argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Brexit: Economic Impact — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Macroeconomics
Bryan Davies (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, is it not amazing, with the Government’s industrial strategy on the point of collapse and our car industry showing the enormous stresses and strains of the way the Government run the economy and their attempt to secure Brexit on appropriate terms, that Ministers can trot out these ridiculously optimistic propositions on how the economy will fare? Is it not the case that all the Government’s proposed options would have a serious, negative effect on the British economy? Has the Chancellor not already accepted that they will amount to a loss in GDP of at least 4%? Worse still, the Bank of England said that no deal would have an even more adverse effect than the financial crisis. The Government contemplate a considerable loss. Is it not totally irresponsible to threaten to act in a way that no proper Government would contemplate, in threatening the possibility of no deal?
Brexit: Economic Impact — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: International Affairs
John Davies (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, if the Government seriously want a deal, they would be able to conclude one very easily in a matter of days on several bases—for example, on the basis of remaining in the customs union indefinitely. I am quite certain they could get it through the House of Commons as well. If the Government stopped listening slavishly to and taking orders from the ERG, and instead interrogated the national interest, that problem would have gone away years ago.
Brexit: Economic Impact — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: International Affairs
John Reid (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, may I return to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, a few minutes ago? The Minister said in a previous reply that the benchmark for measuring the impact assessments was the status quo: our present position as a member of the European Union. He also said that every other option tested was worse than the status quo. Will he therefore admit the logic of his response to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria—that remaining in the European Union is better than any other available option, including the Prime Minister’s deal?
Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Law and Crime
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): I wonder whether the noble Earl could be a bit more specific in the answer to the last question—not now, obviously, but I really would value a letter, because this is a key question. As we know, when it goes wrong, the alternative is that the person involved is indicted on a murder charge. When we give people the responsibility to use lethal force, it would not be unreasonable for them to know that there is a very solid background for them to do as they are ordered.
Judicial Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges’ Pension Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Law and Crime
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, is it correct, from my scanning of the web as to what the dispute before the Court of Appeal, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, is about, that the taxpayer could potentially face a bill of upwards of £750 million if this case is lost? It seems to me to be an extremely high figure. I assume it is a calculation to do with the massive additions to pensions that would be required if all judges got the transitional relief which, at the moment, is only going to be afforded to a small proportion My second question makes an obvious point for somebody who is not a lawyer or a judge. Am I right in assuming that the judges who will sit on this case are adjudicating on their own pensions? In no other walk of life would that be considered a satisfactory arrangement. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us whether that is the case? If it is the case, what is the protection against judges simply, to be blunt, ruling in their own self-interest?
Judicial Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges’ Pension Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Law and Crime
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am avid reader of the Law Society Gazette, which says that £750 million has been provided for in the department’s own accounts as an insurance against the loss of this case. Is that correct?
Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Law and Crime
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): One of the most difficult issues that we grappled with during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill was child abductions and disputes about child custody. I assume that this affects that issue; can the Minister tell us how? The single most disturbing aspect that came out of that is that it might be harder to deal with cross-border issues of child abduction after Brexit. I am keen to understand whether this maintains the status quo as far as possible. Does this mean that effective remedies will be available to the court to deal rapidly with issues of child abduction?
Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Government Operations
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She cited the fact that there would be no formal consultation on this SI, as indeed on any other SI that has come before the House. Did she note that paragraph 10.1 also said that, "the intention is to ensure that, as far as possible, the status quo is maintained" The noble Baroness has done a very good job in the last 10 minutes of explaining why the status quo is not being maintained in key respects. There is a contradiction in paragraph 10.1 regarding the justification the Government have given for not consulting. According to that justification, they should have made no changes at all but continued with the existing type-approval regime. Given that the Government have made those changes, and given the statement that they themselves made in paragraph 10.1, there should surely have been consultation.
Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Government Operations
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): Is there not a more fundamental point, which is that the regulation emphatically does not maintain the status quo? On the contrary, it envisages a completely new type-approval regime being set up. How can the Government say that they are not consulting because that maintains the status quo when the regulation itself emphatically does not maintain the status quo?
Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Labor
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I ask this in a genuine spirit: I hope that the Minister will accept that. If there were meetings and discussions with the bodies that she just mentioned, which are referred to in the EM, did they agree that what is in front of us today maintains the status quo—because they would have been told that that was the objective? Can I just check, because the Minister did not mention it, that the trade unions were not consulted?
Citizenship Status — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Law and Crime
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question asked in the other place today. I agree that there must be consequences for those who back and commit acts of terrorism. Where individuals are British citizens suspected of committing offences, particularly if they were born in the United Kingdom, it seems to me that we have a responsibility: to question them; to investigate their actions; where the evidential tests are met, to put them on trial; and, where a jury convicts, to punish them in accordance with the law I am sure that the Minister will tell me that the actions of the Government to deprive someone of their nationality have been done in a way that does not breach Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How will this assist in bringing someone who has committed serious crimes to justice?
Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Law and Crime
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister referred to the regime in respect of tachographs. Paragraph 2.7(a) of the Explanatory Memorandum states that, "this includes amendments to criminal offences in relation to the use of tachographs" I take "amendments" to mean changes to the existing regime for criminal offences. Can the Minister say what will change, or are the amendments technical with no changes to criminal offences?
Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): This relates to what my noble friend said. I intended to say it when I made my contribution, but perhaps I could just say it now. Paragraph 6.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that Part 2, "creates three new offences and amends two existing offences to ensure that there are adequate enforcement provisions" I accept that if I had read the document more thoroughly, I might know the answer to this question, but what specifically are the three new offences referred to?
Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Transportation
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I want to raise the issue of changes to tachograph rules hereafter, which is critical. Could the Minister explain how that regime will work? What is the legal mechanism by which we would continue to mimic the changes to tachograph rules in the EU? Is it the Government’s intention that our rules will continue to exactly mirror the rules in the European Union?
Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Transportation
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I will make one or two comments on this SI and ask the Minister to repeat a couple of things she has already said The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred to the three new offences and the amendment to the two existing offences, saying: "The House may wish to be aware of the creation of new offences using secondary legislation" Is the Minister able to give some information—I do not mean an enormous amount—on how frequently DfT uses secondary legislation to create new offences, or to amend existing offences? I am not entirely sure in my own mind the extent to which this is a break from normal practice or simply a continuation of an existing practice which may not be used frequently I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the effect of this SI is that there will be no changes to the requirements of the drivers’ hours and tachograph rules, so that what we are being invited to agree to is actually a continuation of the present arrangements. I do not think the Minister will be too surprised if I ask whether there was any consultation with trade unions. Paragraph 10.1 says: "Department for Transport Ministers and officials have regular engagement with the road transport industry" It would be of some relief if the Minister was able to say to me that, on this issue, that covered the trade unions as well as the other key players within the industry, because it talks, at paragraph 6.5, about creating, "the equivalent offence of failing to install and use recording equipment" Presumably, a driver could be accused of not using the recording equipment, and might, for example, turn it off. To suggest that the drivers of vehicles have no interest at all in what is in this SI is stretching it I will leave my comments at that, on the basis that there is no change to the existing arrangements, and that is what this SI is intended to achieve. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on what is in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report about creating new offences using secondary legislation.
Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: International Affairs
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): I had not understood that important distinction. Why, as a matter of policy, are we committing in advance to mimic the AETR rules when we are not committing to mimic any EU rules? Is it an ideological issue about an international body being superior to the European Union, or what?
Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Transportation
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): This is important. Does an international treaty requirement or obligation apply to the United Kingdom? If not—to ask the question again—why have the Government decided to follow the AETR rules? If it is a discretionary matter, why are they not going to follow changes to EU rules, given that most of our lorry traffic is to the continent of Europe—in other words, to the European Union? It does not make obvious sense.
Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Transportation
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): The noble Baroness is making a very powerful point in respect of compensation for accidents, but there is also a massive bureaucratic issue in respect of insurance here. It is understated in the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 3.7 says: "If there is no deal with the EU, UK motorists will also be required to carry a ‘Green Card’ which guarantees third-party insurance provision when driving in the EU. This may result in increased bureaucracy and costs for those drivers" That must be the understatement of the year: how can that not result in a massive increase in bureaucracy and inconvenience to drivers? Should the Government not be telling all the motorists proposing to leave the country in five weeks’ time that they are going to be required to have this green-card, third-party insurance provision which they do not have at the moment, and how they can secure it? I am a former Secretary of State for Transport, but I myself do not know what it is, so the population of Northern Ireland which, as the noble Baroness says, will be decamping over the next 12 months to the European Union, is going to have to be well informed about the green-card insurance system, about which it knows absolutely nothing at the moment.
Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: Transportation
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, it is important that the House does not lose its capacity to be shocked by the scale of the dislocation that may be imposed by the Government on the country in one month’s time if no deal Brexit proceeds In a succession of speeches, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has laid out the impact of no deal on motor industry regulation and she did a good job of weaving together the changes in relation to insurance, accidents and international driving licences. The extraordinary thing about it is that, because we are going back to pre-1973 law, not only are many bureaucratic requirements being imposed but they are being imposed in a way that is entirely pre-digital Noble Lords will recall the green card but I am still of an age where I do not recall it—I do not think the Minister recalls the green card—which is a telling remark. You have to be—how can I put this delicately?—of a certain age to remember the green card. I certainly do not remember the international driving licence. However, as we go into this Alice in Wonderland world of disaster that the Government propose to inflict on the country, we now know that not only will you require an international driving licence and a green card but you will have to have them as physical constructs because the regulations under which they are imposed go back to the pre-digital era. You will have to get a physical international driver’s licence or licences—the Minister can intervene on me at any stage if she wishes—and a physical green card. Is that correct?
Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-20
Topic: International Affairs
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, my submission is that we should not be engaging in a no-deal Brexit in the first place Let us be clear about the obligations that the Government are now imposing on the country: it is entirely within the Government’s power to rescind the notice under Article 50 so that we do not crash out in four weeks’ time. If the Government cannot persuade Parliament to agree to arrangements in the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement that do not involve the country descending into Dante’s circles of hell in four weeks’ time by leaving with no deal, the Government’s duty would be to ensure that we do not leave with no deal. There are two ways of doing this: they could rescind the notice under Article 50 or they could have agreed at any point in the last six months to apply for an extension to the Article 50 negotiating period, which Parliament may impose on them next week.
Arrangement of Business — House of Lords, 2019-02-04
Topic: Government Operations
Angela Smith (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Chief Whip for making the announcement. When he last spoke about this and we pressed him on dates, he said that he was speaking in code and that if we looked at Hansard we might get a better idea. Many of us did, and still had no idea. Perhaps now we understand why. We certainly understand the volume of work that has to be undertaken. If the Government were to rule out no deal as an option—or, as the Prime Minister seems to think, a sword of Damocles if her deal is not accepted—the workload may be slightly less. Of course, we stand ready to play our part The Chief Whip will be aware that the business this week in this House is rather light. The House of Commons has risen early on several occasions recently, and there are two Bills currently stalled in the Commons that this House has been waiting for: the Agriculture Bill completed Committee on 20 November, but there is still no date in the other place for either Report or Third Reading; the Fisheries Bill finished Committee on 17 December, and there is no date scheduled for the Commons Report or Third Reading. Both need to be through Parliament by 29 March. The Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill has its Second Reading tomorrow, but there have been two months between Committee and Report in the Commons. It seems that while we will sit longer to undertake this business, the Commons and the Government have been rather tardy in bringing forward the needed legislation. I assure the Chief Whip that we stand ready to play our part, but we expect the Government to do so as well.
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2019-02-04
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Davies (Labour, Centre-left): Before the Minister moves on detailed points, perhaps this might be a good moment for him to tell the Committee, out of all the countries with which we would like to have our own free trade agreements after we leave the EU—if we leave it—how many have indicated that they wish in principle to negotiate and sign such an agreement with this country; how many have said that they would do so on terms identical to their existing free trade agreement with the EU; and how many have indicated that they would not want to pursue such a negotiation at all?
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2019-02-04
Topic: Transportation
John Davies (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As he rightly says, free ports are distortionary by definition. If you create a free port close to another port, one will survive and the other will probably disappear altogether. Does he think his Government would be tempted by the thought that they could say, "If we have a local MP who votes for us and supports this Government, we will make the port free; but if we have an MP who dares to vote against us, we will make the port unfree and ruin it"?
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2019-02-04
Topic: Foreign Trade
David Edward Lea (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I will begin by reading the amendment to set out what I am trying to do here: "It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to achieve before exit day the implementation of an international agreement to enable the United Kingdom to become a member of the European Free Trade Association and continue as a signatory to the EEA Agreement" It will be recalled from last summer that this policy had—has, I guess—the support of this House. I now wish to scrutinise some of the practical issues of attaining it. Given that all the other ideas seem to have fallen by the wayside, one after the other, like dominoes, I think this is the only one standing. It now has even more steam behind it Before I come to the main issue, I should like to make a point about Nissan and Sunderland. This is central to why we need to stay in the single market and customs union. Reading between the lines, Nissan is saying almost as much in those terms. There is a slow-burn catastrophe of collapsing foreign direct investment in Britain. I made a speech a year ago saying that the plans—not forecasts but plans—were down 80%. I was talking to the FDI people around a table. This is now exemplified by the huge Nissan setback. By the way, many Members here, in their previous incarnations, have worked very hard to secure that work. On this occasion, no one is blaming the workers or their trade unions. That is a change, is it not? They blame those who play to the gallery. Boris Johnson and his press acolytes spring to mind, with their self-serving and grossly misleading propaganda two years ago and since. They ought to be ashamed of themselves Even now, on the options before us, Her Majesty’s Government are still in denial about the vital requirement to enhance and protect our world market share of investment and trade by staying part of the customs union and the single market/common market. That, in turn, is the secret of Europe’s world market share vis-à-vis the USA and China, as well as Japan and other parts of Asia, as a preferred production location. The same applies to many services.
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2019-02-04
Topic: International Affairs
David Edward Lea (Labour, Centre-left): That is the central point. The reason we could not do it at national level, whether in Europe or the wider world, is that our employer would say we will be uncompetitive. However, in a big bloc like the EU where we negotiated at Brussels level under the Social Chapter, they cannot say that—at least for the most part within the family of the European Union. That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has not answered.
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2019-02-04
Topic: Foreign Trade
David Edward Lea (Labour, Centre-left): I can help the noble Lord on that. In the six months since the summer, Jeremy Corbyn—whether you think his policy is that of a snail or a crab—has moved to say that we in the Labour Party are in favour of staying in the customs union and a/the single market. That is Front-Bench Labour Party policy.
Trade Bill — House of Lords, 2019-02-04
Topic: International Affairs
David Edward Lea (Labour, Centre-left): If the protocol of the House allows me, I will answer questions as they come in this way. The proposal I made at the end of a negotiation involving the EU as well as EFTA is one way of getting out from under the dilemma that some future for Britain within the common market and the customs union could be found. It would not simply be "the" withdrawal agreement; it would be the withdrawal agreement/going along with EFTA under the EEA umbrella agreement, with an understanding between the 27 and us. That is my proposal.