argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Home Education (Duty of Local Authorities) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-04-27
Topic: Education
Clive Soley (Labour, Centre-left): I do not wish to take up the House’s time on this, because I am conscious that there is another Bill to follow this one, and time is tight. I hear the arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Addington, on this. I talked yesterday at some length to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about it, and I understand the problem of being too prescriptive. After our talk, I remembered that some months ago I looked at the possibility of having an appeal system for when things go wrong between home-educating parents with their child and a school or educational authority that is challenging the way they are doing it. I would not rule that out. However, again, that is too complicated to go in a Private Member’s Bill. I know the Minister is in listening mode on this, and perhaps this is one of those areas to which we ought to pay some serious attention. Although it is not a matter for the Bill, it needs serious consideration.
Bat Habitats Regulation Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-04-27
Topic: Social Welfare
Anthony Gueterbock (Labour, Centre-left): I am very grateful for the Minister’s response. His description of phase 1 of this joint study and the budget for phase 2, and what is contained in it, seemed to me incredibly good value compared to some of the projects we come across. Is he confident that the solution that could be applied to the many churches that have been described this afternoon, and others where there is a problem, can be done at a cost that is affordable for local congregations and other small funds? Or is there going to be a big shortage of funding for anything useful to happen?
Privately Financed Prisons — House of Lords, 2018-06-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, of course I will follow the noble Baroness’s advice—up to a point. We have one of the highest incarceration rates in Europe, exceeded only by those in some of the less advanced countries in the east of Europe. Yesterday, the Prisons Minister, Rory Stewart, said that prison numbers would rise from the current 83,000 to 93,000—the figure inadvertently quoted by the Minister—by 2022. The state of our prisons is a national disgrace as the Government struggle to recruit and retain staff, yet the Minister in the other place feebly states that he would like the prison population to go down but that it is not very likely to happen because he is not sure that there is a will among the people or Parliament to take measures to reduce the population. Given this craven approach to a critically serious problem, should not that Minister resign?
Privately Financed Prisons — House of Lords, 2018-06-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Jean Ann Corston (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I would like to place on record my thanks to the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for giving me a private briefing yesterday on what he proposes for the women’s prison estate. His announcement that there will be five women’s centres rather than five women’s prisons was very welcome. Will the Minister confirm that these, too, are to be privately run—and, if so, whether they could be run by charitable or not-for-profit organisations?
Privately Financed Prisons — House of Lords, 2018-06-27
Topic: Law and Crime
John Davies (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, is it not the case that you can achieve considerable savings in a prison system if prisons are designed and built from the start with a view to the maximally efficient use of staff, bearing in mind the need to achieve targeted levels of out-of-cell time and community time for inmates? Is it not the case that you do not get those savings unless the same organisation, be it private or public sector, is responsible for managing the prison—at least for the payout period for the necessary financing—as well as for the design and construction? Otherwise, there will be no incentive to build a prison to maximally efficient levels.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-06-27
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am slightly puzzled at the effect of amendment as moved by the noble Lord, because the Bill prescribes that the rate of return must be started within a period; not every three years, or every five years, but within that period. So potentially, it seems to me—perhaps the noble and learned Lord will either correct me or confirm that I am right—that you could have a review at less than five years, depending on the circumstances. If, for example, there were a crash, as in 2008, which affected rates of return and so on very significantly, you would not have to wait up to five years to deal with it; you could have that review within the period. In effect, any time within that five years could mean a three-year review, a shorter review or something with a maximum of five years. If that is the case, is that acceptable to the Government?
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-06-27
Topic: Law and Crime
John Stephen Monks (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, perhaps I might mark this Third Reading by drawing attention to what I regard as the significance of the Bill. It is not just a technical Bill about the many legal procedures and complications which we have debated. It is a Bill which, particularly in its relationship to the small claims limit, will have a profound impact on around 350,000 people a year, who we estimate will be left without the free legal cover that they now experience. That is as a result of the rise in the small claims limit. The Minister is looking a bit askance at me as I speak on this amendment, but it seems to me important that we mark the fact that this is a Bill of real significance to a lot of vulnerable people in this country Those of us who have been concerned with this issue have been hamstrung by the fact that we have not managed to secure the small claims limit to be within scope of the Bill. We did, in the end, find a way to debate it on Report and there was a vote on it, which I accept that we lost, but we had little time to brief Members of this House or to campaign more widely. I give notice that we will return to the small claims limit issues in any way that we can. I draw the Government’s attention to the fact that one of their justifications for the rises has been to use RPI movements, but the national statistician is now on record as saying that the RPI is a very bad statistic. The CPI is certainly the way to go and it would produce a small claims limit, in the way that Lord Jackson recommended, of £1,500 rather than £2,000. That would make an appreciable difference Will the Government think a little further about this issue? Will they reflect on it again, even at this late stage as the Bill goes to the other place? I know that appeals to a Government’s better nature do not usually get very far, but I hope that an exception will be made in this case, and that the right thing will be done after all the debates we have had. The Bill would be improved if the associated measure on the small claims limit was adopted in the way that we have been proposing.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-06-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am not sure I have enjoyed much fun as we have gone through this Bill but, as it leaves the House, I thank the Minister and his colleague on the Front Bench, and the Bill team for their readiness to discuss its provisions and respond to some, at least, of the concerns and suggestions that have been made from all sides of the Chamber. I also express my admiration for those who have brought their professional expertise and knowledge to our debates and discussions. It has been quite an awesome experience to listen to some of those who have spent a lifetime dealing with these matters Nevertheless, from these packed Benches, we believe that the Bill is fundamentally flawed and hope that, when it returns to us, it will have been improved. In particular, we would like to see the definition of "whiplash" made by medical experts and the damages determined by the judiciary based on Judicial College guidelines, rather than by a tariff specified for whiplash injuries. If there is to be a tariff, the college should be involved in determining the levels The Law Society suggests that the Government should clarify what would constitute a failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate the effect of an injury, which is part of the Bill’s proposition. It is also concerned about the provision in Clause 3 that means the capacity of the Lord Chancellor to allow discretion to increase the award in exceptional circumstances is by way of regulation, again, rather than being left to the judiciary to determine what constitute such circumstances Underlying the Bill and the proposals to raise the small claims limit for whiplash injuries to £5,000, and for other personal injuries to £2,000, is the effect of creating obstacles to justice likely to deter legitimate claimants from pursuing and receiving compensation. Where they do, they are likely to add to the growing difficulties experienced by the courts in dealing with unrepresented litigants. To most Members of this House, the sums involved are very modest; to many potential claimants, they are not. For our part, we will in future seek to oppose the intended increase of the small claims limit to all RTA cases to under £5,000 and for all other personal injury claims to £2,000, when the relevant regulations are laid We look forward to a review of the impact of this legislation on the much-vaunted claims of the insurance industry significantly to reduce insurance premiums—the noble and learned Lord has referred to that aspiration, as I would describe it—and, more positively, to a significant growth in the number of periodical payments orders in the most serious cases of injury, which are the subject of Part 2 of the Bill, which deals with the discount rate. That is the most positive part of the Bill, and it certainly has our support It has been an interesting experience to participate in these debates, and I hope that the Bill will return to us in due course, in an improved form. I await that moment with barely contained impatience.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-10-16
Topic: Law and Crime
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, this amendment would ensure that within three years of the coming into force of the Act the Lord Chancellor must arrange for a review of the impact of the implementation of its provisions, including provisions within what would by then be Section 3 and the Schedule. The report would have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. We should bear in mind the potential perils of justice reforms without sufficient research, consultation and subsequent evaluation I hope noble Lords will forgive me reminding your Lordships’ House of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The Public Accounts Committee made clear that, in bringing forward that legislation, the Ministry of Justice had not properly assessed the full impact of those reforms. That impact has proved devasting for some of the most vulnerable in our society who, as a result of that reform and those cuts, have almost been shut out altogether from the legal aid system of which we were once so very proud We are still awaiting the much-anticipated review of the operation of LASPO required after three to five years of implementation in 2013. The hope for the many thousands of people who have been locked out of our justice system due to the withdrawal of legal aid is that a sober assessment of LASPO might precipitate reform and recognition of the need to reverse some of the more destructive elements of that legislation. The Bach commission report—conducted by my noble friend Lord Bach—made many recommendations for reform, but we continue to wait for the Government to deliver on that statutory obligation to review and report The fact that the LASPO review has been delayed makes such mechanisms no less vital. For the same reasons of accountability and adequate evaluation of reform we are seeking to ensure that this Government are obliged to assess and report on the impact of the reforms to our court system proposed by the Bill. The Bar Council has also expressed support for this amendment. I beg to move.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-10-16
Topic: Law and Crime
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): Once again, I am grateful to the Minister and other noble Lords for that interesting and illuminating discussion. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. He is a first-rate lawyer, judge and parliamentarian, and I have no doubt that he will make many important contributions in your Lordships’ House The noble Lord, Lord Marks, nailed the basic thrust of the objections to this group of amendments: they fly in the face of efficiency and cost savings. Less was offered, I am afraid, by way of reassurance as to the quality of justice that the public may look forward to as a result of this Bill As always, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for pointing out the slight anomaly that legal advisers to the judiciary need not be qualified lawyers. That is perhaps a little strange, and points to the underlying motive behind this draft legislation Anyone who has spent any time in a magistrates’ court will realise that very serious decisions about people’s lives are made in that jurisdiction, under a great deal of pressure. Therefore, I do not share the relaxed approach to the training and qualifications required to be a legal adviser to lay magistrates or justices of the peace. None the less, I do not want to trouble your Lordships’ House with a Division that is doomed due to lack of support from the noble Lord, Lord Marks. So, with a somewhat heavy heart, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-10-16
Topic: Law and Crime
Shami Chakrabarti (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, once more I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion, which once again highlighted the fundamental differences on the principles in this Bill between some of us on each side of this House. I have tried hard not to be completely disruptive to the idea that certain, non-contentious, administrative decisions might be delegated as part of modernising the justice system in the 21st century, but I have heard no satisfactory response to the recommendations by Lord Justice Briggs These judicial decisions that will be delegated will be uncontentious or contentious. If it is the latter, Article 6 rights are engaged and, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I cannot see how junior members of court staff—potentially not even three years post-qualification in their legal experience, and employed by the Government—are going to be independent and impartial for the purposes of satisfying Article 6 The assurance that I am given in response to this concern is that I should put trust in the rule committees to make judgments about which decisions that have been delegated to these junior staff should and should not be subject to reconsideration by a judge. My concern is that the rule committees will be under the same pressure that the judiciary is under in relation to all this. It is a pressure with which I sympathise and which has been reflected eloquently in contributions to this debate by noble Lords and noble and learned Lords in particular At the end of the day, the rule committees do not have the access to the budget that would make it possible to ensure reconsiderations where they are required. Therefore, it seems rather unfair to put the pressure on the committees. The committee may feel that it has no choice because it cannot fund a system of adequate judicial consideration, which is because it cannot fund an adequate justice system in this country. That is not a state of affairs that I believe your Lordships’ House would want to sanction. With that in mind, I beg to move and seek to test the mood of the House.
Universal Credit — House of Lords, 2018-10-16
Topic: Social Welfare
William David McKenzie (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for her kind comments about my erstwhile colleague Baroness Hollis. It is with regret that we have the absence of her voice for our deliberations today. She had unparalleled experience on universal credit. She was determined, she was passionate, and her oratory rang out across this Chamber. I fear that we will not see her like again Universal credit is causing severe hardship for many people claiming it. Over the past two weeks, conflicting statements from the Government have caused real confusion about the impact it will have on people who are required to move across to claim it in the next phase. First, we were told that austerity was over, then that families on low incomes are in danger of losing up to £200 a month as a result of transferring to universal credit. Next, the Prime Minister said that nobody would be worse off, but the Secretary of State contradicted her the following day. This morning, we had the BBC report—I understand the Minister’s position on that—saying that the Government are planning changes to the universal credit system that will include the end date for the rollout being put back by a further nine months. This is the sixth time since 2013 that this benefit has been recalibrated. Is the reported delay to the start of the next phase the result of the warnings that the Government have received from right across the voluntary sector and expert organisations that their draft regulations are simply not fit for purpose? Will they now publish their impact assessment of that next phase? How will the changes reported by the BBC affect the savings that universal credit is expected to make for the Treasury? How many households currently claiming legacy benefits will be worse off between now and 2023 as a result of making a new claim for universal credit? Together with dozens of disability and advice organisations, we call for a halt to the rollout of managed migration until it is fit for purpose.
Universal Credit — House of Lords, 2018-10-16
Topic: Social Welfare
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I echo what has been said about my noble friend Lady Hollis. She was an inspiration. This morning, at a meeting of the APPG on universal credit, organisations working with claimants around the country were unanimous that so-called managed migration—as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made clear, it will not be managed on behalf of claimants—should not go ahead until UC’s design flaws are rectified, especially inflexible monthly assessment, which is creating huge problems. Will the Minister undertake to look at these problems as a matter of urgency? UC needs to be recalibrated.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) (Amendment) Order 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-10-16
Topic: Law and Crime
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): On the previous point made by the Minister about there being no pressure put on a young person to act as a CHIS, is it possible, when a young person has come to the attention of the authorities—or may have committed a crime—that it would be suggested to the child that matters would not be proceeded with if they were to act as a CHIS instead?
Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) (Amendment) Order 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-10-16
Topic: Law and Crime
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): I am just trying to understand the situation. It would be nice to hear from the noble Baroness at some point—maybe she can write to us. It should obviously always come to the attention of the authorities through various means, such as intelligence. However the authorities come to it, what are the circumstances such young people would find themselves in with the authorities?
Universal Credit — House of Lords, 2018-11-05
Topic: Labor
Rita Donaghy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised if I focus on the self-employed. The Social Security Advisory Committee has acknowledged that the main concern about the self-employed was not the grace period, though it acknowledged that a small extension is welcome, but the principle of the minimum income floor itself. Organisation after organisation submitted evidence to the committee to say that this would not work. The committee requested that, "the Department should undertake a robust evaluation of the policy and its operation ... It is important to determine whether it operates equitably, what effect it has on the self-employed themselves, and what effect it is having on start-ups generally", and that, "evaluation should extend to the related tests of ‘gainful self-employment’ which underpin the way in which the Minimum Income Floor operates" There is a fundamental flaw in the way that that has been structured. Can the Minister give some assurance that there will be such a robust evaluation of the policy?
Universal Credit — House of Lords, 2018-11-05
Topic: Social Welfare
Dawn Primarolo (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for the information she has given about the changes made in the Budget last week. However, she will know that the Government had already pre-announced billions of pounds to be cut from the budget that will facilitate universal credit by 2020. Last week’s announcements have given some money back, but not all of it. The Government’s original estimate was that universal credit would lift 350,000 children out of poverty, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that, as a result of these changes, an extra 1.2 million children will grow up in poverty by 2020. What is the Minister’s latest estimate for raising families and children out of poverty as a result of universal credit?
Universal Credit — House of Lords, 2018-11-05
Topic: Social Welfare
Elizabeth Andrews (Labour, Centre-left): I appreciate what the noble Baroness has just said, because it is an extraordinarily complex system, and this is the biggest—and riskiest—change in social security for decades. She has said that people’s lives are different. When she refers to working conditions and benefits, surely she should remember what we have been saying about the need to take great care—universal credit is great in principle but very difficult to get right. A redesign should not be beyond the Government’s confidence. I will repeat one question that was raised by both my noble friend on our Front Bench and by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. If the Government want, as they must, to simplify whatever they can, surely they should have a better answer than the one they have given about why they do not segment certain categories of people that cannot be treated universally. It would be relatively simple to do. Apparently the department has said that it cannot be done. That is not a good enough reason when the noble Baroness is struggling to explain what will happen. There is a risk of mistakes that will bear down on the very poorest with disastrous results. This is not scaremongering, and I resent it being described so: these are very serious challenges for the very poorest in our society.