argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) (Sibling Couples) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-07-20
Topic: Macroeconomics
David Alton (Crossbench, Unknown): I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I shall try to keep it very brief. When she replies to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, will she provide the figures to the whole House by putting that information in the Library? Will she also add to it from the Treasury what the deferred costs would be by putting off the inheritance duties that will come into the Treasury in due course? Will that calculation also be included in those figures, so we can see the whole picture when we come to consider this in Committee?
Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-07-20
Topic: Law and Crime
David Alton (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and entirely agree with what she just said about not bringing flimsy cases that do not stand up in court. She will have heard what was said earlier on about the number of successful prosecutions in other European Union countries. Are we looking at best practice elsewhere so that the failure rate that the noble Lord, Lord West, identified, does not continue for another 11 or 12 years?
European Union (Information, etc.) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-07-20
Topic: International Affairs
Hugh Dykes (Crossbench, Unknown): I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks. Indeed, the EU is a democratic institution, with the European Parliament—and she has attested that herself with her own career there as a very hard-working MEP, as well as an extremely hard-working Peer in the House of Lords, dealing with European issues. I thank her for all that. I live in France, too, because I had to try to live in a eurozone country, even if it was not Belgium—and France is nearer for us. Can she say why she gets the impression that other countries are more enthusiastic and why Britain is less enthusiastic? As I am sure she has, I have been confronted by people visiting from France and other countries saying, "Excuse me asking, but this proposal to leave the European Union—are they all bonkers?". I get that a lot. Would she explain why she thinks that is so? Why are we different? Why do we not have the confidence, as a sovereign country, that the other members have?
Brexit: Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement — House of Lords, 2018-07-24
Topic: International Affairs
John Taylor (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, as someone who lives at the border, I welcome the Minister’s Statement and I accept that the Government are fully in support of the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—which I helped to negotiate. That is not in question. There are two types of crossings at the Irish border. One is by people, one is by trade. It was suggested earlier in the discussion that there was no agreement on the Northern Ireland issue. Can the Minister confirm that the crossing of people—the common travel area between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—is already agreed by Brussels, Dublin, Belfast and London and is not in question? Let us remove that from the debate Secondly, since so many people from Northern Ireland drive into the Republic and back again, will United Kingdom driving licences issued in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland have the same respect in European Union countries, including the Republic of Ireland, after Brexit?
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
David Anderson (Crossbench, Unknown): I support the Government’s position on Amendments 42 and 46. In a report of July 2013, The Terrorism Acts in 2012, I recorded the result of an extensive inquiry conducted with MI5 and counterterrorism police into the value of no-suspicion stops under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act. I started from a position of, I hope, healthy scepticism, but noted three useful functions of the no-suspicion stop: deterring and detecting the use of "clean skins" to transport terrorist material; avoiding alerting travellers that they were the object of surveillance; and enabling the travelling companion of a person suspected of involvement in terrorism to be stopped and questioned. I followed this up with several real-life examples, which I had verified, of no-suspicion stops that had brought significant benefits in terms of disrupting potential terrorists. More to the point, perhaps, in the case of Beghal in 2015 a majority of the Supreme Court held that having regard to the many safeguards on its exercise, the absence of a suspicion requirement was not such as to render the basic Schedule 7 power inconsistent with the principle of legality. That judgment contained a lengthy comparison of Schedule 7 with the former Section 44, to which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, addressed some remarks These few words should not be understood as a rejection of some enhanced threshold for the use of more specialised powers under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, or Schedule 3 to this Bill, such as downloading a phone or, indeed, taking a person into detention. Still less should it be understood as support for no-suspicion powers of stop and search in more orthodox areas of policing where threats to national security are not in issue. I hope, however, that it explains why I do not support these amendments.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Ian Warwick Blair (Crossbench, Unknown): I support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. As long as these powers are restricted to the extreme circumstances of national security and are not a passport to a widening of stop and search without justification, I think this is about hanging a notice around the UK—particularly, as he said, in relation to clean skins and travelling companions—saying that this is a hostile place for people with deeply malign intent.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Elspeth Howe (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, my amendment proposes that those who refer an individual for assessment under the Channel programme are different from those who assess the individuals once they have been referred. For reasons that I will set out, the amendment constitutes a crucial safeguard to protect the integrity of the programme. Amendment 54 addresses the issue concerning Clause 19 that was identified by myself, the noble Lords, Lord Stunell and Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, during Second Reading: namely, granting local authorities the additional powers to refer individuals for assessment under the Channel programme, an assessment that they themselves would undertake if Clause 19 were accepted with its current wording It is important, moreover, that this concern about Clause 19 is seen in the broader context of the concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in commenting on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill. In relation to Clause 19, the report says that the committee is, "concerned that any additional responsibility placed on local authorities must be accompanied by adequate training and resources to ensure that the authorities are equipped to identify individuals vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism" However, these recommendations cannot address the challenge flowing from the imposition of the extra duty arising from Clause 19, which, for reasons that I will explain, is likely to lead to the creation of perverse incentives Clause 19 amends Section 36 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 to impose a duty on local authorities to play an additional role to assess individuals vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. This is a function that under the current wording of Section 36(3) of the 2015 Act rests with a chief officer of police. In accordance with Clause 19, apart from assessing—by way of a self-established panel—the extent to which identified individuals are vulnerable to being drawn to terrorism, local authorities will also have an extra power to refer individuals to its panel Ultimately, the safeguard that currently arises from splitting the responsibilities between a chief officer of police, responsible for referring individuals, and the panel, responsible for assessment, will no longer obtain. While the local authorities should be more involved in countering terrorism, the amendment of Section 36 of the 2015 Act through Clause 19 of this Bill introduces a dangerous model that may be abused where the referral and assessment are conducted by the same person My concern about Clause 19 in its current form is that if a person refers an individual for assessment and then sits on the panel assessing that individual, there is a risk that the person, even if unintentionally, may steer the assessment panel in a direction that would help to justify their prior decision to refer the person for the assessment. If an individual is wrongly referred and then wrongly assessed, that could significantly jeopardise the process and lead to its abuse.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander Carlile (Crossbench, Unknown): The noble Baroness has managed successfully to provoke me on to my feet. Could she give her view on the following? There is about to be appointed a new Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation—the advertisement was on the Cabinet Office job site last week. Can she see any reason why the review, which I and she share the opinion would be sensible, cannot be carried out by the same Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation as is appointed as a result of that advertisement? Does she see any utility in having another reviewer with overlapping responsibility? Also, given that she has taken a great interest and shows great expertise in these matters, can she cite to the Committee by identity any Prevent projects that have given rise to the mistrust—that was the word she used—and can she tell us whether she has visited them in order to make her own assessment?
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Elizabeth Manningham-Buller (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I will comment briefly on this important subject. I was the director-general of MI5 in 2003 when we produced the terrorism strategy. At that stage, it was not public. Of the four Ps—Prevent, Pursue, Protect and Prepare—Prevent was the one on which we spent the most time. We did not feel qualified to be very helpful on it, although we had established a behavioural science unit in the service to look at why people were drawn into this course Whatever the criticism, it seemed noble to go back to what was causing some of this, to stop young people in particular being groomed into the profession of terrorism. If through this channel we have saved a number of young people from that route and diverted them into other, productive lives, that is a very valuable achievement. I note that a substantial number of people who are now in this process are being seduced and drawn into extreme right-wing activity. Again, if we can divert some of those—largely young—people from that course, it is right That is not to say that all these things cannot be done better. I do not know about that; I do not have the insight of my noble friend Lord Carlile. However, I know that of the four Ps, Prevent is the most difficult one. It is challenging but, since it was initiated in 2003, a great deal of progress has been made in refining and improving it.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
David Anderson (Crossbench, Unknown): Since the Minister mentioned Assistant Commissioner Basu and what he had to say about the Prevent strategy, is she familiar with the interview he gave, I think to an American periodical, a few weeks before he was appointed to his current role in relation to counterterrorism in which he made a number of constructive suggestions for changing the Prevent strategy, in particular to make it more, as he put it, community focused and less top down?
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Elizabeth Manningham-Buller (Crossbench, Unknown): I, too, support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, the criteria for proscription are clear. They are concerned with terrorism commission, promotion, participation and engagement. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, much hangs on proscription because of the offences that follow from it, so it is critical that we get it right I was not entirely surprised to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that the Home Office had agreed that up to 14 international organisations were wrongly proscribed, not including those in Ireland. From my past experience, I remember pressure from the Foreign Office, in particular, to consider as terrorists groups who were just serious irritations to the conduct of foreign policy. Because I have not kept in touch with these things, I did not imagine that that was still a problem, but it clearly is It seems to me that the amendment is pretty easy and patient for the Home Office to follow. It is more than just good housekeeping. If we make decisions in the context of the Bill on the basis of wrong information on who is proscribed, the whole system is drawn into disrepute and natural justice is offended. Looking back through the papers, at one stage the Home Office defended itself by saying that there should be a cautious approach to deproscription. That is indefensible if it itself admits that a number of the organisations proscribed should not be.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander Carlile (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I too support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Anderson. There is no known system at the moment for reviewing the proscription list. The Peasants’ Revolt would still be proscribed under the current absence of a system, and that is just unacceptable. I could live with it if the Minister were to make a commitment from the Dispatch Box to introduce a system of review of the proscription list. Let us not forget that if a deproscription is found to be mistaken, there can be a reproscription of that organisation in any event, so almost nothing is lost by what is proposed.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
David Pannick (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I find it shocking that the Home Office should be continuing the proscription of organisations which it recognises do not satisfy the statutory criteria. I have only one suggestion to those who tabled the amendment for their consideration for Report. In new paragraph (d), should it not require the Minister to publish not simply each such decision but the basic reasons for such a decision? That would add a further level of accountability and discipline of the secretary of state in this context.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Simon Denis Brown (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I, too, support the amendment—looking around, it would be almost eccentric not to. The reasons already given are, I suggest, compelling, but in addition we had a debate in Committee on Clause 1, which is intimately linked with this issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, made plain at the time. Floating around at the time was Amendment 7 to Clause 1 which provided that it would not be an offence to support the deproscription of an organisation—on the face of it an altogether more compelling argument if the present amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is accepted. If one has a defence to Clause 1 supporting deproscription, think what damage—some of us made this point in Committee—that does to the basic objective, which is that you should not be expressing an opinion supporting such an organisation, something which would inevitably be linked with any attempt to have it deproscribed. This is very important also for Clause 1 purposes.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
David Pannick (Crossbench, Unknown): I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Her argument appears to be that there is a power to apply for a review. She will be aware that under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, which Parliament approved earlier this year, where a person is subject to sanctions, they can apply for a review, but nevertheless there is an obligation on Ministers to conduct a periodic review to ensure that the process is properly applied, and that sanctions are continued only against those who deserve to continue to be sanctioned. What is the difference in this context?
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
David Anderson (Crossbench, Unknown): I am grateful to the Minister. While she is writing to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, could she perhaps answer my question? Even if she is correct that the ability to apply to have an organisation deproscribed is a substitute for my amendment—the track record very much suggests that it is not—and assuming that in her favour, could the Minister explain in the letter, or in person if she prefers, what consolation that could be to the innocent member of the community in London who comes under suspicion for alleged links with a proscribed organisation but who has no connection with it and could not in 100 years have been expected to be the person who makes that application I am trying to avoid naming specific communities, although I have spent plenty of time in London with Tamils, for example. For them, the fact that the LTTE remains a proscribed organisation—rightly or wrongly; I have no judgment on that—can be a significant impediment on how they go about their everyday life. What consolation could it be for the Tamil greengrocer in London to know that, had they wished to do so, the top brass of the LTTE, or others intimately connected with it, might have made an application for deproscription?
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
David Anderson (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I am grateful for the flattering words with which the Minister began and overwhelmed by the distinguished support for the amendment from so many noble Lords. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I hope that the Minister will not only carefully consider the amendment—as improved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—but see the benefits to the Government of having it enshrined in law and not just in an undertaking, so that there can be no doubt who wins in any future conflict within the Government of the sort that the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and I have experienced in our different capacities In case it was in any doubt, I clarify that the amendment seeks not to change the proscription regime in Northern Ireland but simply to ensure that the existing regime, as written very plainly in law, is applied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but fully expect to return to it on Report.
EU Exit: Future Relationship White Paper — House of Lords, 2018-07-12
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Kerr (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for making sure that we, unlike our friends in another place, were able to read the White Paper. I have got as far as page 16 and it is there that I would like to ask for some elucidation. It is very good that we have at last put some cards on the table. That is a couple of years too late but better late than never. The White Paper is clearly a very substantial body of work, which will take a lot of reading by us and, I would have thought, a great deal of negotiating in Brussels I want to start on an element which the Minister highlighted. The FCA or facilitated customs arrangement, referred to on page 12 of the Statement and pages 16 to 18 of the White Paper, says: "As if in a combined … territory with the EU, the UK would apply the EU’s tariffs and trade policy for goods intended for the EU. The UK would also apply its own tariffs and trade policy … However, the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border for goods intended for the UK" I have two questions. First, what happens at Dover to goods from, say, Asia which entered the EU via, say, Rotterdam? Where do the customs dues, tariffs and quota checks take place Secondly, as the Minister will be well aware from his long experience in the European Parliament, customs dues are an own resource which go straight into the common EU budget and it is 11 years since OLAF, the antifraud agency, started warning us that our border controls on Chinese textiles and footwear were inadequate. We are now in court for unpaid duty, calculated at more than €3 billion over a 10-year period. As he will be well aware, too, we are also in court over VAT fraud at Felixstowe, where the charge against us is $3.2 billion. Does he really think that once we have shaken off the ECJ, the Commission and OLAF, we will be accepted as trustworthy collectors of the EU’s external tariffs and customs duties at our ports, against the background that it believes that we have consistently under-counted for the last decade, having admitted false invoices and incorrect value declarations? How are we going to persuade the European Union that, as non-members of a customs union, we should collect the duties which go straight into its common budget? Would it not be simpler simply to have a customs union, as this House voted for by a majority of 123?
EU Exit: Future Relationship White Paper — House of Lords, 2018-07-12
Topic: Foreign Trade
David Hugh Alexander Hannay (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, will the Minister perhaps enlighten the House on whether the customs arrangement proposed will be in full conformity with World Trade Organization rules, which normally lay down that when a third country sends goods to somewhere such as the UK, it knows what tariff rate it will be faced with? That would be the UK tariff rate but apparently, under certain circumstances, it would be a different tariff rate. Does that conform to the WTO My second question is about the migration partnership. The Statement makes it clear that this will fall within the ambit of the negotiations with the EU 27, but what on earth are the negotiations going to be about since the White Paper says nothing about the migration partnership? When the Minister’s right honourable friend arrives in Brussels next week, what is he to say when asked what we are putting in place on freedom of movement? Finally, I notice that the Statement states categorically that the Government are not going to spend taxpayers’ money on nothing but, if they get their way and there is a deal, they will have spent millions in taxpayers’ money on preparing for nothing.
EU Exit: Future Relationship White Paper — House of Lords, 2018-07-12
Topic: International Affairs
Michael Hastings Jay (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I welcome the White Paper and look forward to reading it. I am afraid I have got to only page 14 so far, but my noble friend Lord Kerr was always ahead of the game. When the former Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union appeared before the EU Committee of your Lordships’ House, he talked about the negotiations on economic, security and foreign policy issues taking place at a different rhythm and pace over the next few months. Could the Minister say more about how he sees the negotiations taking place now, based on the White Paper that we have just received?