argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Alistair James Hendrie Burt (Conservative, Centre-right): In all fairness, the fact that I answer carefully and honestly in relation to these actions must not be considered any form of complacency. I am keen to set out for the record the action the UK has already taken in response to this incident: our convening of the EU meeting, the meetings at the UN, NATO and the OSCE, the clear statement by the Foreign Secretary yesterday, the statement by Jonathan Allen at the UN Security Council, and the work already done on sanctions, including the sanctions on individuals, and the sanctions following the annexation of Crimea and the construction of the Kerch bridge. In addition, the EU’s Political and Security Committee is meeting today, and further action is being considered in company with others. All that is a clear and definitive response to what has happened. Action has been taken against individuals, and further action can be considered, but the point I was making was that collective action was the most important thing. The international condemnation is clear. There is no complacency in anything I have said.
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Helen Olivia Bicknell Whately (Conservative, Centre-right): This latest act of aggression is yet another reminder that Russia does not care about rules, and only about realpolitik. That fact must inform the UK’s approach. Will my right hon. Friend say more about the steps we are taking together with our allies to make sure that Russia is practically deterred from further action?
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Alistair James Hendrie Burt (Conservative, Centre-right): I hope that the actions the UK has taken quickly, in convening meetings of states and speaking very clearly at the UN Security Council yesterday—I commend to the House the statement by our deputy permanent representative Jonathan Allen yesterday, and I will make sure that a copy is placed in the Library so that colleagues can see it—made clear our concerns, and how we are using our international position and our position on various bodies to bring other states together, because collective action is needed.
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Alistair James Hendrie Burt (Conservative, Centre-right): We do not agree with the interpretation of the law of the sea offered yesterday at the UN Security Council. The deputy permanent representative said about the action and the use of military force: "This further demonstrates Russia’s ongoing contempt for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and its contempt for the global rules-based international system which this organisation serves to uphold" The Government fully support that statement.
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Andrew James Bridgen (Conservative, Centre-right): What representations were made to the Russians during their illegal construction of the Kerch bridge, the completion of which has allowed President Putin to tighten his grip on the whole region and precipitated this latest illegal act?
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Ian Richard Peregrine Liddell-Grainger (Conservative, Centre-right): As the Minister is aware, I sit on the Council of Europe, which Russia is trying to get back into. Will he please ensure that serious consideration is given in the Council of Ministers, through our representative there, to only allowing the Russians back if they fulfil their national and international obligations and do not break them?
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Alistair James Hendrie Burt (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend’s intervention makes clear what the House wants to see. The House is not in conflict with the people of Russia, but as the deputy permanent representative made clear yesterday, actions taken by Russia make it difficult, if not impossible, to have the sort of relationships that are necessary and that my hon. Friend is looking for. The UK is open to that and urges Russia to respond to international concerns and to set out to our mutual advantage a new relationship with other states based clearly on a rules-based international system.
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Technology
Alistair James Hendrie Burt (Conservative, Centre-right): As I mentioned earlier, we are supporting the provision of money for journalism that is based on the truth and counters disinformation, but the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the importance of investigative journalism are clear. We support the actions of correspondents who go to the most difficult areas of conflict at great personal risk, and we support campaigns designed to make sure that journalists are not targets.
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Jonathan Simon Djanogly (Conservative, Centre-right): Incredibly, Russia still denies having a military presence in Ukraine, although we know that Russian troops and tanks are there in very significant numbers taking part in a war that is claiming some dozen Ukrainian lives every week. Now that we have seen this blatant, unacceptable and proven act of Russian aggression, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK will take firm action, including the provision of hard military support?
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Alistair James Hendrie Burt (Conservative, Centre-right): As I have reiterated throughout, it is essential that responses are co-ordinated and collective. The United Kingdom has made its position extremely clear at the United Nations, in collective meetings today and yesterday, and in the Foreign Secretary’s statement. We will work in concert with our partners in seeking to reverse these actions and achieve our objective, which is stability and mutual security in the region—mutual security that is based on respect for territorial integrity and a rules-based international system.
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Alistair James Hendrie Burt (Conservative, Centre-right): As I mentioned earlier, the imposition of martial law by the Ukrainian Parliament was announced yesterday, and will come into effect tomorrow at 0900 hours. We welcome what the President said in relation to the limitation of those powers, and we are monitoring very carefully what the impact and effects may be.
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Philip Thomas Hollobone (Conservative, Centre-right): Sending an oceanographic survey ship sometime in 2019 does not exactly strike me as a robust response to Russian aggression against a friendly state. Russian ships and submarines go up and down the English channel unimpeded all the time. Can the Minister tell the House whether a NATO ship has ever gone under the newly constructed Kerch strait bridge, and when the next NATO vessel will visit the sea of Azov?
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
John Michael Howell (Conservative, Centre-right): May I urge my right hon. Friend not simply to ignore the Council of Europe when he considers European action? Will he support the work that I and others have been doing to prevent the readmission of Russia to that organisation?
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Alistair James Hendrie Burt (Conservative, Centre-right): As my hon. Friend will know, I do not ignore anything related to Europe—either the European Union or the Council of Europe. I welcome the collective action that we take through our friends, and will continue to do so. I value the Council of Europe, and my hon. Friend’s expression of support for it is well made.
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There was the usual contest for last The Minister will be aware of the many parallels with past situations. Vladimir Putin’s approach seems similar to the process of heating a frog in water: if he keeps pushing up the heat, it will not produce an instant reaction. Can the Minister reassure me that he is talking to other nations about what will happen if Putin continues to push down this power? We obviously do not want to see an escalation, but let us be clear that it is Russia that keeps escalating these situations.
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Alistair James Hendrie Burt (Conservative, Centre-right): I know from my experience in other parts of the international field that what my hon. Friend has said is correct. There is always concern if a state seeks to demonstrate its power through means that are questionable, or sometimes downright illegal. States will sometimes push the envelope. The risk is that at some stage there will be a miscalculation and a confrontation. The United Kingdom will do all in its power to prevent such a thing, but the risk is taken by others, and my hon. Friend’s point is well made.
Ukraine-Russia Relations — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: International Affairs
Alistair James Hendrie Burt (Conservative, Centre-right): As I illustrated earlier, there is direct support for economic reform in Ukraine and direct support to assist other reforms, including those relating to good governance and technical matters. Support is also being given in relation to information gathering and the need to combat disinformation. In all those respects the United Kingdom’s support is clear, as has been our response to these particular incidents. My hon. Friend may be assured that our concern will continue, and that further support will be made available to Ukraine as and when the United Kingdom judges it necessary.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time It is a great pleasure to move the Second Reading motion. It is possible that in Westminster at the moment other matters are catching Members’ attention and that the focus of the House has not been sufficiently on the Bill, but I am delighted to have the opportunity to move the motion. The Bill has already been considered in the other place and takes an important step forward for our courts system Our judiciary, together with our courts and tribunal service, are rightly regarded as among the finest and most independent in the world. However, the way our courts and tribunals work cannot stand still. They must be able to meet the demands of delivering modern-day justice, meet the needs of the society they serve, and administer justice in the most effective and efficient way The justice system must work for all those who use it, as well as for the judges and legal professionals who work in it. That means realising the huge potential of new technology and the law tech revolution to improve people’s experience of and access to the justice system and to open up new routes to justice. It is certainly my determination that the UK should be seen as being at the forefront of adopting new technology, whether in our courts and tribunal system, which is the issue before us today, or more widely, with legal professionals making use of technology. That is one of the reasons that we have instituted a law tech committee, led by Christina Blacklaws of the Law Society, which is designed to take us forward in that area. It is an important part of what we need to do.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
John Michael Howell (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend may be aware that I did an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship in the law with judges, and my experience of the different courts I went to showed the enormous gap between the commercial courts, which were technologically very superior, and the tribunal system, where we might as well have been using a quill pen. Is this reform going to solve that problem?
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): Our court reform programme as a whole, which I will come on to, will ensure that we use technology wherever possible. It is right that we embrace that. The Bill is part of the process—it is not all of the process—that will ensure that we modernise. I have cited in the past ways in which artificial intelligence, for example, is being used within the legal profession. An example I have given is a case where AI was used to check a number of contracts to spot potential errors. The rate of success of the AI was somewhat better than that of the experienced lawyers, and if I remember rightly the task was done in 26 seconds rather than 92 minutes. I make that point to illustrate the opportunities in terms of technology and the law.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander John Gervase Chalk (Conservative, Centre-right): Innovation and modernisation are vital, but will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to recognise that the single most important strength of our judicial system is the judiciary who work in it and that everything must be done to ensure that we have a broad pipeline of talent so that they continue to be the best in the world?
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): I very much agree. We have a judicial system that is widely respected around the world for its independence and excellence, and that must long continue. I suspect that my hon. Friend is hinting at the question of how we can get more outstanding candidates to apply to the judiciary. It is right that we should address that challenge. He is right to suggest that this is one of our strengths as a country. It will be important in the years ahead as we leave the European Union that our legal system should continue to be widely respected. I believe that there are great opportunities for the UK to become even stronger as a legal centre, and I am keen for that to happen.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): The Secretary of State makes an important point about the balance that needs to be struck in these areas. He has given an example of the use of artificial intelligence being appropriate for the checking of documents, and work on dealing with disclosure parameters has already been successfully piloted by the Serious Fraud Office. Would he concede that there is a distinction to be drawn between those essentially transactional but important operations, such as disclosure searches, and the application of human judgment that should be brought to, for example, a charging decision by the SFO? Does he agree that any determination of the facts or issues of a case should clearly be done by a human judge, having heard the arguments, and that their workload could be slimmed down but not replaced by the use of AI?
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree. I note that my hon. Friends are all quick to make the case for the importance of the skilled human being in these circumstances, and rightly so. We must remember that technology is our servant and not our master I make these points because our court reform programme is being undertaken in the context of an embracive technology and the Bill is an aspect of that programme. I will digress no further because it is not essentially a technology-based Bill. However, to follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the importance of skilled individuals will continue to be key, and the Bill will ensure that the time of our most skilled individuals—our judges—is deployed as efficiently as possible.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Nigel Paul Huddleston (Conservative, Centre-right): I have to say that innovation and modernisation are not normally things that we associate with our courts. Given the feedback that has already come in on things such as making responses on juries online, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not only useful to the courts but makes life easier for the public?
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): Absolutely; that is a key point. Perhaps my hon. Friend has set my Department the challenge of ensuring that people associate the modernisation of technology with the court system. We will know that we have succeeded when he tells us that that is the case. He makes the strong point that this is ultimately about delivering justice. We need to have strong support for the process involved and ensure the satisfaction of those who need to resolve a dispute or to undertake a process. The early signs from our work with online divorce processes are encouraging, and the feedback has been very positive.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not think that the hon. Lady is correct in the association that she makes. The reality is that we have to ensure that our resources are deployed as efficiently as possible. That is to the benefit of the system as a whole. I will make the case in more detail as to why the steps taken in the Bill to give authorised staff greater responsibility to undertake some roles that they are currently unable to undertake will be to the benefit of the system as a whole. I make no apology for wanting to find efficiencies within the system, but this is in the context of a £1 billion court reform programme. Those efficiencies can improve the experience of the users of the system, and could also ensure that judges will be able to use their time in the areas that are most useful to them. Indeed, the experience of authorised Courts and Tribunals Service staff will be a more positive one, as they will be able to make a greater contribution to the efficient running of the court system.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Simon James Hoare (Conservative, Centre-right): Setting aside the whys and wherefores of the Bill, may I invite my right hon. Friend to confirm from the Dispatch Box that the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers between the judiciary and Parliament will be absolutely sacrosanct and at the heart of everything that he, his ministerial colleagues and the Department will do? This is an issue of great concern to many people, irrespective of the Bill, and people always need to have faith that this central pillar of how we are governed in this country will remain intact, protected and preserved.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to respond to that point. The independence of the judiciary is at the heart of our system and a long-standing part of it. It is as important, if not more important, than it has ever been that we reiterate that and support those institutions. As I was saying a moment ago, this is a big part of what our nation is about, and in the years ahead, after we have left the European Union, one of the most important institutions to us will be our independent judiciary. It is a large part of what the UK is about and of how we should project ourselves around the rest of the world.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Jeremy John Elton Lefroy (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend is making a strong case. Perhaps this is for another time, but in the context of having a strong, independent judiciary, will he look again at the rather arbitrary cap of the age of 70 for magistrates? We have many really qualified people who wish to contribute to the independent justice system of this country but who are prevented from doing so simply because of their age.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Government Operations
Alexander John Gervase Chalk (Conservative, Centre-right): Building on the point that was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) about independence, may we have an assurance that under the Bill the procedure rule committees that decide what the authorised staff can do will be able to exercise that discretion free from any interference from the centre, so that they can ensure that only those jobs that ought properly to be delegated to those staff are so delegated, and that extraneous considerations such as cost need not be forced upon them when they make their decisions?
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend brings me back to the Bill and makes a good point—one which came up on several occasions during the deliberations in the other place about the extent to which we should be prescriptive, or whether powers should be left with the rule committees. I share his instinct that as much as possible should be left to the rule committees, because they are best placed to make such assessments. Indeed, that leads to points made by distinguished retired judges in the other place about not being over-prescriptive. Such matters may be a point of discussion this afternoon or at the Bill’s later stages I now turn to the Bill in greater detail. The measures will help to provide the greater flexibility and responsiveness that we need within our court system. That includes freeing up judges’ time from the most routine tasks associated with court cases. The Bill will build on existing powers that already enable staff in most courts and tribunals to be authorised to exercise some of the functions of judges. It will continue to allow appropriately qualified and experienced staff in the civil, family and magistrates courts, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Court of Protection and tribunals to be authorised to carry out uncontroversial and straightforward judicial functions under judicial supervision. The Bill will enable those arrangements to be extended for the first time to the Crown court, where court officers can only currently undertake formal and administrative matters. Allowing court and tribunal staff to exercise a wider range of judicial functions will potentially free judges up from undertaking more regular tasks, such as changing the start time of a hearing or changing a pre-trial preparation hearing date, so that they can focus on the more substantive matters of the case.