argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-27
Topic: Social Welfare
David Freud (Conservative, Centre-right): That is a timely intervention because I am now going to move on to the very eloquent arguments for exempting adopted children. We think that where a single child is being adopted, it would not be fair to treat the parents adopting more advantageously than other parents. However, where children need to be placed for adoption and have siblings in the same position—this was the example that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham used about one of his, I suspect, many friends—we recognise that it is often in the best interests of the children for them to be placed in their sibling group. Therefore, I am also able to announce that we are in favour of an exemption where there were previously fewer than two children in the household and the adoption of a sibling group causes the number of children to exceed two. Again, we intend to use regulations to provide for this exemption This is a good point at which to respond to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who on Monday night discussed guardian’s allowance—very eloquently, as usual. I am in a position to say that I will continue to explore that particular issue with her and whether it is possible to bring forward something at Third Reading In relation to disabled children, the Government are committed to making sure that disability benefits work for these families, so we will continue to support families with disabled children through the disability elements of child tax credit and the equivalent in universal credit. I must point out to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth that the figure is not reduced in universal credit: the absolute figure reads across from the tax credit system into the universal credit system. That will be payable for all disabled children, even when they are a third or subsequent child, so support for families with disabled children will still be reflected in universal credit and tax credits following the introduction of Clauses 11 and 12. There is of course other support for disabled children within the DLA system to recognise the extra costs which, as noble Lords have pointed out, parents with disabled children need to carry. In addition, we are exempting disability benefits such as personal independence payment and disability living allowance from the uprating freeze.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-27
Topic: Government Operations
David Freud (Conservative, Centre-right): We have a regulatory process where these exemptions will be gone through in detail. I can make a commitment today where I can do so, but I assure noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate, that the machinery of government is not in a place which allows me to say anything more about anything else at this stage. However, the process of setting out regulations will take place some months from now, and we will be exploring in great detail how they work. If the right reverend Prelate is asking me whether there are going to be more opportunities to put pressure on the Government, I would imagine that there will be.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-27
Topic: Social Welfare
David Freud (Conservative, Centre-right): In practice, I think that what I have said produces that outcome. I have said that we will consult very widely with stakeholders to get this right, because these are very sensitive issues. The rape exemption is very difficult. Getting kinship caring and adoption right is not straightforward. In practice, there will be consultation, but I do not want to overformalise that process. I have committed to a much more open process than you might see in some other regulations that we issue. The next complicated case is the formation of new households through re-partnering of single parents, which we have looked at very closely and which produces a number of difficulties. First, it would be perceived as unfair by those families with three or more children who stay together and receive a maximum amount of child element or child tax credit in respect of two children, whereas other families who have formed more recently could receive more. Secondly, there is a risk that families may try to manipulate the benefit system by breaking up and re-forming, or even claiming to have broken up and subsequently re-formed in order to increase the amount. Thirdly, there would be a practical issue in assigning children in newly formed families to a particular parent. We have not done that before. Your Lordships will hear me muttering the word "carbunclising". That is not to mention the intrusive nature of that process Finally, I looked at the numbers involved. The reality is that, whether we like it or not, the bulk of children stay with the mother. The number of fathers with children joining mothers with children is not many. Once the measure is fully rolled out, we expect that only 7% of single men will have children, so it is not that substantial a problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, talked about half a million. That is just not the reality. I reiterate what I said in Committee about the way it is introduced in 2017 for child tax credit and universal credit. Any household which has claimed within the past six months will also be protected. For those reasons, I urge the noble Baronesses and the right reverend Prelate not to press their amendments.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-27
Topic: Labor
Andrew Lansley (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, your Lordships will recall that, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, we had a very full debate, in which I participated, in Committee, so I shall simply summarise the contrary argument to that of the noble Lord. As I did then, I very much welcome the report that he and other noble Lords contributed to because it has many recommendations, some of which are in themselves very important for the delivery of future policy, and I hope that the document will be used in the future The essence of the argument is that the effect of Amendments 41 and 44 would be substantially to leave things as they are. However, things are not satisfactory as they are. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, it is not just about saving money, although needs must. We have to have regard to the necessity to reduce the overall welfare budget but, in truth, this is fundamentally about the benefit of those who have an albeit limited capability for work actually finding work The status quo is that we have a substantial number of people in the work-related activity group, 61% of whom want to work, but each month only 1% are moving off benefits. That is not good enough—it is what we need to move from, and we have to do all the things that are calculated to assist in that. Some of it I know we can agree on. The improvement in the availability of access to work, the extension of work choices, the development of the health and work scheme through to 2017, and the Government’s commitment of £100 million to support that programme are all very important. They are designed to help in the delivery of the objective that we share of halving the disability employment gap, which we also discussed fully on Monday.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-27
Topic: Social Welfare
George Young (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, we briefly went round this course in Committee. The noble Baroness has raised a number of points to which the Minister will want to respond. However, I am not sure that she made a forceful argument for her Amendment 46F, which seeks to exempt a group of people from this new provision Looking at the Bill as a whole, this seems the least painful way of reducing public expenditure, and the argument for looking to this clause for savings is not as strong as the case that could be made in other parts of the Bill. The Opposition recognised this because, in their amendment to the Bill on Second Reading in another place, they specifically said that loans for mortgage interest were a necessary change to the welfare system. So the principle of switching from grants to loans was conceded by the opposition party in another place The operation of what is proposed makes no difference to the pensioner at all—the money will simply be paid from the department to the lender—and the impact on the standard of living and the income of the pensioner is wholly unaffected; their day-to-day income is unchanged. The Government’s proposal is that they will continue to get exactly the same level of support as they do at the moment. The fact that the loan may eventually be recovered from their estate has minimal bearing on their financial position, although of course their heirs may take a slightly different view. One has to balance the expectations of the heirs against the taxpayer, who at the moment is footing the bill. Given the imperative to reduce welfare expenditure, it seems to me that this is one of the least objectionable ways of doing it, and I very much hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-18
Topic: Government Operations
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to make the policy voluntary for local authorities and to impose restrictions on where the policy should operate. These are basically wrecking amendments and I should be clear up front that we cannot accept a voluntary approach for local authorities. Local authorities can now, if they want, put a voluntary scheme in place, but we are not aware of any that have actually done so, so the policy must remain mandatory Within these amendments there may be some room for common ground, particularly around considering the impact on authorities in particular areas. Combined with the reassurances that I have provided on the proposals for the design of the policy through regulations, I hope that this can help us avoid an argument about the nature of the scheme. We are clear that it should be applied consistently by local authorities Amendment 72, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Kerslake, would have the effect of making the policy voluntary for local authorities to operate. As I have explained, we cannot accept this position. Unless there are very good reasons for an authority not operating the Government’s policy, with those circumstances set out in regulations, we want a consistently applied policy I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who asked how the figures had been arrived at. The figure of 30,000 represents the top 40% of earners and the figure of 40,000 represents the top 20% of earners.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-18
Topic: Social Welfare
Andrew Lansley (Conservative, Centre-right): I am trying to understand how Amendment 73 is intended to work. I cannot find a reference in the Bill to the minimum income threshold, so I am working on the assumption that the noble Lord believes that it is to be inserted. Is he supporting an amendment for that purpose—and, if so, at what level? For those who are contemplating the application of a taper, surely the level of the taper must critically depend upon the size of the minimum income threshold to which it relates.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-18
Topic: Macroeconomics
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord raises a reasonable point, and it is clear across a number of policy areas that it is not always possible to be absolutely accurate on either anticipated income or income in retrospect—but I will write to the noble Lord to clarify exactly what the framework for the policy will look like.
NHS: New Junior Doctor Contract — House of Lords, 2016-04-18
Topic: Labor
David Prior (Conservative, Centre-right): I think that all good employers recognise that having the trust and confidence of their staff is fundamental. No employer, government or private, would wish to have the outcome we have in this situation. As I said earlier, there are absolutely no winners from this dispute, and the Government regret as much as anybody that we have come to this particular pass.
NHS: New Junior Doctor Contract — House of Lords, 2016-04-18
Topic: International Affairs
David Prior (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Baroness will know that ACAS was involved earlier on in the negotiations, and it was under the auspices of ACAS that Sir David Dalton did his negotiations. I just repeat what I said before: theoretically you can go on with these negotiations in perpetuity. There was a huge desire on the part of the Government to settle this dispute and, as I said, we deeply regret that we were unable to do so.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-18
Topic: Social Welfare
James O’Shaughnessy (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I was not intending to get involved in this debate but the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, spotted me slinking out. Having been singled out, I will respond briefly. Unfortunately my notes have been whisked away, but my point was that there is a certain set of assets—council and social homes—and we all think the number of them should be increased. But we have to think about the distribution of those assets to the most needy households. That is a reasonable principle on which to found a welfare state. If a tenant is about to leave after a short tenancy they are, by definition, in less need than somebody who is on a waiting list Secondly, I checked the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the response to it stated: "Local authorities do not receive subsidy from the Exchequer" That is a very important distinction. The new houses are being funded not by a grant from the Exchequer but by revenue from other council and social homes, coming via local authorities. I consider this to be public money. So again it is a question about the distribution of public money and how the asset that has been created is used for the benefit of the neediest.
Local Democracy in the United Kingdom — House of Lords, 2016-01-28
Topic: Government Operations
James Younger (Conservative, Centre-right): In addressing the noble Lord’s point, I say that I believe that there is no unfairness. We are passing responsibility down to local people for them to make decisions about these important matters rather than having a centralised approach.
Under-occupancy Charge — House of Lords, 2016-01-28
Topic: Law and Crime
David Freud (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes, that is precisely the point. As far as we can tell, one reason that the Court of Appeal took this decision was to send the cases to join another set of cases that the Supreme Court will look at in March. The Supreme Court will, therefore, be able to take a view and reach a judgment across the piece on these issues and will do so relatively rapidly. So this is really by way of an interim legal position before we have something more definitive.
Arms Sales: Saudi Arabia — House of Lords, 2016-01-28
Topic: International Affairs
James Stopford (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. The noble Lord mentioned the report of the panel of experts, the subject of which was brought up in the Statement in the other place. Although this is a leaked document, we are aware of the report and are looking at the conclusions carefully. We recognise the importance of the work of the UN panel of experts and we are taking the allegations raised in the report very seriously. We are continuing more than conversations; in fact, we have been urging on these matters for months, since I answered a Question on Yemen back at the end of October, when my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had just been to Saudi Arabia and discussed this subject with Saudi authorities I also confirm that my honourable friend Mr Elwood was in Saudi Arabia earlier this week, when a number of such matters were discussed. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, also asked about the military involvement of United Kingdom forces. I can say that British personnel are not involved in carrying out strikes, directing or conducting operations in Yemen or selecting targets, and are not involved in the Saudi targeting decision-making process.
Arms Sales: Saudi Arabia — House of Lords, 2016-01-28
Topic: International Affairs
James Stopford (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that we are not closing our mind to the situation in this part of the world. The whole of the Horn of Africa, and Yemen in particular, is a place of desperate need where a peaceful outcome is very important. As was said in the Statement, there is movement and it is now thought that a peaceful process is possible, but there is still much work to be done.
Arms Sales: Saudi Arabia — House of Lords, 2016-01-28
Topic: International Affairs
James Stopford (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the allegations of attacks on health facilities in Yemen, particularly in relation to Médecins Sans Frontières. We are aware of the recent allegations regarding the strike that I think was in the Saada province on 10 January. There were earlier strikes in October and again in December. I think we debated those on one occasion. As I have said before, our relationship with the Saudi Arabian Government enables us to pressurise them and to underline how important it is that the civilian population is not affected by the military conflict. But we know that the suffering of the civilian population is immense and we also know how important it is that the logistics are there so that aid can be delivered to those who need it.
Arms Sales: Saudi Arabia — House of Lords, 2016-01-28
Topic: International Affairs
Mohamed Sheikh (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I appreciate that we are friends of Saudi Arabia but I am very concerned about what is happening in Yemen. Can my noble friend tell us whether we are taking any active role in achieving peace in Yemen? What is happening there is a great concern to everybody.
Arms Sales: Saudi Arabia — House of Lords, 2016-01-28
Topic: International Affairs
James Stopford (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, as I said earlier, and as my noble friend emphasised, the Yemeni people are suffering from the conflict between the rebels and the elected Government. As I said earlier, in the late autumn my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was in discussions in Saudi Arabia with the authorities there, and my honourable friend Mr Ellwood was there earlier this week discussing that area of the world.
Arms Sales: Saudi Arabia — House of Lords, 2016-01-28
Topic: International Affairs
James Stopford (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord is quite correct. I gave a brief answer saying that the UK was not involved in carrying out any of the strikes, but I can say that we have a very small number of staff in the Saudi Arabian headquarters in a liaison capacity only. These liaison officers are not involved in the targeting process, as I said earlier. Secondly, there is our ongoing defence engagement relationship with the Saudis. This is part of our long-standing relationship. When concerns are raised by non-governmental organisations or in the media, these liaison officers will pass all available information back to the United Kingdom. This will help inform our assessment of compliance with international humanitarian law.
Trade Union Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-11
Topic: Government Operations
Richard Balfe (Conservative, Centre-right): I say to the noble Lord that the publication of the Bill probably arises in part from the fact that there is no strong trade union voice on this side of the House. There is no one around to say at the higher policy levels of the Conservative Party, "Hold on a minute, there is another side to this story". I was about to say that unions such as BALPA, the BDA—the union that I am president of—Prospect and others have reached out and begun a dialogue, and I hope that that will continue We are, I hope, going to join together and look for some concessions from the Minister. I do not propose to go through them in detail because they will come up in Committee. With regard to facility time, the Conservatives’ manifesto actually said that they would legislate to, "tighten the rules around taxpayer-funded paid ‘facility time’" You can tighten rules and still preserve a local interest and the right of local democracy to determine what happens. It is, frankly, not a localism agenda if you start telling district councils, such as the one my wife served on in Suffolk, how to regulate the 25% of the week that one person spends on facility time—generally doing things for the local authority, actually. We need to look at this with a broad brush. We want transparency on facility time, but we do not want day-to-day control. We cannot exercise it. We cannot say what matters in Forest Heath District Council in Suffolk or any individual authority. We can say, "You must publish—you must be in the daylight", but we cannot lay down the rules Similarly, if e-balloting is okay for selecting the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London, the ruling body of the Royal Statistical Society, of which I am a fellow, and the board of directors of a venture capital trust that I am investing in, I do not see that we can rule it out. Certainly, if we look at making it subject to some control or sanction by the certification officer, there must be a way forward. We cannot just write it off The third thing I want to mention is the financial aspect. If it were left to me, I would ban all financing of political parties beyond a very low amount, probably £5,000 per head. I would not have any hedge funds donating to parties. I would make parties fight for votes. But I say this: is it healthy for democracy to work in this direction? I just put that question. Is it a good thing that we should patently attack one of the three unsatisfactory wings of funding? I leave that question up in the air because, if it were left to me and if I were the Labour Party, I would not turn the clock back. When I came into power, I would immediately ban donations to political parties above a quite low level and say that everybody above that level could not donate. It would not be that they had to say how much; I would say, "You cannot donate. You cannot buy democracy". But until that day comes, let us be careful to look at what we are doing and think about our responsibilities to democracy, which go further than our responsibilities to one or other side of the House.