argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Immigration Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-20
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I do not wish to continue that bit of the discussion, but perhaps I might put into a future discussion a question on payment of compensation. The Minister referred to the court being able to pay compensation. Under paragraph 9, it can make any order it regards as appropriate—but a separate paragraph 15, on compensation, requires an application to be made. I think he said that guidance would be given under paragraph 9(5) but I am not sure how paragraphs 9 and 15 work together. I do not expect an answer now; that would not be fair. But I would be grateful if I could have some clarity—others may understand it perfectly—as to how those two paragraphs work together I will not test the patience of the Committee by responding to other points. No doubt the Question on Clause 12 is about to be put. We will not at this moment object to it.
Immigration Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-20
Topic: Government Operations
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I will move Amendment 158 very briefly. This amendment came about as a result of the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I will not explain the detail of the clause because I am aware that the Minister intends to make a full response to the DPRR report—as I understand it, before Report. I am moving this amendment in order to ask that we get that response in reasonable time just in case we do not agree with what the Government have to say. If that is the case, we may want to use Report stage as the last opportunity to put down an amendment similar to this one. I beg to move.
Armed Forces Bill — House of Lords, 2016-02-11
Topic: Law and Crime
John Burnett (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. The thrust of Sergeant Blackman’s case is that he shot a man he thought was dead; we should all be careful about what we say about the case, because the papers are now with the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and we await what its judgment will be on the facts.
Armed Forces Bill — House of Lords, 2016-02-11
Topic: Law and Crime
Donald Thomas (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The noble Earl will know that murder is under universal jurisdiction. Do I take it that murder cases arising out of the IHAT investigations, for example, will be referred to the civil court or to courts martial in this country?
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-27
Topic: Social Welfare
Zahida Manzoor (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, we on these Benches have added our name to Amendments 36 to 38. We also support Amendment 40. The amendment is similar to the one that we put down in Committee when it was debated at great length. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I do not intend to rehearse that contribution again today. Excellent reasons have already been given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, as to why exceptions should be made to the two-child limit on receipt of tax credits and the child element of universal credit I want to pose a few questions. For those who did not sit through Committee stage, I will read out the exemptions we seek. Under Amendment 38, we seek an exemption if, "the claimant responsible for children in the household is a single claimant as a result of being bereaved of their partner"— I ask the Government, where is the choice in that?— "the claimant has fled their previous partner as a result of domestic abuse"— where is the choice in that?— "the child or qualifying young person has a disability"— where is the choice in that?— "the child or qualifying young person is in the household as a result of a kinship care arrangement, private fostering arrangement, or adoption"— where is the choice in that?— "or … the claimant was previously entitled to an award for the child or qualifying young person and has re-partnered creating a household with more than two children" Of course, there is a little bit of choice in that. It is love, which we can believe in or not, but sometimes we do not choose who we want to partner Effectively, these circumstances are beyond the control of the claimants. This amendment attempts to demonstrate that the first responsibility is to the child. It must be so, otherwise what kind of society are we really creating? I was, and I remain, particularly concerned that, despite the Government’s laudable commitment to exclude women who have had a child as a result of rape from the two-child limit policy, the Minister did not explain to my satisfaction how this exemption would operate. I will not go into that debate again. It is such a sensitive area. Perhaps he will explain today. Should this amendment be voted on, we on these Benches will wholeheartedly support it.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-27
Topic: Social Welfare
Zahida Manzoor (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on this amendment. Once again, we had a very good debate in Committee, and, in her usual fashion, the noble Baroness has laid out a very comprehensive argument with which I concur absolutely. I can therefore add very little to that argument except to press the Minister again to say why the well-being of children is not being factored in when it already has been. For noble Lords who were not in the Chamber earlier, I will read what the amendment says. This is all is says—which is why I have difficulty in understanding why it cannot be in the Bill. The amendment states: "In preparing a claimant commitment for a claimant, the Secretary of State shall have regard (so far as is practicable) to its impact on the wellbeing of any child who may be affected by it" What is so wrong with that?
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-27
Topic: Social Welfare
Zahida Manzoor (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I have tabled this new clause because I think it is fundamentally important. Noble Lords will recollect that Members of all parties and none were pleased when the Chancellor dropped his plans to cut tax credits. That happened only because of the pressure put upon him by this House I have put down this amendment because the universal credit changes are identical to the tax credit changes, so the arguments are almost identical. Although the universal credit changes come in later and will affect the flow, not the stock, of claimants, they will have exactly the same effect as the tax credit cuts. This impact has been confirmed both in the Red Book and by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which says that the tax credit cuts will, in the long run, make no difference, as the cuts to universal credit will affect the very same people. On average, low-income working people will lose £1,000—again echoing the tax credit cuts.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-27
Topic: Social Welfare
Jonathan Oates (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Manzoor. One day before I entered this House the Government were defeated on tax credits. The Government were very upset but conceded the issue. Except that they did not—they found another way to cut support for hard-working people on low incomes. It was a more obscure way and they hoped that we would not notice it and that their attempts to bully this House might make us kow-tow As my noble friends Lady Manzoor and Lord Kirkwood have set out, these changes to UC have similar impacts on the same people as the tax credit changes. The Liberal Democrats strongly supported universal credit in government because we believed that it would increase work incentives. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be as dismayed as we are that his UC policy is being so consistently undermined by the Chancellor. I am sorry that we are not there any more to help resist that but we shall do so in this Chamber. If we opposed the tax credit changes, it is beyond me why we would not oppose these changes. The Government have no mandate for the changes—quite the contrary. The Conservative manifesto says that the aim of welfare reform should be to reward hard work and protect the vulnerable. The changes in regulations do the opposite. Not only do they have no mandate, their manifesto requires that they should oppose such changes It would be great if Peers on the Benches opposite were to support us—although that may be rather hopeful—but, if they are not willing to do so, they should not trouble themselves to make protestations to the public that they are on the side of the working poor. I await with interest to hear the position of the Official Opposition. I hope that Labour Peers will support us and that, if they were planning not to, they will reconsider. What is the point of all the controversy and antagonism that took place over the tax credits votes if, only three months later, we allow measures that impact on the same people in a similar way to go through? If Labour does not support us through the same opposition that it showed in the House of Commons, as my noble friend Lord Kirkwood pointed out, there will not be any point in it weeping tears of regret when the impact of these measures comes to be felt by the public. It will not be able to wash away its failure to stand with us tonight and to stand up for working people.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-27
Topic: Social Welfare
Zahida Manzoor (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, which was very considered. I also thank my noble friends Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope and Lord Oates for supporting me on this amendment. I understand clearly the argument that the Front Bench has put forward and I get the argument because, like the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, I am very interested in evidence-based decision-making. As a relative newcomer to this House, I sometimes think that we put the cart before the horse, as we saw earlier on when the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke in relation to another amendment—let us do something and then see what the effects are afterwards. But we are talking about real people with real lives, not just figures to be moved around in the budget. These cuts will have an impact on those people’s lives I said earlier at Second Reading, a long time ago it seems, that we on these Benches are looking at the Welfare Reform and Work Bill through the prism of work; that is what is really important to us. It is about getting more and more people off benefits and into long-term, sustainable, well-paid work—that is the purpose of this. I do not feel that, as it currently stands, this will be achieved. I have articulated not my figures, but figures from respected bodies, which have indicated what the impact of this cut to universal credit work allowance will be I say, again, to all noble Lords on all sides of the House, this amendment is different. It is not like the amendment on tax credits, where there was an issue about constitutional matters—though I took wide advice before I put down my fatal amendment and noble Lords will know that I did not speak in the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde had; I have immense respect for him—this is something that will affect people’s lives. As I said, 2.6 million individuals are going to be affected. We cannot have this inconsistency in our approach. I passionately believe in consistency and I passionately believe in equality and fairness and this will not allow that to happen. We will see two sets of people who are in very similar or indeed identical circumstances being paid different rates of benefit. That cannot be right. I really do not want to be seen as a rebel in this House, as somebody has called me; that is certainly not my intention. But, for me, this is the principle of the matter and it is on that basis that I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-27
Topic: Social Welfare
Zahida Manzoor (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I shall be brief. Noble Lords can see very clearly what the issue is—it is technical and rather complicated. It is now late. If the Minister will give the assurance that he is happy to meet me and the Child Poverty Action Group so that we can discuss the amendment in greater detail, that will be really helpful and will save me having to go through a very complex explanation. I beg to move.
Local Democracy in the United Kingdom — House of Lords, 2016-01-28
Topic: Government Operations
John Warren Shipley (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which we will study with great care. Clearly, we have a lot of thinking to do on the issues, given the contributions that have been made from across your Lordships’ House. I thank all those who have participated, in particular those who made their maiden speeches today I have one comment on the Minister’s reply. He said that—I think I recall his wording correctly—with proportional representation people can get a Government they did not vote for. I remind him that the present Government are not supported by 63% of the general public and that on 37%, people have not got the Government they voted for—because they did not vote for them.
Arms Sales: Saudi Arabia — House of Lords, 2016-01-28
Topic: International Affairs
William John Lawrence Wallace (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that my party has been doubtful about how close the British Government have become with the Saudis and the other Gulf monarchies over recent years, and about the particular emphasis on selling as many arms as possible to all of them which has characterised Conservative policy. It was a matter of dispute within the coalition, particularly over a number of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and it continues to be a concern of ours, recognising that once you have sold the weapons systems, the argument for resupplying the armaments that they use becomes very strong if you want to carry on selling weapons. That is part of the difficulty we are in Can we be assured that the Government are intervening very actively with the Saudis to influence what is happening in Yemen, where it seems that the Saudi Government are overpersuaded that this is an Iranian plot, rather than a complex intertribal war among a number of local players? Are the Government considering whether the Bahraini Government—a Sunni minority governing a Shia majority—should pay for the expansion of the British base there, so that we may end up being dependent on the Sunni monarchies in what risks becoming a Sunni-Shia conflict across the Middle East?
Adult Education and Lifelong Learning — House of Lords, 2016-01-28
Topic: Education
Margaret Sharp (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in what I think has been an extremely good debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for an extremely stimulating maiden speech and, even more so, my noble friend Lady Williams for a really memorable valedictory speech, which many of us will go away remembering for many a long year Adult education and lifelong learning is a very wide-ranging subject, and we have touched on a very large number of issues during the debate. We have gone from basic skills and ESOL through to digital skills. We have looked at growing confidence on the one hand to neurological pathways on the other. I, for one, am reassured by the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, told us that as we grow older our learning capacities need not get worse—sometimes I am not sure about that. In all, it has been an extremely stimulating debate. Looking at the wide-ranging facets of this subject has been extremely useful, as has having different people being able to talk about different subjects The Minister, whom I thank for an extremely comprehensive response to the debate, is very optimistic; some people are more optimistic than others about the future of this area. I hope that the Minister is right to be as optimistic as she is because, as she says, this area of our educational system is vital to the strength of our economy in the future. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for contributing to such a good debate.
Trade Union Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-11
Topic: Government Operations
Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Minister refers to the Conservative Party manifesto. Does she also recall it said that a Conservative Government would continue to seek agreement on a comprehensive package of party funding reform? They have had eight months to fulfil that promise. What have they done?
Trade Union Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-11
Topic: Government Operations
Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): As an amendment to the above Motion, leave out "Committee of the Whole House" and insert "Select Committee in respect of clauses 10 and 11, in the light of the failure to take steps to implement the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in their report Political party finance: ending the big donor culture".
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-14
Topic: Government Operations
John Warren Shipley (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am very pleased to have the movement that the Minister has announced. Perhaps I can make one further suggestion, because I am still not entirely clear what the timing of all this is, because, as I recall, last Thursday, the Minister said that we would not have further information about regulation on aspects of the Bill until after Royal Assent. To pursue the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, there is an issue about the Government’s plan to use the negative procedure, as opposed to the affirmative procedure, in secondary legislation. I draw the Minister’s attention to the two reports by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which had a lot to say on that. If the negative procedure is used and if the working group comes up with proposals which post-date Royal Assent, that makes it very difficult for the House to make any changes to the Bill. Therefore, accompanying the proposal to have a working group I hope that the Minister can now at least think with colleagues about how the strong criticisms of the committee about overuse of the negative procedure can be addressed.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Warren Shipley (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 79A in this group, along with that of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. However, I also support Amendment 70A and other probing amendments Amendment 79A is our attempt to consider the threshold, which the Government had defined as £30,000 outside London and £40,000 inside London, and which the amendment increases to £40,000 outside London and £60,000 in London. It is a probing amendment. However, our view is that the taper starts too low at the figures that the Government originally decided on. Therefore, I hope there is an opportunity for them to look carefully at whether there is a good case, as we think there is, for the minimum threshold to be much higher. That would save a great deal of administration and associated costs. Be that as it may, I hope the Minister will explain why those figures are deemed too high, because I suspect they are more reasonable than the ones on which the Government have decided.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill — House of Lords, 2016-02-29
Topic: Social Welfare
Zahida Manzoor (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward his amendment, and I am pleased that the Government have seen sense on the need to publish these important measures. They will help policymakers and others better to understand the issues affecting child poverty and the levers that may be used to help to lift children out of poverty. The argument with the Government was never really about their life chances measures, which it is clear will provide an important point of reference for policy interventions in the incredibly complex and multifaceted problem of child poverty. It was about understanding that, while child attainment and parental worklessness are important to understanding the problem, the money in a parent’s pocket is still important to understand when seeking to help to lift children out of poverty. I understand the Minister’s concerns that focusing entirely on income risks the "poverty plus a pound" approach to policy. However, I equally understand that, for example, an intervention in the cost of transport may help to boost attainment, because you can understand that the cost of the bus for extra classes costs more than most of the families that you are trying to help can actually afford. That means that you must have access to data on income; that is important. These four additional measures will help, and not hinder, the Government’s attempt to take a more active approach to this issue. I am particularly pleased with the inclusion of the long-term poverty measure in subsection (1)(d), and I suspect that there may even be policy officials within DWP itself who will find that measure helpful in developing interventions This is a good compromise and I am pleased that the Minister has been able to achieve it. Thank you.