdown, need all the expertise, resources and help to support them. The other big issue she raised was the lack of fundraising opportunities to bridge the gap between the income that charities receive and the cost of delivering services. It has been decimated: Llamau will lose over £600,000 this year Charities started as people were falling through the net of statutory support. The safety nets are now mainly with charities; it is where the knowledge and expertise are left. Many charities, especially regional and service delivery ones, will go to the wall. The fight to end youth homelessness or to combat domestic abuse will be stalled; the human cost will be huge. However, the financial costs will also be huge for statutory services, the criminal justice system and, indeed, mental health services. More support must be leveraged into the charity sector to prevent it being decimated. The Welsh Government have implemented measures, but they too need more funding. Can the Minister ensure that the UK Government also support charities and the voluntary sector with extra funding during these extraordinary times in which we live?