argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 54. This takes us back to Clause 11, particularly subsection (1)(f), which makes, "assisting or encouraging the carrying on of an activity listed in", the previous paragraphs a prohibited activity. Our first concern, which we dealt with in Amendment 54, was that this should not prevent information or education, in the very widest sense, about psychoactive substances. The approach of informing and supporting people who are taking or considering taking psychoactive substances might include support for reducing their consumption rather than cutting it out, or gentle direction towards the use of what might be thought less-harmful substances. I was reminded of what I might call the dark days of Section 28 regarding the promotion of homosexuality; there was a sort of resonance there that I wanted to pick up on. Amendment 54 would provide that advice and information was not to be a prohibited activity, even though I accept that some noble Lords might think of advice and information in a slightly different way from what we envisage Then I wondered why this was necessary at all. What happened to aiding and abetting, and what about Sections 44 and 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, which deal with intentionally, "encouraging or assisting … an offence" Are they not adequate? Do we have to provide something specific? Section 44(2) says that the person, "is not to be taken to have intended to encourage or assist the commission of an offence merely because such encouragement or assistance was a foreseeable consequence of his act" I am sorry, I have not introduced this very well, but my question is not only why Section 44 does not apply but whether there is a deliberate exclusion of Section 44(2) regarding the not foreseeing of the consequence of the act. I would be concerned if that was not to apply. I beg to move.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I certainly will. I am grateful for that explanation. I can understand the structure of the clause and its thrust rather better than I did, which was pretty stupid of me. When I looked up "aid and abet" on the internet to see what that told me, I was pointed straight to the CPS guidance, which seemed to deal with pretty much everything other than aiding and abetting. It starts with "assisting and encouraging", so it is hardly surprising that some of us are confused. I did not know that there was such a major debate going on in the legal community; they must speak of little else. I am grateful for the clear explanation; I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, in moving Amendment 55 I will speak to Amendments 58 and 60B in my name and that of my noble friend. The first amendment would add to one of the two conditions required for a prohibition notice not only that there must be a reasonable belief that a person is carrying on or likely to carry on a prohibited activity but that the notice must set out the reason for that belief. Clearly, that person should know the basis of it. I realise that this might be covered by Clause 14(2)(a), but I would be glad to have confirmation of that Amendment 58 is similar but in the context of a premises notice. Amendment 60B to Clause 14(2)(b)—where we are told that the notice, "must … explain the possible consequences of not complying", with it—would add, "based on the grounds in paragraph (a)" This is probing the extent of Clause 14(2)(b): what it is expected to cover, in what detail, and so on. I beg to move.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, in moving Amendment 55A, I will speak also to Amendments 60A and 71A, which stand also in my name and that of my noble friend. Again, the amendment deals with notices Amendment 55A would apply Clause 12(6) to people over 18 as well as to those under 18, and would mean that a prohibition notice must specify the period for which it is to have effect—certainty, although in a slightly different context, is something which we have touched on a good deal during the passage of this Bill—and that it must not have effect for more than three years. I cannot envisage circumstances in which it would be appropriate to apply a prohibition notice to anybody for more than three years. I have my doubts about prohibition and premises notices anyway, but if there is a need to apply a prohibition notice for a longer period, surely the circumstances must be such as to suggest that there should be a prosecution—something rather tougher than a notice. At any age, certainty is important. Amendment 60A would apply both certainty and a statutory maximum to a premises notice In neither case has an offence been proved. I cannot see what a notice might do that would not be available under other legislation, particularly anti-social behaviour legislation such as a community protection notice. What is achieved by providing that somebody knows that he should not commit a crime and that the police and the local authority have got their eye on him? In a way, a premises notice is more important. I am assuming that if we are talking about head shops the intention is permanent closure. But the straightforward, honest course would be to address that directly with a proper hearing, giving the recipient of the notice more of a chance to deal with his business interests and have his representations heard in a proper way. I am concerned about the extent there Amendment 71A would add that what the court should do in an order should be proportionate as well as appropriate. I assume that that is implied because what courts do almost by definition has to be proportionate—but I am seeking confirmation of that at this point. I beg to move.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I have one or two questions on the amendments in this group. Amendment 75 deals with reimbursement of costs. Would the person being asked to make the payment have the opportunity to make representations with regard to what is being claimed—both about the principle and the amount that has been calculated and ordered Amendment 76 inserts a new clause on exemption from liability and refers to, "an act or omission shown to have been in bad faith" I note that that does not extend to negligence. I looked at the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, and we do not have negligence in there either, but it does not seem to me that not having it in that Act makes this right It is not quite a read-across, but Amendment 77 again applies similar provisions to those in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act. Something struck me about this while reflecting on what happened during the last Government and the focus on the rehabilitation revolution and so on. I thought we were trying to avoid short-term prison sentences, and it felt uncomfortable to be providing for short-term prison sentences when we know that so often what happens is that the offender learns more about how to commit crime than he does about how not to commit crime.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): This is really a broad matter of policy, and I appreciate that the provision on length of sentences replicates part of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, although there are also provisions in there for different periods. I should have given the Government an indication of these questions, but I am afraid that I did not think of them until very shortly before we came into the Chamber. This may not be consoling to the noble Baroness, but I was listening in on a rather high-powered legal discussion the other day, where someone referred to what the Minister thought at four in the morning when questioned—
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, in moving my amendment I will speak also to my and my noble friend’s Amendments 65, 65A, 68, 68A, 85A, 85B and 85C. The first of these amendments would provide for a right of appeal against prohibition and premises notices, with judicial oversight. The amendment is based very closely on Section 46 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, which provides for an appeal against community protection notices. I am not suggesting that a subject of the notice should have free rein to produce or supply a psychoactive substance, and so on, but it could be argued that the steps required by, let us say, a premises notice, are not reasonable We are talking, perhaps, about someone’s livelihood here. Whatever we might think about head shops, if what they are doing is legal, we need to be very careful about precluding someone from carrying on a business, and certainly we must be careful that we give him the opportunity to appeal when he considers that the notice is inappropriate and undeserved. I appreciate that a breach of a notice would take us through procedures to an application to the court for an order, with surrounding protections. However, an appeal against a notice seems to us to be right—and, properly, a right—and it should be available so that someone can avoid having what I could loosely call "a record". It is not for us to argue for it; it is for the Government to explain why the right of appeal is not included The other amendments are all about the standard of proof for prohibition and premises orders and changing them from the civil to the criminal standard. The orders would be made by the criminal courts, and so the criminal rules of evidence, and so on, should apply. This is also the thrust of my Amendments 85A, 85B and 85C to Clause 28, which is about the nature of the proceedings—essentially turning them from civil to criminal proceedings. Again, given the subject matter of this, it is for the Government to explain why what they are proposing should not be required to meet the criminal standard of proof and be dealt with in the way that we are accustomed to through the criminal courts. I beg to move.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the Minister said that it is not intended as a punishment—I think it was during the debate on a previous group that I wrote down that we heard from the Dispatch Box the term "sanction". I will need to go back and have a look at that As to whether or not we are operating on the basis of a false premise, I do not think that it is quite that, but rather that we have different views as to whether there should be civil or criminal proceedings—it is not so much the premise as the approach A premises notice could be given when the activity is being carried on, thought to be carried on or likely to be carried on by somebody other than the premises owner. I am actually quite concerned about how these things interplay. As regards an appeal, I am glad to hear that representations can be made to the police or the local authority about the notice being withdrawn. However, it does raise the question, certainly to me, of whether there should not be explicit provisions about the right to make representations and how representations should be considered, possibly by providing for a more senior officer to look at the matter. That is not necessarily a very satisfactory way of dealing with it, but there is something in there that we would like to think about—my noble friend is nodding encouragingly; I hope it is encouragingly—as to how to cover the right to make representations and how they can properly be dealt with. Between now and the next stage we will have a think about that—but of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, Amendment 87A concerns the power to stop and search. I shall speak also to Amendment 94A, which concerns the power to seize and destroy substances. They are both probing amendments to try to understand why the Government feel it is necessary to include these powers to stop and search Originally we focused on Clause 23, which is about failing to comply with a premises order or a prohibition order, but, on reflection, similar arguments would apply to Clauses 4 and 8 in that the power to stop and search is supposed to be on the basis of suspicion that a person has committed, or is likely to commit, an offence under those clauses. These are criminal and arrestable offences. If a police officer or a customs officer suspects that a person has committed either of these offences, they would have a power under common law to stop and search that individual, having arrested them. My question to the Minister is: why is there a need for a separate power to stop and search when there is already a power under common law to do that Amendment 94A concerns the power for the police to dispose of seized psychoactive substances even where an offence has not been committed. Clause 46(1)(c) states that if an officer reasonably believes that an item is a psychoactive substance it can be seized and destroyed. My question to the Minister is, surely it needs to go beyond what an officer reasonably believes, otherwise legal substances could be destroyed by the police, with no comeback for the owner of the substances, simply on the basis of an officer’s reasonable belief about those substances that is not well founded and is not factual. I beg to move.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-06-30
Topic: Law and Crime
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the Minister for his response. By changing horses half way through, I might have thrown the Minister in specifying Clause 23 and not specifying Clauses 4 to 8. Therefore, what the Minister read out was an assumption of what my thinking was, as opposed to what my thinking became when I presented it; namely, that if these are arrestable offences there is a power for the police, once the person is arrested, to detain and search them. Therefore, it would seem unnecessary to have the powers provided by Clause 32. I would not expect the noble Lord to respond now to that because it was my fault for misleading him in the way in which I presented the amendments On seizure and destruction of substances that an officer reasonably believes to be a psychoactive substance, my point was not about coming across a small amount in someone’s pocket that the officer could then seize and destroy. We were thinking more of where the substances were found in a head shop, for example, and turned out to be a large quantity which could or could not be a psychoactive substance. Those large quantities could be destroyed simply on the basis of the officer reasonably believing that they are something covered by this Bill, but which then turn out not to be Having further explained what I was getting at but did not make clear the first time around, perhaps the Minister will respond to me between now and Report stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Approvals) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-07-06
Topic: International Affairs
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill, the substance of which need not detain us terribly long. It is obviously useful if Macedonia becomes an observer in the work of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Is any progress being made on the name of Macedonia? I have not heard anything recently on that. FYROM is clearly not a name that will inspire a sense of identity. We have been on that issue for a very long time. Where are we in trying to make the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia simply Macedonia Regarding the tripartite social summit, I believe that the European Commission has decided not to take this opportunity for any fundamental changes in its remit or design, so this is just some tweaking in the light of the Lisbon treaty. Clearly, there is no reason to oppose or resist this in any way On process, can the Minister say whether this is required to be primary legislation under Section 8(3) of the European Union Act 2011? I did not have the pleasure of taking part in the debate on that legislation when it was going through, as I was a Member of the European Parliament at that point and was disqualified from sitting or voting in this House. Was it anticipated that this kind of issue would require primary legislation? Clearly, there were some meaty issues within the scope of the EU Act 2011, not least the one about a referendum if there were any significant transfers of powers to the EU. However, we now find that we are required to legislate under primary legislation for two matters such as these which have either cleared scrutiny beforehand in 2014 or would perhaps not even have required scrutiny. In fact, I am not clear whether they would even have required secondary legislation or just notification to the scrutiny committee. How necessary is it to have primary legislation now on these measures, and how many other such instruments might we expect in a year, for instance, to have to legislate on as opposed to clearing through scrutiny or even having secondary legislation? This almost makes a mockery of EU affairs and of the EU Act 2011. I would be grateful for answers to those few questions about process. On the substance of the matter, there is no objection from these Benches.
Childcare Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-07-06
Topic: Social Welfare
Kathryn Pinnock (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, we are recommencing our discussions on this very important and much welcomed Bill to extend free childcare by 15 hours per week. The purpose of this amendment is to require more explicit flexibility in the provision as outlined. I welcome the Minister’s assurances that there will be flexibility within the provision, but, sadly, that is not entirely clear in the Bill What do we mean by flexibility and why is it so important that we have put down an amendment? The Bill would be much improved if it stated that the Government intend to provide 1,140 hours of free childcare per year rather than, as stated in the Bill, 15 hours for each of the 38 weeks of the school year. It would encourage providers to think about the needs of families and their young children. Many parents have non-standard hours of work, often in low-paid work such as cleaning, hotel work or caring for older people, and some parents work shifts, particularly in the nursing profession. All those people would benefit from greater flexibility in the provision. In our view, this will not happen unless there is encouragement and incentive from the Government to do so In addition to trying to meet the working hours of parents, there is the additional challenge of providing free childcare during the school holidays: the 14 weeks of the year in which schools are not working. That is a not insignificant problem for many families. In those 14 weeks, they have to try to juggle grandparents, neighbours and other people who willingly give up time to help them manage their working lives and the need to provide childcare—or they have to pay for additional childcare, often, as we discussed earlier in Committee, at a very much increased hourly rate, sometimes as much as twice the rate that is paid by the Government for the so-called free hours. That is a huge challenge for many families. Flexibility during holiday times and enabling families to get out to work in times other than the traditional nine to five, which is the basic provision in the Bill, would be greatly welcomed by many families, particularly those on low pay, on whom I hope this Bill is particularly focused. I beg to move.
Childcare Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-07-06
Topic: Social Welfare
Kathryn Pinnock (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I want to comment on two aspects of what the noble Lord, Lord True, has proposed. He raised the issue of capacity, which we raised on the first day in Committee. We received assurances from the Minister that capacity would be much less of an issue than some of us feared. I trust that the Minister believes that to be the case. If so, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord True, is overstating the issues that he has raised today The second matter is more important and concerns the continuity of care provided if we go for this 30 hours a week. Almost inevitably, as we said on the first day in Committee, many children will take part in different settings, so 15 hours may be in a school nursery setting and the other 15 in a private nursery, with a childminder or a combination of all three—childminder, private sector day nursery and state nursery. We should think very carefully about that. I hope that the Minister will be able to come back with some thoughts about this. Very young children may be moving between those three different settings during the course of a day. How does that benefit them? How can we overcome some of those changes that the noble Lord, Lord True, has raised in the discussion around his amendment this afternoon?
Greece — House of Lords, 2015-07-06
Topic: Macroeconomics
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Chancellor’s Statement. I find the Statement curiously semi-detached, and I would have hoped—to repeat a word which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, used—for something a little more proactive. The Statement says that we will do whatever is necessary to protect the UK’s economic security, but then it just talks about remaining vigilant and monitoring the situation. Can the Minister be rather more precise about what action is being taken to protect the UK’s economic security? Is the UK as protected as it can be from whatever might happen after tomorrow, whether that is a Grexit or other financial difficulties? Is it the Government’s view that a Grexit has been priced into the markets? What can we expect in that respect What about British people who have money in Greek banks? If I recollect correctly, it was said last week that four of the banks are represented in this country, three of which have branches and one of which has a subsidiary. If there is a haircut of deposits, which there has been speculation about, what will happen to British deposit holders? Over the weekend it was remarked that the Government intend to reduce the cap on deposit guarantees from £85,000 to £75,000 because of the drop in the value of the euro. That seems rather bad timing in view of the potential difficulty with bank deposits What will be the advice to British tourists if it is clear after tomorrow that Grexit will happen? We all hope that there is not social upheaval, but we have to anticipate that the difficulties in getting cash, medicines and so on will only get worse. What is the Government’s contingency plan? I find what is mentioned in the Statement a little abstract. I do not see clear plans for those who, for instance, might need pharmaceutical supplies during their visit. Will the Government advise people with medical needs not to go to Greece? I would regret that, but is it possible that it will happen? Can the Minister be more specific about what the Government plan to protect our economy and our citizens?