argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Free Trade Agreement Negotiations: Australia — House of Lords, 2021-06-24
Topic: Government Operations
Donald Foster (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I think I welcome the Minister’s comment that the House will have the opportunity to fully scrutinise the text of the agreement, which will be presented after signature, but given the limited parliamentary oversight arrangements in both Houses, will he commit to presenting the document immediately after signature so that the committees have sufficient time to review the agreement before it is formally laid under the CRaG arrangements?
Social Care and the Role of Carers — House of Lords, 2021-06-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Celia Marjorie Thomas (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I shall speak about home carers which is something I know about as I have them myself. So, I declare that interest. I feel strongly that being a carer is not a low-skilled job. Even helping to dress a frail, elderly or disabled person safely is a skill which should be recognised. Disabled people might be under the care of well-paid hospital consultants, but the consultants could not do their job without the day-to-day work of competent but low-paid carers. Half-hour-only visits are common, with no travelling time paid. It is not uncommon for carers to be the first people to find that a client has fallen or even has died in the night. Carers, particularly in large cities, are often from overseas and have to get used to difficult clients who sometimes resort to mild racial abuse, particularly if those clients are slipping into dementia. Good carers are like gold dust. They should be much better rewarded.
Social Care and the Role of Carers — House of Lords, 2021-06-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Claire Tyler (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Jolly on her excellent opening speech and declare an interest, as I have a close family member in a care home. As we have just heard, the pandemic has cruelly exposed the plight of those dependent on social care. The NHS provides free care for all, based on need, but there is no equivalent care service to which families can turn when they or their loved ones need help, causing untold heartache. Only countless money and time from individual families is stopping the system from complete collapse. Age UK has estimated that more than 1.5 million people are missing out on the care they need, and the cost of inaction is falling on the shoulders of 11.5 million unpaid carers, some aged 80 and above. This national scandal is no longer hidden from view due to Covid, but it is something the country increasingly understands and feels is grossly unfair Not just the elderly are affected. Younger disabled adults make up half the costs of the adult social care budget and generally do not own their own houses. The NHS provides insurance against the cost of health- care, primarily paid for through taxes, but there is currently no way for individuals to insure themselves for social care. Addressing this requires bold action and a strong political will. We need a comprehensive programme of reform for social care, both now and in the future, and I believe that programme needs three key pillars The first is to shore up a fragile and highly fragmented sector reeling from the impact of Covid, increased costs and low occupation rates, with some care homes becoming increasingly unviable financially. Immediate funding is needed to improve the quality of care and introduce minimum standards The second is individual funding. A cap on individual social care costs, as proposed by the Dilnot commission 10 years ago, alongside a more generous means test for access to publicly funded social care, would at least fix one of the system’s big problems: the lack of protection for people and their families against potentially catastrophic care costs. The architecture for doing this already exists; Dilnot’s proposals were put into legislation in 2014, with cross-party support. Thirdly, we urgently need a new deal for the care workforce, with action on pay, training and development, career progression, professionalism and recognition. Care staff, who have given so much during the pandemic, deserve to be paid well above minimum wage A reform package including all these elements, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is estimated at around £12 billion or 0.6% of GDP. How are we going to pay for it? That needs to be the subject of a separate debate but, at this stage, I think we need a solution that takes intergenerational fairness into account. During the pandemic, tens of thousands died before their time in care homes from Covid. The best possible legacy we can give all those who lost loved ones is to ensure that we fix the care system, so a similar tragedy can never happen again.
Social Care and the Role of Carers — House of Lords, 2021-06-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Joan Walmsley (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, it is a pleasure to support my noble friend, Lady Jolly, who laid out so well the importance of social care to all of us. It is clear that the crisis in social care must be addressed urgently and a cross-party consensus reached on a fair system of funding. That will happen only if the Government liaise with other parties, not just the Chancellor. The pandemic has highlighted the interdependence of social care and the NHS, but there has been a damaging shortfall in social care funding over the past few years—currently at £6.1 billion—and local authorities have struggled to subsidise social care from other funds The social care workforce is dedicated, but its pay is on average 25% less than that in the NHS. No wonder some are moving into retail and agriculture: the Brexit shortages in those workforces has meant that they can earn a lot more if they work in those sectors. There were 112,000 vacancies before the pandemic, and a shortfall of half a million care workers is predicted by 2035 unless something is done. The public support parity of esteem with NHS staff. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that we need a social care people plan similar to that for the NHS. What is the Government’s plan for this Domiciliary care workers are particularly hard hit as they are not paid for travel between clients and have too short a time to carry out their duties. They are in some respects even more important than those working in residential care because they contribute to keeping clients out of hospital and preventing their move to more expensive residential care. Related to this but slightly beyond the scope of the Minister’s department—but just as crucial to the objective of keeping elderly people safely at home—is housing design and adaptations. Can the Minister tell the House who in government takes responsibility for this The shortfall in funding means that the burden of care has fallen on the shoulders of 11.5 million unpaid carers, family and friends. Their care allowance is a pittance and must be increased. Although their rights to support were laid down in the Care Act 2014, they have not been met because of the requirement that local authorities remain within their budget. Can the Minister say when those rights will be fulfilled Many people are unaware that half the cost of social care is for working-age adults with physical and mental disabilities. During the pandemic there has been even more pressure on services for them. Is the Minister aware that, although the emergency powers to modify entitlement to services have not been overtly used, organisations that speak for these groups report that their services have indeed been curtailed? Will he look into that?
Social Care and the Role of Carers — House of Lords, 2021-06-24
Topic: Social Welfare
Rosalind Scott (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I will focus my remarks on the wonderful work done by voluntary and community groups during the pandemic—as well as the rest of the time—particularly in the area of social care. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude I declare an interest as a trustee of Community Action Suffolk, the infrastructure body for the county. I am also a member of the advisory body of the Institute for Volunteering Research in Norwich. I can recommend that all Peers with an interest in these matters take a look at the research being done there Volunteers bring a user-based focus and use their personal commitment, time and skills to make the social care system more resilient. In this way, society becomes more resilient. However, they are complementary to—and not a substitute for—properly resourced public services and professional staff. Volunteers can play a significant role, but government needs to use the existing knowledge and evidence as the basis on which to build effective and sustainable volunteering efforts. Covid-19 has highlighted much of what we already knew from this evidence. The voluntary sector best supports individuals when it is linked with statutory services and not kept disconnected from them. A key achievement of Community Action Suffolk throughout the pandemic has been to have a seat at the table to ensure that the response of all the voluntary organisations in the county is dovetailed with statutory services. That way, we have been able to link volunteers with shielded individuals, support food banks, assist school testing programmes, and much more The Institute for Volunteering Research has shown just how important these infrastructure bodies are. As the demand for their services and the volunteer base grew, their role became more important. But not all areas have these. They are underfunded and not universal As people return to work, the sustainability of the volunteer base is in question. Older people are re-evaluating their lives in the same way as are so many of us. Further research by the IVR has shown that attempts by national government since 1948 to direct volunteer efforts centrally have been largely ineffective. Further research by the ESRC has shown how the devolved Administrations have taken a significantly different approach during the pandemic Levelling up should not just be about infrastructure in certain geographic areas. There are huge variations in social capital, access to community assets and people’s capacity to help one another. Government departments need to use the available evidence and consider working with funders to create an observation study to find a clearer picture of the disparities which exist and to build a response to them.
G7 and NATO Summits — House of Lords, 2021-06-17
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Unlike the UK-hosted Gleneagles summit, which had the communiqué reference to the 0.7% target and the UK encouraging all other G8 members to meet it, and unlike the Lough Erne summit, where the Prime Minister’s official documentation and public statements encouraged other G8 members to meet the 0.7% target, this year there was no mention of any Minister encouraging any G7 country to meet that target. Will the Leader, as a member of the Cabinet, take the opportunity now, at the Dispatch Box, to encourage her G7 counterparts to meet the 0.7% UN target?
G7 and NATO Summits — House of Lords, 2021-06-17
Topic: International Affairs
Robin Teverson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, we very much welcome the G7 meeting here in Cornwall, where I speak at the moment, and we thank those who came for the good weather. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, what I really welcome is the concept of the Build Back Better World initiative. However, it seems potentially far too complex as it is explained at the moment. As we know from the Marshall plan after the Second World War, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the belt and road initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, having simple single funders for these programmes works best. Will that be the case for B3W?
Telecommunications (Security) Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-19
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher Fox (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, Amendment 1 applies the affirmative procedure to the regulations made under new Section 105B in Clause 1. It requires secondary legislation to be laid in Parliament in draft and to be subject to a debate and a vote in both Houses. Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to introduce regulations that have wide-ranging consequences for providers, and there is no provision for any independent or specialist formal oversight of these regulations. This continues a worrying trend whereby the Government make key regulations with no meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. New Section 105A introduced by Clause 1 is wide-ranging. In fact, it covers "anything that compromises the availability, performance or functionality of the network or service" —I repeat: "anything" This means that the Secretary of State has the means to make regulations that have highly onerous provisions, laying down that any provider must take "specified measures" of any kind. This is currently under the negative procedure, which, as we have noted from these Benches on many occasions, gives a near-certain guarantee of their coming into force with a minimum of scrutiny—none, it is safe to say. In Committee, the Minister’s predecessor was adamant that additional scrutiny was not desirable. She said that this was meant for technical people and had to be explained in technical language, which it was not appropriate for Parliament to discuss. However, there is the rub: the Bill covers a huge range of potential issues and, as I said, there is no formal independent or specialist oversight of these regulations, yet the Government said that they were too technical for Parliament to have its say on them. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones spoke about the Secretary of State having unfettered power and, as usual, he was right Since then, the Government have slightly changed their mind, and this is seen in Amendment 3. We welcome Amendment 3 as far as it goes, which, given that it is effectively a negative process, is not very far. It does demonstrate that the Government now believe that your Lordships’ House can review technical issues and that we are capable of this onerous task, which the Minister’s predecessor deemed us incapable of doing. Clause 1 covers virtually anything the Minister decides, and we are in danger of signing a blank cheque. Amendment 1 addresses this issue and gives Parliament particular scrutiny of how these regulations affect the communications networks that are so vital to the UK’s economy and our public life. I beg to move.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-19
Topic: Technology
Timothy Francis Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, in moving Amendment 2 I will speak to Amendment 7. I add my welcome to both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in their new roles The Minister has now accepted in his Amendment 3 that there needs to be greater parliamentary scrutiny of codes of practice. I welcome that; I am just sad that Amendment 1 did not squeak through. However, he has not accepted the need for greater technical scrutiny of these codes. As the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said in Committee, "the whole purpose of the regulations was to specify in greater detail what the duties of providers would be." Likewise, she said: "The codes of practice will provide technical guidance to assist public telecoms providers in meeting their legal obligations."—[Official Report, 13/7/21; cols. GC 488-93.] However, as the industry has pointed out, there are no clear mechanisms for technical feedback or expertise to be fed into the drafting of the regulations and codes of practice The Minister dealt with these amendments himself in Committee. On the Clause 2 regulations, he assured us: "Advice to the Secretary of State could"— I emphasise "could"— "also include relevant representations by public telecoms providers … DCMS continues routinely to engage with telecoms providers about this Bill and telecoms security more widely." He also said that "Clause 3 requires that any codes of practice are finalised only after consultation with affected providers."—[Official Report, 13/7/21; col. GC 499.] Again, he gave no assurance of exactly with whom and how the consultation will take place, and he did not explain why he thought that a specific technical advisory board set up under this Bill was not appropriate. For that reason I have no hesitation in retabling these amendments for further consideration on Report As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, pointed out in Committee, there is good precedent in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which "established a Technical Advisory Board to advise the Home Secretary on the reasonableness of obligations imposed on communications providers."—[Official Report, 13/7/21; col. GC 462.] The judicial commissioners set up under that Act could be deployed under this Bill This is an opportunity for the Minister to demonstrate a much firmer and more inclusive approach to technical consultation. I hope that he will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-19
Topic: Technology
Timothy Francis Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, a lack of oversight has been a persistent theme through the passage of this Bill. Included within that is judicial oversight and the fact that under Clause 13 any appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal cannot take account of the merits of a case against the Secretary of State. The rationale for this, as the Constitution Committee said in its report, "is unclear and is not justified in the Explanatory Notes." It further said: "The House may wish to ask the Government to justify reducing the powers of the Competition Appeal Tribunal in respect of appeals under clause 13." The clause reverses the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s TalkTalk Telecom Group plc and Vodafone Limited v Office of Communications decision, which addresses, inter alia, the standard of review on an appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal under Section 192 of the Communications Act The Minister’s predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said in Committee in response to the Clause 13 stand part debate: "It merely changes the standard to which they will be reviewed. Having these cases reviewed on ordinary judicial review principles, rather than taking account of the merits of the case, aims to ensure a smooth regulatory process that focuses on fair decision-making … this should reduce any incentives for providers to litigate solely for the purpose of delaying the regulatory process." Note the word "merely". This is very much for the Government’s convenience. She continued: "It is particularly important, given that these decisions relate to the security of a provider’s network, that decisions can be addressed swiftly, and providers can get back to the important work of ensuring that their networks are secure." This nevertheless tries to give the impression that this is for the benefit of the providers. The noble Baroness then said that: "Clause 13 applies to appeals only against relevant security decisions … The Government consider this approach to be appropriate to ensure that Ofcom’s regulatory decisions can only be successfully challenged when they are, broadly speaking, unlawful, irrational or procedurally unfair. By reducing providers’ incentives to litigate to delay regulatory action, the provisions in the clause contribute to Ofcom’s effectiveness as a regulator."—[Official Report, 13/7/21; cols. GC 516-17.] Surely in these circumstances, particularly on security, the merits of security decisions are particularly important and this is the legislative equivalent of the Government marking their own homework—or perhaps I should say making it much more difficult for it to be marked. I beg to move.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-19
Topic: Law and Crime
Timothy Francis Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am afraid it does not particularly reassure but there will be many other occasions on which we can raise the nature of judicial review, its continual erosion, the Government’s approach to judicial review and their dislike of being challenged. This is fairly thin territory on which to be debating a very large issue in terms of the future of judicial review. I am sure that my other legal colleagues will be more than able to dispute some of those issues. There are many other fish to fry of even greater importance on this Bill so I will withdraw my amendment.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-19
Topic: Technology
Christopher Fox (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in supporting Amendment 8. The Government have talked a good game on diversification but are guilty of much compartmentalisation. They have put diversification on one side and security on the other. As the noble Baroness and the noble Lord suggested, you cannot separate the two. Without a diverse supply chain, there is no security The issue of having only two key suppliers, which the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, referred to, is down to the fact that there has been a market failure in this area. If the Government do not intervene proactively to right that market failure, we will not get out of the situation we are in now. The Bill is the only game in town to do that. This amendment is therefore really important. During debates on the Bill, a number of Peers highlighted the words of the Government’s integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. It was clear that a "diverse and competitive supply base for telecoms networks" is vital to a secure future. We think these are wise words from the integrated review. As such, we are pleased to support this amendment and will be happy to vote on it in the event that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, chooses to test the will of the House.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-19
Topic: Environment
Christopher Fox (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the Minister, and perhaps I am pre-empting what he is about to say, but it seems that, although he has clearly said the answer that I predicted—"not necessary"—the fact that this amendment was brought shows that it is not clear from this legislation that that is what the Minister will be doing. At the very least, whether this gets voted through or not, there is a conversation to be had when this comes back on Report that takes into consideration whether it just limits itself to Five Eyes or goes broader. Will the Minister undertake to think about those things as well, and perhaps comment on that?