argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-12-01
Topic: Law and Crime
David Anderson (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness for at least part of her journey, as she says. I will speak to Amendment 17 and its Scottish equivalent, Amendment 72. They would require that the authorising officer’s "belief in the necessity and proportionality of a criminal conduct authorisation, and in the existence of satisfactory arrangements, be reasonably held." In paragraph 67 of its report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights rightly said: "It cannot be acceptable for CCAs to be made on the basis of an unreasonable belief in their necessity and proportionality." Despite the wording of the Bill, which makes no reference to reasonableness, the Government appear to agree with the Joint Committee. We know this from Second Reading in the House of Commons, when the Solicitor-General stated, in answer to Jeremy Wright MP, that "the code of practice sets out that there does need to be a reasonable belief that an authorisation is necessary and proportionate."—[Official Report, Commons, 5/10/20; col. 707] Is that a sufficient answer? I am afraid not—for two reasons. First, the draft code of practice, as I read it, does not plainly provide that belief be reasonable. Section 6.1 of the draft code, issued alongside the Bill, provides that a criminal conduct authorisation "may be granted by the authorising officer where they believe that the authorisation is necessary" Section 6.3 states: "The authorising officer must also believe that the authorised criminal conduct is proportionate" The requirement that belief be reasonable is not clear, even in the code of practice. Those sections of the code appear quite consistent with the requirement of a merely subjective belief. Secondly, and more fundamentally, the notion of reasonableness is—as I think the Government acknowledge—completely absent from the Bill itself, which the courts will of course treat as the authoritative source. My point is very simple: why is the position rightly endorsed by the Solicitor-General—that belief should be reasonable—not reflected in the Bill?
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-12-01
Topic: Law and Crime
Roger Thomas (Crossbench, Unknown): I can be very brief in support of Amendment 17 and its Scottish equivalent. The intention appears to be clear: that the belief of the person has to be reasonably held on an objective basis. It would, in fact, be quite exceptional to have any other provision. It seems to me that the Bill ought to be clear and, on such an important point as this, there should be no room for ambiguity or argument if this matter ever comes before a court.
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-12-01
Topic: Law and Crime
David Anderson (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his courteous and measured response, but can I press him for clarity on the Government’s position on my Amendments 17 and 72, so that I can work out where to go next First of all, as I understood it, the Minister asserted the importance of making the new Section 29B consistent with the existing Section 29 of RIPA, which he said did not require belief to be reasonable. But he then relied on section 3.10 of the code of practice, which in contrast to sections 6.1 and 6.3, which I cited earlier, does, as the Minister put it, imply a requirement of reasonableness. The Minister first pleads for consistency and then identifies an inconsistency between part of the code and the Bill, without undertaking to amend either. I may, of course, be missing something. Could the Minister please explain whether the Government support a requirement of reasonableness, as the Solicitor-General appeared to do in the Commons, in which case will he undertake to amend both the Bill and section 6.1 and 6.3 of the code of practice to bring them into line with section 3.10 of the code of practice, to which he referred? Or are the Government against a requirement of reasonableness, in which case could he explain why?
Uighur Forced Labour: Xinjiang — House of Lords, 2020-12-17
Topic: International Affairs
David Alton (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, in the aftermath of the BBC reports, does the noble Lord agree that the Uighurs deserve to have their claim of genocide heard in a court of law, in line with the vote in your Lordships’ House only last week, on 7 December, and in line with the letter sent yesterday by the World Uyghur Congress to all Members of the House of Commons? Will he confirm, and put on record, that it is the view of the Government, and the Department of Trade, that we should not trade with a state if a court has established that a genocide is under way, and that the genocide amendment, passed by your Lordships, would not impede our ability to trade with any other state?
Official Development Assistance — House of Lords, 2020-12-02
Topic: International Affairs
John Kerr (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, a detected lie is the clock striking 13: it is wrong and it casts doubt on all past and future chimes. In June, the Prime Minister formally renewed the 0.7% commitment on the record in the other place. I was reassured, but it turns out that I was deceived. The aid community around the world was reassured, but it turns out that they were deceived. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, was deceived: she was an excellent Minister and will be much missed. The cut to our aid projects now is 30%; the cut to our credibility is much greater. I ask the Minister: why do we lie?
Official Development Assistance — House of Lords, 2020-12-02
Topic: International Affairs
David Hugh Alexander Hannay (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, will the Minister be so kind as to respond to the very forceful letter that was sent to the Foreign Secretary by your Lordships’ International Relations and Defence Committee last Wednesday, arguing that the decision taken was wrong economically and wrong politically? Does he not think that it is shameful that in none of the statements made by the Government, including his own answers to questions, has it been admitted that we have already cut £2.9 billion from our aid by applying the 0.7% calculator, and that all that is proposed now comes on top of, and in addition to, that?
Patrick Finucane: Supreme Court Judgment — House of Lords, 2020-12-02
Topic: Law and Crime
Nuala O'Loan (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, there can be no doubt that grounds exist for establishing a public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane. An inquiry should be established because the matter is related to state collusion, leading to the murder, and there are major unanswered questions. As noble Lords know, both the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland have said they have no ongoing work in relation to the murder. The work of the police ombudsman, which was referred as a consequence of de Silva, relates to other terrorist murders carried out in Northern Ireland. When I was police ombudsman, I knew that I could not investigate matters surrounding the murder of Patrick Finucane because I did not have the powers. That continues for the current police ombudsman. She can only investigate the activities of police officers. She has no remit to investigate, with a view to prosecution, loyalist paramilitaries, the staff of the Ministry of Defence or the Security Service—that is what is required in this case. Moreover, the police ombudsman does not have the resources to do the work she should be doing; she is grossly underresourced. Yet, as I found when I carried out my investigations, while the crime in question may have occurred decades ago, what emerges from the investigation may have implications for policing today. Do the Government have plans to provide further funding to the police ombudsman to allow her to discharge her statutory duties? It is not a matter of double standards, an inquiry for one and not for the other. It is a matter of learning from the wrongdoing of the past to enable the anti-terrorism work of today There are hundreds of unsolved murders, as noble Lords have said. The current system is not working. We urgently need the independent historical investigations unit, which has been promised. It must be properly resourced and needs to do the type of investigation carried out by Chief Constable Boutcher in Operation Kenova. This is not a matter on which the Government can delay; it is urgent. Can the Minister tell us when a new, independent, properly resourced, historical investigations unit will be established?
European Union (Future Relationship) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-12-30
Topic: International Affairs
Igor Judge (Crossbench, Unknown): We can—indeed, as it is the only opportunity we shall have, we must—discuss whether the future relationship agreement represents what has been described as a hard or soft, or, nowadays, a thin, scrawny or perhaps plump, deal, but I fear the single question for decision by us today is whether, however we choose to describe it or to deride it, and with whatever level of reservation or hesitation, we accept this deal or not Personally, I breathed the sigh of relief described by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, when I heard the news that a deal had eventually been negotiated. I share the views already expressed that there are problems and disappointments with it, which will no doubt be ventilated this afternoon, as they were in the other place by the leader of the Opposition this morning. But I respectfully suggest that the discussions that we have today about how and when the agreement was eventually signed should not overlook that there were two parties to the negotiations. It was the duty of the EU negotiators to do their best to protect the interests of the EU from the consequences of the unwanted departure of one of its members, and to do so in a way which kept 27 sovereign countries content with what was to be agreed. It was not open to us to require a negotiated settlement in which we dictated the terms of our departure; the EU was never going to make easy concessions and our negotiating hand was not strong enough to obtain them. One has to be careful not to be unfair to those responsible for the negotiations As I indicated, I welcome with relief what I believe to be a workable deal, the most important feature of which is the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty. In years to come, we must make it clear that from now on—that is to say, from 1 January 2021—the Prime Minister has no sovereignty, the Executive have no sovereignty and there is no coronation after a successful election campaign culminating in a large majority for one party or the other. I am stating the obvious, but today’s legislation exemplifies the unwanted tendency—if I may adapt the words of John Dunning in 1780—of the Executive to command, and to expect to command, the legislative process, rather than to defer to it, which has increased, is increasing and should be diminished That is really all I have time to say—there is much more that I would like to say. However, there is one positive aspect of the Bill, which is that we parliamentarians in both Houses must wake up to the fact that there should now be proper, true parliamentary control of the legislative process. But that is up to us.
European Union (Future Relationship) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-12-30
Topic: Law and Crime
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, the agreement with the EU covers such a wide variety of matters, and the time for scrutinising this Bill is so very short, that one has to be selective. My choice has been to look at how this necessary Bill seeks to give effect in domestic law to the surrender provisions in Part 3 The surrender provisions must be compared with the EU’s framework decision that governs the European arrest warrant to see what we have lost and what we have gained. We were always going to lose our right as an EU member state to require those countries whose fundamental principles prohibit the surrender of their nationals to third countries to surrender them to us— and so it has been. But we have made up for that by securing agreement to some new protections and to a more comprehensive scheme that, as the European Court of Justice now has no role, leaves as little room for mishaps and misunderstandings as possible. On balance, the scheme—though second best—seems to be as good as we could have hoped for How, then, does the Bill seek to give effect to these provisions in domestic law? Clause 11 tells us that member states are to remain category 1 territories. That means that the new scheme is to be dealt with under the accelerated procedure in Part 1 of the Extradition Act. That is as it should be, as the surrender scheme itself provides for an accelerated procedure for which Part 1 of that Act was designed. However, there are differences. Part 1 of the Extradition Act does not mention the principle of proportionality, for example, which lies at the heart of the new scheme, and the new scheme clarifies the circumstances in which a public prosecutor can be considered a judicial officer—something that always puzzled us—which that Act does not do It is plain for these and other reasons that Part 1 of the Extradition Act requires amendment if it is to meet the requirements of the new scheme. For the time being, we are left with the general implementation provisions in Clause 29, but that clause leaves too much to the judgment of the individual judges and others who will be required to operate this system. Uncertainty and inconsistent decisions will follow. It falls very far short of what is needed here. We can be sure that on its side, the EU will do what is necessary. These amendments are required and must be made as soon as possible.
European Union (Future Relationship) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-12-30
Topic: International Affairs
Frederick Butler (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I have never made a secret of my regret that the 2016 referendum went the way it did. I hoped for some time that, when the implications became known, the British people would be given a second chance to vote and the result would go the other way. But I accepted long ago that the train had left the station and that we had to turn our attention and energies to negotiating a new relationship with our former partners. We now have the results of that negotiation I cannot agree with those who say, as some have, that this is a bad deal, on the grounds of the increase in bureaucratic controls on trade in goods, extra checks on exports of food and farmed products, and loss of access to development funding. They are not the results of the agreement; they are the inevitable results of the original decision to leave the European Union Like the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I take a more favourable view of these negotiations than some previous speakers. They seem to me to have been skilful, firmly based on principle and with a surprisingly satisfactory outcome. We approached them not as a mendicant, but as an independent country with a great deal to offer, as indeed is the case. The United Kingdom is the fifth largest economy in the world. We are one of the world’s two leading financial centres. We have pioneering universities and research centres, as our leading role on the coronavirus vaccine has shown. We have a structure of law that is admired and relied on by businesses around the world. We have the great asset of the English language. These things are not going away and are not affected by Brexit My view is that we can greet this agreement not just with profound relief that it is much better than no deal, but with positivity about the opportunities that it presents for continued trade and co-operation with Europe. We can be justifiably proud of the civil servant negotiators, who worked so hard and with evident skill to achieve this outcome. I believe that they have shown themselves to be at least equal in resolution and ability to their EU counterparts This is of course not the end of the story, as the President of the European Union said in her moving words when the agreement was announced. There are important areas where there is need for further agreements and co-operation in our mutual interest but, when we vote on the Bill, I will support it, and not just with relief but with optimism.
European Union (Future Relationship) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-12-30
Topic: International Affairs
Peter Ricketts (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I do not believe that this thin agreement—as the noble Lord, Lord Maude, called it—with the EU is in the long-term interests of this country. But I will support the Bill this evening, because the only alternative would be the worse chaos of a no-deal departure The British people will discover in the months ahead that this agreement will produce an avalanche of restrictions, bureaucracy, extra costs and delays. As that reality sinks in, at least this deal provides a platform on which to start the long process of building back a closer partnership in the years ahead I have two brief comments on the substance. The agreement on security and justice provides for a closer association with the EU than I, for one, had feared. I welcome that. But the principle underlying all the complex detail is that the UK will no longer have direct, real-time access to the EU databases and systems which have become so important for British policing, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, just explained. We heard in the Lords EU Security and Justice Sub-Committee that British police had consulted the SIS II database over 600 million times in 2019. In future, they will have to request information from the SIS II database, with all the delays that will entail Access to some of the other databases for fingerprints, DNA and passenger name records looks at first sight to be easier, but the overall loss will be significant. I cannot understand how it can be claimed that Brexit will make us safer. The question is rather: how much loss of capability will there be? What will be the operational impact of slower and more cumbersome processes, and more police officers tied up in front of computer screens making requests to the EU? Your Lordships’ EU Security and Justice Sub-Committee will hold an inquiry into this in the new year and will report to the House Briefly, my view is that the decision not to continue participation in Erasmus is short-sighted and mean-spirited. Erasmus gave life-enhancing opportunities to many thousands of students from the UK and across the EU. Less well-known is the fact that it also enabled vocational and adult education colleges and schools, many in disadvantaged areas, to set up joint projects with counterparts across Europe. It lifted the admin burden of organisers, which allowed smaller organisations that did not have the resources to arrange projects. I am deeply sceptical that a UK scheme, starting from scratch with the funding envisaged, will come anywhere near replicating the transformational impact Erasmus has had on so many lives. I hope this decision to leave Erasmus will be reviewed at the first opportunity.
European Union (Future Relationship) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-12-30
Topic: International Affairs
John Montagu (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, of course I feel some relief—as anyone would—that we did not fall off the cliff edge of no deal, but I am not joining in the fanfare. Bill Cash compares the PM to Pericles and our EU membership to subjugation. I prefer Margaret Beckett’s word "salvage", because this incomplete deal could have been done weeks, if not months, ago. It would have been just as incomplete then, but it would have satisfied the farmers, manufacturers, SMEs, students, musicians and many others whose livelihoods have been damaged, even wrecked, by the delays. What was all that about preparation? How can anyone be proud of setting up a massive lorry park against no deal, when it turned out to have a completely different and unexpected use in the pandemic? That was lucky, was it not The deal was, of course, cleverly announced by the Prime Minister on Christmas Eve with all the hallmarks of a gala, with the magician drawing rather small rabbits out of a top hat What is still not done? There is parliamentary scrutiny and financial services, and fishermen need more reassurance. Devolution is in a lot of trouble; the Schengen data is missing. We will lose Dublin III regulations for asylum seekers seeking family reunion. Gibraltar still has no deal. Then there is, of course, Erasmus. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, I feel the loss of that scheme almost personally, because it is founded on a great European scholar. The Turing scheme is fine, but its resonances are different. Some say that Brexit is all over, but there is, and will always be, a fundamental divide between those who see themselves as European and those who see Great Britain in a global context. I am not sure that the Government appreciate that the first group may already be a majority. I was brought up as a European in a post-war climate and, for me, the UK has always been in Europe. I agree with those who want a European family of nations, not a political union or a giant bureaucracy—we are going to have some of that ourselves. Of course, the EU has to be reformed and it has an equal right to a level playing field. Europe will still be here on 1 January. Because of our shared experiences, we will inevitably have a closer relationship in the future. Most people will want that in the course of time. Meanwhile, we cannot expect Europe to want us back.
European Union (Future Relationship) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-12-30
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Kerr (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I shall greatly miss the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness; one could not ask for a more congenial opponent I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on these farcical proceedings, rubber-stamping a crucial Bill in an afternoon What is most striking to me about the treaty is its asymmetry. We are a service economy running goods deficits and service surpluses, yet this treaty gives the 27 free access here for their goods but gives us nothing in return on services. There is nothing for the City or Edinburgh; no passporting, no equivalence and no recognition of qualifications; nothing on data adequacy; and nothing for the digital or creative economy, hard hit by the loss of free movement As for exports of UK goods, on top of the new borders and bureaucracy, our negotiators have lost on rules of origin, on SPS and on testing and certification. EU exporters to us face no similar costs here, so it is not just asymmetrical, it is lose-lose. We have let the 27 get away with saying that our service access will be determined by their autonomous, reversible decisions. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is right, and that is just the reality of being the junior partner—we are sovereign but not equal; they are seven times bigger and they call the shots—but the outcome is a treaty that may grow their trade but cannot and will not grow ours But at least we have taken back control and with one bound we are free. Alas, no. Gulliver is tied down by that web of 32 committees, where we have to explain ourselves not to the member states but to the Commission. If we ever use our sovereign right to diverge on standards or subsidies, the Commission has been given—by us—the treaty right to punish us with rebalancing tariffs. So in practice we will still be rule-takers, though no longer with any say in the rule-making. We have sold our access for a mess of pottage and our real economic interests for a sovereignty shibboleth I reckon that is a rather bad deal, but no deal would have been worse, so today’s farce must run its course. It is a bad day for the country and a very sad day for Parliament. I share the regret of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and I will vote for her amendment.