argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2019-07-09
Topic: Transportation
Dominic Hubbard (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I oppose Clause 24 standing part of the Bill. This is the fault of the Delegated Powers Committee because its most recent report, the 58th report of the current Session, starts with the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill. As an aside, the two other Bills dealt with in the report have a combined total of two and a half lines compared to the rest of the document, and so there is a fair bit of meat on this bone The clause reflects the practice of previous Games. Transport is a key factor and if you mess it up—I refer to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Coe, about what will happen to the legacy if you get the Games wrong—it will be like getting blood from a stone. We must get it right. Transporting people around the Games is an important factor. In the Bills for the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games we knew who we were giving transport to. In this Bill we merely have a person I probably would not have picked this up but the committee did. The report states: "In the absence of any explanation justifying why it is needed, we consider the delegation of this power to the Secretary of State to be inappropriate" What is a person going to do? Where are they coming in? What is the structure behind this? If you want to mess stuff up, mess up transport and see people and bands not getting there on time. We have just discussed tickets. If you cannot turn up, it does not matter who has got the ticket. Although I am sure a great deal is being done, knowing what is going on is important. I hope the Government come through on this Amendment 24 is in the same vein but it will not be so important once we have dealt with this. Knowing who will be in charge of transport is an important consideration and we should have that knowledge now.
Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2019-07-09
Topic: Government Operations
Dominic Hubbard (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The fact remains that we would like to know who is going to deliver this. There is a plan and we agree that without a plan, we would not be able to do this. However, we would like to know who is delivering the plan because that is part of the openness and consultation that have been a running theme throughout this Committee stage. If you do not know, you cannot report, you cannot put any effort in and you cannot be reassured. The Minister said that this is part of the planning process that has not been quite reached. I am already constructing the appropriate amendment or commitment that we would like in the Bill about what information should be given as opposed to a person. That is surely where we should be going on this. Today is about probing amendments, and clarification on that point would be incredibly helpful.
Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2019-07-09
Topic: Government Operations
Dominic Hubbard (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, this is a case of great minds thinking a somebody-else thought. I have an amendment in this group to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has added his name and it was inspired by exactly the same desire for information and reports. Primarily, there is a need for regulations to be approved by the affirmative procedure. We have done something similar before, so why do we not do it now? If a precedent has been set, we should follow it. We are all in favour of this legislation going through and going through well, and I refer back to the arguments about making sure that people know what is going on. The affirmative procedure was appropriate when something very similar was done in the past, so let us use it again. The hour is getting late. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—my noble friend in sport—wants to contribute. As he was on the committee, he might have more insight into this matter but, as far as I can see, there is an open and shut case here.
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2019-03-13
Topic: International Affairs
John Alderdice (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I want to address something in this amendment that is important, but which has not been picked up so far. In saying so, I support the amendment, which proposes to support the Good Friday agreement. People tend to think of that in terms of the structures within Northern Ireland and between north and south. However, a key part of the agreement was the arrangement of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. For 10 years, it did not meet. The British and Irish Governments were in default of the Good Friday agreement for a decade. The European Union supported the Good Friday agreement, as did our friends in the United States In the context of the Good Friday agreement and addressing our difficulties, the suggestion that Ireland should be with the 27 countries which are negotiating with the UK, or having negotiations on their behalf, actually ignores the Good Friday agreement. If Britain and Ireland were not fulfilling it, the European Union should have been pushing the British and Irish Governments to come together to reach agreements that they could bring to Brussels together. There have been suggestions that this would be a breach of European Union understandings; it would not. However, not doing it is a breach of the Good Friday agreement If the British and Irish Governments have already agreed, or would agree over the next few months, on the main north-south economic and transport issues—agriculture, agri-food business and electricity—and agree that they would approach Brussels and request that these issues be dealt with on an all-Ireland basis, because they already largely are, it is highly likely that Brussels would accept that, whatever the other issues. It would not require a backstop; it would be a frontloading. The key thing is that the British and Irish Governments need to work together on this. That is what the last clause in the amendment says. In some ways, this ought to be the first clause, and the first stop, not a backstop: that the Governments come together and propose something People have repeatedly said that it is not appropriate for Ireland and the United Kingdom to negotiate together, because this is something between the UK and the EU as a whole. However, that simply does not work if people believe that they and the EU support the Good Friday agreement, which requires and mandates direct negotiations between London and Dublin on all joint issues. This has not been happening and I appeal to the Minister, as I appeal to Ministers in the Republic of Ireland, to come together on this issue. Ireland should be a bridge between the UK and the EU, not a bulwark for the EU against the UK.
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2019-03-13
Topic: Foreign Trade
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am grateful for the Minister’s response, and for the support of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. He highlighted that we are likely to have seen only 13% of UK exports represented in the agreements that we have, so there is quite a long way to go. The issue then is whether a one-off published statement would be sufficient. However, I take on board what the Minister said about the other areas, on which there is ongoing engagement with Parliament; that is to be welcomed. I also welcome that in the Command Paper the Government have committed to publish material and to have an ongoing dialogue, both in public and in private, with committees that could well be established. I hope very much that the dialogue will also involve discussions about what type of information is appropriate to be released into the public domain and about doing so in a timely fashion. On the basis of the Minister’s comments and on the understanding that, if we are to be secure in the information that I think we need on the continuity agreements, we will continue to be persistent on the Written Questions and on the opportunities in Parliament, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2019-03-13
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 28, to which I have added my name. There is not much to add to the persuasive case made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I welcome the Minister, who is always assured at the crease even as the third batsman. His clarification on Ministers of the Crown acting jointly with devolved Ministers is helpful; Clause 2 has always been a bit of a puzzle for me when it comes to the joint working of the two sets of Ministers. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out, our discussions in Committee concerned the areas of interaction where either devolved and reserved competences align themselves clearly or there is dispute as to where they fall—that is, whether they fall fully in the devolved competences of the Welsh or Scottish Parliament, for example, or are reserved. When we discussed the withdrawal Act, the Government put forward all the different policy areas to be repatriated from European Union legislation. There were no issues with 49 of them. It was recognised that a common framework between the UK and the devolved Administrations was needed for 82 of them. The Government said that there was to be further discussion on 24 of them. In 12 areas, there was no agreement; the UK believed that they were reserved but the devolved Administrations, particularly the Scottish Parliament, believed that they fell fully within the devolved competences.
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2019-03-13
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Clearly, I would always defer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on these issues, but I had a slight anxiety when I heard the Minister say from the Dispatch Box that UK Ministers would be allowed to make regulations where they considered that that "made sense". That is not language that we have become accustomed to in devolution practices over the past 20 years. UK Ministers could say almost all the time that it made sense for them to bring forward such regulations, especially in the context of trade agreements that they themselves had negotiated. But that is not the point. The point is that the legislative competences are not those of UK Ministers, but those of other bodes. All we ask is that the practices that have been developed, which have now been adopted in the Scotland Act—it contains language recognising that the Parliament of the United Kingdom "will not normally legislate"—be continued. That is now well established in statute. I cannot see why the Government say that it would cause problems in a separate statute, because it is already in statute.
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2019-03-13
Topic: Education
Christopher Fox (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, we have heard many times about the soft power of education as it reaches out around the world. This is a way of collecting hard data about the economic benefit to this country. I cannot see why the Government would be unable to support it.
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2019-03-13
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, as we move towards the final stages of Report, it is right that we reflect briefly on why we have this Bill. Primarily it is here in case there is a no-deal Brexit. It includes many of the provisions that the Government told us would have to be in place before exit day for preparedness in case there was a no-deal exit. That was the intention in January 2018, when the Commons first debated this Bill, and we received it in September It was still the Government’s intention then that there would be plenty of time to put this legislation on to the statute book in order for there to be a framework for the slew of continuity agreements that we would all be considering. So far we have three, representing 0.3% of UK exports, and we will be debating them later today. If we are going in the direction of putting this Bill on the statute book in order to facilitate a no-deal Brexit, it is right that it is an intentional decision by the House of Commons that that is indeed the path that we should go down If the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, presses this amendment, we will support it, because it is unconscionable, to use the Attorney-General’s word, that we will somehow at this stage find ourselves inadvertently in a no-deal scenario. However, we will have to reflect to some extent on what the House of Commons decides. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is absolutely right: not only has Cabinet collective responsibility now been ditched but there is not even any kind of collective responsibility within the Treasury. Today, the Chancellor talked about the shock to the economy and the deeply damaging elements of a no-deal Brexit. His deputy disagrees with him and will be in a different Division Lobby in the other place this evening Therefore, whatever the House of Commons decides, it is right that we provide a degree of certainty in this legislation, so that we cannot accidentally go down the path of a no-deal Brexit. If this Bill is to be enforced to provide that framework, it will have to be on the basis of a majority in another place specifically asking for it, and that is why this amendment is justified. As I said, if the noble Lord presses it, we will happily support it.
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2019-03-13
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I just want to make a point about the ability to have the regulations on the Swiss agreement. The Government are not using the likely regulatory powers under this Bill to ratify the Swiss agreement, so I do not think that the noble Lord is accurate on that point. They are using the CRaG process, not this Bill.
Agreement Establishing an Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — House of Lords, 2019-03-13
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): To resolve that this House calls upon Her Majesty’s Government, in accordance with section 21 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, to extend the scrutiny period for the Agreement establishing an Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (CP31), laid before the House on 6 February, by 21 sitting days Relevant document: 31st Report from the European Union Committee
Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2019-06-24
Topic: Technology
Jonathan Marks (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in this group that I have anything to do with. I welcome the Government’s Amendment 1 requiring that, in the context of making the rules accessible and fair, "regard must be had to the needs of those who require technical support in order to initiate, conduct, progress or participate in proceedings by electronic means" I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the time that he and his Bill team have spent and the trouble that they have taken to incorporate provisions in the Bill to assist those who may find it difficult to access online proceedings, and to discuss with me and others the amendments that we proposed. Our original amendments, proposed in Committee, went further than the provisions now agreed by the Government, but we are satisfied that the needs of the so-called digitally excluded will be protected by the new provisions, with the benefit of the amendments tabled in this group, which are, as I understand it, largely agreed by the Government.
Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2019-06-24
Topic: Law and Crime
Alan Beith (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I tabled the amendment to which my noble friend referred, Amendment 5 to government Amendment 4, because I did not believe that the government Amendment, helpful though it is, fully satisfied the clear intention set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that somebody who feels that they can only engage with this process on paper should be able to do so without the creation of a parallel procedure or there being two different processes. What we have is one simplified procedure in which documentation is held online but to which people can make submissions by paper, not only initially but at any necessary subsequent stages. For that to be a reality, they must also be able to receive the relevant documentation on paper through the work and assistance of the Courts Service. I think that some ambiguity has been created I note that the Minister wrote to us about the requirement to initiate proceedings by electronic means, which requires rules to be made to enable documents submitted in paper to be treated as if they were initiated by electronic means. The wording of government Amendment 4 appears to refer to the initiation of the proceedings, rather than the initiation of subsequent documents, and is silent on the entitlement to receive documents on paper. The simple issue, which some of us may have faced in dealing with other organisations, is that you cannot have a situation in which you make a submission on paper and have no clue what will happen afterwards because you are relying on the paper process. The Government’s intention was clear in everything the noble and learned Lord said, but it is not clear in the amendment. My addition to the Government’s wording would make it clear, although I fully accept that this could be dealt with in words in a different way or at a different point in the parent amendment. My noble friend is confident that the Government have got the point and are going to do something about it, but I would like the noble and learned Lord to make that clear.
Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2019-06-24
Topic: Government Operations
Alan Beith (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I do not know what answer the Minister will give to the pertinent question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the Clause 8 powers. The Lord Chief Justice might in some cases exercise the Clauses 2 and 3 powers to defy what the Lord Chancellor had asked the rule committee to do—which it had gone on to do at waste of time and expense and which he would not then agree to. However, that would apply to only some of the powers that the Minister would have in these circumstances; for example, extending into an area which the Lord Chief Justice did not think appropriate for the use of online procedure. But there are other things that the Lord Chancellor might direct the committee to do, such as shortening the notice period for various stages in the process or reducing in one way or another the rights of people engaged in the process, which could then be an obligation on the committee. If its members did not then resign, they would be required to produce rules which the Lord Chief Justice did not have a protective power to veto. The Clause 8 powers are worrying, and I do not recall at any stage in our amicable discussion any explanation why they are necessary and why, if any power is needed in this area, it cannot be much more narrowly defined One can make a similar point about Clause 9 in relation to Henry VIII powers, but it is a point that we have made so often that we risk becoming tired of making it. Thank goodness that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, never ceases to make it in every circumstance in which it is appropriate.
Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2019-06-24
Topic: Government Operations
Jonathan Marks (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has reminded me that perhaps I should make the same declaration—so I do so now We support Amendments 22 to 24, not only for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Beith but for those given earlier in the debate, in particular by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We regard it as very important that these rules should ensure a proper balance between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice: between the Executive and the legislature. I also take the two points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. First, there are of course equivalent provisions in the existing rules, but I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who pointed out that that should not be treated as a precedent, and that if there is anything wrong with the earlier rules, perhaps they should be changed. If the 2005 Act overlooked those changes, perhaps it should not have done so, because that was the point at which the changes should have been made; that is, when the balance between the Lord Chancellor and the administration of justice changed I also suggest that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said was telling. He said that the difference between consultation and concurrence is that where you have consultation, the Lord Chancellor will go to the Lord Chief Justice and check that the change in the rules is okay with him—or that is what he hopes he would do—and then he would go back to make the rule. However, it seems to me that the need for concurrence in these rules is dependent on the Lord Chancellor finding out that the rules are okay with the Lord Chief Justice and the requirement for concurrence is to determine the position where they are not okay with the Lord Chief Justice, and that is why we have the concurrence requirement. I will give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2019-06-24
Topic: Government Operations
Jonathan Marks (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Again, I am not sure about that. I do not accept what I understand to be the Government’s argument against the amendments Clause 8 includes a rule-requiring power, and Clause 9 allows for the amendment or revocation of provisions made under an Act, which include the rules. Overall, it seems that Clauses 8 and 9 give the Government a rule-making or rule-requiring power. As I understand it, the Government’s argument is that Amendment 6 to Clause 2 and Amendment 8 to Clause 3 remove the need for a concurrence requirement in respect of Clauses 8 and 9; they also argue that, through those amendments, the concurrence requirement will govern the designation of proceedings of a specified kind and, similarly, will govern whether the Online Procedure Rules or conventional rules will govern proceedings which are of a specified kind. They go on to argue that, therefore, Clauses 8 and 9 will operate within that framework, and the concurrence requirement is therefore unnecessary in relation to the powers requiring rules to be made or requiring amendments to the rules. I disagree; I simply do not see the nexus Under Clauses 8 and 9, any number of rules—or changes or amendments to existing rules—might be made or required within the framework of the Online Procedure Rules. Such rules or amendments might well offend against the principles that the Lord Chief Justice would wish to impose on them. That could occur even in the context of existing designated specified proceedings. It follows that the concurrence requirement should be applicable to the rule-requiring, rule-amending or rule-repealing powers under Clauses 8 and 9—perhaps only as a safeguard and possibly in the hope that they will not be needed—and that the consultation preceding the concurrence requirement should be effective but, against the danger that it is not, I suggest that the amendments are required. We support them.