argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Covid-19: Economic Package — House of Lords, 2020-05-13
Topic: Labor
Theodore Agnew (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my noble friend for his supportive comments. The self-employment income support scheme opened today at 8 am, and by lunchtime we had had 110,000 applications, worth in aggregate some £360 million. HMRC has undertaken to do everything possible to get payments out within the next six working days On my noble friend’s other point about the furlough scheme being too generous, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has said, if we do not take these sorts of measures, the cost to our country and our society will be even greater. However, we will be vigilant to ensure that the scheme is not abused.
Covid-19: Economic Package — House of Lords, 2020-05-13
Topic: Labor
Lucy Neville-Rolfe (Conservative, Centre-right): Could my noble friend explain in more detail what the Chancellor meant when he said he would ask employers to share with the Government the cost of paying people’s salaries under the furlough scheme from August? In spite of what he said, I hope he can give us an idea of some of the thinking going on. For many reasons, I support the aim of weaning people off government support, but businesses need to quantify this extra cost very soon to determine their route ahead.
Covid-19: Economic Package — House of Lords, 2020-05-13
Topic: Social Welfare
Theodore Agnew (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, we have improved the terms of universal credit since this crisis began by increasing payments by £20 a week. We have seen 1.6 million claims since the beginning of the crisis, and all new and existing claimants will benefit from the increased generosity of these payments.
Covid-19: Economic Package — House of Lords, 2020-05-13
Topic: Labor
Theodore Agnew (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, my right honourable friend in his Statement yesterday extended the existing terms of the furlough scheme until the end of July. I think we will have better knowledge of the disease and our ability to contain it by then, but I take on board the noble Lord’s comments and I will take them back to my colleagues in the Treasury.
Covid-19: Care Home Deaths — House of Lords, 2020-04-22
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the analysis by Care England which suggests that there have been significantly more deaths caused by Covid-19 in care homes than have been reported.
James Bethell (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Baroness raises what is probably the cruellest and most unkind aspect of this awful epidemic: the circumstances of death where those who love and care cannot necessarily be with those who have died or attend the funeral or mark the moment in the way that they would like. It is a cruel and horrible part of this epidemic We have put considerable resources into supporting charities that provide care, particularly around bereavement. If the noble Baroness has any charities that she would like to recommend, I ask her to write to me. I would be glad to make sure that they have the resources they need.
Covid-19: Care Home Deaths — House of Lords, 2020-04-22
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the analysis by Care England which suggests that there have been significantly more deaths caused by Covid-19 in care homes than have been reported.
James Bethell (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord, Lord Laming, makes a point that I am afraid I cannot agree with. While the press may be more focused on hospitals, we in the department have put an enormous amount of focus on social care. I pay tribute to my colleague Helen Whately, the social care Minister, who does not allow us to spend one minute not thinking about social care. However, the noble Lord is right that social care was deserving of a review in any case, and this epidemic will make that review even more poignant, relevant and important. I very much support his view that a review should take place after the epidemic and that it should be a root and branch look at the social care provision in this country.
Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body — House of Lords, 2020-03-23
Topic: Government Operations
Natalie Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): That Lord Best, Lord Carter of Coles, Lord Deighton and Baroness Scott of Needham Market be appointed as Parliamentary members, and that Brigid Janssen, Elizabeth Peace (chair), Marta Phillips, Dr Simon Thurley and Simon Wright be appointed as external members, of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body.
Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body — House of Lords, 2020-03-23
Topic: Government Operations
Natalie Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, this Motion appoints both the parliamentary and external members of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body ahead of the commencement of the relevant sections of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019. I beg to move.
Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Law Commission and parliamentary counsel for their work on this Bill, not least for their continuous efforts to ensure that it accurately reflects recent changes in the law. I wish to record the Government’s thanks to the noble Lords who served on the Bill’s Special Public Bill Committee in the last Parliament under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I am sure that I speak for all members of the committee in thanking those who provided evidence on the Bill, but in particular Professor David Ormerod, who has done so much work in this field. We hope that the Bill marks the first step in cutting through the complexity of the law in this area, and I look forward to the imminent introduction of the sentencing code Bill.
Coronavirus (COVID-19) — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Government Operations
James Bethell (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord makes an important point. Polling to date has demonstrated that the British public have left the moment of complacency and are now seriously focused on this issue. Their trust in the Government remains high, and their engagement on solutions is profound. That feels like the right place to be.
Coronavirus (COVID-19) — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Social Welfare
James Bethell (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Baroness raises an issue that is uppermost in our minds: the care of and provision for the aged, who are clearly the most vulnerable to this virus and whose support will be most hard-hit by the virus itself. It is clearly a dilemma that the Government are struggling with. We are seeking to delay the spread of the virus as much as possible so that the peak does not knock out in one go all those who provide support, so that mitigation provisions can be put in place. I reassure the noble Baroness that when we talk about volunteers, we are not talking just about family members: we are talking about full community commitment.
Coronavirus (COVID-19) — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Social Welfare
James Bethell (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord is quite right to ask about those who are either in the gig economy or unemployed. The Government need to look at this matter more closely. Provisions have been made on statutory sick pay and there are welfare arrangements through universal credit, but if those are not enough and do not provide the financial security and necessary provisions for those in need, we will review them and make the appropriate changes. The noble Lord’s points on the community are well made. I confess that we in the Department of Health are super-focused on the medical challenge, but one cannot help feeling that this may be a moment for the country to come together. If communities seek to support those in need, there may well be a silver lining to this cloud.
Coronavirus (COVID-19) — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Transportation
Patrick Cormack (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, one issue that has not been raised is public transport. There is no more dangerous place than public transport when infections are rife. Has thought been given to restricting the number of people who can travel on buses and trains—perhaps one in two seats? That could be of some help if distance is an important factor.
Coronavirus (COVID-19) — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Labor
James Bethell (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord is quite right to raise the issue of airline staff, who are very clearly on the front line of this epidemic. They are in confined spaces and are sharing aeroplanes with people from all sorts of destinations. It is not the role of the Government to intervene in this, but we are encouraging all employers, as a matter of principle, to care for their staff and to put staff welfare at the top of their priorities.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Ian McColl (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am very pleased to speak to Amendment 1 in my name. The Government have said there should be a minimum timeframe between petition and conditional order "to give couples sufficient time to consider the implications of the decision to divorce and to agree practical arrangements for the future." They acknowledged that this is especially important because the digitisation of the divorce process could result in some parties rushing to divorce before the prospect of reconciliation has been fully explored. Importantly, they argue that the minimum timeframe provides "opportunities for couples to change course." There are 27 references to reconciliation in the Government’s document, which includes the statement: "But the law can—and should—have a role in providing couples with an opportunity to reflect on that momentous decision and to pull back from the brink if they decide that reconciliation is achievable." All of the Government’s sentiments about the proposed reforms sound well intentioned. However, proposed new Section 1(2) provides that a respondent who receives notice at the start of the divorce proceedings will do so with a statement from their spouse that "the marriage has broken down irretrievably." The law is thereby designed to begin the divorce process with a statement that makes it inevitable. I cannot see how a respondent would feel that such a statement does indeed provide opportunities to change course. They will feel that the hammer has already fallen I do not believe that the wording of proposed new Section 1(2) is in any way consistent with the hopes for reconciliation expressed by the Government’s Reducing Family Conflict paper. A statement of irretrievable breakdown must clearly come at the end of the process, immediately prior to divorce, but designing the law in a way that asks one party to a marriage to make this very strong assertion right at the start of the divorce process is counterproductive.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Fiona Sara Shackleton (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I rise to support the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I have been doing this work for 40 years. If the amendment is successful, people will file quicker: they know they will have to wait 20 weeks, or however many weeks, so they will put in their petition sooner. When a marriage has broken down, it is necessary to sort it out cleanly and without blame and delay. Delay causes grief. Uncertainty causes grief. Children get destroyed by uncertainty, which is why I have jointly tabled an amendment related to finance. In relation to the breakdown of a marriage, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is patronising. It is not a charter for petitioners but a mutual charter to let people get divorced without the blame and shame of naming the person who is more at fault. For most marriages, it is not as simple as one party being 90% at fault and the other being 10% at fault, or one party being 100% at fault. There is mutual blame, so to suggest that that one party has to take the responsibility for being, effectively, the aggressor, causes grief. It causes grief to people who cannot operate on their own. Some people have the luxury of going to solicitors, but I really object to the suggestion that this is a solicitors’ or a lawyers’ charter to make money. When it is done online, it will be a great deal cheaper. There is a nice little industry in colluding with the solicitor on the other side to try to dream up grounds that neither party finds objectionable so that it can go through unopposed—but unfortunately, those grounds now have to be sufficiently serious to get past the very high bar that is being imposed, which means that blame has to be made. I do not see any benefit at all when one party—generally both parties—wants to get out of marriage in there being any further delays, so I do not support this amendment.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Law and Crime
James Peter Hymers Mackay (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, the unfortunate thing about that is that it is the application: once you have applied, you have carried out the intent. It is an application for a divorce, and the divorce procedure lays out what has to happen before the divorce is granted. When you apply, you are applying for a divorce. I cannot see any other possible way of proceeding. It does not seem to make sense to say, "I was thinking of applying—I was thinking of suing you—but I am still considering the matter." If you want an order, you have to ask for it. That is essentially why I think this amendment has grammatical difficulties but also an enormous underlying theoretical difficulty.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Ian McColl (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am very grateful for all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I have been practising medicine for more years than I care to remember, and I have, almost every day, had to break bad news. I took a great deal of time to get over to medical students that this had to be done gently and with respect. Although my amendment does not seem to have much support, I hope that there is some way in which a person who wants a divorce can indicate to his partner what is in his mind long before he puts down an official request. Breaking bad news does not cost too much money. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Social Welfare
Michael Nicholson Lord (Conservative, Centre-right): I entirely support the amendment of the noble Baroness. Does she agree that while we talk about the reasons for the mental health of young people, austerity, local councils and educational support, we rarely talk about family? We never talk about parents and we never talk about absent fathers. Does she agree that as a country we are in grave danger of completely ignoring the huge distress and permanent damage done to children every year?
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Fiona Sara Shackleton (Conservative, Centre-right): This is not about the finances. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, brought in the Children Act, it took away the stigma of custody. That Act as been a godsend to all of us, as we do not have to identify which party has care and control—custody. It has been the most enormous success, for which everybody who practises in this field is eternally grateful. I suspect that it was considered very novel at the time People forget that most responsible solicitors, when somebody who wants a divorce comes to see them, go through with their clients the possibility of not getting a divorce. I believe passionately in marriage—I am a patron of the Marriage Foundation, which supports the Bill—but by the time somebody wants out, they want out. I cannot tell your Lordships how many people are shocked when I say to them, "Are you sure you really want this? It’s not necessarily greener on the other side." They say, "Do you really think I saved up the courage to come and see you to be told to go back and try a bit harder?" Once the game is up and the marriage is over—once it is dead—clinging on to it is not in the children’s interest at all. People need to move on. You cannot make somebody who is unhappy happy. It takes one person to make the marriage unhappy and two people to make it happy. The Bill goes some way towards addressing that problem.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Catherine Meyer (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I will make one correction. This amendment is not about forcing parents to stay together. It asks for the courts to be satisfied that the well-being of the children has been considered before the final divorce is granted.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Law and Crime
James Peter Hymers Mackay (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I need no conviction that children are better when their parents continue together, undivorced. I am strongly in favour of helping people who run into difficulties in their marriage. Various things can happen that require help. One of the amendments today refers to part of the 1996 Act that is still in force, providing money to help people to overcome these difficulties I need no conviction that divorce is bad for children, but I do need conviction that, if the parents are determined to divorce, nothing can be done to make it better for the children. That is where the arrangements under the Children Act are important. I believe that they are as good as can be achieved, but the important thing is that I would much prefer no divorce at all. We must concentrate on trying to keep parents together and keep the marriage going as a marriage and not in any other way I cannot see that the court can say, "This divorce is not good for the children" or "This divorce is good for the children". Can noble Lords imagine a judge having to decide whether a divorce is good for the children? The answer is no in every case I know of: it is not a good thing for children that their parents have reached the conclusion that they have to divorce, as I said earlier. It is like tearing the children apart, because they love both parents and are very upset when anything happens to part them—but, sadly, the responsibility for staying together is with the parents. I strongly believe that doing everything that can be done to help them to stay together is the best help for the children.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I begin by correcting a misapprehension disclosed by a number of noble Lords. We have produced a family impact assessment in respect of the Bill. Indeed, it was published with the Bill and can be found on GOV.UK. I invite those noble Lords who expressed an interest to have regard to that I have no doubt that this amendment is well intentioned, but its effects could be quite draconian. It would in effect require the court to weigh up whether the interests of the marriage’s children should override the autonomous decision of one parent—or indeed both parents, in a joint application—to seek a divorce. It could result in a parent being trapped in a failed or even abusive marriage. It could also reintroduce contested divorce in cases where there are children, because it would allow a parent to put forward arguments that divorce is not in the children’s best interests. It is difficult to see how this would serve the best interests of the children or even the parents. Indeed, this amendment could cause a worsened parental conflict through the legal process of divorce, with further damaging consequences for the children involved I understand why some may regard it as important for the court to consider the impacts on children of the decision to divorce, but that ought not to be a matter for the divorce process. The decision to marry or divorce is an autonomous one. It is not for the law to stand in the way of one or both parties who no longer wish to be in a marriage. The legal process of divorce should focus only on ending the legal relationship between the adult parties. Issues that may arise from the divorce, such as disputed arrangements for children, can and are dealt with now under separate statutory provision.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): I am perfectly happy to have meetings on this or any other issues that may arise before Report, and to have the relevant officials present. I hope I have expressed clearly our position regarding the distinction between the divorce process and the interests of children, but I am perfectly content to have a meeting.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-03-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I will begin with Amendment 3, moved by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, not only for his thoughtful contribution to the debate and the scrutiny of the Bill but for meeting me to discuss his proposals. The Government share the sentiment underlying this amendment, and the observations of a number of noble Lords that couples considering divorce should have available to them information about the services in question, and that where reconciliation is still possible, the legal process should not dim that prospect. On the second point, the Bill introduces for the first time a minimum timeframe of 20 weeks from the application to when the court can be asked to make the conditional order of divorce. The Bill also retains the two-stage procedure for obtaining a divorce under the distinctive procedure of English law, so that each step on the way to divorce requires an intentional and, indeed, conscious decision to end the marriage The Government’s view is that best prospect of saving a marriage is when difficulties first arise, not much later when divorce proceedings have begun. In the University of Newcastle evaluation of pilots to test the information-meeting provision that was central to the no-fault provisions in the now-repealed Part II of the Family Law Act 1996, the report noted: "If the objective of providing information is to facilitate marriage saving, the evidence suggests that it will be more effective if it is provided while spouses are still together and before they make the decision to live apart." The Government share the desire to encourage more couples to resolve any disagreements about children or financial arrangements through mediation, avoiding, wherever possible, the need to seek a court adjudication. For these reasons, the Government do not support this amendment but believe that its laudable ends can be achieved by other means.