argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): As the Minister implied, jumping on the bandwagon with the Liberal Democrats is not generally a fruitful proposition. Indeed, the concept might be an oxymoron. We are certainly adopting a somewhat Fabian approach to the extension of the franchise. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord’s broader amendment has been regarded as within the scope of the Bill, but if it has then so be it. We would certainly look to an extension of the franchise but for the purposes of what we are discussing here the amendment we have drafted is correct.
Queen’s Speech — House of Lords, 2015-05-27
Topic: Other
Janet Royall (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, and the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, on their speeches. They have continued the tradition of excellence by those moving and seconding the humble Address The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, has come a long way since her days studying sociology in the 1960s at the then revolutionary hotbed, the University of Essex, where she was described as, "a very strong-willed student with left-wing sentiments"— to which I have to say, what went wrong? However, the noble Baroness remains related to, among others, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton, and of course his son, the honourable Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. We have party membership forms in our office should she wish to arrange a family reunion at some point While it is often said that gentlemen prefer blondes, I note that one of the noble Baroness’s many middle names is Brunette. I have to say that I am very grateful that my parents did not name me Ginger. I must, however, congratulate the noble Baroness on her stellar career, both in government and in the world beyond. Notwithstanding her known commitment to the Church of England, she is a great example of the fact that in politics, too, there is an afterlife. So I may well be beating a path to her door in due course. The Chancellor, George Osborne, has been reported as saying that he talks to the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, more than he does to his own wife—for which I am sure his wife is very grateful.
Pornography — House of Lords, 2015-11-05
Topic: Civil Rights
Anthony Giddens (Labour, Centre-left): Not at all, because, as I said, I support the #We Protect strategy. I said strongly that I backed that strategy and that we must protect children. The difficulty is knowing where the boundaries are and how far things that are said very commonly really are the case, because we do not have enough research on those issues. We must have that research, and we must not plunge into policies that are based on inadequate information and research. We must realise that this is a world undergoing gigantic change such that we have never experienced before, at least in my view. We have to protect children, but we have to do so against the background of a world that is just swirling away from our control at the same time.
Pornography — House of Lords, 2015-11-05
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anthony Giddens (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the right reverend Prelate for giving way, because I do not want be misunderstood. We need controls, and these controls have to be solid; but at the same time, one must realise that this is such a rapidly changing world that we do not have a lot of information about how we are going to deal with this in many policy areas which are much more fuzzy.
Pornography — House of Lords, 2015-11-05
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anthony Giddens (Labour, Centre-left): I am sorry to keep interrupting the right reverend Prelate but for that to be proper research you would have to have analysis of people who were not in that sample and who were acting differently—the opposite. You do not have that. I am making a social science point.
Aviation Security — House of Lords, 2015-11-05
Topic: Mixed Topics
Frank Ashcroft Judd (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, while essentially the House will be fully behind the Government’s rapid response to this situation, does the Minister agree that we should be concerned about not simply the British people who are affected but all those involved, and that we should express—as, indeed, he has—the strongest possible solidarity and support for the victims and those who have been bereaved by this incident? Is this not another cruel illustration of the nihilistic, brutal techniques employed by those who take such action and a total denial of any concept of human rights for the victims? In that context, is it not more important than ever that in all we do to try to reach international arrangements to prevent such situations, we always demonstrate that we will be second to none in our own upholding of human rights?
Olympics 2012: Regeneration Legacy — House of Lords, 2015-11-05
Topic: Housing
Michael Cashman (Labour, Centre-left): I was reflecting on something that the noble Baroness said that I think she will want to clarify. She said that a partisan approach was introduced to the debate around housing. Does she accept that housing is not a party-political issue?
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-27
Topic: Other
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): All I can say to the noble and learned Lord is that the commission briefing says there is a benefit of accuracy but also, of course, a risk to completeness—which it ranks as of equal importance.
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-27
Topic: Civil Rights
Michael Wills (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the noble Lord for that characteristically energetic and vivacious intervention, but we have to make policy on the basis of the evidence available to us. Of course the noble Lord is right that we cannot look into the future, and maybe magically, in the next few months, the electoral register will go from 85% up to, say, 95%, which is probably as close to being comprehensive as one can reasonably hope. Maybe it will but, on the basis of all the evidence that we have, it is unlikely to happen I quote to the noble Lord the experience of Northern Ireland. When it introduced individual registration, the independent Electoral Commission of Northern Ireland found that: "The new registration process disproportionately impacted on young people and students, people with learning disabilities, people with disabilities generally and those living in areas of high social deprivation" It concluded—this is the sort of evidence on which we have to make policy— "While these findings relate directly to Northern Ireland, they are not unique and reflect the wider picture across the UK. They present a major challenge to all those concerned with widening participation in electoral and democratic processes" There is the evidence that something has happened, and we have to learn from that.
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-27
Topic: Mixed Topics
Michael Wills (Labour, Centre-left): No, my Lords. As I have already said, this is a difficult issue because we are trying to balance competing priorities. Of course the accuracy of the register is important, which is why all sides support the introduction of individual registration and why as a Minister I legislated to bring it into play. There is no question about the importance attached to accuracy. However, it has to be balanced by a comprehensive register, for all the reasons I have endeavoured to set out today. The Government could have done a very simple thing: they could have accepted the Electoral Commission’s recommendations. It would not have solved all the problems—they are too intractable for that—but it would have helped. The Government have decided to reject that. The risks are clear but, for no good reason, the Government have ignored them. Despite the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and what I am sure will be the eloquence of the Minister in due course, no good reasons have been given for doing this The last time I spoke in a debate with the Minister at the Dispatch Box, I recommended that he read Aristotle. I am sure that, with his very heavy workload, he has not managed to pull down that well-thumbed volume from his bookshelves, so perhaps I may remind him of the words of that great Greek philosopher. He said that, "constitutions which aim at the common advantage are correct and just without qualification, whereas those which aim only at the advantage of the rulers"— or, in this case, only at the advantage of the Conservative Party— "are deviant and unjust because they involve despotic rule which is inappropriate for a community of free persons" Once again, I recommend those words to the Minister; and to your Lordships’ House, I also recommend the conclusion of the royal commission, in 2000, that your Lordships’ House should act as a "constitutional long-stop" to ensure that, "changes are not made to the constitution without full and open debate and an awareness of the consequences" That is why I will support this Motion.
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-27
Topic: Civil Rights
Michael Wills (Labour, Centre-left): I am very grateful to the noble Lord who, with all the authority of his experience and wisdom, raises a very important point about the importance of belief in the integrity of the electoral system. I think everyone agrees with him on that. But does he accept that the integrity of the electoral system involves both the accuracy of the system and its comprehensive coverage? The system cannot be thought to be replete with integrity when so many voters who are eligible to vote are simply not on the register.
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-27
Topic: Other
David Edward Lea (Labour, Centre-left): I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has on two or three occasions emphasised the supremacy of the House of Commons. I understand that the House of Commons, despite the enormous importance of this question, did not discuss it at all. This House is discussing it. Can he confirm that that is his understanding?
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-27
Topic: Civil Rights
Margaret Josephine McDonagh (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, can I bring the House back to the matter under debate? That is what I would like to speak about this afternoon. I speak in favour of the annulment and the amendment Much has been said about Northern Ireland. The real story of Northern Ireland is that when individual electoral registration was introduced, the register collapsed. The registration officers then had to find people, without speaking to them, and put them on the register—a very unsafe process. It has taken several years for them to reach their current situation; we have five weeks. Northern Ireland is a small, homogeneous society in terms of housing tenure, the mobility of the population and so on; we have much more complex problems in terms of registration We already know that some 8 million voters are not registered, and we may be in the process of knocking off a further 2 million. We know about those people—real people—because we know the census data, the gaps in properties and the number of young people in school. If the noble Lord opposite would like to meet some of these people, I will be going out and knocking on doors this Sunday. If we meet outside the Chamber, I will arrange to bring him to some of these households to understand some of the problems with registration. This is about 10 million people versus this secondary issue, which has become a bit of—
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-27
Topic: Other
Michael Wills (Labour, Centre-left): Actually, I know the answer to the question I asked the noble Lord. I was about to tell him. There is roughly a 6% difference between registration levels in Conservative-held seats and Labour-held seats. That might have changed a little in the last general election, but I doubt by very much. There is a significant difference.
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-27
Topic: Civil Rights
Michael Wills (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister keeps referring to this figure of 96%. Can he be absolutely clear that he accepts that 85% of the eligible population has registered to vote? In other words, 15% of those eligible are not registered. Many noble Lords have made the point in this debate that the process now under way, which the Government are hurrying forward in this way, will prejudice attempts to get that other 15% on to the register.
Asylum Support (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-27
Topic: Immigration
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I have tabled a regret Motion in this debate. Although I do not want to repeat everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, I do wish to make some comments As we know, under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, support is provided to asylum seekers who have made a claim for asylum, in the form of accommodation and/or cash. The Government first laid regulations introducing a flat rate of support for all asylum seekers of £36.95, regardless of age, in March this year. They reversed those regulations some two weeks later, on the final day of the last Session, as a result of what the then Government described as "reflection". On 16 July, the Government laid the regulations again; and once again, they provided for changes in the amount of money that could be paid weekly to asylum seekers, and introduced a flat rate for all asylum seekers, regardless of age, of £36.95 per week Previously, children under 16 and asylum-seeking families received £53.96 per week, so the reduction represents a cut of—in round figures—about 30%. Yet it has been estimated that bringing up a child in Britain costs an additional £89 per week for the first child of a couple, and an additional £81 for a second child, excluding housing and childcare. Research by Refugee Action shows that 40% of people on asylum support interviewed said they could not afford to feed themselves or their children. Rates of support for asylum-seeking families have effectively been frozen since 2011. Given that asylum seekers are able to work only in exceptional circumstances, the reduction imposed by these regulations can hardly be said to be aimed at removing welfare dependency.
Asylum Support (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-27
Topic: Immigration
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): That this House regrets that the Asylum Support (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2015 will have a detrimental effect on families, and will punish the children of those seeking asylum through the removal of higher rates of allowance for child and adolescent asylum seekers which risks them being made homeless and pushed into destitution (SI 2015/1501) Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Asylum Support (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2015 — House of Lords, 2015-10-27
Topic: Immigration
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): In his response, the Minister said that the Home Office will conduct a further review of the levels of cash support for asylum seekers in 2016. He also said that, as part of this review, his officials will be talking to and inviting submissions from the principal organisations represented on the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum. I hope that it will be a genuine, wide-ranging consultation for the review, involving people who can provide information based on the reality and not the theory of living on current support levels I am also conscious, as I mentioned earlier, that the subject of support for destitute asylum seekers will continue to be a subject of intense debate and discussion in your Lordships’ House under the terms of the Immigration Bill currently in the Commons. In view of these considerations, and having placed on record the reasons for our strong concerns over the serious adverse impact of the removal in particular of higher rates of allowance for destitute child and adolescent asylum seekers, I am not moving my Motion.
EU: Financial Regulation (EUC Report) — House of Lords, 2015-07-07
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Lyndon Henry Arthur Harrison (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, in concluding the debate I remind my colleague the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, of something he said to us when we embarked upon this report: that he hoped it would become a textbook for those who seek to discuss these matters in future. I believe that we have achieved that. I thank my noble friend Lord Flight for his comments and for the PEP talk that he gave us in the midst of them I thank my own Front-Bencher, my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, who has wielded this responsibility over many years, for sympathising with me over the sometimes choppy waters that we on the committee experienced in dealing with financial affairs. However, we were always united in having the proper and right approach. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, during her reign of the tricky committee that is the financial services committee, also experiences the calm that has been displayed here this evening in helping the UK resolve some of the really challenging and important points that are being made to us about the future.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-01
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Raymond Collins (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I, too, welcome the government amendment. It addresses the specific issue of gaming in the unlikely event that a group of people tried to disadvantage one side or the other, by addressing the facilities that are given to designated lead campaigns. Under PPERA, those lead campaigns are given certain opportunities to communicate to the electorate. What the amendment does not do, quite rightly, is stop other voices I get the impression from the debates we have had on the Bill that somehow we are all going to be corralled into one campaign or the other. I think it very unlikely that the leave campaign will stop UKIP—or any other political, campaign or community group—expressing its opinions. I hope the referendum will result in a multiplicity of voices that cannot be legislated for or corralled. I welcome the amendment and the way in which the Government have addressed this particular risk, which is now minimised.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Lords, 2015-10-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
Roger John Liddle (Labour, Centre-left): The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, is right, of course; after 1975 some people said within a year or two that they would not accept the result. This was true in my own party so I remember that. However, I think that the Government can act in order to mitigate the risk.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Lords, 2015-10-28
Topic: Other
Roger John Liddle (Labour, Centre-left): My noble friend is, of course, right. My point is this: assuming that the Government reject my amendment, which I am sure they will—as I say, I moved it tongue in cheek—and we stick with the deadline in the legislation, if we are going to win this referendum there has to be honesty on the Government’s part about what it can and cannot achieve.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Lords, 2015-10-28
Topic: Other
Christine Mary Crawley (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that in this important debate we must keep our language temperate. Does he believe that the Prime Minister will come back with the kind of deal that he has put to us this afternoon?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Lords, 2015-10-28
Topic: Civil Rights
Raymond Collins (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with my noble friend. One of the problems of PPERA and trying to establish a level playing field in elections generally is our free press, which is very important and which we must defend. We have to consider that the concentration of ownership in our press has distorted its ability to express a range of opinions.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Lords, 2015-10-28
Topic: Civil Rights
Raymond Collins (Labour, Centre-left): I very much recall it, because, as I said in my Second Reading speech, I was secretary of the Spelthorne Get Britain Out campaign, so I was fully aware of what we were up against. I will come on to this on Amendment 2 I want to focus on specific questions relating to this. Everyone is familiar with the 10-week campaign period and everyone is talking about purdah. However, there is a period before that relating to the operation of PPERA and designated organisations. Your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee said, "if as suggested in the memorandum the start date for applications for designation is likely to be earlier than the start date for the referendum period, this will have the knock-on effect of reducing the minimum length for the referendum period" In considering the issue raised in these amendments, the committee said: "We consider that, if the Government intend there to be a minimum of 10 weeks for the referendum period, they cannot rely on the operation of the 2000 Act"— PPERA— "to deliver that minimum period. In our view, the 10 week minimum for the referendum period should be specified on the face of the Bill" I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Delegated Powers Committee is correct. If it is not, how can she give the guarantees that we all accept have been made? I accept that there is a need to ensure that, when we enter the process of the referendum, there is a proper level playing field which everyone accepts and understands. To do otherwise would undermine the whole process because, as noble Lords have said, whatever we have at the end, we want a settlement. That brings me to my noble friend’s Amendment 2.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Lords, 2015-10-28
Topic: Other
Raymond Collins (Labour, Centre-left): I hear what the noble Lord says but I think these issues will be part of the general debate and I do not want to use these amendments for a broader discussion. The only point I will make, in relation to the debate we had on Amendment 2, is that there is a point in the process of negotiations where people put forward demands that they know full well cannot be achieved. In the Labour movement, we used to call people who made those sorts of propositions Trotskyists. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would be offended, or would think that it was unparliamentary for me to use those terms, but sometimes, I have to confess, he does sound like a little bit of a Trot.