argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Government Operations
James Wallace (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, as the noble Lord has just indicated, it is very clear that there are implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is just a great pity that the Government will not accede to the request from all sides of the House and all parts of the United Kingdom for a constitutional convention, in which many of these relationships could be properly looked at. The right reverend Prelate reminded me that we have to be careful with the wording here. To say so stridently that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are permanent will start raising doubts about whether anyone would think anything else. That is why care has to be taken here In the 1990s I was part of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It came up with the blueprint for the Scottish Parliament, which, to its credit, the Labour Party, elected in 1997, faithfully put into legislative form. I remember many discussions in the constitutional convention about how to entrench the Parliament. We kept going round in circles on the issue of parliamentary sovereignty and on whether we should have a referendum. In the end, the convention decided that it could make no such proposal. The Labour Party proposed a two-question referendum. My party and I were opposed to that as it was not what the convention had agreed, but I think that I was wrong. The fact that we had a referendum in 1997 and that the Parliament was established on the basis of a very strong popular vote in Scotland meant that it found its own form of political entrenchment. We could go round in circles here having a highbrow constitutional discussion on the nature of the sovereignty of Parliament The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, used the words "political reality" in moving his amendment. At the end of the day, we come back to political reality. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that if the people of Scotland voted to abolish the Scottish Parliament, primary legislation in this Parliament would be required for that to happen, but of course if this Parliament chose to ignore what the people of Scotland said, that would bring about a constitutional crisis because political reality would kick in. That is why I also disagree with the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He is saying that if the Parliament were removed, it would have to be done not only on the vote of the Scottish people but on the vote of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament might well vote to get rid of the Parliament because it was not doing a particularly good job. Therefore, you do not give the veto to the people whom you want to get rid of and who have a vested interest in keeping the Parliament These things are hypothetical because, quite simply, I do not see them happening. That is why I think that political reality is more relevant to this debate than highbrow discussions on parliamentary sovereignty. As ever, I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Government Operations
James Wallace (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The noble Lord makes a very good point. But under any federal system there would be a Scottish Parliament. I echo again Section 1(1) of the Scotland Act 1998: there still would be a Scottish Parliament. It may have a different form and different powers, but there still would be a Scottish Parliament. I do not think anyone is suggesting that the Scottish Parliament that we refer to in Clause 1 of this Bill is for ever frozen in aspic or that it would not inherit other powers at some time to come The issue is indeed one of political reality. We are also duty bound to have regard to the wording of this part of the clause.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Government Operations
James Wallace (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Let me get back to political reality. I do not believe that that would happen. But I think it is very likely that we will have some measures in the future—probably the not-too-distant future—under which more powers are given to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, it comes back to the same thing: to the political reality. If there was a move resulting in a constitutional convention or a federal system for the United Kingdom, which my colleagues and I aspire to, the political reality of that would see it delivered I have much sympathy for the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, because I simply do not know what is meant by, "with due regard to the other provisions of this Act" No doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, will tell us in his reply what the importance of including those words is I also wonder what is meant in subsection (3), which says: "In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum" I do not think that the "people of Scotland" is anywhere defined in this. Is it the people resident in Scotland, which was the qualification for the referendum in 2014? At that time, many noble Lords received many representations from expatriate Scots living abroad or living in London who consider themselves to be part of the people of Scotland. So would they be part of the referendum that is proposed by the Government with regard to the future of the Scottish Parliament? That is why I think that the wording proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in the second part of his amendment— "a majority of those voting at the referendum", which has been held in Scotland—has greater clarity than the Government’s wording of this particular clause Just as Parliament could, technically, repeal the Statute of Westminster of 1931 but would never dream of doing it, the constitutional reality of the sovereignty of Parliament is not relevant to this. At the end of the day, what will matter is what the people actually want.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Government Operations
James Wallace (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The noble Lord has talked much about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, as have other noble Lords. In a very recent lecture the right honourable gentleman the former Attorney-General Mr Dominic Grieve said about that: "Today, at least in theory, this means that any government with a parliamentary majority could pass a Bill requiring us to collectively worship the moon every other Tuesday. Provided the Queen were minded to give royal assent to it … then that would be the law of the land and we could be punished for not complying" Is he really happy that the sovereignty of Parliament, which he asserts so vigorously and to which he is so wedded, could lead to the kind of outcome that the right honourable gentleman Mr Dominic Grieve said could happen?
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Government Operations
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Does the noble Lord not agree that there is now considerable case law in Scotland which has looked at the competences of the Scottish Parliament and the reach of legislation from this place? So under the existing arrangements, it is perfectly in order for UK legislation to be challenged on the extent of its interaction with devolved legislation. We currently have that practice and it does not seem to have undermined our constitution irrevocably.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Government Operations
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I do not agree with the mood of the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, because I do not share his views on Amendment 1. I am happy that the Government inserted further clauses into the Bill. I am pleased that that was the result of cross-party consideration and that the Government responded to the Smith commission—in a difficult context—and put into proposals what I think most people in Scotland now understand: that they have two Parliaments. This is not an easy thing to do and parliamentary draftsmen have a difficult task because we now operate in a situation where we have more than one sphere of power over primary legislation. That poses considerable difficulties for some because they believe that one should be primary and one subsidiary to it. So far as primary legislation is concerned, most people in Scotland consider themselves as having two legislatures. It is even harder because we do not have a written constitution. In the absence of one, we have to rely on other measures to see how we entrench parts of our governance It is not the case that this has simply been dreamt up over the last couple of months, as some noble Lords have indicated. Nor it is the case that it is in response to the referendum. Nor is it the case that it is only to do with political expediency. Some of us have believed for a considerable time that it is right to reflect in statute the permanence of the Scottish Parliament in the context of a new and evolving structure of governance in the United Kingdom. I absolutely believe that that is best in a codified federal relationship, which I hope would be the result of a constitutional convention—others have a different view. However, in the absence of that, I believe that we then have to look at what has been a developing process in the United Kingdom.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am grateful to the Minister because I feel that he may well be making my point for me on the subject of new Section 63A(3). If the Government’s position, which I support, is that there can be change only if the people of Scotland make it in a referendum, does that not adjust the absolute sovereignty of this place, which can make an unfettered decision?
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Just to carry on a little around the House: the Minister did not make it clear at the Dispatch Box when he said that the people of Scotland would not necessarily be sovereign if this Parliament did not adhere to the result in that referendum. That is absolutely contrary to the Edinburgh agreement that the Prime Minister signed, which stated that the Government would respect that view. The sovereignty of the people should be absolute, not anything else he may say at the Dispatch Box this evening.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: International Affairs
James Wallace (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 also refers to the fact that it is a declaration that: "Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section" Subsection (2) goes on to say: "But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland" Obviously there is a context to that, but does the noble and learned Lord think that it might be helpful to add a further subsection indicating that, if a wish is expressed by a majority in a poll of the people of Scotland that the Scottish Parliament should be repealed, the Secretary of State will bring forward the necessary legislation to give effect to it?
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: International Affairs
David Steel (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I back up what my noble friend has said. I was in the House when we passed the Scotland Bill and I was never, ever happy with having the Sewel convention translated into law. So I am very glad to support the amendment and it is high time that this was put right.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Government Operations
Nicol Ross Stephen (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): As noble Lords will know, the Liberal Democrats are very supportive of the Bill, but the explanation just given by the Minister of the Sewel convention and the issues around it worries me greatly. From the outset, I say that I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, which would leave out "normally". It seems that much of the Minister’s argument about protecting the sovereignty of the UK Parliament hangs on retaining the word "normally", because that then gives the UK Parliament very wide discretion, as I read it, to legislate, as the Minister explains it, in areas that could include education, transport, housing, health and all the issues that are the very stuff of the Scottish Parliament. If that is the Minister’s intention, that is hugely controversial. I will say no more than that, because I do not want to develop this issue into a major argument on these points However, let me be clear. Back in 1998, when the Sewel convention was introduced, it was not in any circumstances with a view to this Parliament stepping in to legislate in the areas of transport, health and education if the Scottish Parliament was to make a mess of it. That was absolutely not the reason why it was introduced. Its wording and the reasons for its introduction are quite clear; they are here in Clause 2, which says that, "it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament" Therefore, even by the Minister’s own explanation, the consent of the Scottish Parliament to legislate in these potentially controversial areas would be required, and it would not happen. There is no way that the Scottish Parliament, in terms of the Sewel Motion as it went back to 1998, would cover legislation in health and education—
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Government Operations
Nicol Ross Stephen (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I will readily grab that escape route, and I thank the noble and learned Lord for that assistance. I hope that that is the case, although much has been repeatedly made of the absolute sovereignty of the UK Parliament. If noble Lords check the record, they will find that the Minister has mentioned it many times However, moving away from that issue, I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton. You either keep the convention or you enshrine it in statute—I think that the wording from the Smith commission was "put it on a statutory footing". It was not the Sewel convention of 1998 that was expected to be put on a statutory footing; it was the Sewel convention as it exists today, as the Smith commission knows it and as it has been working in the Scottish Parliament and between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. All aspects of the Sewel convention should be on a statutory footing, not just one narrow aspect that started in 1998 and has now gone. If we were forced to go in that direction, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, pointed out, one tiny but important element of the Sewel convention would be in statute but not all the rest. To me, that would be ridiculous As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is logically correct: any Sewel Motions and legislative consent Motions could absolutely be prevented, with everything in devolved areas having to be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. The UK Parliament—the House of Commons and the House of Lords—would stop legislating in these areas. However, I conclude by saying that the whole process of legislative consent Motions has been accepted and they have been commonplace. Some people have asked how often they have been used. They are used all the time in the Scottish Parliament. There must have been dozens, if not hundreds, of legislative consent Motions. They work well. Why try to stop or change something that has been accepted and works well? Let us simply put it on a statutory footing and get on with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Scotland Bill — House of Lords, 2015-12-08
Topic: Government Operations
Nicol Ross Stephen (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I rise to speak to Amendments 31 and 34, which are in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness. This is back to the future, back to the debate we had just a few minutes ago about the extension of the length of the term of the Scottish Parliament. The issue is still grouped with these amendments, and our proposed approach is to include the extension of the term of the Parliament in the list of special majority or supermajority issues, except for what will be the second extension of the term of the Scottish Parliament, which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned earlier. That is happening right here, right now because the proposal is for the term which ran from 2011 to 2016, a five-year term, to be followed by another five-year term from 2016 to 2021 The Bill in the Scottish Parliament to achieve that extension was introduced on 17 November. It is called the Scottish Elections (Dates) Bill. We believe that to make it clear and to avoid any uncertainty or confusion, that Bill should be excluded from the requirement to have a special majority. Otherwise, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that this is an important issue. I think there could well be some sort of cap on the number of years for which you can extend. For example, extending by one year is perhaps the maximum that any of us would envisage, but if we have an extension of the term of the Parliament, it seems entirely appropriate that, alongside the other issues listed here, it should be by special majority of the Scottish Parliament.
Autumn Statement — House of Lords, 2015-12-03
Topic: Education
Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I will do my best; so much to say, so little time to say it. I will confine my remarks this morning to just two issues: the green industry and further education, which, not surprisingly, were also chosen by my noble friend Lord Shipley On green industry, Liberal Democrats are seriously concerned about the cuts to DECC and the renewable energy sector, which compromise our progress towards decarbonisation and our ability to tackle climate change. I will give just three examples for brevity: the £700 million cut to the renewable heat incentive; the cuts to renewables, including solar and wind, have been reinforced; and the £1 billion from carbon capture, which will kill the industry. The Government are going backwards on progress made during the coalition, which saw a tripling of renewable electricity, the zero-carbon homes initiative, and of course the development of the Green Investment Bank, the principles of which were enshrined in our successful amendment earlier this week On FE, we are seeing a freeze in real terms, which equates to a £402 million reduction over the next four years. This is short-sighted. We already have huge skills shortages in this country and we need to be competitive in the world. This is yet another decision that will reduce the life chances of the young and which sits alongside the cuts in maintenance grants for the poorest students, who are being made to take out loans instead. We have yet to see what effect that will have on take-up. The reductions also mean that the number of colleges may reduce. In my own area, Birmingham, there are rumours that seven colleges are likely to be reduced to only two. This will mean longer travel times for most students but will also hurt the poorest most. It will certainly not mean better teaching—you would need investment for that What are we spending the FE funding on? The Government seem to have a mantra of 3 million apprenticeships, but what kind of apprenticeships will they be? Will they be higher apprenticeships or, in order to get the figures in, more along the mantra of, "Never mind the quality, feel the width"? HE funds are not just about apprenticeships. People who need English as a second language are desperate for training so that they can join the workforce. People need retraining throughout their lifetime, either because they have to change their jobs or because of the need for continuous professional development. Finally, we need lifelong learning in this country as much as anywhere else in the world to make a skilled, educated and civilised society—and I have done it in three minutes.
Autumn Statement — House of Lords, 2015-12-03
Topic: Macroeconomics
James Palumbo (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Once again, my Lords, we meet to debate a Statement which consists of fractional tinkering, where a billion here and a billion there are magicked from thin air, where we know that none of it really adds up, makes sense or will come to pass, but there is no other way in western democratic politics. So I suggest an idea to the Minister for our next debate: no numbers. Instead, it should be a debate about what principles should guide our thinking. For example, do we believe that behaviour and consequences of behaviour should be connected? Fifty-nine thousand health appointments are missed daily in the UK and £16 billion is spent annually on conditions related to obesity. Should there be a financial sanction There are 11.2 million pensioners in the UK, including my esteemed uncle, who is sitting here today. Of these, 13% live in relative poverty, but millions are either comfortable or affluent. Yet all are entitled to the same benefits. Does means testing make sense? By 2020, health and welfare will account for 70% of total spending, including debt interest, and the country will have been in deficit for 19 years. Yet debate focuses on tax credits, a mere blink of a numerate eye in the overall budgetary quagmire. But it is good political sport and a distraction from unpleasant reality Last week, the Chancellor made great play of his housebuilding plans, echoing his rousing conference peroration: "We are the builders". Since 2010, around 600,000 houses have been built, half the number needed. I shall not mention Heathrow or HS2. On any objective basis, the Conservatives are most emphatically not the builders. Yet in modern democratic politics, it is possible to say whatever you like. Throw in a few pictures of the Chancellor posing trimly in a hard hat and it is so This is the backdrop to our deliberations: another Statement, another wave of the magic wand, another declaration of triumphant success. It is a system where it is impossible to link behaviour with consequences of behaviour, where soundbites triumph over truth, where instead of saving the OBR windfall against a certain future recession it is used desperately to plug financial holes—like wattle on a monsooned mud hut—and where the Chancellor can stand on the steps of his metaphysical counting house and declare if he so chooses that the moon is made of cheese. Maybe the OBR would support even this contention This noble House is sometimes criticised for the fact that we are unelected, but perhaps this gives us the ability to debate the real issues. May the Minister summon the powers of his northern independent spirit to consider this idea.