argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Criminal Finances Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-28
Topic: Law and Crime
John Kevin Sharkey (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 10, 13, 20 and 22 to 25 in this group, all of which are probing amendments. Amendment 10 modifies subsection (4) of the newly inserted Section 362B of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The subsection sets out one of the three conditions that must be satisfied before an unexplained wealth order may be made: "The High Court must be satisfied that … the respondent is a politically exposed person, or …there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that … the respondent is, or has been (whether in a part of the United Kingdom or elsewhere), or … a person connected with the respondent is, or has been, so involved" As I read it, it means that simply being a politically exposed person satisfies the condition. That is enough for the High Court: it does not need, "the reasonable grounds for suspecting involvement in serious crime", to be satisfied as well. That seems unnecessarily and dangerously broad It is probably unnecessary to remind the Committee that we are all PEPs. So are our families and our close associates. As the Government have made clear, and as the FCA is about to say in guidelines, most Back-Benchers, their families and associates should not require additional due diligence. Given that, we or our equivalents abroad should not be exposed to a harsher, more extensive and more intrusive regime. By replacing "or" with "and", and by qualifying the definition of PEPs by inserting, "who merits additional due diligence according to Financial Conduct Authority guidelines", my amendment removes this harsh, special treatment of non-EEA PEPs. For the condition to be fulfilled, the amendment requires that the PEPs are not ordinary PEPs but merit this additional due diligence and that there should be reasonable grounds for suspecting involvement in serious crime Amendment 13 removes the exemption of UK and EEA PEPs from the conditions in subsection (4) of new Section 362B, in order to give the Minister the opportunity to explain why UK and EEA PEPs should not be treated exactly as all other PEPs Amendment 20 gives the Minister an opportunity to clear up an apparent anomaly. On page 5, subsection (2)(b) of the newly inserted Section 362E sets out the penalty for failure to respond properly to an unexplained wealth order. For summary conviction in England and Wales—and later, we see, in Scotland too—the penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or a fine, or both. However, on the very next page, in subsection (2)(c), the penalty on summary conviction in Northern Ireland for exactly the same offence is set at imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine, or both. So in England and Wales and Scotland, you can go to prison for up to 12 months, but in Northern Ireland it is up to six months. Why? I would be grateful if the Minister could explain.
Criminal Finances Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-28
Topic: Law and Crime
John Kevin Sharkey (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): If it were absolutely clear that you cannot obtain an unexplained wealth order without satisfying that condition, I would be happy, but I am not entirely sure that it is, and I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the noble Lord is correct Amendments 22 to 25 will allow the Minister to point out—if other noble Lords do not do so beforehand—where I have entirely missed the point. They refer to page 7 and subsections (2), (3) and (4) of new Section 362H. These subsections allow rules of court to provide for the practice and procedure to be followed relating to unexplained wealth orders before the High Court in Northern Ireland. There are similar but not identical subsections later in the Bill dealing with the same matter in Scotland. However, the Bill seems to be silent on how these matters are to be dealt with in the English and Welsh courts. I am sure I have missed something obvious here and would be grateful for enlightenment from the Minister There is another apparent anomaly in the sections dealing with the variation or discharge of an unexplained wealth order. I notice that the provision in Scotland is significantly different from that in Northern Ireland. On page 18, line 43, to line 1 on page 19, the Bill allows applications for variation or discharge to be made by "Scottish Ministers" or by, "any person affected by the order" That is not the case for Northern Ireland, where application can be made only by the enforcement authorities or the respondent. Why is there this difference between Scotland and Northern Ireland? My Amendment 24 makes the process in Northern Ireland the same as in Scotland but, again, what about England and Wales? I look to the Minister to put me right on all this.
Criminal Finances Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-28
Topic: Government Operations
Donald Thomas (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): In support of my noble friend, the experience of POCA has been that the amount recovered has been very little more than the cost, so that the question of resources is very germane. In practice, both sides are anxious to come to an agreement early on to avoid the expense of a lengthy hearing, never mind the lengthy investigation. Therefore, setting the level at a high point is a very sensible thing to do and will ensure that resources are properly used.
Criminal Finances Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-28
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, on that last point, I was not clear whether the Minister was saying that defendants’ living expenses were covered or not. I would be happy to discuss that with her after today. I raised it because I was aware that they are specifically referred to in other legislation.
Criminal Finances Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-28
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, Amendments 58 and 59 deal with the same provision in the Bill. We have now come to the chapter on money laundering Under new Section 336B(6), the Bill provides that the court must direct the exclusion from the hearing of an application of, "the interested person to whom that application relates", and "anyone representing that person". The second of my amendments would make that discretionary for the court, but the principal amendment would remove the provision, because it would be appropriate for the Committee to hear the Minister’s justification for excluding from the hearing without alternative arrangements on their behalf the suspected person and his representatives. I acknowledge that I missed a similar provision earlier in the Bill, but the point remains I appreciate that there is concern not to tell that person what evidence the police have when they seek to extend the moratorium period, but it is serious to restrict arguments and representation when the person is likely to be subject to an extension of the moratorium. It is part of the whole landscape of innocence until guilt is proved. As far as I understand it, that person will have no opportunity to object to the extension—or perhaps will have an opportunity but no real target to aim at because neither he nor his representatives will have heard the arguments.
Criminal Finances Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-28
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, as regards the bad things in subsection (5), I would feel more comfortable if these were a matter of discretion for the court. However, if a court has to be satisfied about something, the provision goes against my instincts—of course, I do not have the experience of other noble Lords in this area—as it would not be in a position to hear arguments on the other side. I specifically mentioned there being no alternative provisions because, in another part of the landscape, we are accustomed to there being special advocates, although that may not be a perfect system and I am not sure that I want to go down that route I will have to read the Minister’s response on legal professional privilege. It did not immediately answer my questions. Clearly, we are not going to make further progress on that today but it may well be something that I would like to come back to on Report, which, as I understand it from the provisional arrangements, will be very inconveniently held on the day after the day that we return from the Easter Recess. Therefore, I may disturb somebody’s holiday. I am sorry about that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Criminal Finances Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-28
Topic: Government Operations
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, perhaps I should accept that it will be up to us to ensure that transparency and accountability are included in those regulations. I will set myself some more homework. I am grateful for the Minister’s responses. The story is obviously not ending here but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Criminal Finances Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-28
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Amendment 81 extends the debate we had immediately before the break with regard to the assets that may be liable to forfeiture. I understand the extension in Clause 13, which we have discussed, but I wonder why there should be any limits on what falls within the forfeiture provisions, because life changes. Items that come into common use change. Who had heard of bitcoins 10 years ago? That is the thinking behind my Amendment 81, which would extend cash, and Amendment 84, which would extend listed assets. The Minister in the Public Bill Committee in the Commons said of what is now Clause 14 that the Government did not want to use the power in new Section 303B(2) "indiscriminately". I am puzzled what that term means. I can see that they would want to be careful about that use, but I do not see the relevance of discrimination In her letter of 17 March to noble Lords following Second Reading, the Minister referred to a balanced approach and said that allowing seizure of any type of property would not be proportionate. Again, that term puzzles me. Balance and proportion are relevant to the circumstances in which property can be forfeited—the conditions which have to be met, and so on—but are they relevant to the type of asset? We are in danger of allowing the owner of an asset to apply criminal ingenuity to remain a step ahead, finding new categories of property in which the proceeds of crime can be held. At Second Reading, the Minister said: "As criminals adapt, so must we".—[Official Report, 9/3/17; col. 1476.] We should—but it would be even better if we were to anticipate and be a step ahead, not a step behind, because it is very hard to be in step precisely.
Criminal Finances Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-28
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, we have had groupings which have covered half a dozen big issues; Amendment 107 would amend the definition of SFOs— serious fraud officers—in Schedule 1, where we are told that an SFO officer is, "a member of staff of the Serious Fraud Office". My amendment would add to that, "of such minimum level of seniority as may be designated by the Secretary of State" Realistically, of course, this aims to exclude a very junior member of staff who has perhaps simply administrative duties and so on—I seem to remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, saying, "It wouldn’t mean the janitor". I want to make sure that it does not mean the janitor. The SFO officers are referred to for various purposes, and after all, staff include civilians. I hope that whoever is to reply to this from the Front Bench—it seems that it will be the noble Baroness, Lady Vere—will be able to reassure the Committee as to just what is meant in this context and why there is no obvious limit: or perhaps there is one somewhere else as regards what level of officer we are talking about. I beg to move.
Personal Independence Payment Regulations — House of Lords, 2017-03-15
Topic: Law and Crime
Celia Marjorie Thomas (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, it is quite clear that more clarity is needed. Why do the Government not use the powers they already have to prevent the decisions of the Upper Tribunal from having immediate legal effect? I also know that the Government are appealing the decision from the Upper Tribunal. Why do they not wait for the result of that appeal? What about claimants whose claims are only half way through the process? What about those who have an existing award and whose condition has not changed in any way, who will be reassessed very soon? Are they to have that award taken away? In general, this committee is very supportive of the DWP and I urge the Government to use the powers they have to not bring these regulations into force until there has been proper consultation on them.
Class 4 National Insurance Contributions — House of Lords, 2017-03-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, what a climbdown. And what a spat between No. 10 and No. 11. The Chancellor has always had a tin ear, but did the Prime Minister not recognise that the NICs change was, in effect, a tax increase on the plumber, white van man, the entrepreneur and women working from home because of children—people who are typically "just about managing" and whose income fluctuates, is low and is often unreliable Yesterday, in the Budget debate, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, spoke of the now discarded NICs change as a way to combat companies that, to benefit from tax arbitrage, push people out of employment into less certain self-employment. I suggest, as I did then, that if the NICs changes had been focused on those companies seeking that tax arbitrage, rather than on the self-employed—manifesto pledge or no manifesto pledge—the response would have been very different. Were the Tory Government following their usual pattern of protecting big companies and big business and hitting the little people It is crucial, as I think everyone in this House would agree, that the increase of £2 billion for social care remains, inadequate though it is, being spread over three years. How will the Government fill the gap in the public finances when the Chancellor is so constrained by expected blows from hard Brexit? Can the Minister give us today a guarantee that it will not be filled by more severe spending cuts parts of the public sector already under extraordinary pressure? Do the Government agree that the whole Victorian structure of business and employment taxes needs re-examining? The former BIS Secretary, Sir Vince Cable, is chairing such a review for the Liberal Democrats. Will this Government, among their many reviews, take on frankly a review of similar scope, because it is vital When spreadsheet Phil decides to shoot from the hip, we surely have a Government puffed up in hubris. I am afraid that this exactly reflects the arrogance that led the Government to hard Brexit. If they have a tin ear over their own self-employed, how bad is the tin ear that they will take into EU negotiations?
Class 4 National Insurance Contributions — House of Lords, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Paul Scriven (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as listed in the register, particularly as a member of Sheffield City Council. As the national insurance contribution changes were widely briefed by the Government to pay for extra social care funding and business rates support, will the Minister now give an absolute guarantee that local government budgets will not be raided to pay for the gap that has now been made by this U-turn?
Class 4 National Insurance Contributions — House of Lords, 2017-03-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Kathryn Pinnock (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the Minister for his very clear statement about the continuing commitment to social care additional funding, but will he give us an equally clear and unequivocal statement to satisfy lots of worried people in local government that he will not be raiding existing funding for local government in order to offset the social care funding that has been provided?
Higher Education and Research Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-15
Topic: Education
Susan Garden (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. I add thanks from these Benches to those expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for the government amendments that they have brought forward and for supporting those from noble Lords, which have certainly made it a much better Bill Amendment 162 mirrors an amendment which we brought forward in Committee. For all the good reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has expressed, it seems niggardly to have one person trying to represent the three devolved Administrations. The arrangements would be stronger if there were somebody with experience of each of the three. There are distinct differences in higher education provision in the four parts of the United Kingdom. UKRI would benefit if it had relevant experience of all. We note that the amendment insists not that the person be Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish but that they have experience of those three devolved Administrations. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on it.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-09-08
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher Rennard (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, "It feels like ‘Groundhog Day’," is an expression that is bound to be used as we debate this issue again. I certainly feel like Bill Murray, who played the weatherman in that film who finds himself inexplicably living the same day over and over again. As the US Congressman Mo Udall once famously commented, "Everything has been said, but not everyone has said it". I expect to hear the same arguments over and over again, as little has changed since last December, when the House clearly expressed the view of its Members that a Bill such as this should be allowed to make progress and be considered by the House of Commons On 9 December last year, the amendment aimed at blocking the progress of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was defeated in this House, as he said, by 95 votes to 26, with 78% of us voting to make progress on the Bill. My first point is simply that every speech made on this subject, on every side of the debate, references respect for this House. Therefore, the will of the House should now be respected and we must put an end to the practice of holding by-elections to maintain a substantial hereditary presence in the House indefinitely, long after those hereditary Peers chosen to remain in 1999 have passed away My second point is that almost every Peer who speaks in this Chamber says that we must also respect the primacy of the House of Commons, yet a small number of Peers seek to block the House of Commons from being allowed even to debate the Bill. The principle of it has already been voted on by the elected House: the principle of ending the by-elections to top up the number of hereditary Peers was voted on by MPs in January 2010, when they supported the measure as it was proposed in the then Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. They did so overwhelmingly, by 318 votes to 142. The House of Commons has already voted in support of exactly what is in this Bill, by a majority of 176, or by 66% to 34%—again, an overwhelming majority Those who are defending the rights of hereditary Peers to vote to elect more hereditary Peers to be a part of this legislature, should perhaps take note of the previous votes of this place and the other place on this very issue. They should allow this Bill to go forward to the Commons, without further filibuster bringing about further damage to the reputation of this House. Thirdly and finally, I want to challenge those suggesting that a deal seen as a temporary measure, and secured by the votes of both Houses in 1999, must be binding for all time. Some noble Lords regard those votes as being irrevocable, but I believe that those same noble Lords also subscribe to the principle that one Parliament cannot bind any successor Parliament; for if it could, what would be the point of our meeting to consider much of the legislation that we do consider, if an issue has been decided in the previous Parliament, let alone one five Parliaments ago?
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-09-08
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Rennard (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am grateful for that intervention; that is a highly significant point. It is very clear that some of those most involved in the negotiations of 1999 would not favour our being where we are today, and would favour this Bill making progress. The argument that we cannot discuss this issue or make progress, because of an agreement in 1999, is absurd in terms of parliamentary democracy What, for example, would be the point of our debating the EU withdrawal Bill, if the European Communities Act 1972 had been binding on successor Parliaments? Would the noble Lords fighting to preserve hereditary by-elections also be arguing that we cannot consider leaving the EU, because of votes by both Houses ratifying a treaty 45 years ago and subsequently confirmed by the 1975 referendum? I suspect they will not make that argument.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-09-08
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher Rennard (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The noble Lord considers it a whim—I suspect many other noble Lords would disagree. There are at least some criteria by which people who are elected leaders of political parties make appointments. A hundred years after the attempts to reform the House of Lords before the First World War, when it was announced by the then Liberal Government that we would end the hereditary principle to replace it with the popular one, I do not think we can justify continuing to maintain the hereditary presence in any way. It seems that we must let this Bill proceed and we must vote for a minor, but important, reform to improve the credibility of our Parliament.
Update on the Progress of EU Exit Negotiations — House of Lords, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Julie Smith (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the Minister said, in reading out the Statement from the Secretary of State, that, "we have been clear that the UK and the EU will have financial obligations to each other that will survive our exit from the EU. In July the Commission set out the EU position. We have a duty to our taxpayers to interrogate that position rigorously. That is what we did, line by line" The Minister suggested that the European Commission had not brought forward any numbers. What on earth has been discussed line by line? Is this all fantasy?
Update on the Progress of EU Exit Negotiations — House of Lords, 2017-09-05
Topic: International Affairs
Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I cannot avoid the observation that "strong and stable" has now been replaced by "deep and special". If deep and special is the objective then clearly foreign affairs, defence, security and the exchange of intelligence will be very important components of that relationship. I do not see any reference to those matters within the four corners of the Statement. Are they being discussed, and to what extent?