argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Wales Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-26
Topic: Other
Nicholas Bourne (Conservative, Centre-right): That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Wales Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2, Clause 4, Schedule 3, Clauses 5 to 20, Schedule 4, Clauses 21 and 22, Clause 3, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 23 to 53, Schedule 5, Clause 54, Schedule 6, Clauses 55 and 56, Title.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): Perhaps I can provide further clarification, although I am not sure that it will clarify matters much better. Clause 18 talks about, "the economic interests of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom" Clause 62 of the Investigatory Powers Bill says, "in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security" There is a variation in the drafting of the two Bills because the provisions serve entirely different purposes. It is right that where authority is being sought to obtain communications data or to issue warrants for the purpose of the economic well-being of the UK, it should be done only where it is also relevant to the interests of national security. In Clause 18 of this Bill, the definition of "sensitive information" is intended to provide a safeguard to ensure that, whenever the IPCC handles particular types of information that originate from the security services or from government departments, it checks with the relevant authority before disclosing that information. The noble Lord does not look convinced but I hope that that has provided further clarification.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-26
Topic: Other
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I would have to look at the exact words that the previous Prime Minister used before I contradicted the noble Lord. I certainly do not want to contradict the noble Lord. In terms of the process, both the current Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister were clear that Leveson 2 could not proceed until Leveson 1 was concluded.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-26
Topic: Mixed Topics
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I think what I outlined in my speech to noble Lords was that the director-general would need to outline how he proposes the board will work and his position in it. The Bill recognises the need for transparency, as the noble Lord pointed out. It places a requirement on the director-general to publish a statement of policy on the exercise of these particular powers of recruitment. I imagine that if he decided to have a board full of former police officers he would want to explain why, in his particular case, this was necessary.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-26
Topic: Other
John Gummer (Conservative, Centre-right): I did not quite understand the bit about things that have not yet been invented. The reason I did not understand is that I am not sure that I would be very happy about giving powers to give permission for the use of something that has not been invented, because I do not know whether what has not been invented would be something that I would like to give people the powers to use, if you see what I mean. This is a very dangerous route down which to go.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-26
Topic: Other
John Attlee (Conservative, Centre-right): My noble friend does not need to worry about that at all, because it will be under the affirmative procedure, so Ministers will have to justify it. I have to say that future-proofing this seems to me to be a sensible thing to do, although on the other hand I slightly have sympathy for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-10-26
Topic: Other
Caroline Chisholm (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, Amendments 168, 171 and 173 are minor and technical amendments to update and clarify the arrangements for designated staff and volunteers to use their powers. I do not wish to detain your Lordships unnecessarily, but, if required, I can talk further about each amendment. For now, I beg to move Amendment 168.
Bus Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-23
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Tariq Ahmad (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who has tabled a number of amendments that aim to restrict the ability of the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate franchising schemes for a period of two years unless it has received a complaint, or has become aware of a significant adverse effect on competition Let me start with government Amendment 1. As noble Lords will recall, the Competition and Markets Authority issued a letter on the Bill on 29 June which contained nine recommendations. Our response to these recommendations was issued on 10 October and is now on the GOV.UK website. One of these recommendations was for the CMA to be listed as a statutory consultee in relation to consulting on franchising proposals. The Government accepted this recommendation and tabled Amendment 1 The CMA is already a statutory consultee in relation to advanced quality partnership, advanced ticketing and enhanced partnership schemes. I take the view that it would be helpful for franchising authorities to engage with the CMA as they develop their proposals. This should help ensure that the authority developing its franchising proposals is made aware of any potential effects on competition, and the benefits or impacts this could have for bus operators and local people I now turn to Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. As I mentioned on Report, the CMA will not have any specific powers to block bus franchising schemes. However, it is important to remember that their role is to conduct market studies and investigations in markets where there may be competition and consumer problems, with the aim of improving the situation for passengers. We believe that any restriction of the powers available to the CMA would send the wrong message about its important role in protecting consumers. As such, I urge the noble Lord not to move his amendment In addition, as the noble Lord may be aware, Schedule 10 to the Transport Act 2000, which the noble Lord seeks to amend, does not give the CMA the power to investigate franchising schemes. The schedule provides a competition framework in which partnership schemes should operate. As such, the noble Lord’s amendment does not appear in the relevant section of the Bill I hope that this explanation and the assurances I have given—we have met in this regard as well—have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I know he recognises the important role that the CMA has to play, and that local authorities should look to work with it as proposals are developed to ensure local bus passengers get the best possible services. However, I do not feel that the amendments are necessary as the CMA is not being given any specific powers to block bus franchising schemes. I trust that has reassured the noble Lord to the extent that he is minded not to press his amendments. I beg to move.
Bus Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-23
Topic: Other
John Attlee (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, the noble Baroness has done a fabulous job in moving her amendment and has had success in her reply from the Minister—but will she undertake to study the Companion on the use of the word "you"?
Bus Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Tariq Ahmad (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, Clause 17 was inserted on Report and introduces the accessible information requirement. Certain provisions in the clause extend to Scotland whereas the rest of the Bill extends to England and Wales. A further amendment is required to extend the Bill’s general provisions to Scotland; namely, the power to make consequential provision, the power to make transitional, transitory or saving provision, extent, commencement and the Short Title. These general provisions already extend to England and Wales, and this is very much a technical amendment. I beg to move.
Wales Bill — House of Lords, 2016-11-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Nicholas Bourne (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I also thank him for his very kind comments earlier. I will cover these issues in a letter, if I may, as I would like to go away and have a look at this. I am certainly not making any commitment on that but I would like to give examples of how this has been used and how we anticipate that it will be used in the future The second issue is in many ways a more serious concern, certainly for somebody who has been a Member of the Assembly and knows that it has to be dealt with in a proper constitutional and respectful way—so I listened very carefully to what was said there. This has been a very considered debate. However, if we were to provide a role in approving regulations such as was suggested, it would be anomalous and would introduce unnecessary complexity into the process. I will explain why that is the case. In reality, we would discuss with the Welsh Government any proposed changes that impacted on Welsh legislation To illustrate the anomaly, the Assembly acts in exactly the same way as Parliament does. For example, the Assembly has recently passed the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. Section 255 of that Act includes a power for Welsh Ministers to make consequential amendments to any enactment. "Enactment" is defined in Section 252 of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act to include Acts of Parliament and secondary legislation made under Acts of Parliament. Further, in the last two years two-thirds of Assembly legislation has had similar provisions. So, in relation to the equality argument, we are dealing in exactly the same way here as in Parliament. Noble Lords may say that that does not answer the first point, and it does not—but it certainly answers the point about equality.
Wales Bill — House of Lords, 2016-11-23
Topic: Other
Nicholas Bourne (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am not sure whether it has, but I will try to give the noble Lord that information. The material point is that it can, just as we can. I am not sure how many times that has been exercised, but I will endeavour to cover that in the letter.
Wales Bill — House of Lords, 2016-11-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Nicholas Bourne (Conservative, Centre-right): Another point that I had meant to mention—again, I will cover it in the letter; I appreciate that it does not fully answer the point but I shall try to give examples—is that the identical power exists in relation to Scotland.
Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-23
Topic: Other
Ralph Matthew Palmer (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, we had some extraordinary things on this committee: a Saville committee that ran to time and a Minister who listened, took her conclusions back to her department and the Law Commission, and achieved a most satisfactory series of amendments. That is an achievement that ranks with the dervishes breaking a British square. That the Law Commission should have given in to suggestions from the House of Lords really shows what a fine Minister we have and what a fine job she has done on this Bill. All of us who sat through the committee—who thought we might be doing it all to achieve nothing—are enormously grateful to her.
Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-23
Topic: Other
Lucy Neville-Rolfe (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for their kind and constructive comments. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, we all learned a lot. These provisions are indeed an improvement.
Businesses: Rights and Responsibilities — House of Lords, 2016-12-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robin Granville Hodgson (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, when I opened the debate, I said that your Lordships’ House had a wealth of experience and some very interesting contributions would be made. I have certainly not been disappointed by that, so I thank all noble Lords who have participated—and, in particular, I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for his sympathetic and extensive reply The convention allows me about one minute, so I shall pick out a couple of points. My noble friend Lady Bottomley emphasised the importance of "comply or explain" as a means of maintaining flexibility in our corporate governance structure. That is very important —and, in passing, I congratulate her once again on a very distinguished maiden speech in that Second Reading debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, reminded us that the availability of limited liability as a means by which to safeguard yourself personally imposes additional responsibilities and duties on you. My noble friend Lord Eccles, in a characteristically thought-provoking speech, reminded the House that this is about people and that what we are discussing is not theoretical—it impacts on real people’s lives Last, but not least, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said that he thinks that employee participation would make decisions more long term. I have to say to him that in the cases where I have helped employee buy-outs, where a substantial portion of the shares go to employees, they are pretty quick to want to sell and cash in when time comes. But that is an issue he and I could discuss at greater length over a cup of tea—or something stronger I am sorry not to be able to mention the other speeches, all of which I thought were very valuable. I thank all those who spoke and I am sure that all noble Lords agree that this issue will run and run.
Wales Bill — House of Lords, 2016-12-12
Topic: Other
Nosheena Mobarik (Conservative, Centre-right): That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2, Clause 4, Schedule 3, Clauses 5 to 16, Clauses 18 and 19, Clauses 21 to 51, Schedule 5, Clauses 52 to 60, Clause 17, Clause 3, Schedules 1 and 2, Clause 20, Schedule 4, Schedule 6, Clause 61, Schedule 7, Clauses 62 and 63, Title.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-12-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Alastair Cooke (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I must express most grateful thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Those who will benefit from these measures in Northern Ireland will derive great satisfaction from this part of our proceedings today. There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, emphasised, more to be done—but these measures will, I think, assist the new pattern of more tolerant, inclusive and peaceful life that is evolving in this important part of our country.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-12-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): I think that I have explained that the Government feel that we currently have the balance right and that we should preserve that presumption of anonymity—so I will not be doing what the noble and learned Lord suggests. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will not press his.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-12-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Centre-right): I could not agree more with the noble Lord. I agree with him as I agreed with him on the previous debate. We are dealing here with the possibility of profound injustice and we should guard against it.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-12-12
Topic: Other
Elizabeth Rose Berridge (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am mindful that the House wishes to move on this evening, and I am grateful to the Minister for her assurances dealing with the matters that I raised in my speech. I previously indicated to the Clerk of the Parliaments that I would speak to the amendment, but I will not move it this evening Amendment 187
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-11-28
Topic: Other
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 9, Schedule 2, Clauses 10 and 11, Schedule 3, Clauses 12 and 13, Schedule 4, Clauses 14 and 15, Schedule 5, Clauses 16 to 27, Schedule 6, Clause 28, Schedule 7 Clause 29, Schedule 8, Clauses 30 to 32, Schedule 9, Clauses 33 to 37, Schedules 10 and 11, Clauses 38 to 44, Schedule 12, Clause 45, Schedule 13, Clauses 46 to 50, Schedule 14, Clauses 51 to 105, Schedules 15 and 16, Clauses 106 and 107, Schedule 17, Clauses 108 to 127, Schedule 18, Clauses 128 to 142, Schedule 19, Clauses 143 to 161, Title.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-28
Topic: Other
David Freud (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the debate last Monday when a number of amendments were considered. Today should bring an equally interesting discussion on a slightly broader range of topics. This group relates to the new pause power introduced in Clause 31, and includes some amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and some tabled by me. I thank the Committee for its forbearance in considering government amendments at this stage.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Freud (Conservative, Centre-right): I think I am right in saying that the pause order would effectively trump those obligations while it is operating. However, I will come back on the detail of that. I think that is accurate. That is why it is in the legislation—so that there is legal clarity about the obligations people have when they pay into a scheme that is formally paused by the regulator Under Amendment 50, the pause order would not be able to prevent payments with regard to ill health benefits. The current provisions mirror those in the Pensions Act 2004 with regard to the Pensions Regulator’s freezing order. I am not convinced that there is sufficient argument on why this should differ to those provisions. In particular, the pause order direction can specify payments, so—in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake—the regulator will be able to consider whether to use the power to stop such payments The provisions in Schedule 1 to which the noble Baroness has added her amendments make it clear that there is no impact on orders made on divorce which modify members’ rights in the scheme. They do not provide for generalised exemptions to the power to prevent transfers under the pause order. The amendment would mean that, regardless of the situation, ill health payments could not be affected by a pause order. Government Amendment 47 would enable the regulator to tailor the pause order to the circumstances with regard to stopping benefit payments. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that that solution is better than the one in Amendment 50. That would include being able to apply the pause to specified benefits and specified members, and in a way that would take account of the specific case and situation. I therefore trust that this gives some comfort that the regulator could consider certain types of membership To come back to the question raised by my noble friend Lady Altmann, on the legal duty for employers, paragraph 13 of Schedule 3 ensures that a pause order will not cause employers to fall foul of their legal duties. I am glad to be able to confirm that.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Freud (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, on that narrow point, I hope that I can again reassure the noble Lord that, when those rebates are due, before the pause order is in place, we have a way of making sure that they are paid—through Clause 31(6)(a). It may be easier for me to write to the noble Lord and describe that process, but I think that it achieves what he is looking for. I will have to provide the figures on the net pay separately but will write to him on those, too.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Freud (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my noble friend. There are different processes going on and the intention of the pause order is not to be the paraphernalia for sorting out a scheme that is in difficulty. What we are looking at is a process we can go to where we can discuss option 1 and option 2 in order to transfer the funds to a better functioning scheme. While we are doing that, we are pausing it to allow the process to happen. It is important to view the two things on more of a sequential basis than trying to make a big performance of the pause order. It is there for a different reason: it allows us to get on with sorting out the scheme and making the transfers that my noble friend is looking for.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-28
Topic: Domestic Commerce
George Young (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, as we have just heard, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, would reduce the time period an existing master trust scheme will have in which to apply for authorisation from the commencement of the relevant provisions of the Bill from six to three months. While I have some sympathy with the amendment, for the reasons set out by the noble Lord, the Government’s view, which is informed in part by the Pensions Regulator, is that there is a compelling case for allowing a maximum of six months My expectation is that some schemes will have relatively little to do in order to align their businesses with the new requirements and, as a result, will be in a position to apply for authorisation early in the six-month application window. Others may face more of a challenge and may need time to consider the final legislation in full—including, of course, the regulations, which will come out next year—before they determine whether to apply for authorisation or withdraw from the market. We do not want to risk losing good schemes from the market because they have not had sufficient time to make the necessary changes to meet these new requirements. Having consulted the regulator, our view is that six months will give schemes the time they are likely to need I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern that members should be protected as quickly as possible but we must get the balance right between achieving that and placing demands on existing businesses. As I think the noble Lord recognised in his remarks, an additional key protection for members is set out in the Bill, which will apply from the beginning of the application window. This is in addition to the retrospective provisions in the Bill, which mean that a scheme that experiences a triggering event from 20 October this year will be unable to increase charges on members to pay for scheme wind-up. The additional protection is that if a scheme experiences a triggering event during this period, and the regulator has reason to believe that there is an immediate risk to the interests of scheme members, the regulator will have the ability to issue a pause order under Clause 31, which we have just been discussing, regardless of whether or not the scheme has submitted an application for authorisation Finally, on the overall length of time it will take, as the Bill stands, from the date on which regulations fully commence master trust schemes will have six months to submit an application for authorisation. The Pensions Regulator will then have six months from the point of receiving an application to decide whether to grant or refuse authorisation. This means that the vast majority of existing schemes will be either authorised or not authorised within one year of full commencement. Where trustees are unsuccessful, they can appeal to the First-tier Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal. The master trust will be able to continue operating pending the outcome of that appeal.