argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised a very important point about freight transport crossing the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. It is a very legitimate issue to raise and I hope the Government will listen. He also identified that, of course, this can be solved with modern IT I want to bring the House’s attention to the reality of the border in Northern Ireland. I was working in the Northern Ireland Office just over three years ago. I said to my office, "I’d like to go to South Armagh". They said, "Well, Minister, that’s a frightfully bad thing to do", but I went. Noble Lords may know that South Armagh used to be referred to as "bandit country". Let me tell you, three and a half years ago, it certainly still was. I was with a lot of police, with a helicopter going overhead; the police still fear for their lives there because there are booby traps and things laid for them I particularly want to focus on smuggling. We followed a lorry on one of the little lanes from the Republic into the north. We did not stop, but the police said, "That’ll be smuggling". We saw the impact of smuggling diesel, because there are different duties in the south and the north; huge amounts of diesel are imported from the south to the north, including a lot of red diesel that is then cleaned—sorry, has the red taken out of it—and has a huge environmental impact. There are still different subsidies there. Cattle get smuggled back and forth across the border because a lot of money can be made through smuggling across the border. There are two different customs so, of course, there are customs officers on the border; not sitting in posts, as they used to be, but still down there. They do not do much, it has to be said; there is less to do because we are part of a single market. There are, I believe, 275 different crossing points between the south and the north of Ireland, on a border of some 305 miles. Between 1922 and 1972, it was never possible to police everyone. During the Troubles—I served out there for a bit—it was not possible to stop terrorists crossing the border. We used to put concrete blocks and everything at the border, but it did not work; people came across the border I also remind noble Lords that there are different currency units: Ireland uses the euro but we use the pound. People manage to get past this quite easily and they will manage to do so in future as well. People say that the border in Ireland is a huge problem; it will only be a problem when we leave the European Union if people wish it to be so. It does not have to be so; good will and common sense on both sides will show that it is not beyond the wit of man for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to co-exist quite happily and trade with each other—as they did before 1922, between 1922 and 1972, and since.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Rosalind Altmann (Conservative, Centre-right): If we are not in the single market as well as the customs union, there must be checks at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is not good enough for us to somehow assume that some magical solution will appear. There is no IT solution that will work for the border. The Smart Border 2.0 paper that was released does not solve the issue. If you read it carefully, you will see that it is not a solution. There is no solution, so either both sides need to turn a blind eye to the fact that there is no checking at the border even though there is supposed to be, or there has to be some checking In the last year, 4.4 million driver-accompanied freight vehicles moved between the UK and continental Europe. Four million of these movements took place on ferries through Dover or on the shuttle through the Channel Tunnel; around 99% of these required no customs clearance processes at the ports. As road movement is free of customs controls now, it has allowed UK industry to build up the fully integrated supply chains that we are in danger of losing. If we were to remain in the EEA or EFTA and elements of the single market, such problems could be minimised. I am very disappointed that the current red lines have ruled this out. It is hard to see how traffic and goods can flow freely and without further delays on the island of Ireland without regulatory alignment that mirrors the single market and customs union arrangements we have now. This amendment aims to ensure that Ministers do not jeopardise the UK’s economic activity, industrial success and the arrangements for the Irish border. We should perhaps demand that this provision be included in the Bill rather than just in future regulations. Can my noble friend the Minister explain how the Government can contemplate introducing a Bill that could cause such significant damage to our country without providing adequate safeguards? I support these amendments.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Other
John Taylor (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I take debates in this House seriously. I felt that the arguments presented by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, were duplications of arguments that had been admirably presented by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I felt that he should not have indulged in the way he did by speaking for 11 minutes and repeating arguments that had already been stated.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Martin Callanan (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, to start with, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, as we are more than happy engage in discussions with interested parties. Before I had this job, I was Aviation Minister and had regular meetings with all the concerned parties in the industry, and my noble friend Lady Sugg has told me she is very happy to continue those discussions. I am sorry if I did not make that clear to him earlier. We are of course carefully considering all the potential implications arising from the UK’s exit from the EU, including the implications for the UK’s future relationship with the European Aviation Safety Agency and the Single European Sky agreement. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Adonis—surprisingly, I see that the latter is not in his place—for their amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I shall speak briefly to the three amendments in my name, Amendments 109, 134 and 188. These are intended as sunset clauses but, as I do not want them to be sunrise clauses, I intend to be extraordinarily brief Those of your Lordships who have been in Committee during debates on Clauses 7 to 9 will know that I am very unhappy about the process those clauses attract. For example, the powers within those clauses are very widely drawn, the scope is considerable, the regulations are made by secondary legislation with very limited scrutiny, both parliamentary and ministerial, and they are triggered by a test—the test of appropriateness—which I regard as wholly unsatisfactory. For all those reasons, my view is that the regulations made under the regulation-making powers should die two years after Brexit and should, if necessary, be replaced by primary legislation. That is my suggestion to the Committee, and I hope it commends itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Other
Annabel Goldie (Conservative, Centre-right): It is not meant to be a Sir Humphrey excuse; it is meant to be an attempt to anticipate what is for most of us a very challenging scenario. However, I will of course take back the noble Lord’s suggestion and I will be very happy to try to produce some examples I shall return, if I may, to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I hope I am pronouncing her title correctly; those who come from Basildon may be interested to learn the pronunciation.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Other
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, this group of amendments has enabled the Committee to identify matters of considerable importance. I think that the Committee will say to my noble friend that she has tried to be helpful. We do not always agree with her but we are grateful to her for the way in which she has responded. Important issues have been raised with regard to statutory instruments and consultation with stakeholders. These matters will be addressed later on in future sessions of this Committee. The hour is late and, with the consent of the House, I would like to withdraw my amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Annabel Goldie (Conservative, Centre-right): I can only repeat the Prime Minister’s stated intention in her speech, and that is specifically to explore with the EU the terms on which we would continue to co-operate with ECHA and participate in certain processes. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that clearly, EU REACH is an EU organisation and to be a member of it you have to be an EU member state. After Brexit we shall not be that, but it is in the interests of the UK and certainly of industry that we work, in so far as we possibly can, in tandem with what is happening within the EU. That is certainly what the Government’s objective will be. The precise detail of that will be the subject of the negotiations The UK is strongly committed to the effective and safe management of chemicals and pesticides, and that will not change when we leave the EU. I hope this provides the noble Lords with sufficient reassurance that they will not pursue their amendments.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-12
Topic: Domestic Commerce
David James Fletcher Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, we are very grateful to my noble friend for raising a very important issue. I know that the hour is late but I declare my interests as a partner in the law firm DAC Beachcroft in the financial services industry and as chairman of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association, known as BIBA. In the light of those interests, it will come as no surprise to the Committee to know that I spend a great deal of time talking to insurers and brokers, and many of them share the anxieties that have prompted my noble friend and the noble Baroness to put forward this amendment I think that all those who have spoken have welcomed the speech made by the excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his determination to ensure that financial services lie at the heart of any new free trade deal with the European Union post Brexit. However, as the noble Baroness has just pointed out, some of the larger insurers have already begun to make provision for Brexit by relocating elements of their activities out of the UK to ensure that they remain in the jurisdiction of the EU—although I am still finding a strong desire and commitment to continuing the remarkable success story of the insurance sector in the UK post Brexit. I have no time at all but I urge the Minister to give us assurances that committed engagement and genuine consultation with those affected will take place in a timely, orderly and constructive fashion. Insurers and their customers will be looking for reassurances that their legitimate interests will be protected during any changes in policy that are made or even considered during the transposition process. Obviously there is much more to say, particularly about the role of regulators, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard mentioned, but these are very important issues and I hope that the Minister will respond in a very positive way.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Michael Bruce Forsyth (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, far be it from me to come to the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, but I read the article. What he said was that having almost two and half times as many candidates as electors, and an electorate of only three, was laughable. He in no way impugned the authority or the contribution that the noble Viscount makes to this House.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
David Trefgarne (Conservative, Centre-right): I have already endorsed my admiration of the noble Viscount and continue to do so. I agree that there are some idiosyncrasies. That is why I have suggested that all hereditary Peer by-elections might be conducted as the one which we conduct for so-called officeholders, in which all noble Lords have a vote to select a new Member when a vacancy in that group occurs I do not have much more to say in favour of the propositions that I have made, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will reflect again on the relevance of the by-elections in the context which I have described.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Patrick Cormack (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the noble Lord not accept that we have had the Second Reading of this Bill already? He is making a Second Reading speech. The best way that the House could be assisted now would be for my noble friend Lord Trefgarne to desist his mischief, withdraw his amendment to the Motion and get on with the amendments to the Bill.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
David Trefgarne (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am grateful for the point of view of all noble Lords who have spoken, not many of whom have agreed with me, I fear. Be that as it may, I am clear that we now ought to proceed to Committee. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Malcolm Sinclair (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, that comes as a wonderful surprise and I welcome what the noble Lord has said. There are further amendments that are also designed to improve the Bill, but I will reserve what I was going to say about the difficulties of an unelected House for a later stage. Meanwhile, I am very happy just to move my amendment.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Patrick Cormack (Conservative, Centre-right): This really is a classic case of wasting the Committee’s time. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has made it plain that he accepts the amendment and therefore no further debate needs to be had. My noble friend Lord Trenchard can doubtless read his speech against another amendment.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Hugh Trenchard (Conservative, Centre-right): I hear what the noble Baroness says. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, accepted the amendment, but I was not aware whether other noble Lords had accepted it On the regret Motion, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne sought to withdraw it, but in spite of that it was voted on.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
James Peter Hymers Mackay (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have to comment on what has recently taken place. If it is a question of trying to avoid the idea that this House is not—what should I say?—economical in the way it moves, the business of having a vote against the withdrawal is extraordinary. One of the consequences is that the two Tellers who voted for the Motion were doing so against their judgment. In my respectful submission to your Lordships, it does not do any good for the rationality of the processes of this House that that kind of thing should happen. I am here to acknowledge fully that it was not the leadership of the Opposition nor, I think, the Liberal Democrats who did that. It is undesirable and I hope we will now proceed rather smartly. I am entirely in favour of this Bill but I was not very happy with what happened at the beginning of these proceedings. That is the reason that I did not take part in the vote; I did not think that it should have happened.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Hugh Trenchard (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord is correct in saying that the Cross-Benchers are independent of the political parties but they are nevertheless appointed to this House by much the same process as Peers from other parties are nowadays appointed.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Hugh Trenchard (Conservative, Centre-right): I well understand that the noble Lord is very deserving of his place. I have the highest regard and respect for his contribution to your Lordships’ House and to its proceedings. All I wish to make clear is that hereditary Peers should also be considered an independent element because they do not owe their presence or their right to sit in this House to prime ministerial patronage.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Patrick Cormack (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very grateful to my noble friend. Will he tell me whether he takes the Whip? Will he tell me how many times he has been moved to vote against the Government during his time here?
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Michael Bruce Forsyth (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my noble friend not realise that he is insulting some of his colleagues, such as me, by suggesting that because we were appointed by the Prime Minister we do not behave in an independent manner and exercise our judgment? I suggest to him that he ought to declare an interest as someone who has benefited from the by-elections.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Hugh Trenchard (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not for one minute dispute that. I do not mean to insult my noble friend in any way. I do not believe that he thinks for one minute that I was being insulting. My noble friend knows well that I have great regard for him for the contribution he makes. Indeed, this is one of the very few matters on which I do not share his opinion.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
William Astor (Conservative, Centre-right): Perhaps I can help my noble friend. I voted against the Government for the first time as a rather junior Member of this House, and the following week the Prime Minister rang me up and I joined the Government Whips’ Office. It was a form of promotion.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Hugh Trenchard (Conservative, Centre-right): The wording of Amendment 2 is as printed on the Marshalled List: "Page 1, line 2, leave out subsection (1) … The House of Lords Act 1999 is amended as follows" Subsection (1) says: "Section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999 … is amended as follows" Does that satisfy the noble Lord?
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Hugh Trenchard (Conservative, Centre-right): As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, pointed out, the amendments have the effect of damaging the Bill, ensuring that it would not be effective. As I have sympathy with that purpose, I think that my remarks are very closely related to the amendments tabled.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Archibald Gavin Hamilton (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I should like to speak as a Peer appointed to this House and pick up the remarks of my noble friend Lord Trenchard that we appointed Peers are somehow deserving of being in this House. I have always considered myself to be very lucky to be in this House; I am not sure how deserving I am. Let us face it, if you have an electoral system, which the hereditary Peers do, surely that picks out the best of the hereditaries and raises the quality of people in this House overall. That is the only point I want to make. It would be very sad, when we think of the very high quality of some of the hereditaries who we have in your Lordships’ House, if we introduced a system to make it impossible for them to be here any more. That is why I support the amendments and hope to have a chance to demonstrate that in the Division Lobby.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Patrick Cormack (Conservative, Centre-right): What is offensive is the remark just made by my noble friend. If he had been here, he would have heard that most of the speeches made on the withdrawal Bill have been brief—certainly, mine have been. I have every right, as has every Peer in this House, to speak out on issues of great moment. His slur is unmerited and, if he respects himself and the House, he really ought to withdraw it.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
James Peter Hymers Mackay (Conservative, Centre-right): I want to just say, in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has said, that my understanding is that this Bill has received a Second Reading. Therefore, it is inappropriate to propose amendments that have the effect of destroying the Bill, because that is trying to reverse a decision that the House has already taken The other thing that I want to say is that my noble friend Lord Butler and I have worked together for years and years, but I dispute very much the idea that the only way in which this House could indicate in a very strong manner that it supports the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is by an absurd procedure that requires two Members of this House to record their vote in opposition to what they really believe. I think that there would be something very seriously wrong with the procedures of this House if there were no other ways in which the House could show its support of the Bill The other empirical observation that I want to add is that, if you want to make progress on the whole, it does not help you to interrupt the people who are opposing you.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Malcolm Sinclair (Conservative, Centre-right): I would also like to speak to Amendment 59, which is in my name and grouped with this, because what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, has said is absolutely right, and it is an important point that we will come to.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-03-23
Topic: Other
Nicholas True (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not know about that but, having heard what other hereditary Members of the House have said today, I doubt that would have been the case. At the time, I thought it was a very odd decision, but there it is. That is why retirement is there, and if an amendment comes forward to remove it I will support it, irrespective of the wider provisions The proportion of hereditary Peers is now lower now than it was in 1999, when there were 666 of us. I do not believe that that is a conclusive argument either way: I simply note the fact. I found unattractive the appeal to self-interest of my noble friend Lord Cormack, who said: "You will not be affected, so do not worry, you can come along with us". That exemplified the eagerness to beguile noble Lords into accepting a long-term result. No one in this House, including my noble friend, should feel they have to act upon self-interest, even if that were the case.