argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Brexit: Negotiations — House of Lords, 2018-10-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Lawrence Whitty (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Government have promised the House of Commons a meaningful vote on the outcome of these negotiations. When does the Minister now expect that vote to take place? How many times will we have to vote in a meaningful way to complete the process? How many votes does that mean Parliament will be presented with before the end of the transition period?
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-10-15
Topic: Civil Rights
James Donnelly Touhig (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I do not recall, in some 25 years in both Houses of Parliament, rising to speak in a debate feeling more despair about a piece of legislation than I feel about this Bill as it stands. Amendments 17, 19 and 36 are so necessary and so blindingly obviously needed that I cannot understand why the provisions they cover were not included in the Bill in the first place Amendment 17 would require a statement from a care home manager to be a written statement. Of course it should be a written statement. Amendment 19 would ensure that the cared-for person and those involved in their care were informed of the proposed arrangements and any possible alternatives. Of course they should be informed and of course they should be told that there are alternatives. Amendment 36 would put right an obvious injustice that the Bill in its present form would create I am not alone in having grave doubts about the Government’s whole approach to giving responsibility to care home managers to initiate the process and considerations, as we heard in earlier debates today—but if ever there was a case when, in a hole, it is time to stop digging, this aspect of the Bill is certainly part of that. The Bill places a duty on the responsible body or the care home manager to commence an authorisation record covering a range of information and detail, but the person most affected and that person’s family may not be given that crucial information. This is out of the script of "Yes Minister". The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is absolutely right in her approach and her amendments. The cared-for person and his or her family must be given copies of the authorisation record. With regard to Amendments 54 and 57 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I know that she is not too happy with the term "cared-for"; nevertheless, it underpins a person’s rights Last week, I was at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. It is an organisation that Britain helped to create after the horrors of the last war to protect and defend human rights. The combined all-party British delegation, so ably led by Sir Roger Gale, has an exemplary record of defending human rights. I hope that when we return to Strasbourg for the next session in January, it will not be with the stain of having seen our Parliament enact legislation that removes many basic human rights from most of our vulnerable fellow citizens. The Bill needs to be changed and the Government need to start listening.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-10-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Dorothea Glenys Thornton (Labour, Centre-left): I will not add much more because the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has done us all a favour by putting forward great questions exploring the Cheshire West ruling. The Joint Committee on Human Rights agrees that a definition needs to be found, otherwise—the noble Baroness is right—we will be back in a situation where things have not gone right and we end up in court again. We all need to put our minds to this. We should be able to find a definition and I look forward to the Minister leading that particular discursive discussion across the Committee.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-10-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Dorothea Glenys Thornton (Labour, Centre-left): Yesterday or on Friday—whenever it was—we received a very helpful briefing from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I found what it had to say on Amendment 22 very useful: "The Royal College of Psychiatrists believes that only a ‘Registered Medical Practitioner’ should be able to determine whether an individual has a ‘disorder or disability of the mind’ … Currently the authorisation arrangements in Part 2 of the Bill say that a capacity and medical assessment has to be made, but does not say who has to make it. It is likely that the Government is assuming that this would be carried out by a ‘Registered Medical Practitioner’ but it would be helpful to have it on the face of the Bill The JCHR report was clear that in order to comply with human rights law, any deprivation of liberty under Article 5(l)(e) requires ‘objective medical evidence of a true mental disorder of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement, which persists throughout the period of detention’ Given this requirement for ‘objective medical evidence’, there needs to be a guarantee in the Bill that only a Registered Medical Practitioner with appropriate training has the power to determine whether someone has an ‘unsound mind’ or ‘mental disorder’".
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-10-15
Topic: Civil Rights
James Donnelly Touhig (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, deserve an answer. I am sure that if the Minister cannot provide one tonight we will get one because she raised some very important points. The example that the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, just gave gives us a practical idea of how these amendments might apply if they were part of the Bill. Amendments 32 and 34 underpin the absolute need to discover the wishes and feelings of the cared-for person. Mencap summed it up pretty well in the briefing that it sent to noble Lords when it said that the views of the cared-for person should be at the heart of this clause. That point was made by my noble friend Lady Thornton during the debate on the first group of amendments today Putting the focus on ascertaining the wishes and, just as importantly, the feelings of the cared-for person is central to this, as is right and proper. I and others spoke about this at Second Reading and, frankly, we hope that the Government will respond positively to these proposals. Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would address this by adding the cared-for person to the list of those who must be consulted, and Amendment 35 would ensure that views were sought on whether any less restrictive alternatives were available—all good sense When faced with legislation like the Bill and the issues it raises I often think, "If this Bill was about me, what would I want?" Most certainly I would want the protection and defence of my basic human rights that these amendments offer. Is this not something that every noble Lord in this House would want? If it is, we should ensure that it is there.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Lords, 2018-07-24
Topic: Other
John Tomlinson (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am not clear about this, and I am always slightly suspicious of things that happen on the last day before the summer. Why is the change in Standing Orders needed at all? Why is it needed now? How have we managed in the past, or is it just something that has emerged as a consequence of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill? Can the Senior Deputy Speaker tell us, if such a change in Standing Orders is imperative now, how will Members of the House be informed that an order has been laid with the Clerk of the Parliaments? If it has no consequence for us, why does it matter at all? I do not think that the explanation satisfies me of the case for this to happen.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Lords, 2018-07-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
John McFall (Labour, Centre-left): I anticipated the answer to the question, but the noble Baroness is ahead of me on that issue. It will be published by the departments on their websites. She makes a good suggestion about it being on the central website. I have already heard whispers that the Government will look at that issue.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Lords, 2018-07-24
Topic: Other
John Bassam (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful and think it is right that we have increased the clerk capacity to help manage this process, but my understanding from earlier discussions—and perhaps I have just missed something—is that we were going to establish a further committee with additional members on it, so that the process would work for Members and speed up, or at least ensure it is given fuller consideration.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Lords, 2018-07-24
Topic: Other
John McFall (Labour, Centre-left): The noble Lord is correct there was talk about establishing a sub-committee. The committee has an additional member on it at the moment, but the decision about when it will form sub-committees is for the committee itself. It depends on the number and volume of the instruments laid. When it gets to that critical mass, the committee will divide into sub-committees.
Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-07-24
Topic: Other
James Philip Knight (Labour, Centre-left): I am most grateful to the Minister for that update and for his assistance and that of his officials, led by the assiduous Shelley Torey. I thank other noble Lords for their assistance and the MPs in the other place—and, finally, to Lucy Herd for her inspiration and assiduous campaigning ever since her son Jack died eight years ago.
Rendition of UK Citizens — House of Lords, 2018-07-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question Last Friday, the Minister wrote to me, on behalf of the Government, on the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill, and said: "With regards to death penalty implications, it is the long-standing policy of the UK to oppose the death penalty as a matter of principle. We will ensure that the operation of any agreement, including with the United States, is consistent with this position" Why, then, are we accepting a request by the United States to share evidence on the two individuals in question under mutual legal assistance, on the basis—to quote the Home Secretary’s letter of 22 June to the US Attorney-General—that, "I am of the view that there are strong reasons for not requiring a death penalty assurance in this specific case, so no such assurances will be sought" Contrary to the content of the Answer to the Urgent Question, why did the Government not come to Parliament a month ago to disclose this complete change of approach and any reasons for it on a matter of basic human rights norms, however heinous the alleged crimes—a change of approach which is also contrary to the Minister’s letter to me of just four days ago?
Immigration Detention: Shaw Review — House of Lords, 2018-07-24
Topic: Immigration
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I return to the issue of pregnant women, which was of particular concern to your Lordships’ House when we considered these matters during the Immigration Bill—indeed, we voted for an absolute exclusion following Stephen Shaw’s original recommendation. In his report he quite mildly said that it would "assist" decision-making if the default position were to be an absolute exclusion of pregnant women from detention. The figures show that between July 2016 and January to November 2017 there were still 73 pregnant women detained, of whom 60 were released. For only 15 was there any case for detention. Will the Government look again at the question of an absolute exclusion On vulnerability, I am not quite sure I understand the Minister’s reply—I appreciate that she has had to move quickly. Have the Government accepted the specific recommendations 11, 12 and 13 in the report on adults at risk? In particular, will they consider the merit of the UNHCR vulnerability screening tool, which a number of voluntary organisations have recommended?
Immigration Detention: Shaw Review — House of Lords, 2018-07-24
Topic: Immigration
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): Will the noble Baroness tell me whether recommendations 11, 12 and 13 in the Shaw report have been accepted, because it is not clear from the Statement that they have? In particular, will the Government consider the merits of the UNHCR vulnerability assessment tool?
House of Lords: Sittings — House of Lords, 2018-07-24
Topic: Other
Thomas McAvoy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I understand that my noble friend wishes us to return in 13 days’ time and for your Lordships’ House to get on with scrutinising Brexit legislation. I confess that this confuses me a little, as earlier in the year he appeared to be calling for Brexit legislation to go as slowly as possible, although I readily accept that that may be my misunderstanding. Government can and does continue over the summer, as does opposition. I feel sure that a break will ensure that noble Lords are fully rested and re-energised for the full job of scrutinising the Government’s decisions, or lack of them, on our return. My noble friend has been working long and hard in recent months, and I suggest that he, too, is ready for a break Lastly, the staff of the House will have planned breaks months ago and, indeed, deserve a proper break from us. Essential maintenance in the building must also be done. I have to tell my noble friend that we cannot and will not support the Motion before your Lordships’ House.
House of Lords: Sittings — House of Lords, 2018-07-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am very glad that we scrutinised the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in the way that we did, but when my noble friend reads the Guardian—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, he reads the Guardian—he will see the list of Bills that I am proposing we should debate over the summer. I would be very glad to know which of them my noble friend objects to and whether he objects to us addressing the need for a radical home-building programme or extending rights to abortion and equal marriage in Northern Ireland. I would be very glad to know from him and from my noble friends on the Front Bench whether they believe that those Bills are superfluous and that it is better that we are in recess rather than attending to the needs of the country We are in a very deep crisis as a country. It is as well that we put these matters on record because people will look back on our affairs and will observe our affairs from outside. I believe that we have not conducted ourselves in the way that the country would expect. I do not detect huge support for this Motion in the House. Indeed, I am not even sure I have enough support to press the matter to a vote. If some of my noble friends on the Lib Dem Benches will support me and if there is enough support, I will press this to a vote because it is important that noble Lords should have their views recorded on whether we should now go on 10 weeks’ holiday. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
EU Settlement Scheme — House of Lords, 2018-06-21
Topic: Immigration
David George Clark (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Minister knows that we have discussed this matter across the Floor on a number of occasions, and I am very grateful for her lucidity today. I have been arguing that, for those European Union citizens who have been successfully granted permanent right of residency, the right should be continued. As I understand it, that is what the Minister, in a rather roundabout way, has announced today. But, in view of the pressure in the Home Office, what is the logic of requiring European Union citizens who have acquired the right of permanent residency in this country to reapply—adding to the burden—for settlement? Why do we not simply grant that without them having to go through the process, as it has already been cleared by the Home Office I come to my last point. As the Minister knows, my main driver in this has been the National Health Service. If I am right in saying that most of those who have five years’ residency can stay in this country, will the Minister write to National Health Service trusts to point that out and to ask them to communicate it to all European Union residents who are working in the health service and are still very confused about their status?
EU Settlement Scheme — House of Lords, 2018-06-21
Topic: Immigration
Frank Ashcroft Judd (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, while this Statement will obviously need a great deal of scrutiny, I certainly join with those who have welcomed it most genuinely. Together with other things that are happening, it seems to indicate that there is a long overdue and welcome change of direction in the atmosphere at the Home Office and in the role that it is trying to fulfil. That is to be encouraged. I like these words in the Statement: "Throughout the process, we will be looking to grant, not for reasons to refuse, and caseworkers will be able to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant where appropriate, to minimise administrative burdens" That is the right kind of language As I say, we will need to look at the detail. In the meantime, will the noble Baroness agree that the Government have yet to legislate for settled status in domestic law? What legal guarantees will those who have registered for this status prior to agreement of the withdrawal agreement be given under UK law? Can she guarantee that the agreement on citizens’ rights that has been reached with the EU will be honoured even if the UK is unable to reach an acceptable deal with the EU 27 under Article 50?
EU Settlement Scheme — House of Lords, 2018-06-21
Topic: Civil Rights
Frank Ashcroft Judd (Labour, Centre-left): May I just respond to the question that the noble Baroness put to me? My point is that it is not yet established in law. How soon will it happen, and can we be sure that it will happen? In the meantime, how will their status be guaranteed in law? That is the point. Perhaps I may also say that, in view of all she has been saying, I hope that the position of the vulnerable and those who do not have access to high-tech means of communication will be covered in the spirit of what has been said in the Statement.
Armed Forces: Reserves — House of Lords, 2018-06-21
Topic: Other
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): May I ask the Minister a simple question? I have every confidence that the people of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, will deliver on time, but will the Secretary of State do better than taking six months to respond?
Ivory Bill — House of Lords, 2018-10-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Margaret Beryl Jones (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, noble Lords will not be surprised by this, but we are very much opposed to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hague, put the case much more strongly than I will, but I was disappointed by the position of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on this. The very fact that his amendment focuses on exports goes to the heart of what the Bill is about. I am sorry that he has sought to start this debate in such a negative way. I hoped that we would have learned from our debates in Committee and that we had made the case in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Hague, said, that we are trying to stop the illegal exports of illegal pieces. That is the heart of the problem The latest CITES statistics show that there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of both raw and worked ivory being exported from the EU: in 2014-15, the last two years for which data are available, the EU exported 1,258 tusks. That is what has happened according to the CITES information. Over and above that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hague, said, there is the undercurrent of all the illegal trade of which nobody has any record. That is at the heart of this, and I am very sorry that we have started this debate looking at exports, which is the real problem that we have. I know we will go on to talk about other issues, but I regret this and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in other contributions that he might make, will do more to persuade us that he really understands the basis of the Bill. He said that he welcomed the Bill, but I think he has more of a responsibility to demonstrate how. I therefore urge noble Lords to oppose the amendment.
Ivory Bill — House of Lords, 2018-10-24
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, sits down, he is normally on the ball on such issues but unless the Companion has changed, this is not an appropriate way to put down an amendment on Third Reading. That is done only on a narrow basis, including due to new information or clarification of something that was unclear at an earlier stage. I think he may have a bit of trouble with the Table Office should he try to put down a similar amendment on Third Reading. I am surprised by what he has said, as he is so fluent in these matters. I hope he will acknowledge that, on this, I am right and he is wrong.
Ivory Bill — House of Lords, 2018-10-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Margaret Beryl Jones (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I shall respond to these amendments, which would move the applicable date for exemptions from pre-1918 to pre-1947 and would lower the threshold for exemptions, allowing larger numbers of items containing ivory to be bought and sold As has been said, these amendments will considerably weaken the impact of the Bill. As the Minister explained in Committee, 1918 was chosen because it defines items which are 100 years old and therefore classified as antiques. A move to include more recent items for exemptions, as suggested in Amendment 3, would inevitably increase the number of items containing ivory in circulation. It would include a much wider group of objects than the Art Deco items which the noble Lord seeks to protect. In any prohibitive Bill of this kind, it is impossible to find a perfect date from which to apply the constraints. As we have mentioned several times, we would have preferred a complete ban on ivory sales but, if there has to be a cut-off date for exemptions, we agree that 1918 has the best logic. Of course, as has been said, that would not affect the ownership or gifting of items, nor the continuing trade in Art Deco items which do not contain ivory.
Ivory Bill — House of Lords, 2018-10-24
Topic: Mixed Topics
Margaret Beryl Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I find it ironic that the noble Lord talks about sweeping statements. The fact is that we talked about having a complete ban on online sales. Indeed, colleagues on the Lib Dem Benches proposed that in Committee; it is perhaps sad that they have not brought it back on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, will also know that the reason we are here today is because we already had a ban, which was meant to constrain what auction houses and so on were doing. It was then found that illegal pieces were passing through the auction houses I am not saying that the Bill is perfect; it is not, but it is a considerable step forward from the previous legislation. The Government would not be pursuing the Bill, with our support, if they did not feel that the evidence was compelling and overwhelming. The noble Lord, Lord Hague, is absolutely right: we have to close down the domestic ivory market, not for its own sake but because this is part of an international movement. Only when we all share the same broad objectives internationally will we actually be effective in all this I was quite offended by some of the comments from the Benches opposite in the previous debate, which somehow implied that there was a conspiracy among some African countries on this issue. I do not see it on that basis. I too attended the Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference and the Minister was absolutely right. There were Heads of Government there and people in various senior positions from all round the world, including the African nations. They were absolutely passionate about needing to protect the elephants and protect their economic interests in the longer term, and therefore to close down the illegal ivory trade. Until we all understand why that is necessary, we will not be able to make much progress on this. On that basis, I therefore urge noble Lords to reject all these amendments.