argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement — House of Lords, 2021-01-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Warren Shipley (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I should say that I disagree profoundly with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has said. That is because we learned when the Bill was debated last week that the Government think of sovereignty largely in relation to themselves. They do not think much about individual sovereignty or the sovereignty of UK businesses and producers to export free of red tape and bureaucracy As we know from today’s news, there are big concerns now about the cost of exporting to the EU and about the delays inherent in the system for the export of some goods. The trade agreement may have reduced tariffs but, as we are now learning, non-tariff barriers can be just as important. In particular, barriers have now been created which limit the ability of UK citizens to work in the EU One advantage of the UK being part of the single market was the mutual recognition of professional qualifications with all other EU countries. That has been ended and instead there is a framework for the discussion of possible future agreements between qualification authorities. It may be possible to negotiate bilateral agreements with each country—that is, 27 times —but any such discussions must be initiated and conclusions must be reached, and that whole process could take a long time. This is not in the interests of our services sector or the individuals affected, but it is one of the consequences of changing our trading relationship with our largest trading partner I ask the Minister if he would expand on the Government’s plans for the recognition of UK qualifications in the EU, because many individuals and professional bodies are facing very significant barriers and dislocation.
EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement — House of Lords, 2021-01-08
Topic: Agriculture
Robin Teverson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I say with some regret that the failure of the fisheries negotiations is jaw-dropping. This was one area where Brexit could have made a real improvement to our catch sector, particularly in Scotland and in the south-west, where I live. We seem to have flunked that completely Let me go through some of the initial targets and objectives of the Government in these negotiations. The first was to keep market access negotiations separate from the catch and quota issues. That was not achieved. Moving from relative stability to zonal attachment in fish stocks was not achieved. Taking control of our territorial waters, out to 12 miles, was not achieved. Frictionless trade in fish products was not achieved in a big way, with catch certificates and better reinspection above everything else that we have on the goods side. We used to swap quota with our European neighbours, which was essential for seasonality and the discarding ban, but we forgot to ask for it or did not even bother to make sure that we achieved it. In the area of quota hoppers, where European companies own a large proportion of English quota, we have no government proposals whatsoever Perhaps worst of all is that we have to play this all again in five years. In 2026, we have to go through these negotiations again, knowing that the EU has the right to stop our tariff-free trade in fisheries—indeed, our trade at all—if we fail to come to agreement then. The leverage will be as equal then as it is now. We have failed the one big opportunity that we had from Brexit and, in the words of fishers in the south-west, we are worse off than we were before.
EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement — House of Lords, 2021-01-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
Edward Timothy Razzall (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, sadly I cannot share the congratulatory tone of some colleagues on the Tory Benches regarding the recent trade deal. This deal is bad for jobs, bad for security and bad for our environment. The stark reality is that this is a much better deal for Europe than it is for us, for one fundamental reason which the Brexiteers have never really understood. As the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said, Europe benefits far more than we do from tariff-free trade in manufactured goods and farm products simply because they export far more to us than we do to them. The strength of our economy is much more in financial services, as noble Lords have said, the export of which is hardly left secure on the basis of this deal. But what is done is done and will not be undone in the foreseeable future Notwithstanding the Tory claims that they have got Brexit done, a huge amount of negotiation with our European partners remains. I only touch on a handful of issues. First, for manufacturers the biggest headache is the so-called rules of origin. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will now work through the new joint committees established by the deal to ease burdens on businesses wherever possible? Secondly, it is vital that our financial institutions can continue exporting services to Europe. Is the Minister satisfied that a satisfactory mutual understanding with the EU will be reached in March 2021 regarding regulatory equivalence, as provided for in the agreement? Financial services are not simply the product of banks and other financial institutions. The UK exports countless professional services to Europe. The largest, such as solicitors, accountants, architects and engineers, earn significant sums from Europe. All the deal does is provide a mechanism on which regulators can work together to establish mutual recognition of professional qualifications to enable professional services to be sold in Europe. Is the Minister satisfied that mutual recognition will proceed at pace As I said, this is a poor deal for the UK. Staying in would have been so much better, but surely the Minister must agree with Theresa May, in her retort to Keir Starmer in another place, that even her deal would have been better.
EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement — House of Lords, 2021-01-08
Topic: International Affairs
Christine Humphreys (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, with this agreement, British exceptionalism has hit reality: yes, we have a deal with the EU, but, of course, it is a deal full of checks and balances. Both parties can engage in cross-sector retaliation in case of violations of the agreement; no one gains. Crucially, no sector of our economy can claim that this deal is better than the deal we have rejected. Welsh farmers now understand that tariff-free and quota-free access to EU markets comes with border inspections, more paperwork and more cost. Our fishermen now see the reality of taking back complete control of our waters: the imposition of tariffs in 2026 if we do so. In the words of Ursula von der Leyen: "Britain has won nothing and has lost a continent." However, as we come to terms with this new governance structure, it seems appropriate to reassess the governance of our union of four nations. My support for this union is based on pragmatism rather than passion—a belief that we are stronger together—but it is a union that is no longer working for too many people. It is a union that has developed over the centuries but is now in need of reform; it needs to discuss and decide how it wants to be governed in future years as it responds to the challenges of this century and Brexit We have already had a taste of this Government’s attitude to devolution in recent Brexit Bills and, for many of us, it has not been a pretty picture. My conclusion is that we all need to talk, but my fear is that we could already be too late. The fault lines are opening and will eventually split asunder. As di Lampedusa says in his novel The Leopard, if we want things to stay as they are, things have to change. The initiation of the process of change to an agreed, modern governance structure for the UK lies in the hands of the UK Government.
EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement — House of Lords, 2021-01-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
Tom McNally (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, as has been said by a number of noble Lords, this agreement mainly ignores the 80% of our economy covered by services. Everything from data adequacy to proper arrangements for our creative industries is left in the "work in progress" or "it will be all right on the night" category. Financial services remain particularly vulnerable, and here I register a concern that the post-Brexit committee structure for this House does not include a specific financial services committee. That sector is not only one of the most important and successful parts of our economy, but one that might be most susceptible to the activity of buccaneers seeking to make London the money laundering capital of the world. It is a mistake not to have a specialist committee, either of this House or a Joint Committee of both Houses, to keep a close and expert eye on this important sector Secondly, the Brexit settlement faces us with the challenge of how really to return sovereignty to this Parliament and not simply to government Ministers. We have already seen the rampant use of Henry VIII clauses in much of the Brexit-implementing legislation. It is now abundantly clear that we need to reform the 2010 CRaG Act and curtail use of the royal prerogative, if parliamentary sovereignty is to be established over executive power in trade agreements and other treaties and executive actions.
EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement — House of Lords, 2021-01-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
Anthony Robert Greaves (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, we are where we are, and it is perhaps time to take an overview of things. The Minister who introduced this debate, rather a long time ago, said that it was going to be a new chapter for "global Britain", yet the trade deals that we have had so far are mainly no more than copy-and-paste jobs from existing EU agreements. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, tried to give a better overview; he said it was a choice between paddling our own canoe and continuing in the EU’s wake, and we must answer that question now. It seems to me that neither of those options is terribly attractive This is surely an opportunity to start to reset our economy and our trade. The first general point that I want to make is that we ought to have less trade. That is perhaps controversial, but the idea that our future rests with more and more trade with the other side of the world, whether with China, Singapore, east Asia or Japan, is undesirable. Flying food around the world to the extent that we do is environmentally undesirable. While I am about this, it is time that we stopped exporting waste from this country to the far side of Asia—south Asia and elsewhere—which is just a disgrace Secondly, I suggest that it is time to radically restructure our economy and move towards what people call a circular economy rather than one that uses vast amounts of resources and throws a lot of them away. It is time to take economics as a practical discipline away from sterile economic algorithms and put it at the service of people and the environment—what the economist Kate Raworth calls doughnut economics. It is time that we changed what we did and how we do it. This is an opportunity.
Yemen — House of Lords, 2021-02-10
Topic: International Affairs
Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, why yet again have the Government failed to provide a credible explanation for their decision not to join their closest ally and its much welcome new President in suspending arms sales? This war has lasted seven years. The citizens of Yemen have suffered misery, famine and death. What is wrong with assisting the President in the endeavours to break the logjam by giving him unqualified support?
Domestic Abuse Bill — House of Lords, 2021-02-10
Topic: Law and Crime
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I should remind the Committee that I was a police officer for more than 30 years. Picking up the theme from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, of a change in culture, there has clearly been a change of culture in the police service towards domestic abuse, but it needs to go further. There needs to be a cultural change in attitudes, particularly those of men towards women and towards domestic abuse in wider society I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for so clearly and comprehensively introducing this amendment. He clearly demonstrated that the approach to perpetrators is, at best, inconsistent. The examples he shared with the Committee showed that existing legislative and procedural provisions are insufficient or are not being complied with adequately. I have received more emails on this amendment than any others during this Committee Section 325 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires the responsible authority for each area to "establish arrangements for the purpose of assessing and managing the risks posed in that area by … relevant sexual and violent offenders,"— and other offenders which the responsible authority considers "may cause serious harm to the public." These are the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, MAPPA Section 327 of the 2003 Act defines "relevant sexual or violent offender", and Amendment 164 would add "relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator" to that definition. It goes on to define a "relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator" as someone who has been convicted of a serious offence and is a "serial offender", or that "a risk of serious harm assessment has identified" the person "as presenting a high or very high risk of serious harm." A relevant domestic abuse or stalking offence is defined as an offence under Clause 1 of the Bill or under Section 2A or Section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Domestic Abuse Bill — House of Lords, 2021-02-10
Topic: Law and Crime
Jonathan Marks (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am very grateful for the comprehensive opening by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He and every other noble Lord who has spoken have stressed the urgent need to overhaul and broaden our perpetrator strategy Amendment 164 from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, would correct a very obvious deficiency in the Bill and in our current arrangements for protecting potential victims from known perpetrators who present serious risks to those they may prey on in future, notably women with whom they form new relationships, but sometimes men, when those new partners know little or nothing of their past offending and nothing of the risk they take by being with them However, it is not always new partners who may be threatened. Serial stalkers threaten victims they hardly know but who still stand to be harassed by them in life-destroying ways. We know how stalking offences, which may not cause physical harm, can cause long-lasting and sometimes permanent psychological damage. Happy, untroubled lives can easily be reduced to anxious existence only, with work, travel and lives at home overshadowed by ever-present fear. The case for this amendment is as clear as could be. There can be no argument against including domestic abuse offenders and stalkers in the arrangements already in place under the 2003 Act for serious sexual and violent offenders, including MAPPA. But these arrangements badly need enhancing, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others have explained, by establishing MAPPA-plus A central part of the system is the violent and sex offender register, ViSOR, a national database that enables agencies to register offenders, to carry out risk assessments and keep them up to date, and to manage and keep track of offenders. It is important that the register is national because offenders travel. It has been far too easy in the past for offenders to leave one area and set up home in another, where they are unknown to the police and manage to commit appalling repeat offences, without warning lights ever flashing.
Domestic Abuse Bill — House of Lords, 2021-02-10
Topic: Law and Crime
Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, these two small but important amendments are perfect examples of what I have been banging on about throughout the Bill and what my noble friend Lady Brinton kindly alluded to: the need for a joined-up approach on the part of all services to work together to help victims, particularly, in this instance, older people. Amendment 165 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and other noble Lords requires local authorities’ staff who suspect abuse to notify social services or the police. I am grateful to her and to Hourglass for all the work that they do. As she said, Hourglass says that 40% of the calls it received in 2019 related to financial abuse—the most common type of abuse reported—but it often goes hand in hand with physical and psychological abuse. When victims reach out for financial support, those in the local authority must be trained not just to process the claim or recognise the signs of abuse, but to report it to a relevant social worker or the police. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, illuminated the Committee with her telling description of how real-life long-term relationships can escalate, a point echoed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who linked back to the day-to-day regarding the need for training professionals Amendment 166, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, tackles the issue of when a social worker is refused entry to premises and suspects that domestic abuse is being perpetrated. As we have heard, at present the social worker would need to ask the police to obtain a magistrate’s order, but there are several benefits of their being able to obtain entry themselves, not least not having to further burden an already overstretched police force. Research by King’s College, which has already been mentioned, identified that this could prevent escalation to the point where a more drastic intervention by police was needed and speed up the process of safeguarding inquiries. This power has already been trialled. As several noble Lords have mentioned, it was introduced in Scotland in 2008 and in Wales in 2016. It seems to work well and creates a greater expectation of compliance, which may obviate the necessity of obtaining an order at all. Obstruction of entry is rare but, on the occasions when it is needed, this no-messing early intervention can save lives.
Domestic Abuse Bill — House of Lords, 2021-02-10
Topic: Law and Crime
Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for raising this. Amendment 171 seeks to repeal the so-called carers’ defence in coercive and controlling relationships. I am grateful to Stay Safe East for its excellent briefing. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, highlighted the frequency of disabled people being abused compared to non-disabled. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, was shocked by these figures and so was I As we have heard, the so-called carers’ defence clause reposes in the 2015 Serious Crime Act. This defence can be employed by the carer if she can prove that she believed that she was acting in the victim’s "best interests" and that "the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable" Stay Safe East maintains that this Act discriminates both directly and indirectly against disabled victims. It says: "The purpose of legislation on domestic abuse is to protect survivors, rather than to defend the rights of abusers or alleged abusers." It is already hard enough to get a case involving a disabled victim to court, as so many difficulties and barriers stand in the way. To abuse a disabled person in the cause of their own "interests" surely must be one of the most patronising and demeaning excuses for perpetrating coercive control of the victim. It piles insult on injury, can prolong the abuse and ultimately denies justice to the victim. I do not need to add to the cogent and clear description, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, of what this form of coercive control looks like and how it makes the disabled victim feel. Let us shut that loophole and give disabled victims justice and their dignity back A carer can already claim the "best interests" defence without our having to enshrine it in law. I listened carefully to the remarks of the Minister on Monday and she seems to have prejudged the amendment without listening to the arguments, which is most unusual for her. In response, I say that the arguments that she uses can be used in favour of the amendment. She said: "As is the case with all legal defences, it is for the courts and juries to decide merit on a case by case basis".—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 123.] Why not take this patronising defence out of English law and let the courts decide, as she suggests?
Domestic Abuse Bill — House of Lords, 2021-02-10
Topic: Labor
Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, Amendment 174 standing in my name spells out the duty of care that any reasonable employer might expect to undertake in looking after an employee suffering from domestic abuse in a code of practice which the Secretary of State must issue Work is often the only respite for a victim from abuses that they are suffering at home and the only opportunity they might get to contact help agencies. Work provides, as well as financial reward and escape, a sense of purpose and self-worth which can be severely undermined at home. Workers are more productive and effective when they can bring their whole selves to work. Employers have a duty of care which they would be expected to exercise in other circumstances, such as sickness or bereavement, and give time off accordingly This amendment is not stipulating any additional cost requirement in terms of time off. It is laying down the expectation on the part of workers that, in these circumstances, the employer will make reasonable adjustments and not disadvantage them further because what they are going through may not enable them to achieve peak performance—just as if they were ill or had been bereaved, and so on. It does not seek to criminalise or penalise any employer who does not comply with the code, although it can be taken into consideration in any subsequent court case where they have not exercised their duty of care.
Domestic Abuse Bill — House of Lords, 2021-02-10
Topic: Labor
Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief but very important debate today. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, made the point that paid leave is guidance only. That is a very helpful thing; at this incremental stage we are seeking to win over employers rather than beat them down and require them to pay employees who are suffering from domestic violence I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, put it very elegantly when she said that we have a code to make the work environment safe and happy, so the code we are talking about would create a good emotional work environment to go with the good physical one. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made many very good points. He said that domestic abuse is a work issue. It crosses over. As I said in my earlier remarks, you have to be able to bring your whole self to work; you cannot just leave the sad and difficult bits at home The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised the need for flexible working in these difficult circumstances. I was pleased by the Minister’s comment that the Government will be bringing forward proposals and are consulting on making flexible working the default. I will be delighted when that day comes and I hope it will not be too far away. My noble friend Lady Hamwee said that these two amendments have identified a gap that should be filled. I am delighted with the cautious comments of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, saying that the Government are working with bodies to bring forward proposals. I hope that progress will be forthcoming and less than glacial. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.