argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Jo Cox MP — House of Lords, 2016-06-20
Topic: Civil Rights
Kathryn Pinnock (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, Jo Cox was my MP. She was savagely attacked and murdered on a street just yards from the marketplace where we were due to meet that very afternoon to campaign together on an issue about which we both cared passionately: Europe. It was not to be Jo had strongly held, principled views. She was willing to work with all those who would help to make a difference. Following her murder, there has been an outpouring of love for Jo. The floral tributes placed in the marketplace grow daily. Yesterday, more than 100 came in just one hour. The messages speak of real help given, concerns listened to and anxieties lightened People in her constituency of Batley and Spen knew who she was. Jo, in her too-brief time as our MP, visited countless schools, community groups and businesses. Everywhere she went, she gave support and encouragement. "Be ambitious: yes, you can" was her mantra. "Keep positive. Be hopeful" The evening she died, the local church in Birstall held a vigil. The church was packed; it was literally standing room only. Those who came included people of all faiths and none: Christians, Muslims and Sikhs mourning together The following day, I had reason to walk into Birstall. In Yorkshire, when you meet someone in the street, you say hello. That day, the mood was heavy and sombre. Nobody wanted to speak, so there were no words. But there was an understanding that what had happened to Jo was a tragedy beyond words: an awful, barbaric attack which left a huge, overwhelming sense of the loss of a special person whose life had been so brutally cut short. And, yes, a sense of anger that our democracy had been violently besmirched I was speaking to some young people yesterday. Jo had been to their school several times. At first they said that no one was interested in politics because it was pointless, but not any more. Jo had enthused many, especially girls, to see what can be achieved through political campaigning We in Batley and Spen have lost a remarkable MP. The country has lost a spirited advocate for the poor and dispossessed wherever they live. Her family has lost the person they love. We are all the poorer for her passing.
Children and Social Work Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-10-18
Topic: Civil Rights
Anthony Lester (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I did not take part in earlier stages of the Bill and it may be that the question I am going to ask was answered earlier, in which case I apologise. I would like the Minister to explain why the Bill contains no statement that, in his opinion, the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. My understanding is that that is what the Human Rights Act requires. It may be that there is a very good technical explanation.
Children and Social Work Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-10-18
Topic: Other
Anthony Lester (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am very grateful. I gather that the reason for my mistake is that version that we now have does not have the compatibility statement, but I think that the original version did. I am grateful.
Children and Social Work Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-10-18
Topic: Other
Joan Walmsley (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but I would like him to clarify what he was saying to my noble friend Lady Tyler. He mentioned that if the expert group says that the gist of what she is recommending should be in place, the Government will be prepared to legislate. Legislative opportunities being so few and far between, can he assure the House that a suitable vehicle, in the form of a Bill, will be available in this Parliament to achieve that, should the expert group make that recommendation?
Children and Social Work Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-10-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
Kathryn Pinnock (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for raising this issue. It looked a fairly innocuous amendment when I read it in the Marshalled List but out has come a really powerful case, based on an actual case that went before the courts, for a change in the Government’s legislation. So far as I can tell, there have been no answers as a result of that appalling tragedy, which was partly brought about by the judgment of the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, is challenging the Government to be as responsive to errors in the courts as they are to errors in social services safeguarding practices. There is a case to be answered and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
EU Referendum: Voter Registration — House of Lords, 2016-06-08
Topic: Civil Rights
Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am not going to go back to the memories of 27 October. Perhaps the noble Baroness might remind some of her colleagues who failed to vote for my Motion that night. Obviously, what happened last night was damaging, and particularly for young people who for the first time were hoping to register to vote. Can the Minister confirm that, as of midnight last night, we were all well aware that something had gone wrong? Why was Section 4 of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 not then immediately put in motion? A draft SI could have been submitted to the two Houses today under the super-affirmative process and we could have dealt with this immediately. Does the Minister not recognise that, even as a result of the discussions in another place, which I followed carefully, there is still some real confusion as to what is going to happen with postal and proxy votes, which also have a deadline? No Statement has been made in your Lordships’ House or the other place on that matter. There is lots of confusion here, and it should be cleared up very quickly.
EU Referendum: Voter Registration — House of Lords, 2016-06-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Rennard (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, does the Minister accept that part of the problem is that many people think the system is automatically registering them when it is not and it should be? A significant part of the recent problem is that people cannot tell immediately whether they are registered. We urgently need an online system by which people can check whether they are registered. Only then will they know whether they need to complete the process.
Calais Jungle — House of Lords, 2016-10-10
Topic: Immigration
Shaista Sheehan (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I have spent much time in the camp in Calais over the course of both this year and last year, and I returned from my most recent visit just this weekend. There is very good reason to believe that the camp will start to be demolished on Monday 17 October. In a meeting with camp associations last week, the police said that when the demolitions start they will be, in their words, swift and violent. Therefore, I am sorry that in responding to the Urgent Question, the Minister did not say that she made strong representations to her French counterpart that the demolition planned for Monday 17 October be delayed to make more time available to remove children to safety so that they do not disappear, as they did last time. Will she ask the Home Secretary to take heed of the joint statement issued by the Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, and her French counterpart, expressing their extreme disquiet at the lack of planning and provision for the children in the face of the impending demolition of the Jungle camp?
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-17
Topic: Other
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has set perhaps the hardest task for the Minister today in asking him to comment on what was perhaps not a coded speech but simply one inviting speculation Turning to the amendment itself, as on the first day of Report we are sympathetic to where the noble Baroness is coming from. Indeed, I think we had an amendment on "reasonable suspicion" at an earlier stage. However, perhaps again I should phrase what I have to say as a request for confirmation, as my noble friend Lord Paddick did last week. Reasonable suspicion is encompassed by the necessity and proportionality test. The way the noble Baroness has expressed it is that there is a moderate-sized hurdle to be got over and then a higher hurdle to be surmounted, by having "reasonable suspicion" and then the necessity and proportionality test. To keep up the athletic metaphor, you will not get over the higher hurdle even if you get over the lower one, so it seems to us that you might as well just have the higher hurdle. Perhaps we can be given some more assurances about how the different criteria will bite.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-17
Topic: Other
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I should obviously have included something like the words "except as otherwise required by law". I am grateful for that explanation and I am sympathetic to the Government trying to get everything into the Bill, but here we find yet another example of another piece of legislation that we need to look at. However, it is helpful to have the explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Paul Strasburger (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 100C, 100D and 100E which have been very ably explained by my noble friend Lord Paddick When vague and non-specific legislation comes before us, it is perhaps because its authors are unable to be more precise because they have not thought it through or because they choose to not share the details with us. Whichever reason applies in the case of the request filter, there is no doubt that Clauses 64, 65 and 66 are notable more for what they do not say than for what they do. Despite the best efforts of both the Joint Committees on which I had the privilege of sitting—the one on this Bill and the one that examined the draft Communications Data Bill in 2012, in which the request filter first appeared—we are none the wiser about the request filter architecture, how it will work, who will develop it and who will operate it We have only to look at an obscure section in an elderly piece of legislation—the Telecommunications Act 1984—to see how overbroad drafting can lead to unintended consequences. Years ago, Section 94 of that Act was used by the Home Office secretly to create a brand new, highly intrusive power—namely, bulk acquisition of communications data—which the Government, to their credit, are now bringing in from the cold in this Bill. For a long time, however, the existence and use of this power carried on without the approval, or even the knowledge, of Parliament. Quite by chance, just a few hours ago, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that this very powerful secret power of bulk acquisition of communications data, which was created out of that vague section in the Telecommunications Act 1984, has been used illegally by the intelligence and security services for 10 years. We must guard against carelessly passing clauses so vague as to be open to misuse.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-17
Topic: Other
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am sorry to have confused the noble and learned Lord. I was simply trying to explain that we are seeking to achieve the same thing, but that the Government have done better than we have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse — House of Lords, 2016-10-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The concern that we have is that because this inquiry is taking such a long time, there might be some obvious weaknesses in the way that these cases are currently being dealt with that could be addressed but are being put off because the inquiry is still ongoing.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-17
Topic: Other
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am very grateful to the Minister. I am not sure that he is entirely reassured that the government amendments will deal with this issue, but I accept that that is because he did not have sight of my example prior to the debate. I regret not giving him notice that I would be bringing it up. However, given all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I also have Amendments 178A, 178B and 178C in this group We mentioned in Committee how inextricably intertwined are technical and legal matters in this area. I doubt that either Minister would disagree with that, having lived with this Bill as they have. Whether and how the Act will apply will be a matter of legal interpretation in the context of the technology that we have at the time. Our Amendment 134A would give the Investigatory Powers Commissioner power to publish material regarding legal interpretations. It is clear that he would keep the interpretations under review, so this amendment is simply a matter of having the power to publish them We welcome government Amendment 178 and its consequential amendments providing for a Technology Advisory Panel. We have three minor amendments seeking either clarification or adjustment. Subsection (1)(a) of the new clause provides for the panel to give advice on, "the impact of changing technology on the exercise of investigatory powers" We would insert there a reference to the safeguards on the exercise of powers. That may be implicit, because the exercise of powers is to be subject to safeguards, but we think it should be explicit. After all, safeguards have been very much a feature of debate on the Bill in both Houses, and the Bill has changed quite a lot in spelling out what safeguards there are Similarly, Amendment 178B would insert advice on the interpretation of the law in the light of technological advances and necessary amendments to legislation. It is, if you like, a first cousin to Amendment 134A On Amendment 178C, given that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and Ministers will be required to consider the privacy implications when exercising powers relating to new technology, it would be helpful for the Technology Advisory Panel to be required to have regard to those same matters—that is, those matters set out in the privacy clause, Clause 2. That would be not only helpful but appropriate. After all, as an advisory panel, it must have regard to how those exercising the powers would be constrained in exercising them. I beg to move.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-17
Topic: Civil Rights
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I recognise that this is Report stage. I was aware, of course, that the panel will not be a public authority, and that is why I framed Amendment 178C as I did: the Technology Advisory Panel would need to, "have regard to the matters", in Clause 2, rather than be bound by them. I suggested the amendment because subsection (1)(b) of government Amendment 178 talks about, "minimising interference with privacy", and that seemed to me not nearly as strong as the privacy clause, Clause 2, which we took to bits but welcomed earlier in the passage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 134A.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-17
Topic: Civil Rights
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanations, which I will take time and care to read particularly in relation to Amendments 137B to 137F, the latter amendments. Regarding Amendment 137A, I am still concerned at what might happen should somebody bring an action before the European Court of Human Rights, bearing in mind what it has said about the importance of informing people who have been the subject of targeted surveillance. However, at this stage I am prepared to leave that to the courts rather than to the House this evening and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-17
Topic: Other
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, that is helpful and it has enabled me to make my point, which may of course be one that we will come back to, depending on how we view the codes when we come to deal with them. I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Orlando Terrorist Attack — House of Lords, 2016-06-13
Topic: Civil Rights
Elizabeth Barker (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, earlier today on Twitter, David Morgan said this: "If you’re not gay you might not know how rare it can be to feel welcome and safe in a space. To be gunned down in one of them is horrific" That is why today members of my community are shocked and we mourn, just as we did 17 years ago when the Admiral Duncan pub was bombed. What have the security services and the Government learned in the intervening period about how to prevent hate crimes being perpetrated on minority communities Will the Government consider convening a meeting with leaders of faith groups and the LGBT community so that we might begin a dialogue about how the many millions of moderate members of religious groups can be assisted to detect and prevent the radicalisation and hatred to which some members of their communities are sometimes vulnerable, so that as a result of that work we might have communities that are diverse, inclusive and safe for all?
Terrorist Attack in Nice — House of Lords, 2016-07-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and congratulate her on her new appointment, which I personally warmly welcome. I say "personally" because I am sure she will be a formidable adversary, but I welcome her on a personal level. I add our condolences from these Benches to all those affected by the horrific events in Nice—a truly horrifying massacre of innocent people As a result of my research on the Investigatory Powers Bill, I have been privileged to visit the headquarters of MI6 and GCHQ in recent months, and have been astounded by what those services are capable of and the work that they do. They deserve the highest praise. I know from personal experience in the police service of the expertise that exists in terms of policing events involving public order where large numbers of people gather. I am greatly reassured by the combination of those two bodies in the UK. Can the Minister comment on what appears to be a worrying trend that, far from being devout religious individuals holding extreme religious views, the people involved in these sorts of attacks are socially excluded, vulnerable petty criminals influenced by those advocating violent extremism based on a grotesque distortion of true Islam? I want to make an important distinction: they are being influenced by violent extremism, which should be seen as distinct from simply extremism, which the Statement mentioned Whether terrorist outrages are carefully pre-planned events, planned and co-ordinated by Daesh from Syria, or the actions of lone wolves inspired by Daesh, preventing them effectively depends on the sharing of intelligence across international boundaries. We need to know where to concentrate our limited resources, based on that intelligence. Can the Minister reassure the House that saving human lives will be placed above Brexit politics, and that the new Foreign Secretary is urgently acting to preserve and enhance links with our European Union partners so that effective counterterrorism co-operation improves rather than declines as a result of the UK leaving the European Union?
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-07-18
Topic: Other
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I meant September; that was wishful thinking. I do not suppose that that sandwich arrangement would be particularly welcome to Ministers either, but it will not deter us from raising issues on either Bill which we feel must be raised. On the same basis as it takes longer to write a piece for the Sun than for the Guardian, there may be rather a lot of amendments.
Conflict in Fragile States — House of Lords, 2016-09-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Rajinder Paul Loomba (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for her positive and very encouraging response. Many noble Lords have read the World Widows Report 2015 and talked about it. I just want to say one thing about why I started this work. I actually grew up as a widow’s son. I was only 10 years old when my father passed away and I saw the suffering and discrimination that my mother faced. She sacrificed all her comforts to educate her seven children, and I was educated in America. When she passed away, I set up this charity in her memory because I wanted to uplift the image of widows. They should not be treated in the way they have been treated Once again, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this debate, especially as it has been held quite late on the last day before the House rises. I look forward to working with the Government on these issues in the future.
Border Force Budget 2016-17 — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, while handbags at dawn over the Border Force budget between the chair of the Commons Home Affairs Committee and the Home Secretary might be entertaining, the crucial question must be whether Border Force has and will continue to have the resources it needs to safeguard UK borders from threats of foreign terrorism and illegal immigration, bearing in mind that the Home Secretary has now confirmed that the budget for the Border Force is decreasing while it would appear that the threats are increasing.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Housing
Rosalind Grender (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I support Amendments 98 and 99 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. We are all familiar with some of the hair-raising examples of how many people have been found in some raided properties. Recently, in Newham, seven people were found in a windowless basement. Overall, there were 26 people in that three-bedroom house. In another recent raid, 47 people were found in a property intended for nine. This level of overcrowding goes beyond any notion of civilised accommodation. Issues such as affordability, illegal lettings, economic migrants and particularly the acute property issue in London all impact on these kinds of properties. That is why we on these Benches support the amendments When I worked for Shelter in 1985, we campaigned hard for the Housing Act, which covered some of this area. But clearly we now need to update the legislation, in particular because, even if the percentage of overcrowded accommodation has stayed reasonably static, the net amount is increasing because the private rented sector is increasing, and as the private rented sector grows, this becomes more of a problem. For those reasons we support the noble Baroness’s amendments.