argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-09-14
Topic: Government Operations
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I absolutely do not have any encyclopaedic knowledge. However, I am very glad that the Minister has agreed to look into this in more detail because, as the noble Lord describes the situation, it is a farce. As I recall, there was a sort of evolution of thinking about deputy mayors and the use of the 10-plus-two people in the original Greater London Authority Act, and their position. Originally, they were thought of absolutely as the mayor’s creatures. Will this be borne in mind in looking at the position because I think that some of this comes from the original ideas on what the structure would be and how the mayor might structure his or her office? Perhaps things have just moved on a bit from there. I suggest that this is part of a slightly bigger jigsaw.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-09-14
Topic: Government Operations
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on this. I remember quite clearly, during the passage of the Greater London Authority Act, the then Minister—or the government representative at the Dispatch Box; I think it was a Whip at the time—saying firmly, on the basis of notes coming to her from the Box, that the London Assembly should be allowed to sort out its own procedure. I think we were debating an issue around a quorum. The same applies here, probably in spades. It is also interesting that the Government, who are concerned about efficiency, effectiveness and economy, should insist on procedures that must have the potential to be less efficient and more expensive.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-09-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, new Section 327I gives the Assembly the power to investigate and prepare reports on certain matters. My amendment would add, "any actions and decisions of the Deputy Mayor for Fire", and, "any other matters which the Assembly considers to be of importance to fire and rescue services in Greater London" Those are taken directly from the powers of the London Assembly in respect of policing—of its police and crime panel. It is called a panel; it runs as a committee. It has the power to investigate and prepare reports about any actions and decisions of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and matters which the Assembly considers to be of importance to policing and crime reduction in the Metropolitan Police district. I ask why there is no equivalent for fire I note that new subsection (5) will give the Assembly the power to summons the deputy mayor for fire to attend and to produce documents. It seems odd that it should have no power to report and investigate the items and person that it has the power to summons. I beg to move.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-09-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for offering to look at Amendment 114. However, I wonder whether before Report she could look also at Amendment 115 in the light of Section 33(3)(f) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Section 33(3) of that Act gives powers that cover, "actions and decisions of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime" That is the equivalent, in policing terms, of the deputy mayor for policing. It also gives powers that cover, "actions and decisions of the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime" Quite separately, in paragraph (f), are the, "matters which the Assembly considers to be of importance to policing and crime reduction in the metropolitan police district" This is the exact equivalent, I would have thought, of my Amendment 115. They really do go together—it is a package of scrutiny If there is a difference between the provisions relating to policing and the provisions relating to fire and rescue in terms of the assembly’s powers, somebody is going to make the distinction and say, "No, you can’t go there"—when actually, they should go there. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 114.
Trade Union Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-25
Topic: Government Operations
Benjamin Stoneham (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, these Benches would also welcome the simplification that this amendment recognises. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that it provides a much better balance. I have two questions for the Government. I hope they have not forgotten something which we have said throughout this debate: for every new regulation put in, two should be taken out. Is that no longer the Government’s policy, or is this yet another example of the Government ignoring that diktat when it comes to somewhat partisan legislation We now have the slightly ridiculous situation where two bodies monitor political funds and expenditure: the Electoral Commission and, in relation to trade union funds, the Certification Officer. What consultations have the Government had on this new amendment with the Electoral Commission, and are they satisfied that it eliminates unnecessary duplication between the two organisations?
Trade Union Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-25
Topic: Government Operations
Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Is the Minister in a position to tell us when the Government will respond in full to the recommendations of that Select Committee on which I served? It would be extraordinary if your Lordships’ House did have not a response before the completion of the whole process on this Bill. That would include all the recommendations of the Select Committee. She has referred to it as a splendid Select Committee; I assume she thinks all its recommendations are splendid, which would include not just the revised Clauses 10 and 11 but the link to discussions on party political funding. When will we get a response on that issue?
Trade Union Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-25
Topic: Macroeconomics
Benjamin Stoneham (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I wish to make a few comments and add my thanks at this stage of the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on her courtesy and good humour during the passage of a Bill that we on these Benches have regarded as somewhat partisan. She has sought to cross that divide and we are grateful for the amendments she has persuaded the Government to accept The role of the Cross Benches has been very important. It has not been mentioned but the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake, Lord Pannick and Lord Burns have all played a very important part in the Bill and in achieving the amendments. I have enjoyed working with the Labour Benches and rekindling old friendships. I hope that it will be a basis for other matters in the future in this Session of Parliament We have regarded it as a very partisan Bill. We regret that it does not address the real issues for the country—the economy and productivity—and we hope that the Government will accept the amendments that the House of Lords has passed on political funds and electoral balloting when it goes back.
Grammar Schools — House of Lords, 2016-09-08
Topic: Education
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, it has been reported that the Prime Minister wants a new generation of inclusive grammar schools and yet selection at age 11, which the grammar school implies, excludes those who fail the selection test. Many young people do not reach their full potential until they are in their teens. To write them off at the age of 11 would deny them the opportunity to succeed. Why do the Government not concentrate on the Liberal Democrat achievements in the coalition, not just free early years education but also the pupil premium for disadvantaged youngsters and free school meals—measures that will deliver a truly inclusive educational system?
National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016 — House of Lords, 2016-09-08
Topic: Labor
Christopher Fox (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the Minister is right to suggest that we have high or record high employment levels. We are also at record levels of zero-hour contracts. The minimum wage is not actually a wage; it is a minimum hourly rate and people fight to get sufficient hours to get that minimum wage. Can the Minister comment on the way in which the Government will approach the zero-hour part, which is diminishing the minimum wage for many people across the country?
Pensions Act 2014 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2016 — House of Lords, 2016-09-08
Topic: Labor
Archibald Kirkwood (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I will make a short contribution to this debate. I think the House is grateful to the Minister for coming forward with these two corrections to omissions. It is reassuring to hear, if I understand the Minister accurately, that these things have been caught in time, so that there has been no real loss to individuals. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, I would like more reassurance, because it was quite a complicated explanation. I think the Minister said that no results in terms of loss of appeals to national insurance credit were discernible It would be valuable if the Minister could take careful note that some of us might like to come back to monitoring this in the uprating debate next spring, so that we will have a better chance to look at all the downstream consequences of the changes. In addition, I would like to hear a little more reassurance about paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum, Monitoring and Review, which says: "We will not monitor these changes specifically, but will do so through established customer feedback processes" I wonder what that means and how meaningful it is when these changes might be affecting tiny numbers, but the tiny numbers might be significantly affected. I am a bit nervous about leaving this to customer feedback. Will the Minister take that point on board On another process point, I have always been amazed at the extent of the expertise available to the professionals in the department, the Pensions Directorate and the Pensions Agency, its predecessor. They were expert at coping with this immense detail. The regulations contain two omissions, and that is two omissions too many. They may be relatively minor in their extent, but, as I keep saying to the Minister, the ministerial team has to make sure that there is enough resource in the department to ensure that parliamentary draftsmen get all the details they need, so that omissions are not made in future. The department continues to suffer staff cuts in a way that puts unreasonable pressure on the experts who are good enough to provide us with the regulations that we consider here in Parliament. Will the Minister reflect on that It may be that these are two completely one-off exceptions. I hope that it is not the beginning of a trend. Those of us in Parliament who look at these things will be watching very carefully. I do not blame the professionals in the department: if they are underhanded in terms of dealing with the immense volume of ineffably complicated minutiae of legislative proceedings and provisions, they need all the help that they can get Again, I welcome the fact that this seems to have been picked up in time, but if the Minister could give us some more reassurance about winners and losers, even if it takes him over the coming months until the next uprating in the spring, I am perfectly content to support these regulations. I support the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, but I am perfectly happy to support these regulations and allow them to go forward.
Jo Cox MP — House of Lords, 2016-06-20
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Ashdown (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, Jo Cox erupted—there is no other way to describe it—into the inbox of my email account about six months ago. The voice was demanding not to be ignored and, as I soon discovered, not to be resisted either. She demanded that I work with her to help identify the cause of the starving in the besieged cities of Syria. I met with her, and how on earth could I conceivably resist? I was very privileged to work with her for some months to try to bring the issue to public attention. I have to say that she did the work rather than me and she could write extremely well. Due to her energy and commitment, I think we began to move the public debate The last email I had from her arrived on 28 May, three weeks ago. In typical Jo fashion she wrote saying, "Paddy, sorry to disturb your bank holiday weekend. I hope you are getting something of a break. Please will you sign the attached statement?". So, of course I did and I wrote back to her saying, "You are wonderful, Jo. Thanks. Yes, that is fine. I am so involved in the referendum that I have little time for anything else. Fortunately, we and the starving in Syria have you". But we do not any longer, and that cause is hugely diminished. In characteristic Jo style she wrote back to me saying, "Thank you, Paddy. Keep up the good work. Jo. X". What else would you expect from her The last time I met her, we talked a little about the starving in Syrian cities and about how we could make politics more sensible and deliver on her passion expressed in her maiden speech to celebrate diversity. I quoted a poem which I have by heart from Rabindranath Tagore. She insisted that I send it to her because she was deeply moved by it. I have to confess that I forgot, so I shall quote it now. It sums up the value of a life, as others have said, cut tragically too short but nevertheless lived extraordinarily well. The poem goes like this: We are all the more one, because we are many, for we have left an ample space for love in the gap where we were sundered Our unlikeness shines with the radiance of a common creation, like mountain peaks in the morning sun Those were the values for which Jo lived her life and they are the values for which perhaps she may have died. If we are able to do our best to live to those values, our politics will be better, our nation more successful and our civilisation, I believe, far more secure.
Children and Social Work Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-10-18
Topic: Social Welfare
Floella Benjamin (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I support this group of amendments because we all know that while each year, here in England, thousands of children enter the care system, too many who enter it cannot rely on the loving support offered by family and support networks. Many have already experienced terrible traumas in their young lives and we know that without the right support, these traumas can have long-lasting consequences. The challenges that looked-after children face after they leave care are well known, so we have to cater for their needs and find ways to encourage them to aim high by fulfilling their ambitions, inspiring aspirations and laying foundations to help them find ways to achieve happiness and personal fulfilment. That is why I am delighted to support especially the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Tyler to ensure that mental health assessments will be provided for all children entering care It is essential to ensure that the assessment of need will be translated into practical support because we in the state—the corporate parents—have a moral duty to do so. Too many children are crying out for support, like the child who told the NSPCC: "I live in a residential unit. Other people in the unit keep bullying me. One of them attacked and injured me. I feel really lonely because I have to stay in my room to avoid them" They said that it had already upset them so much, "that the staff won’t arrange a transfer for me. I don’t know who to turn to for help" Another young person told ChildLine: "I don’t understand why everyone hates me. I feel like nobody wants me anymore and I just want to go to a normal family that loves me" At the core of the amendment proposed today is the desire to ensure that the emotional and mental health needs of children in care are assessed at the point of entering care, so that their needs will be properly supported through their care placement while at school and through a clinical intervention, if that is what the child needs Without a better system of support in place to help the 31,710 children who entered care last year, we know that many of them will struggle to overcome the legacy of those early experiences. As recent statistics released by the Department for Education showed, 40% of children who left care last year were not in education, employment or training. We must therefore take this opportunity before us today to improve the assessment of the mental health needs of children in care. We will otherwise continue to see children in care struggling to stay afloat with the weight of their past experiences. The Prime Minister has highlighted the need to tackle mental health issues; the earlier that we do so, the better.
Children and Social Work Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-10-18
Topic: Social Welfare
Catherine Bakewell (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I support Amendment 9. Subsection (1) of the new clause proposed in it refers to subsection (2). Clause 1(2)(c) of the Bill refers to, "persons aged under 25 who are former relevant children within the meaning of", the Children Act, and it is that part of the Bill that I wish briefly to address I agree completely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, about the importance of relationships to children and young people. On Thursday last week, I attended a briefing organised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the Children’s Society at which I heard from two care leavers, both of whom spoke very passionately about their experiences. One young lady, who was 18, has now left care. However, she was removed from her foster placement one day after her 18th birthday, which seems unnecessarily hasty and somewhat insensitive. To date, no personal adviser has been appointed for her and she has no one to officially advise her. She made the very valid point that she and others in care really need advice, particularly on their likely financial responsibilities, before they reach 18 and not afterwards, as all money stops at 18. I will return to this aspect of financial advice in later amendments It is important that children in local authority care have someone they can turn to at all times. Children not in care have parents and relatives whom they can turn to and confide in. Looked-after children deserve parity with their peers, and I fully support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner.
Children and Social Work Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-10-18
Topic: Social Welfare
Kathryn Pinnock (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as a councillor in the Borough of Kirklees and therefore a corporate parent, with whom the buck finally lands. We had a considerable debate in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, because there was a lot of concern about having clarity of definition about corporate parenting principles. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, talked about the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, In Care, Out of Trouble, drawing attention to, "Less clarity leading to more inconsistencies". That is precisely why, at this stage, there is an endeavour to find greater clarity in the corporate parenting principles laid out in the Bill as it stands I also suggest that we ought to support greater clarity because of the changing role of local authorities, given the financial pressures on them. It is also the right thing to do because it makes corporate parenting more effective. There has to be work across other public sector partners; those referred to in the amendment laid before us are the police and the health service. The reason for doing that is to ensure that those two bodies in particular have it as a priority in their planning and actions that they take note of the importance of corporate parenting when they meet young people who are in need of care, and who are sometimes—more often than we would like—brought to the attention of the law The third reason why we support the amendment proposed is because, in the principles as laid out, and as described by the Minister in Committee, everyone who is employed by a local authority is responsible as a corporate parent. My fear is that, if everybody is responsible, no one is. That is why I have argued consistently that we need to be clear about where the final responsibility lies We need to expand the definition of corporate parenting responsibilities to include other key public sector organisations, but also to have clarity within local authorities on where the final responsibility lies. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, it is always helpful to refresh requirements in earlier legislation because it brings it to the attention of professionals that this is a matter on which legislators place great importance. With those words, I support wholeheartedly Amendments 6 and 7.
Children and Social Work Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-10-18
Topic: Social Welfare
Catherine Bakewell (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I speak briefly to Amendment 10 and to agree with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Warner. In the market town in my own area, the number of beds available for young people in the excellent Foyer has been reduced over recent years, and it is now in danger of actually closing. As well as providing excellent accommodation to allow young people, especially care leavers, to move on and gain independence, it has provided training, other support and a coffee bar. It is a great shame, to put it mildly, that such a facility should be closed because of the lack of funding for the number of beds there As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who is much more experienced in this area than me, has said, young people, especially care leavers, are very vulnerable and they require adequate quality accommodation to meet their needs.
Children and Social Work Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-10-18
Topic: Social Welfare
Claire Tyler (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I support Amendment 11, to which my name is attached, as it was in Committee. To reiterate what I said then, and despite the very good debate we have already had today on Amendment 2, the Bill itself is currently almost devoid of references to relationships; indeed, you might almost say it is a bit of a relationship-free zone. That is ironic when what we are all trying to do here is improve the lot of the very vulnerable children and young people who most need love, warmth, emotional security and human empathy to help them on their journey through life, given their very troubled start. It is a statement of the blindingly obvious that good relationships are utterly indispensable to that end The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who is such a passionate advocate in this field, has already referred to the need for a change in the culture of many local authorities so that they also make promoting relationships central to their work. I know that there are some very good examples of good practice here, but I want to talk very briefly about what cultural change requires and why it is important. It could be assumed that good-quality relationships, particularly the support of peers and adults who are not paid to take an interest, are somehow nice to have but out of the reach of many young people in, or coming into, the care system. If so, that assumption will shape a local authority’s response. It will focus almost exclusively on ensuring that a young person has the material, financial and practical support that they need in the absence of the family ties through which these things typically come. It will also put a greater load on the social worker and personal adviser role.