argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): No, as we understand it, although it is envisaged that some of these tasks will be procedural, others will be very important to people whose rights are affected. We might think, for example, that requests for adjournments are straightforward, but they are not. As practitioners and former practitioners will know, they can be complicated, because when a judge decides whether to grant one, they take into consideration a host of things, so it is important that the person be appropriately qualified We accept that the procedure rule committee will be able to iron out some of the questions about what are judicial and what are administrative functions, but the main thing is that these people will be carrying out judicial functions and deciding some difficult issues, and it is only appropriate that they be qualified and appropriately experienced.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We discussed this in Committee. Interlocutory case management often has a large bearing on what happens in a case; it can alter what happens in a case and it can alter cost decisions. In their own way, such decisions are as important as purely judicial decisions. The Government’s proposal might be a false economy, so I support what she is saying.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend, a former shadow Justice Minister, for his intervention, and I take his point We acknowledge that the relevant procedure rule committee will set out the procedural requirements for who can carry out the procedures, but we also know that these committees are predominantly made up of senior judges, so this will have implications for the independence of judicial decision making We also believe that such a shift will not match the expectations held by members of the public on the experience and independence of those making judicial decisions about their rights.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): The procedure rule committee obviously has a place in our judicial system, and we accept that judges and others are involved in it, but everyone knows that there are times when, because of financial pressures, services are cut to the bare minimum. We believe that, to protect our judicial system, the functions concerned should be clearly set out, and those that will have an effect on someone should be decided by an authorised person with a legal qualification.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): We are not suggesting that judges will somehow not be independent. As I have said, I have the highest regard for our judiciary in court, although from time to time we might disagree with the decisions that judges reach. In the real world, however, there are often targets to be met and financial constraints to be considered. We are saying that when the procedure rule committee is making rules, it should be guided by Parliament.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): I have taken a number of interventions, and I will make some progress now. Otherwise we will be going round in circles on the same point The Bill provides for judicial functions to be delegated to authorised staff across the criminal, civil and family courts and tribunals. However, it also states that while those staff will be independent of the Lord Chancellor when carrying out the delegated functions, they will remain court staff, and will not take the judicial oath of independence. It is surely important for those who will be making any type of judicial decision to take that oath. They cannot be described as independent when they are employed by the court in which they will serve There might, for example, be economic pressures. The court might want to get rid of cases very quickly, within a certain period. The promotion prospects of those who are employed directly by the courts will, of course, be affected, and, unlike judges, they will not be governed by the oath of independence, the Bar rules and the Law Society rules. People who are making judicial decisions should be appropriately qualified, with the proper ethos and the proper rules that apply to solicitors and barristers, and to which members of the legal profession, such as me, must have regard Our amendment 5 would ensure that a party to any decision made by an authorised person exercising a relevant judicial function, or the function of a tribunal, "may apply in writing, within 14 days of the service of the order, to have the decision reconsidered by a judge of the relevant court within 14 days from the date of application." We will be quite happy if the Government want to increase the period to 21 days, or reduce it to fewer than 14, but we want people to have a right to judicial reconsideration of a decision made by an authorised person. We cannot understand why the Government do not want to accept the amendment.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: 2, in the schedule, page 6, line 36, at end insert— "(aa) is a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive with more than three years’ experience post-qualification, and".—(Yasmin Qureshi.) This amendment would stipulate that the minimum legal qualifications for authorised persons should be three years’ experience post-qualification. Question put, That the amendment be made.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Government Operations
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I have now to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The Ayes were 513 and the Noes were 13, so the Question was agreed to Amendment proposed: 5, in the schedule, page 11, line 32, leave out subsection 67C and insert— "67C Right to judicial reconsideration of decision made by an authorised person A party to any decision made by an authorised person in the execution of the person’s duty as an authorised person exercising a relevant judicial function, by virtue of section 67B(1), may apply in writing, within 14 days of the service of the order, to have the decision reconsidered by a judge of the relevant court within 14 days from the date of application."—(Yasmin Qureshi.) This amendment would grant people subject to a decision made under delegated powers a statutory right to judicial reconsideration. Question put, That the amendment be made.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): The point is that the Legislative Grand Committee represents Members of Parliament from England and Wales. In no way does that imply that the hon. Gentleman is second-class I remind hon. Members that if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote Resolved, That the Committee consents to Clause 2 of the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] as amended in the public bill committee.—(Lucy Frazer.) The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)). The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Imran Hussain (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend is a distinguished parliamentarian and, as ever, makes a really important point. It is not within the remit of the Bill—one of the problems with the Bill is that its narrow scope prevents important issues such as the one he raises from being discussed—but I absolutely agree with him The Bill is a shadow of what it could and should have been and fails to provide protections and safeguards on the changes the Government have introduced. It is on these grounds—the lack of protections for courts, judges and people seeking justice—that we will oppose the Bill today.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Imran Hussain (Labour, Centre-left): I want to make it absolutely clear that—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman, who is Chair of the Justice Committee, will accept—no one in the Opposition is challenging in any way, shape or form the good standing of the judiciary. The point, which has been made time and again, is that certain matters are within the remit of the procedure rule committees, but there are others that this House and the other place should have scrutiny of.
Nursing Higher Education — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Education
Karin Marguerite Smyth (Labour, Centre-left): I talk to local employers who desperately want to support nursing apprenticeships as an alternative to the higher education route, but the uptake of apprenticeships is very disappointing. The levy can be used only for training costs, and trusts have been asked to plug the shortfall in funding for wider capacity building and to cover the 20% of time for which apprentices have to go to off-the-job training. Does the Department recognise this problem? What is being done to address it?
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Khalid Mahmood (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I also thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) for securing it. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), sends her apologies for not being here to respond, but she is attending the annual lunch of the Labour Friends of Israel The events of the past 48 hours have been deeply troubling for all of us who want to see a return to peace, stability and the rule of law across the whole of Ukraine. Instead, incidents such as this make an already intense situation worse and risk widening the conflict. As the NATO spokesman said yesterday, we need to see calm and restraint on both sides and we need both sides to commit to de-escalation. In particular, Russia must abide by international law, as the Minister just stated, which means allowing Ukrainian ships unhindered access to Ukrainian ports on the sea of Azov. There is no excuse for blocking that access, let alone firing on the ships and seizing them. Will the Minister confirm whether he or his colleague will speak to their Russian counterparts and make clear when that discussion will take place? At the same time, it has been worrying to see the reaction of the Ukrainian Government in declaring martial law. The Minister has said that he has secured agreement from the President that that will not lead to a cessation of any elections that are due to take place in the new year. While these issues are going on, proper democratic structures need to continue robustly to entrench Ukraine on the democratic footing from which we want it to move forward The Minister will agree that if the elections do not take place, that will be a backward step—not just for democracy, but for peace, stability and the rule of law, which we want to see across the whole of the region.
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Madeleine Moon (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the Minister’s statement. I particularly welcome the description of the ongoing and consistent provocative actions. This has not been an isolated incident; this has been happening and escalating for some time. I endorse the call for unity, calm and restraint, but we must be aware that Russia is seeking other consequences: a wider destabilisation of the region. It is important that we in this House and across the NATO alliance are unified in calling not only for freedom of navigation, and for the release of the ships and the sailors, but for Russia to understand that actions have consequences. We need to be willing to stand by those consequences.
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Pelham Pound (Labour, Centre-left): The Foreign Secretary made an extremely powerful and well received speech yesterday at the launch of the holodomor exhibition, sponsored by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), in which he referred to the close, supportive relationship between the United Kingdom and Ukraine. In that context, will the Minister agree to send on behalf of the House our profound sympathy and support to the friends and families of all the sailors who have been injured and imprisoned illegally? What assistance can we offer in the elections in March to support the restraint shown by President Poroshenko?
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Centre-left): More than two years have elapsed since Ukraine referred the issue of access to the sea of Azov to the International Court of Arbitration at The Hague. Why does the Minister think that the process has taken so long, and what can he do to try to speed that up to a conclusion?
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has done an excellent job, as always, of answering our questions, but this does smack a little of complacency. Let us remember that 10,000 people have died in the Ukraine conflict, and that Ukraine has been crying out since 2014, since the annexation of Crimea, for us to do something about the sea of Azov. Its economy is being strangled by the economic blockade. What measures are being taken to support the Ukrainian economy? It is very welcome that the House passed the Magnitsky amendment, but what steps have been taken, if any, to follow up on that amendment, to draw up a list of individuals who should be sanctioned, and to put the amendment into practice? To date, we have little or no evidence of the Government doing anything about that.
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
John Timothy Grogan (Labour, Centre-left): As well as the exhibition in the House, does the Minister agree that it is resonant that last weekend there were many commemorations of the holodomor across the UK, including in St Anne’s cathedral in Leeds, and that one lesson is that just as fearless independent journalism was needed in the 1930s from people such as Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge to expose the holodomor, so it is now needed to expose the fake news coming from the Kremlin?
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Charalambos Charalambous (Labour, Centre-left): With the distance between courts being a factor not just for claimants and defendants but for witnesses, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that witnesses may sometimes choose not to go to a court if it is too far away, which can cause hearings to be cancelled?
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): Before I open my speech, I wish to tell the House that today is Lancashire Day. On 27 November 1295, Lancashire sent its first Member of Parliament to attend King Edward I’s model Parliament. The day is well marked and celebrated in Lancashire We have been waiting for the arrival of court reform legislation ever since the Government promised in the Queen’s Speech last June a Bill to modernise the court system. One can imagine that expectations were high, but instead we were left disappointed when this wafer-thin Bill, which is both narrowly constrained and obscurely drafted, was finally published. Indeed, most of its provisions were included in the Prisons and Courts Bill that was shelved more than a year ago. That Bill devoted 38 clauses and 13 schedules to the courts and judges, whereas this Bill has just three such clauses followed by a single schedule. As Lord Judge once said of another Government move, it is "a little too late and…quite a lot too little".
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): I accept that the senior judiciary, some of whom are in the House of Lords, have said that the Bill is a good thing. However, practising lawyers, barristers, solicitors, the Bar Council and the Law Society have said that it is not right, and that the amendments that we will propose should be considered There is disagreement in the judicial community about the Bill. [Interruption.] I will just wait until the Lord Chancellor has dealt with his question. The Lord Chancellor and the practitioners here must be aware that, when judges are involved in delegated functions or non-court sitting judgments, they are making judgments on difficult issues and complex matters of law—for example, a case management hearing, or even something such as asking for an adjournment. We do not know, but, at the moment, the Bill suggests that such work could be done by delegated staff When someone asks for an adjournment, all kinds of complications could be involved; there could be issues relating to failure of disclosure and so on. According to the Bill as it stands, many issues would be given to a delegated person. That is one reason why we are asking for clarification about who those people will be, what powers they will be given, and, more specifically, what training they will be given. Although some senior members of the judiciary in the other place have said that the Bill is a positive development, the practitioners on the ground, at the moment, do not agree.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): I have respect for the senior judiciary, of course, but Parliament should have control over what is being delegated. Taking away judges’ positions and powers is a matter that should be debated in this House. We do not think that it is a matter for the procedure rule committee. We would have a much better idea about what it should be looking at. I think that we will disagree on this issue.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Jessica Rose Phillips (Labour, Centre-left): Those of us who have campaigned were expecting to see in the Bill some of the things that have been promised, such as the banning of cross-examination. Senior members of the judiciary have themselves called for that measure, but find that current legislation ties their hands. Given that it is not in this Bill, I am certain that Ministers will tell us that it will be in the domestic abuse Bill that will be brought forward. Why will women have to suffer this experience between now and whenever that legislation comes forward? Why is the provision not in this Bill?
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend for her work on raising these issues. She is absolutely right. Why is the provision not in this Bill? It was in last year’s Bill, which was aborted because of the general election. It should not be that difficult to put it into a legislative framework Let me give an example of something that happened a few months ago in the family courts. Two spouses had an issue about the custody of their child. The female plaintiff had made allegations of domestic violence and sexual abuse against her husband, and it was obvious that the male respondent wanted to cross-examine her. However, the judge had to step in to ask the question on behalf of the male respondent. The case then went to the High Court, where the judge said that it was really not appropriate for members of the judiciary to have to intervene in such cases. The provision should already be on the statute book. We have talked about it for so long and it is not that difficult; it should be on the statute book as soon as possible To truly understand the impact of the Bill, we must look at it in the context of the Government’s wider austerity agenda. As it stands, the Bill has the potential to have a profound impact on our justice system. The double delegation of powers that the Government are intent on introducing is a slippery slope that, without proper controls, puts rights at risk. Without further careful scrutiny and additional safeguards, the Bill has the potential to erode long-established legal rights The amendments that Labour tabled in the other House were reasonable, sensible and practical, and we really cannot see why the Government cannot adopt and accept them. The Bill has limitations. The Government should listen to us and others who want to improve it, and accept our amendments, which have the support of the Law Society and the Bar Council, so that we protect our judicial system.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Harriet Ruth Harman (Labour, Centre-left): I pay tribute to the excellent work that the hon. Gentleman’s Committee does on these and many other issues. I agree that there were perhaps things in the Prisons and Courts Bill that have not found their way into this Bill. He may agree that we should, none the less, take the opportunity of this Bill to try to sort out the problem of the previous sexual history of victims in rape trials being dragged through the court and used by the defence in an irrelevant way to undermine the complainant’s evidence, sometimes when applications are not even made to introduce this material. Does he agree that this Bill is an opportunity to deal with that problem? We know that this is happening, and it undermines getting rape convictions.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Harriet Ruth Harman (Labour, Centre-left): Can I go back to plan B, then? Even if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill is not the right place to address such a considerable evidential problem—and there is controversy around this—would he not, at the very least, like to see tucked in under clause 3, "Functions of staff", an obligation on staff to record, when an application under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is made, what evidence was brought forward and what the result of the application was? There is an absence of evidence about what the courts are actually doing. That enables them to say that there is not a problem, when evidence such as that brought forward by Vera Baird, the police and crime commissioner for Northumbria, says that there is a problem. Does he agree that this Bill could at least get us recording that very important information?
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I hope that the introduction of new technology will mean speeding up casework, because for far too long there has been a large gap before something comes to court. I do not think that that is fair in terms of justice or for the individual concerned. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me?