argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Childcare Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-10-14
Topic: Government Operations
Elizabeth Andrews (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I listened very closely to what the Minister said about the progress that has been made since Committee. Clearly there has been some progress, but I want to press him on certain points and to reiterate the points of colleagues across the House. The Select Committee said that it was surprised and disappointed at the Government’s response. It was surprised because it is unusual—very unusual indeed—for a government department not to respond more positively to a report of the committee. I will come back to that in more detail. Certainly I am less surprised than the committee, but I am equally disappointed. I understood, like many of us across the House, that what we were to expect, before the start of Report, was a full analysis of the impact that these changes would make, based on the information obtained about the costs borne by the sector and the distribution of those costs, so that the House, to quote the noble Lord, will, "be able to say a lot more about the delivery model"—[Official Report, 1 July 2015; col. 2093.] Frankly, that promise has not been fulfilled. We do not know more about the delivery model, we cannot comment on it and we cannot make more sense of it.
Childcare Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-10-14
Topic: Social Welfare
James Donnelly Touhig (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very short debate. In response to Amendment 2, the Minister agreed that local authorities were best placed to deliver the additional childcare. It begs the question why the first four words in Clause 1(1) were ever in the Bill in the first place—but that is another matter. I received some reassurance on Amendments 14 and 16, although I am still not entirely convinced. However, we have done our very best to try to improve the Bill on these matters and it is time to cede responsibility for improving the Bill—certainly as far as Amendments 2,14 and 16 are concerned— to those who legislate in the other place. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.
Childcare Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-10-14
Topic: Education
James Donnelly Touhig (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for the very helpful meeting he held yesterday, when we had the opportunity to explore a number of issues that have exercised us throughout the passage of the Bill, in particular, the outline of the funding review Amendment 11 in this group was much in my thoughts after our meeting and the presentation. I fear that the funding review’s progress and the conclusions it will reach may well be a threat to the existing staff- child ratios, which would be a retrograde step were it to happen. Of course, because the Government, sadly, seem determined to put the cart before the horse—passing legislation through your Lordships’ House and telling us afterwards how it will be funded—I feel I have every reason to be concerned Amendment 11 goes to the very heart of the standard of education and childcare that parents can expect, especially those with special educational needs children. While I am the first to recognise that there are many good educators in the childcare education sector who themselves have no formal level 3 qualification—a point well made yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland—that does not mean we should not seek to do something about that and ensure that everybody has the appropriate qualification. The simple fact is that no one leaving education today will have a job for life. Everyone will have to retrain and upskill in their working lives. If we do not recognise that by ensuring that the first learning and educational experience a child receives in its life is delivered by someone who themselves has been well trained, we start at a disadvantage We must be bold in our ambition for our children, and Amendment 11 is surely the foundation of that ambition. That is why we on this side strongly support it.
Childcare Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-10-14
Topic: Social Welfare
Margaret Beryl Jones (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I support these amendments. In essence they follow on from our earlier debate about funding. The noble Baroness has made a compelling case for the payment schemes being fully funded. This is important for providers and local authorities, who do not want to discover that once again, they are being expected to cross-subsidise the free places from other budgets or income streams. It is particularly important for children living in deprived areas, for whom additional funding from another pot simply might not be available We also support the strong case being made for an element of capital funding being included in the local authority grant. If part of the Government’s strategy is to increase demand and bring new people into the jobs market, rather than simply provide a higher subsidy for those already in work, extra capacity will need to be found. We cannot rely on the market to fill this gap, particularly in the poorer areas, so local authorities will need to step in and help The last thing that we want as a result of this Bill is for the gap in provision between the more affluent areas and deprived ones to widen, but if we are not careful that could be the consequence if the places are not fully funded. We support these amendments and the certainty that will arise from the commitment to funding being enshrined in the Bill.
Childcare Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-10-14
Topic: Government Operations
James Donnelly Touhig (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I regret very much having to put Amendment 27 before the House but, frankly, the Government leave us no choice. We have seen throughout the passage of the Bill the cavalier attitude the Government have taken—not by the Ministers who have represented the Government in this House, I hasten to add, but by the Government as a whole. In support of that assertion, I quote from the 2nd Report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, published on 26 June, which says at paragraph 10: "We note that the Minister said that ‘the introduction of the Bill, with a strong duty on the Secretary of State, sends a clear message to parents and providers about the Government’s commitment’. That is not, in our judgment, a proper use of legislation: the purpose of an Act is to change the law, not to ‘send a message’". Earlier, in paragraph 8, the committee says: "In our view, the Government’s stated approach to delegation is flawed. While the Bill may contain a legislative framework, it contains virtually nothing of substance beyond the vague ‘mission statement’" Finally, in paragraph 9 of the report, the committee states that: "We do not accept the Government’s attempt to dignify their approach to delegation by referring to a need to consult. We of course acknowledge the need for consultation as a precursor to the formation of policy; but this should in our view have followed the well-established sequence of a Green Paper setting out proposals, followed by a White Paper containing the Government’s legislative intentions, and finally the presentation of a Bill" There we have it—that spells out quite clearly how the Government should be presenting legislation to Parliament.
Childcare Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-10-14
Topic: Social Welfare
Elizabeth Andrews (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I support my noble friend on this point. If the Delegated Powers Committee had believed that first-time affirmative action was sufficient it would certainly have said so, because its mark as a committee is to be proportionate. There is a very good reason why it has said, so strongly, that any changes must be done through the affirmative procedure each time. Perhaps I may use the Government’s arguments against them. The Minister previously argued that these definitions of eligibility were technical, but they are not. The point about these regulations is that the definitions represent the substance of the Bill: who is going to be eligible for these extended childcare provisions. They are a serious aspect of the Bill and should be on the face of it. The Minister argued that there may be a need to change the definitions and if they are in secondary legislation they can be changed more easily. If that is the case, the changes to the definitions are very serious indeed. As the committee says, they may be made to remove or add new categories. The Government know that they are dealing with a febrile and dynamic situation with a complex aspect of policy and they may well require to change these regulations. We are dealing with massive uncertainties here. The Government would be well advised—I say this in all sincerity—to follow the advice of the committee in this instance and ensure that each change in the regulations is properly debated in this House by way of an affirmative resolution
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Criminal Courts Charge) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): That this House regrets that the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Criminal Courts Charge) Regulations 2015 undermine the principle of judicial discretion, and add an artificial inducement to plead guilty; and further regrets that the Regulations were laid at a time that severely limited Parliamentary oversight, as well as making claims for savings that cannot be substantiated (SI 2015/796). Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Criminal Courts Charge) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Jeffrey Rooker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I have just received an email from a friend who is a magistrate. I shall not say where because these days one cannot do that. It is worth putting on the record. He writes: "Courts are closing in great numbers with another 90 about to be closed and there will be more after this. Defendants and witnesses now have to travel great distances. Some cannot afford it so plead guilty when they may not be. Also, it has removed the fundamental right of citizens to be tried by their peers as the cost of the criminal court charge is so high and beyond most defendants’ means, so they are pleading guilty. It has removed the need of the CPS to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. Not many well-off people appear in court so it is the poorest who are being hit with a double whammy" That is the view of a serving magistrate sitting on the Bench today.
Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Criminal Courts Charge) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Minister can live in hope. I have a certain sense of déjà vu when listening to the elegant defence the Minister makes of the indefensible. I remember the skill with which he sought to defend the previous Lord Chancellor’s secure college proposal, which was interred not too long ago by the new Secretary of State, and I rather think he is in the same position tonight—I rather hope that he is The Secretary of State the Lord Chancellor is reported today in the press to have made a very significant change in the Government’s policy relating to justice by persuading the Government to withdraw from their proposal to offer the service of the splendidly named Just Solutions International to the Government of Saudi Arabia in the light of the dreadful position of a British citizen that, unfortunately, we are all familiar with. The Lord Chancellor may need some support in seeking to change the system and these regulations—which he inherited—in order to promote, let us say, just solutions nationally as opposed to internationally. The opinion of this House may strengthen his hand with regard to discussions with colleagues who in the other context seem to have been somewhat recalcitrant. In those circumstances, therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Liaison Committee — House of Lords, 2015-11-10
Topic: International Affairs
Donald Anderson (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, may I say how much I believe my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours was right to raise important details about resources? I hope that the future committee will indeed have some restraint on travel My noble friend also made points about the ad hoc committees, but his major point related to possible conflict with the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place. I had the honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in chairing that committee. I chaired it for eight years—for two Parliaments. When the noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked for my opinions at that time on a point of consistency, I said that it is a big world and as long as there is a degree of good will and working together, I fully supported the creation in this House of the committee which is now proposed. Even then, one recognised that there was an enormous pool of relevant experience in this House. There still is but that did not alter my view that, given the turbulence and importance of matters around the world, and the limited agenda of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place, it was important that this reservoir of experience should be tapped The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked, "Well, why not Sub-Committee C?". I served on that committee and it does some good work, but the Procrustean distortion of that committee is this: that everything has to be viewed through the prism of the European Union. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, important areas—be it the Commonwealth, the Far East, or other areas that are not directly relevant to the European Union—are excluded from its remit. Yes, there will have to be a degree of co-ordination, of good will and of working together, but this is appropriate and I personally congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on what has been a long and rather successful campaign.
Liaison Committee — House of Lords, 2015-11-10
Topic: International Affairs
Janet Alison Whitaker (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, in warmly supporting this proposal I suggest that an additional reason for it is that we have no formal structure for scrutinising our international obligations. We have an ample structure for scrutinising European legislation proposals—and one which is widely admired—but absolutely nothing to deal with our obligations under international treaties or proposals under them, such as international protocols. That is what this committee could provide. It is very important for Parliament to have a voice in these negotiations.
Liaison Committee — House of Lords, 2015-11-10
Topic: International Affairs
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I do not disagree with what my noble friend has said, but I have one point to make. I had the honour of following my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours as a member of this Liaison Committee. When I joined the committee, I found that there had been a very long-running battle between the enthusiasts for setting up an international relations committee and those who had reservations. Since the noble Lord, Lord Laming, took over as Convenor, he has, with tremendous skill and remarkable diplomacy, come up with a compromise which allows the setting up of the committee but puts very strong limits and controls on it. He is to be congratulated. I hope that we do not delay it and that the House passes it and endorses it unanimously.
Liaison Committee — House of Lords, 2015-11-10
Topic: International Affairs
Frank Ashcroft Judd (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the country has been through immense change in recent decades. We have moved from being a great imperial power to one which is dependent for the survival and well-being of its people on international co-operation. We will be judged by our children and our grandchildren on our success or failure in relation to that demanding challenge. Given the experience at the disposal of this House, it seems to me inconceivable that we should go any further without establishing a committee on international affairs as a priority. A tremendous tribute is due to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for the consistent leadership he has shown on this issue.
Liaison Committee — House of Lords, 2015-11-10
Topic: International Affairs
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): I am sorry to intervene again. Was there any discussion with the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Commons—I know a new chairman has just been elected? Was there any consultation with the Foreign Affairs Committee on the proposal that we are considering?
Europe: Renegotiation — House of Lords, 2015-11-10
Topic: International Affairs
John Tomlinson (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Minister cast his mind back to the Statement made by the Minister of State at the Foreign Office following the last European Council meeting? She outlined four main principles. What additional information are we given in this letter, compared with that given by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in the Statement following the last European Council meeting? We were told that there would be substantial detail, yet as we get the Statement the covering letter says very clearly that, "this letter is not to describe the precise means, or detailed legal proposals, for bringing the reforms we seek into effect" What is it supposed to do if it is not supposed to do that? We were promised by the Minister of State that we would get much more significant detail by the time we got the letter addressed to the President of the European Council. Can he tell us where—in either the Statement or the letter—that additional detail is?
Europe: Renegotiation — House of Lords, 2015-11-10
Topic: International Affairs
Stanley Clinton Clinton-Davis (Labour, Centre-left): I speak as a former commissioner in Europe. This debate is outrageous. We ought to be discussing not how we are going to withdraw from Europe but how we can play a part in ensuring that our voice is heard. At the moment, it is not, because the Prime Minister is being ambiguous—we do not know where he stands. He will not say whether he is for or against. What is vital is how we make our views heard, not how we can withdraw. We should not have this attenuated debate, but a real one about the all-important issues. At the moment, that is being denied to Parliament, and that is wrong.
Europe: Renegotiation — House of Lords, 2015-11-10
Topic: International Affairs
Stewart Martin Wood (Labour, Centre-left): Can the Minister clear up this small confusion? The Prime Minster today said that if Europe did not listen to his demands he would rule nothing out. He also said, however, that, "our membership of the EU does matter for our national security and for the security of our allies" Does that mean that if the Prime Minister is unsuccessful in getting Europe to listen to his demands and to respond constructively, he is prepared to recommend leaving, although leaving is against our national security?
Europe: Renegotiation — House of Lords, 2015-11-10
Topic: International Affairs
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, all three Front Benches have told us that this is a momentous decision of huge, crucial, national importance. I can only say as kindly as I can muster the words that neither the debate nor the performance of the Government so far has in any way matched up to this rhetoric. The Prime Minister did not want a referendum, but he was forced into having one. He did not know what he wanted to negotiate. We did not know what he wanted to negotiate. Our European partners did not know what he wanted to negotiate. The only thing we know for certain, and I am sure the Minister can confirm this, is that whatever he does negotiate will result in his returning to Downing Street saying that it has been a triumph, and he will then recommend a yes vote.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill — House of Lords, 2015-11-10
Topic: Macroeconomics
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): I think the noble Baroness is saying that I suggested that the Government had broken the triple lock in the summer Budget. I was not suggesting that they broke the triple lock but that the summer Budget had very significant tax increases—of the order of £4 billion-plus. I hope that she is not disagreeing with that assessment. If she is, perhaps she will write to me and set out the logic behind her disagreement.
Apprenticeships — House of Lords, 2015-10-15
Topic: Labor
William Haughey (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Prosser for securing this very important debate. For someone who served time as an apprentice that gave me the skills I required to virtually guarantee employment for the rest of my working life, it is vital that we do not allow the term "apprenticeship" to be hijacked for political gains. Much has been said by the Chancellor and Prime Minister about the creation of 3 million new apprenticeships during the term of their Government. Young people hearing that believe it is wonderful news and that there is a prospect of 3 million new, meaningful jobs. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In reality, a vast number of these apprenticeships are short-term training courses, mostly taken up by people already employed Most of the points I plan to raise have already been raised by my noble friends so I will not subject noble Lords who have taken the time to remain in the Chamber for this very important debate to repetitiveness. However, we cannot allow the term "apprenticeship" to be diluted. Some training providers have seen this as a Klondike. The model we have at the moment does not benefit the individual. As a large employer who spends a lot of money on apprenticeships, I would not be happy paying a levy for it to be spent in the way it is at present. I am really interested to find out what the Government mean by guaranteeing these 3 million apprenticeships as I do not know how that is possible I could give many bad examples of what is happening at the moment under the apprenticeship banner. Here is one. In Scotland, if you work in a bar and you want to attend a training course for a few nights a week, for maybe eight times, and learn how to pour a pint, you will get a certificate. This is deemed a modern apprenticeship. This is wholly unacceptable and I could give many, many cases. I could be here all day Over the last 30 years I have funded more than 1,700 meaningful apprenticeships. The true definition of an apprenticeship—as most people here would know it—is training in practical and theoretical skills that would give someone the tools hopefully to keep them gainfully employed for many, many years. Unfortunately, I do not think the vast majority of the 3 million apprenticeships that the Chancellor has announced fall into this category. The lack of investment in apprenticeships over the last 10 years, especially in the construction industry, will come back to haunt us. Therefore, I humbly request the Minister to return to this House and inform the noble Lords how many of these 3 million apprenticeships that have been talked about are new jobs I visited a school in Glasgow last week where I spoke to 600 children. I gave them my life story and at the end I was asked by at least six children where the adverts appear for all these new apprenticeships. I could not tell them. It is very important that we do not give false hope to young people. I also think that it has to be explained what these 3 million guaranteed apprenticeships really mean.