argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Northern Ireland: Paramilitary Groups — House of Lords, 2015-10-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Paul Anthony Elliott Bew (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the Statement and on the tone with which it was delivered, because this matter is fundamental. There will continue to be debates on some of the key points, in particular whether—as the Secretary of State said in the other place—there is no evidence that money obtained by crime is being used for political purposes. If that is true—and I have no evidence to challenge that view—it is the first time in the modern history of the republican movement, provisional or official, that crime has been carried out purely for the individual advantage of members. It will be a real novelty if it is true However, the really important thing is what the Minister said at the end of the Statement, when he acknowledged that the assessment does not provide all the answers. The Secretary of State said in the other place that there are still important questions to be asked about paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. That tone is important. We have difficulties in the peace process not because of the dark side of certain developments—which the people of Northern Ireland well understand—but because, at the time of the re-creation of the institutions, certain achievements of the IRA ceasefire were oversold. Claims were made—that there would be no further recruitment, that the IRA had ceased to exist entirely—that, in retrospect, no longer stand up to examination. The people of Northern Ireland are well aware of that This is a difficult situation, but it could be got through by the Government maintaining a constantly honest, open and questioning attitude to the realities. That would help the peace process. Does the noble Lord agree?
Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-10-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Andrew Fleming (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I pay warm tribute to my noble friend Lady Cox for her skill, tenacity and courage in bringing this Bill before the House, and I congratulate her on the very powerful case that she made in opening this debate. The provisions of the Bill are based on three essential propositions: that there can be only one law in our society; that religious freedom shall be protected for all religions; and that women in Britain should not suffer discrimination in the resolution of disputes and, to this end, should be made aware of their rights. I strongly support all three propositions, and I suggest that this Bill is a measured and intelligent attempt to achieve that outcome. The endorsement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is very significant in this context I speak as someone who spent 16 years living in the Arab and Muslim world, including seven years in Saudi Arabia, at the heart of Islam. Sharia law can be made to work, in largely Muslim countries, but nobody can realistically claim that in those countries women have the equality of status that is nowadays central to our society. The best that can be said is that there can be countervailing family pressures that can help some women in some circumstances. But our society is an entirely different one, and those who come must accept that—indeed, that is why many of them come in the first place. At the same time, we must be prepared to insist that there can be only one law; we must get away from what might be called the "Rotherham complex", where the authorities were so afraid of offending a minority community that they turned a blind eye to the appalling abuse of young, mainly British girls. I pay tribute here to Andrew Norfolk, a correspondent of the Times, and to the editor of that newspaper, for their courage and persistence in uncovering such outrageous behaviour. Other cases have since been unearthed that suggest that there has been a widespread failure to apply the law for so-called cultural reasons. Indeed, there can be little doubt that the many disturbing examples provided by the noble Baroness are but the tip of a very large iceberg. It is time to make a stand against the abuse of women of whatever community and in favour of the rule of law—one law. I commend the Bill to the House.
Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-10-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Shreela Flather (Crossbench, Unknown): Is the noble Lord saying that there is equal treatment of women and men under sharia or is he saying that whatever sharia prescribes is correct? I am not sure; I think he is saying that whatever sharia prescribes is correct and proper. However, is there not discrimination against women?
Advertising of Prostitution (Prohibition) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-10-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Ann Butler-Sloss (Crossbench, Unknown): Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may calm this a little. I have absolutely no intention of supporting the abolition of prostitution for a number of practical reasons. It is one of the oldest businesses in the world, and it is likely to go on regardless of what Parliament might say. I am here today, when I would much rather be at home, to support a Bill which deals exclusively with advertising. I did not really hear a word in what the noble Lord said about advertising and its evils in relation to victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation. That is my line, but the noble Lord, for some reason—and I found it very difficult to understand what he was saying—seems to think that support for the Bill is support for the abolition of prostitution. They are separate subjects in today’s debate.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-07-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Charles Randolph Quirk (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has done his cause, this House and this Bill a service. I would be very sympathetic to the idea of lowering the participation age in elections, which is an issue that has worried us all for many years ever since 16 became the age for marrying et cetera. However, I also agree that the place to start such a move is not in this House. It may well be in the Bill, and now that the noble Lord has very kindly brought this matter to Parliament’s attention in this way, I feel sure that the people down the corridor will take the hint and, if they are so minded, can introduce the measure, knowing full well that there will be a sympathetic reception to such an amendment when it comes back here.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Kerr (Crossbench, Unknown): These are clearly very deep waters, into which a non-lawyer plunges with some concern. I am very glad that I understood part of what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said. I agree with him about the need for a convention My real worry about all this is that I do not believe in declaratory law. I strongly believe in 2% of GNP on defence; I strongly believe in 0.7% on aid; I strongly believe in emissions controls—but I do not believe in putting these things on the statute book. I do not believe in emissions control targets with no known means of fulfilling them. I do not believe in law that sends a message. A law is not worth having unless it changes something. I subscribe to the doctrine explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey At Second Reading, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who is our prophet in these matters. He said: "The Scottish Parliament is already permanent under the terms of the Scotland Act; it remains in being unless this Parliament legislates otherwise. New subsections (1) and (2), introduced by Clause 1, do not make it any more permanent than it already is".—[Official Report, 24/11/15; col. 638.] I understand the conundrum about the Smith commission, well explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, but it seems to me that the noble and learned Lord’s own amendment, with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, goes two-thirds of the way to delivering what he feels we are required to do. Amendment 6 does not require subsection (1). The arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, have demolished subsection (1) What we need is something that says: "The provisions of the Scotland Act, which established the Scottish Parliament, shall not be repealed unless the Scottish Parliament has consented and"—here I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Lang; I think there is a need for a referendum—"a referendum has been held in Scotland on a proposed repeal and a majority of those voting have supported it". We do not make it any more permanent by stating its permanence, and if a new provision adds nothing, we should not make it. It is permanent because it is on the statute book. I agree that in the real world the Scottish Parliament would not vote for its own abolition, but that gives a meaning to permanence.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): Does the noble Lord accept that he has very cleverly been answering the conundrum that I put to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, of trying to translate "permanent" into some other language that fits constitutionally with our established principles? I was suggesting that one should not be too tied by the word "permanent", which is used by lay men, and the noble Lord has perhaps cleverly expressed a way of doing that.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): I shall take up the point that the Minister made about Clause 1 as a whole—I think he was referring to the whole clause as it now stands, with all three new subsections—that it was simply a political statement. New Section 63A(3) is not just a political statement; it lays down a condition. If that is the right reading of the new subsection, does the Minister not recognise that it might be better to address some of the possible imperfections in new Section 63A(3) as it stands? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, among others, made the point that the phrase "the people of Scotland" is a little ambiguous, and it might be better to say "a referendum held in Scotland" to tell you where the referendum is going to be It is quite commonplace in Committee debates for Ministers to say, "We’ll take this away and look at it and perhaps reconsider whether the wording we have in the Bill is the best that could be used". I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared at least to look at proposed new paragraph (b) in Amendment 6; leaving aside the mention of the Scottish Parliament in its proposed new paragraph (a), it suggests a rewording of new Section 63A(3) to see if it is the best wording that could be adopted. I absolutely accept that it deals with a hypothetical situation but, if one is laying down a condition, would it not be better to use the best possible terms in doing so?
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
John McCluskey (Crossbench, Unknown): My noble and learned friend Lord Hope has pointed out the possible difficulty in the current wording. I am very fond, as are many Scots, of the well-known tennis player called Andy Murray. Is he one of the "people of Scotland" in new Section 63A(3)?
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): Perhaps I may return to new subsection (3), which relates to a separate point from the one that the Minister has been emphasising concerning the sovereignty of Parliament and so on. If we look ahead to the day some time next year when this Bill comes back on Report, it is quite likely that there will be an amendment seeking to reword new subsection (3), perhaps along the lines that have already been discussed. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he would carry a little more credibility if he were to depart just a fraction from the briefing that he is reading from and were prepared to say that he would look again at this. He does not have to commit himself to any rewording, but sometimes when we have these debates in Committee it softens the atmosphere a lot if one is prepared to say simply, "Well, some interesting points have been made. We’ll have another look and perhaps come back with something on Report, or perhaps not". It would ease the atmosphere a little on this point and avoid repetitive interruptions.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
John McCluskey (Crossbench, Unknown): In light of the answer relating to the word "only", to the effect that it is implied by the use of the definite article, I see no need to pursue this at this stage. I will not move this amendment and I intimate an intention not to move Amendment 5.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): In the light of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said, I understand that he will at least reflect a bit on what was said earlier. We may return to this on Report, but for the time being I will not move the amendment.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way, but Clause 2 amends Section 28. We are still talking about Clause 1, which amends a different part of the Scotland Act, so there is a separation there. However, I very much endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said—namely, that any reader of the Scotland Act knows perfectly well that you have to look at Section 28 to understand the competence of the Parliament and the relationship between the two Parliaments. The point is simply that Clause 1 does not deal with Section 28.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. There are really two points. First, Clause 2 as worded uses "normally"; secondly, it does not set out in full the way that the convention is applied in practice. These points were made very effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, a moment ago in moving Amendment 11, which is read together with Amendments 15 and 16. There are two points which needed to be added to Clause 2, one being to alter the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the other being to alter the executive competence of the Scottish Government. These matters are in practice the subject of a consent resolution or a Sewel convention Motion and should be referred to expressly in the clause to cover the reach of the convention. That is the point which the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Lang, was talking about.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
John McCluskey (Crossbench, Unknown): That depends on the context in which it is used. Normally, "normally" means "usually"—but "norm" means a standard and the main definition in some dictionaries is of conforming to a standard. I cannot understand with regard to devolved matters of legislation what the standard would be. That is why I tabled Amendment 19. If you leave in "normally", in effect the decision on whether the circumstances are such as to allow the Parliament of the UK to legislate is one for that Parliament to take. That is the first point. In other words, I do not care who decides it, but someone must decide it If you do not decide it in this sort of way—namely, by giving the job to a Parliament—you will leave the job to a court. I have no idea what a court would make of the word "normally". How would a court judge what is normal in the context of devolved and other legislation without hearing evidence? Must a court then hear a lot of evidence from constitutional experts, who are unlikely to be unanimous if today’s proceedings are anything to go by? They are not unanimous and I do not think a court would be able to rule on the matter without hearing evidence. I would hate to see the courts having to deal with this kind of matter, albeit that it would be a bonanza for lawyers—of whom I confess to being one.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): The problem is that paragraph 22 of the Smith commission report states that the Sewel convention will be put on a statutory footing. Rather like the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I wondered what "statutory footing" meant, and I went to various sources to find out. A translation of it is fairly obvious: it means being put on a firm footing by being written into statute. That raises the question of what the effect is of writing something into statute The problem is that, whatever the Minister may say, someone seeing it written into statute is going to say, "Here is something which I can use to challenge a piece of legislation that is apparently being passed without the Sewel convention being observed according to its current usage". With great respect, it does not do for a Minister to say to the court, "This is just a political matter", because the judges will say, "It’s a matter for us". The judge may look at the normal rules to see what the legislation was designed to do, and with a bit of research they will find that it was designed to give effect to the Sewel convention to put it on a statutory footing. The judge will then say, "Well, it’s a matter for me to construe what this means". I am not at all impressed by the Minister saying that it is all a political matter, because it is now in the hands of the court to adjudicate upon The Minister asks, "What remedy does that give rise to?". It creates uncertainty about the effectiveness of legislation. One of the things that we have to be very careful about is that the legislative process is well founded and not open to challenges, except those that are already subject to legislation in the Scotland Act. So, with great respect, it is necessary to warn the Minister that he cannot get away with assuming that the judges will accept that it is simply a political issue; it is not that at all, once it is written into statute.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): I am bound to say that I am very troubled by this whole matter and we will have to return to it on Report. Leaving the clause in its present form is bound to create instability—for reasons that I need not expand on further. Having given notice that I will come back to this on Report, I do not intend to move the amendment.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): The noble Lord said that he is not to be taken as approving the precise terms of the Bill as a lawyer. He is not a lawyer. He emphasised that he is a layman, and he speaks as a layman when he endorses what is in the Bill. If it were possible to find ways in which the Bill could be improved in relation to constitutional principles or whatever else, he would be in favour of that because that is not his field and he is aware that there could be room for improvement in those areas. What he emphasised was, "Don’t confuse me with a lawyer. I am a layman and I give it support as a layman". However, if there were respectable arguments from lawyers, he would give way to them and improve the Bill if that was a way of making better progress.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Other
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I do not propose to develop this amendment. Without going into the reasons for it, it arose in relation to the Sewel convention. I would have developed the point more fully if there had been time to explain why, but, in view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that we have already discussed the particular aspects of the Sewel convention that we sought to explain more fully, I think the best thing for me to do is not to move the amendment.
Northern Ireland: Political Agreement — House of Lords, 2015-11-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robert Henry Alexander Eames (Crossbench, Unknown): I declare an interest as co-chairman of the Consultative Group on the Past in Northern Ireland, which published its report some years ago. Will the Minister tell us more about the efforts of Her Majesty’s Government to unravel the continuing problem of how we deal with the legacy issues, because so many other issues that he mentioned in the Statement are linked with the way in which we deal with the past? Will he enlighten the House about how the Government propose to tackle that part of the problem?
Universities: Freedom of Speech — House of Lords, 2015-11-26
Topic: Civil Rights
Ann Butler-Sloss (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I, too, say what a splendid speech we had from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech I am chairman of a commission on religion and belief in modern-day Britain. We are issuing a report next month. I want to share with the House two points that have come out of evidence we have taken right across the United Kingdom. The first is the importance of tolerating difference: the learning of respect for other people’s views—even when those who listen strongly disagree with what is being said—and of the benefits of that disagreement with what they are listening to The second point, which the Government should take into account, is the unintended consequences of important counterterrorism legislation, in particular the rhetoric that accompanies it. One of the problems with it is that the Muslim population in this country—we have heard a great deal of evidence about this—feel that they are "other", as they put it, that they do not belong. They feel that they are not trusted. There is a much greater need for dialogue, discussion and listening to those with whom one disagrees Therefore, universities are places of learning outside of the academic studies followed by undergraduates, postgraduates and so on. It is a crucial setting for argument, dissent and opposing points of view. I was particularly dismayed by students who have been preventing robust discussion by speakers of whom they do not approve. I was particularly shocked by the examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, gave in her speech. Yesterday in Questions, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, reminded us that freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend. That should be censored only for very good reason. I perhaps should add that the freedom to offend does not include a duty gratuitously to offend There is a very difficult balance to be struck between the necessary excluding of extremist, unacceptable speakers on campus—which, as we have again learnt from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is not necessarily followed by those who should be dealing with it—and academic freedom of speech. It seems to me that the Government should be careful not to add to excessive restrictions on academic freedom to discuss the issues that our commission believes need urgently to be exposed to robust debate.