argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-07
Topic: Housing
Patricia Hollis (Labour, Centre-left): I was not going to add to the very powerful opening speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, but I will just say to the Minister that, when he faced a similar problem with housing and the cut in benefit to those with a so-called spare bedroom—I refer to the bedroom tax—the Minister understood the degree of disquiet around the House and invested in discretionary housing payments, which he increased and increased. In other words, there was a recognition that there needed to be some head space in the system for dealing with difficult issues, many of which we have discussed today. I suggest to him that we have had so many of those in the previous amendments and most powerfully again on the issue of disabled children that he should seek a similar discretion which then the Government can come back with in proposed draft regulations which the House can discuss before they then become part of the legislative process by the time we get to Report.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-07
Topic: Other
Maeve Christina Mary Sherlock (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, before the Minister answers that, can I just say that I have found his responses today a little surprising. Many noble Lords have experience of being in Committee with him and having careful, detailed and well-informed debates. We are used to the Minister regularly getting up and telling us how much things cost and I find it almost impossible to believe that his department does not know how much these elements will cost. They have been proposed a long time. The department has had every opportunity and there are very good statisticians and modellers in the DWP. I can conclude only one of two things—either they know and have not told him or he knows and is saving it up for Report to launch it at us from the Box when we try and press a vote. Which is it?
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): Subsequent to that, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has produced its own assessment, which says very clearly that it believes that the human rights statement from the Government was inadequate. I welcome the fact that the DWP produced such a statement but given its inadequacy, will the Minister now respond to what the EHRC is saying?
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-07
Topic: Other
Maeve Christina Mary Sherlock (Labour, Centre-left): At least my hearing is better than my understanding. I find that a profoundly disappointing response, even by the standards of tonight. But given that we are in Committee, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Maeve Christina Mary Sherlock (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 21 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I fully support the requirement in the amendment to report on the impact on family relationships and functioning, for the reasons that have been articulated in the debates we have been having this evening. Until now we have not discussed in any detail the impact on faith communities, so I am going to concentrate on that As we have heard, larger families are strongly prevalent within some faith traditions and cultures, which leads to legitimate concerns about the differential ways this policy will be felt throughout society. There is an issue of equality for children born into families of faith. This measure will disproportionately affect families where, perhaps because of the parents’ faith, there is a devout desire to avoid contraception and abortion. As we have heard and discussed this evening, family planning is not infallible and many people of faith and other like-minded people are concerned that unexpected pregnancies could lead to a rise in the number of abortions. This point was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth earlier As my noble friend Lady Lister pointed out, the most damning evidence about the differential impact of this measure on equality grounds comes from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I declare an interest, in that I am a former commissioner of EHRC. It says: "The proposed changes may have a disproportionate negative impact on people from particular ethnic or religious groups … The impact assessments and human rights memorandum which accompany the Bill do not assess the effect of the Bill on equality and human rights in sufficient detail to enable proper scrutiny of the legislation" It is not kidding Disgracefully, the Government have resisted all pressures to conduct cumulative impact assessments of these measures, giving impact assessments only for individual measures. Even within that, however, I was staggered to find that there had been no attempt to conduct an equality impact assessment on the two-child policy. The short section in the IA on the impact on protected groups mentions gender and disability in passing, acknowledges that ethnic minority households may be more likely to be impacted, though offers no detail, but makes no reference at all to the protected characteristic of religion and belief. Can the Minister explain why there is no such reference, when even a cursory glance at the data suggests the possibility for significantly differential impacts on the grounds of some protected characteristics, particularly religion and belief?
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Patricia Hollis (Labour, Centre-left): Can the Minister help me? I was just checking, and as far as I can see from handbooks, we continue to support various partners in polygamous marriages and we do not say, "After two partners you won’t get any more support for your third, fourth or fifth member of a polygamous marriage". Why is it okay to have several spouses who are financed by benefit, but if you have more than two children they are not?
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): I am very sorry to intervene again. As I said, the Home Office, which is not the author of the original family test—the DWP was—published the questions in the family test and how its policy met those questions. Of course the department must have carried that out not on a tick-box basis—I am not saying yes or no—but by carrying out a considered analysis around these questions. I simply ask why, therefore, the Department for Work and Pensions is not prepared to make available to this House the documentation of how the family test was applied to this clause?
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Patricia Hollis (Labour, Centre-left): I want to come back at the Minister. I was not trying to make a cheap jibe but, unless I am misreading a handbook that I have used over the years, if you are in a polygamous marriage and your spouse is married to someone else, you may claim as a single person within it, which is an allowance for you, including if the other person still lives in the same household with you. In other words, under UC—this is on page 154—there is continued financial support for other partners in a polygamous marriage. If that is so, why is it acceptable to apply that to adults but not to children?
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-07
Topic: Other
Maeve Christina Mary Sherlock (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I understood that it had been agreed between the usual channels that this was the point at which we would finish. If that has changed then perhaps somebody might have told the Chief Whip before he left.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-07
Topic: Other
Maeve Christina Mary Sherlock (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I think that that is deeply unfair. I am well aware of the discussions that were held in the usual channels. I am well aware that representations were made that today was likely to be tight. Things always move slowly on the first day and there were a very large number of amendments with a very large number of Peers attached to them. I think we fully expected to be at this point. I thought that we might make the next group, but since we have not, I presumed that we would go on to the next day. I am sorry to say it, but I am disappointed. I think we should stick to the agreement that has been made.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-09
Topic: Other
William David McKenzie (Labour, Centre-left): Does the noble Lord accept that the issues he was talking about were quite properly to be included in the building blocks of the strategy, which the Bill also required? It did not eschew the measures themselves.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health recently published a report which suggested that the work capability assessment process might have led to the large number of 600 extra suicides. It says that its study, "provides evidence that the policy in England of reassessing the eligibility of benefit recipients using the WCA may have unintended but serious consequences for population mental health, and there is a danger that these adverse effects outweigh any benefits that may or may not arise from moving people off disability benefits" It goes on to say: "Although the explicit aim of welfare reform in the UK is to reduce ‘dependency’, it is likely that targeting the people living in the most vulnerable conditions with policies that are harmful to health, will further marginalise already excluded groups, reducing, rather than increasing, their independence" After reading about that report I tabled a Written Question, which produced a very prompt Answer from the Minister. I am grateful about the time it took, although the Answer was not exactly informative. The Question was: "To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will release data relevant to the assessment of whether Work Capability Assessment tests are connected to the incidence of suicide or mental health problems of disability benefit claimants; and if so, when" The reply was brief and to the point: "The information requested is not available" I can understand that but surely, the issue having been raised, it is incumbent upon the Government to make inquiries into the report that the journal produced and to satisfy themselves and others that the process of the work capability assessment is not resulting in ill effects upon those undergoing the process of such assessment to any significant extent, let alone, of course, the dreadful extent of suicides resulting from it. I hope that having regard to the thrust of the amendments in this group, the Minister will indicate that the Government will again look into, or rather look into—clearly they have not looked into the possibilities here—the impact of that assessment, taking into account the report to which I refer. It is surely imperative that in recasting the system we take every opportunity to ensure that minimal harm is occasioned by the processes that are instituted to distribute the benefits in question.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-09
Topic: Other
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): Is the noble Baroness saying that she will put some of the points that have been raised into regulations? I think noble Lords would see that as a step forward, but is that what she is saying?
House of Lords Reform — House of Lords, 2015-09-15
Topic: Other
Philip Alexander Hunt (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I recollect that during his time as Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships’ House, he and other Opposition parties defeated the Labour Government on, I think, 33% of all the votes. Is he now recanting from that?
House of Lords Appointments Commission — House of Lords, 2015-09-15
Topic: Other
David Edward Lea (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, many speakers have acknowledged the central feature of my Motion, which is that the size of the House, which has been the single most important point in the debate, depends on numbers coming in as well as number going out. I am glad to know that that is now generally accepted. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-11-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Thomas McAvoy (Labour, Centre-left): Your Lordships’ House should be aware that I was sitting here a few minutes ago, before I started, wishing that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, would ask that question. The noble Lord was a driving force in imposing the poll tax in Scotland, which was certainly to the detriment of Scotland. He did not give any consideration to the detriment to his country then. I am really glad that the noble Lord asked that question.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-11-24
Topic: Other
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): In relation to good faith, the noble Lord says that all the parties agreed to the agreement. I saw his press conference, when he announced the agreement, and I also saw John Swinney immediately afterwards say that he did not agree with what had been agreed. Is that good faith?
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-11-24
Topic: Other
Neil Forbes Davidson (Labour, Centre-left): One sometimes finds that there are questions that do not have a yes or no answer. The question of trust is something that one might reflect upon and, if that is lost in translation in some way, I would be happy to explain later The charge that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has made against the vow is that it reveals a certain degree of illiteracy. Be that as it may, as the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, pointed out, the vow is a fact; it has been acted on and here we are with the consequences of that vow. We can analyse questions of the Barnett formula, which have been discussed in this House over and over again, but perhaps that will not really add very much to the discussion of this Bill I am conscious that I am taking rather more time than perhaps—
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-11-24
Topic: Other
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): Could the Minister answer the question that I put to the noble Lord, Lord Smith? John Swinney signed the Smith agreement, which was meant to be agreed by all parties. Then he came out immediately and denounced it. How can you describe that as good faith?
BBC Charter Review — House of Lords, 2015-07-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Terence Puttnam (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right: the world is changing rapidly. Somewhat to my surprise, it has been very widely reported this week that the UK has come top in the world for its use of, and reputation for, soft power. Would she like to suggest any other organisation in this country that contributes more to that reputation than the BBC?
Freedom of Religion and Belief — House of Lords, 2015-07-16
Topic: Civil Rights
Lyndon Henry Arthur Harrison (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I speak in today’s debate as a loyal member of God’s Opposition. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for highlighting both the freedom of religion and the freedom of belief in the titles of this Article 18 debate and of the all-party group over which the noble Baroness so impressively presides. I also thank Christian Solidarity Worldwide, not only for providing me with excellent material concerning the persecution of atheists and secularists in Egypt and Indonesia but for its pastoral prison visit to Alex Aan, jailed in Jakarta as an atheist We atheists must show solidarity with our religious colleagues over religious persecution, especially at a time when atheists and secularists are increasingly joining the growing list of people persecuted worldwide for the beliefs they uphold, whether religious or otherwise. The horror of machete-wielding Islamists slaying humanist bloggers in Bangladesh recently was admirably highlighted by the brave Bonya Ahmed in her recent address to the British Humanist Association at the annual Voltaire lecture In the United Kingdom, many will be heartened by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent observation that religious freedom demands space to be challenged and defended, without responding destructively. This echoed Rowan Williams’s reservation in 2013 that sometimes UK and US Christians exaggerate mild discomfort over social issues such as pro-gay legislation while failing to emphasise systematic brutality and often murderous hostility practised by religious fanatics abroad I asked the Minister why humanists and atheists in Britain are still thoughtlessly excluded from contributing to Radio 4’s "Thought for the Day". Why does the DCMS stolidly exclude the Defence Humanists, formerly the UK Armed Forces Humanist Association, from the annual Cenotaph commemoration? Do dead non-believers, fallen in war defending our cherished values, not deserve a silent vigil in the public square? And why are we conducting this debate in the House of Lords, which still reserves a privileged place for the state religion I encourage colleagues not to take the opportunity of the occasional ad hominem criticism of distinguished atheists such as Richard Dawkins. I ask the Minister to reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the FCO and whether we are promoting business and trade, which I thoroughly encourage. However, we should use some of our resources to ensure that we promote Article 18 in all its aspects. Can she also update us on what is happening with the blasphemy laws in Malta, and in Iceland, although it is not part of the European Union Finally, will Her Majesty’s Government ensure that the hopes and aspirations of non-believers like me are not suppressed by careless oversight when we take our rightful place in the public square?
Economy — House of Lords, 2015-09-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Edward Lea (Labour, Centre-left): Would my noble friend mind if I asked him a question that has puzzled me for a long time on exactly the point that he has just made? How is it that we never see any sign of these vast increases on paper of productivity through technology —10 times, 100 times—in the aggregate productivity statistics?
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-07-14
Topic: Other
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am, albeit temporarily, on the same side as the Minister, and I am now confused. I think he said—some minutes ago, I grant you—that the Government had not ruled out the use of the word "synthetic", but then he went on to rule it out. Can he be clear: are the Government thinking about adopting the word "synthetic", and if so, in what timescale? If I misheard him, he now has the opportunity to be absolutely clear.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-07-14
Topic: Other
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): Listening to the Minister, one might almost interpret him as saying that this is a balanced issue on which he needs more time to think and on which he wants to involve noble Lords. However, the only time when noble Lords will get another chance to debate this will be at Third Reading. Is the Minister saying that he may be able to take this away and shed more light on his conclusions at Third Reading?
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-07-14
Topic: Other
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): Is the Minister saying—I think he is about to get an answer from the Box—that he may well further consider this issue before Third Reading and that we should debate further at that point? That is very important to the noble Baroness in deciding whether to press her amendment.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-07-14
Topic: Other
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has not given me a commitment to come back at Third Reading, and I am not surprised. Neither is there a commitment that when the Bill gets to the Commons, amendments along the lines that I am proposing will be put into the Bill by the Government. I think that is a fair summary of what the noble Lord has said.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-07-14
Topic: Other
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, as many noble Lords have pointed out, we had a wide debate on this issue in Committee. We were unconvinced by the argument at that time. We are unconvinced that an amendment to this Bill is an appropriate vehicle but, as ever, we await the government response with interest.
Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-26
Topic: Other
Ivor Seward Richard (Labour, Centre-left): With respect to the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lady Hollis and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, does the Leader accept that neither of them is fatal to the resolution? Does she accept that?
Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-26
Topic: Other
Michael Wills (Labour, Centre-left): I think I understood the noble Baroness correctly when she said a few moments ago that she accepted that there were circumstances in which this House could withhold approval of a statutory instrument. However, she said that that should not be on the grounds simply because this House disagrees with it—I think I am quoting her directly. Can she therefore say in what circumstances she thinks it appropriate for this House to withhold such approval?
Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-26
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): Does the noble Baroness not acknowledge that there is at least a certain irony in that, for five of the last five and a half years, her party gave strong support to the Cameron-Osborne Government? Now that Messrs Cameron and Osborne come forward with a proposal that they do not like, they are suggesting that the right course of action is a somersault. Would it not have been a lot easier, and maybe a lot more principled, if she and her colleagues had decided to bring down this Government a lot earlier?
Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-26
Topic: Other
John Davies (Labour, Centre-left): The right reverend Prelate is speaking very movingly and rightly about the injustice and suffering caused by the passage of this statutory instrument unamended, but does he not feel in those circumstances that it is our duty not just to talk about it or even record our objections to it, but actually to do something to stop it?
Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-26
Topic: Other
Elizabeth Conway Symons (Labour, Centre-left): Does the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, think that the Clerk of the Parliaments was nitpicking when he told my noble friend that statutory instruments were not covered by financial privilege? That was said unequivocally by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-26
Topic: Other
Josephine Farrington (Labour, Centre-left): I have worked in many roles, and I have listened to the noble Lord giving advice. I know that after this debate many members of the public will ask what an earth was going on in the House of Lords. Could the noble Lord answer the question: if the House of Lords today amended or voted down this statutory instrument, could the Government in the Commons bring back a one-word-change statutory instrument within the next few days? Secondly, would he care to comment on the following? I listened very respectfully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, who used an expression that I could not understand. Could the noble Lord explain why the noble and learned Lord thought that it would be offensive for the Government just to choose to bring this item forward in primary legislation? I did not understand the reasoning, but I am sure the noble Lord does.