argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for her explanation of government Amendment 59. She said it makes a minor clarifying change, and we have no concerns to raise on it. However, I look forward to the Minister’s replies on the questions and issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and my noble friend Lord Bach. I am not sure whether I have fully understood this issue, and if what I am going to say now indicates that I have not, I apologise in advance The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, indicated in his explanatory statement, which he repeated, that he has tabled the Clause 13 stand part Motion so that he can "probe how the provisions of this Bill and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will work in practice; and the relationship between Crime and Disorder Partnership and Police and Crime Commissioners." As I understand it, Clause 13 provides that local policing bodies, such as PCCs and the Mayor of London, may assist authorities in delivering the serious violence duty, monitor how authorities are exercising their duties, report back on their findings to the Secretary of State and be given authority by the Secretary of State to assist the duty in specific ways, such as providing funding or convening meetings on the duty. It also provides that authorities must co-operate with local policing bodies. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created community safety partnerships, and that raises the issue of how this duty will interact with the existing duties on CSPs The Government have published draft guidance on the serious violence duty. It says: "In order to comply with the duty it is not necessary to create a new partnership, instead the specified authorities should use existing partnerships where possible and with appropriate modifications." It goes on to say: "The Duty is an opportunity to simplify and add focus to existing partnership arrangements rather than add any additional complexity to the current multi-agency landscape."
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, with apologies for rising at this late stage, I lay my cards on the table and say that I have never been the greatest fan of legislating to require public officials to work together and creating byzantine edifices of legislative partnerships. However, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has a point. If this is to stand, we need to understand whether "may" means "may" or "may" means "must" or whether "may" will become "must" because of regulations that will be made under what Clause 13(4), as it is now, will eventually become. That is just good law-making Unlike my wonderful noble friend Lord Bach, I have not been a great enthusiast for police and crime commissioners. I have to be clear about that. I always thought that it would lead to a politicisation of the police and, I am sorry to say that in many cases I feel that that has been the case. I will not dwell on the very crass remarks made by a particular commissioner in the wake of the Sarah Everard case. I am not a fan of that particular politicised mechanism for holding the police to account We will no doubt come to this in later clauses, but of course we must have a public health or more holistic approach to tackling—dare I say it—the causes of crime, as well as crime. But setting the policing bit and the Home Office above the other parts of the partnership, with the powers to mandate and the money and so on, is a journey we began with the Crime and Disorder Act, probably 23-odd years ago, when I had the privilege of sitting over there, in the Box. It is a journey that we still seem to be on. I am sorry to say that the poor old Home Office is often the dustbin department, picking up problems in society when it is almost too late. A lot of the deep-seated causes of crime come from other places and need to be tackled; yes, by preventive action—many noble Lords have made that point—but such preventive action belongs in education, in health and in tackling poverty and inequality. We all know this—I am preaching to the choir—but to set up an edifice whereby the senior partner, with all the powers to mandate and all the money to donate, is the policing bit, the security bit, the interior bit and the Home Office bit, is something we need to explore further, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, intends, during the scrutiny of these clauses.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I have to support what I have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for reasons we began to articulate on Monday evening. Noble Lords will remember we began to have a discussion about what is to be shared and in what circumstances existing duties of confidence and existing professional duties need to be overtaken in the public interest. But who decides? The Minister kindly gave me a very specific answer at one point in our discussion, when she said that it will be decided by the person who holds the data, but, obviously, that can be subject to challenge. That of course is my traditional understanding of professional confidence Way before this, and way before the Crime and Disorder Act, that was the traditional position: if the doctor, the teacher or whoever is not minded to hand over to the police the data about a specific person, or more general data, the police will have to go to the courts and try to get a warrant. That is the place for those hopefully rare disputes between professionals and the police, who are coming at this from different positions, to be decided, rather than being decided by direction from the Secretary of State Of course, normally, we want the health professionals, the policing professionals and the educational professionals to be working in discussion and collaboration, but, where there is a rare dispute because of their different professional angles and ethics, it really is for a judge to decide and not for the Secretary of State to trump all those existing ethics and duties. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is nodding at me. That is the concern I hope the Minister can address in her explanation and defence of Clause 17.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-27
Topic: Government Operations
Frederick Ponsonby (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, this group starts with government Amendment 72, which I will say a brief word about. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers—not just consult them—before giving a direction under Clause 17 to a devolved Welsh authority. I understand that the change was requested by the Welsh Government, and we support it on this side of the House I turn to the debate on whether Clause 17 should stand part of the Bill, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who introduced it, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Their explanatory statement says that: "The purpose of this amendment is to explore the extent of the Secretary of State’s powers to issue directions under this section and the consequences of failure to comply with such a direction." A number of very searching questions have been raised, and I have a few questions myself. It would be helpful if the Minister could give some more information on what a "direction" might be and what it might consist of under this clause. The central point made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was about the context of police-led enforcement rather than a more equal arrangement between other agencies such as education and the National Health Service In the House of Commons, the Minister said that it is envisaged that this power will be used extremely rarely. Nevertheless, could the Minister give an example of when this power might be used and what checks might be in place when it is used? What would the prior steps be before a direction is considered? How would an authority’s progress in acting upon a direction be measured? Further, can the Minister say something about how the Government see this power working in practice I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, raised a particularly interesting question about what the sanction might be if a public servant fails to comply with an order to disclose information. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti also spoke of the rare disputes between professionals and how these may be resolved by direction from the Secretary of State, rather than through the courts. She gave a historical context, if you like, to that status of professionals making their own judgments.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-27
Topic: Government Operations
Frederick Ponsonby (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, we support the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. On Amendment 74, we believe it is vital that the Government should consult front-line organisations on the content of the guidance. They are the ones who know how this will, or will not, work in practice and their expertise is the driving force behind the duty. The Government have of course published draft guidance on this, and I ask the Minister whether this guidance is being consulted on.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Frederick Ponsonby (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has made it clear that these are probing amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, has just expressed scepticism about the number of initiatives which the Government have put forward in this section of the Bill Having said that, we support this part of the Bill on offensive weapons homicide reviews. Amendment 75 raises the question of what happens if a death is already covered by an existing review mechanism, and not duplicating reviews. When this question was raised in the other place, the Minister said: "To avoid duplication of work, the Bill provides that these new offensive weapons homicide reviews will be required only where there is not an existing statutory requirement to review the homicide".—[Official Report, Commons Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee, 27/5/21; col. 268.] Clause 23(5) provides that a review is not required under this chapter if a review of the death is already taking place under different arrangements. If I understand it correctly, I think this meets one of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in his amendment Amendment 76 deals with data protection. It would prevent data being shared for these reviews if it breaches an obligation of confidence or any other restriction other than the Data Protection Act. These issues were debated in detail on Monday in relation to the serious violence reduction duty. Obviously, data sharing is absolutely key to a homicide review to allow us to identify and learn lessons from the death, and to decide on actions to take in response. However, as raised in the earlier debate, we must know how this is to be balanced with safeguards Clause 29 provides that a person may not be required to disclose information under this chapter that they could not be compelled to disclose in High Court proceedings. It would be helpful if the Minister could talk us through the specific provision of potential High Court proceedings Amendment 77 is based on a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The DPRRC has said that guidance on this chapter of the Bill provided by Clause 31 should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and done through a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. We support the committee’s suggestion and call on the Government to look carefully at all the committee’s recommendations.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Charles Falconer (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for speaking in the debate. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his very comprehensive answer, though I find the answers that he gave quite concerning for three reasons First, he did not give a coherent basis for why there are domestic homicide reviews in some cases but not others. I completely accept that there might be cases where it was not appropriate, but the set-up of the statute gives no real indication in relation to that. He indicated that the Secretary of State had intervened on a few occasions, but did not give the basis. It would be helpful to know how many domestic homicides had a review and how many did not in the last two years and what was the basis for the selection. If he feels able to write, that would help me in considering what to do with this next Secondly, on the centralisation of information, he did not really come forward with a proposal for how one would improve the information in relation to that. I need to consider what he said on that. Thirdly, I may have missed it—I will need to read Hansard—but he did not say what the terms of reference are for Clare Wade’s review. Are they written down somewhere? Could somebody let us see them At this stage, of course, I withdraw my amendment.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the broad thrust of all these amendments and in particular to support the most important one of all, which is Amendment 80 from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to which I have added my name To begin by way of balance—both political and gender balance—I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who could not be here this evening but who has been incredibly supportive of women’s groups and has been alive to this issue for some considerable time. She was sorry not to be able to be here A few years ago, when I was sitting where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, sits now, I had the privilege of questioning a former Justice Minister about the legal basis for the practice that women’s groups and victims of sex crime had called digital strip searching. Many in your Lordships’ House groaned as if I was using an inappropriate phrase. To be honest, I did not get a lot of support from many noble Lords on any side of the House, but it is better to be late to the party than not come at all I say that to the Minister because there is no competition for sainthood here. All sides of this House are a little late to this issue, but we now have this precious opportunity to grapple with it. I do not think any of these formulations are perfect yet. I am so grateful to the Minister for discussing this with me recently, among other issues, as even the progress that the Government have made so far in these amendments can be improved I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in his very simple Amendment 80, has done something incredibly important. I questioned the previous Justice Minister about the legal basis for taking these phones at all. Imagine that you have been raped or assaulted and have been through this horrific experience, but you do what a lot of people find very difficult to do—we know about the attrition rates—and go with a friend to the police station, to be told that you now have to hand over your device. The Minister will forgive me, but we discussed this together recently. If I were to hand my phone over, I am not just handing over an old-fashioned telephone; I have so many dear friends and family members whose numbers I do not know, because I click their names to call them. I have just been raped, but I am now giving away my contact with these people, my diary, my shopping lists and my browser, which shows all the mental health and other websites I have visited. Let us be clear: this is probably more intrusive than searching my home. The Minister will forgive me, but we discussed this together.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill — House of Lords, 2021-10-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): In the sort of scenario being described, the suspect—not yet a defendant—will be able to say, "This was consensual and there is a text message that will demonstrate that." Once that is asserted, that can be sought. It is not a justification for the kind of wholesale retention of mobile phones and trawling of data that people fear. I know that the hour is late and that the Minister wants to make progress, but I just want to put two questions before I sit down and let her finish her response First, I noticed while the Minister was speaking that the formulation used in my noble friend Lord Rosser’s Amendment 89 is "strict necessity", whereas in the government amendments the test is of necessity—
School Openings: January 2022 — House of Lords, 2021-12-16
Topic: Education
Genista Mary McIntosh (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Minister talked about students and we have also talked about parents. We have not yet talked about teachers. What are the Government doing to support school leaders at a time when the management of the fluctuating crisis we are all in is extremely difficult? Can she assure us that the messaging that goes to school leaders at this time is, as far as possible, encouraging and supportive but not accusatory?
Prisons Strategy — House of Lords, 2021-12-16
Topic: Law and Crime
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the roots of the issues we are talking about go back a long way and it is fair to accept that they go back to well before the present Government. The prison population has trebled in the last 50 years and it has done so under Governments and the leadership of all parties. Indeed, the Labour Government of which I was a member was not progressive on these issues at all; the prison population rose significantly, prison regimes did not improve notably, and the average length of sentences increased If we are standing back from this White Paper, which is now in a line of government policy statements going back to the 1980s, it is fair to ask whether we should be looking at more fundamental reforms and learning from the practice of other countries. What is undeniably true is that, as a proportion of our population, we imprison significantly more—we are a significant outlier—than almost any country in Europe. When I last checked the statistics, I think only Portugal had a higher proportion; I am not sure why it is an outlier. We are well above the average for mainstream European countries, none of which appears to have a bigger problem of disorder and lack of respect for the law than we do. The Minister is obviously constrained in what he can say, but does he not think that the time is coming for us to start looking more seriously and systematically at the experience of countries that have succeeded in dealing with issues of law and order with a much smaller prison population than we have and learn from their example?
Bosnia-Herzegovina — House of Lords, 2021-12-16
Topic: International Affairs
David Edward Lea (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I apologise. I am speaking in the gap—but my apology concerns being two minutes late at the start of this debate. I thank everybody who was consulted for allowing me nevertheless to speak a few words. I shall not take too long I agree with all the remarks about urgency—but urgency to do what? I tend to be 100% in the line of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I remember, in the period before the tragedy, that I was in a meeting at Wilton Park—he may have been there himself—where all the parties were looking so dismayed that nothing could be done. But in the corridors they said, "Bring back Tito; all is forgiven". One thing about Tito, of course, although it is not exactly news to say this, is that he was not a tool of Moscow. The idea that someone is the tool of somebody else has to be kept out. I am not even sure about how we play the card vis-à-vis NATO, the EU and so on, but it is very important that this is decided in a west Balkans context, even though the politics is not clean politics. Greater Albania could be given as an example vis-à-vis Kosovo, and Belgrade sees some of those things in those terms What can one do without giving way to blackmailing Belgrade? Obviously, we do not know whether there is a settled view in Belgrade about a European Union accession initiative, but it is the only card game in town, even though this may be exactly the wrong moment to take practical action. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that. We cannot say, "This is what we would do in theory, but this is what we can’t do in practice" Some of us have been able to put ourselves in the shoes of Princip, who shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand—but people did not think it was a big deal at the time. We do not know what people in Moscow think would be a useful tool—along with other things going on in Moscow at the moment. We have to see how these great powers can be engaged without them playing the game of proxy. I do not know the answers but those are some of the questions.
FCDO Staffing — House of Lords, 2021-12-16
Topic: International Affairs
Raymond Collins (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement In the other place, James Cleverly was quite categorical, as was the Minister in repeating the Statement, that there will be no 10% cut, but, as Tom Tugendhat said, this is not a just question about a 10% cut, but about the investment in staff numbers needed to meet the aims of the integrated review and, we hope, next spring’s development strategy. Recent whistleblower revelations about the failures in the Afghan withdrawal point to an FCDO that is overstretched and under-resourced. Which high commissions and embassies around the world will receive more resources and which will see fewer? Which of the desks in the FDCO will be strengthened to meet the strategic threats this country now faces? What we need from this Government is greater transparency and actions that match their words.