argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the best way to respond to the spirit of the Burns report would be to pass this Bill and turn it into an Act, because, for as long as it remains on the statute book, for every one hereditary Peer who leaves for whatever reason, he or she—well, it is "he", actually—will always be replaced by another hereditary Peer. Everyone else would be under a system whereby it is two out and one in, with the exception of the hereditary Peers. I suggest that if the noble Lord is concerned about the Burns report, he should withdraw his amendment.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Other
Dianne Hayter (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, this is an all-appointed House; it is just that some people are here because their fathers, grandfathers or great-grandfathers were appointed by the King or the Queen at the time. It is an all-appointed House.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): Can the noble Lord explain how that relates to Burns? My understanding is that the Burns report would reduce the size of the House. His amendment would not reduce the size of the House at all, would it? We would simply have an arbitrary 15-year re-election requirement for hereditary Peers. Or have I misunderstood him?
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): Perhaps I may have a word with my noble friend, who I always admire for his psychic powers, which I do not possess. He knows exactly why I do what I am doing at all stages. My noble friend is totally opposed to this Bill. I think he is the only person on these Benches—someone will stop me if I am wrong—or even on the Liberal Democrat Benches who is. I am grateful to him for clarifying his position. Whether he is sitting in the right place or not is only for him to judge I say this to my noble friend: I wish that he had made this statement a bit earlier. I had an identical Bill in the previous Parliament which received a Second Reading and a Committee stage. I do not recall seeing him in his place to express his view. He certainly did not take part in the Committee stage of this Bill on 23 March this year. I looked for him in the Division Lobby.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): What is interesting to note, my Lords, is that both of them have been on leave of absence. One is no longer on that leave, but for at least the last several years that I have been looking at it, they have been on permanent leave of absence. That includes general election periods and the State Opening of Parliament. While I cannot pretend to know the constitution in enough depth to know whether they are allowed to stand in a certain place at a certain time, I can assure the noble Duke that the machinery of the State Opening has functioned perfectly well when these two people have been on leave of absence from the House of Lords.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Bill is quite clear. It says: "No more than 92 people at any one time shall be excepted from section 1" That means that the 92, including the two referred to by the noble Lord, would no longer be Members of the House of Lords—or rather that their membership would not pass to their successors. It does not affect in the slightest their capacity to perform ceremonial duties. I have tried to follow this but I simply do not understand the method of succession for the Lord Great Chamberlain; it is beyond me. Do not try to explain it. I want to protect the Bill in its present form and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, will withdraw his amendment.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Other
Peter Snape (Labour, Centre-left): On that point, would the noble Lord reflect that back in 1945, when the Attlee Government were elected by a very substantial majority, there were I think six hereditary Labour Peers in this place? The vast majority of the Liberal Democrats, who he complains about, were created by a Conservative Prime Minister during the coalition. It seems that his main source of complaint about political imbalance in this place is based on the fact that there would be a dilution of the centuries-old Conservative majority.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Other
Peter Snape (Labour, Centre-left): I am not quite sure who is intervening on who here, but I was one of Tony Blair’s Peers. I remind the noble Lord that when Tony Blair was elected in 1997, with a very substantial majority indeed, much of the legislation in the early part of that first Parliament was blocked by the Tory majority in this House. "Tony’s cronies", as they were known, pale into insignificance compared with the number of Peers created by David Cameron during his period. He said openly that this House should reflect the majority of the Government of the day in the House of Commons and behaved accordingly. We should have a bit less of this point from the noble Lord, Lord True. He should come back to reality and stick to his amendment.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Other
Peter Snape (Labour, Centre-left): That is what Parliament is for, though the noble Lord might not agree with it. He might not have conducted himself in the same way when he ran that local council—but that is the way this place works and he should get used to the fact.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Other
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): My noble friend Lord Grocott knows these things because he was Chief Whip, but I do not believe that the Labour Party was the largest party in this House until a few years before it left office. Even after the passage of the 1999 Act, for some years the Conservative Party was still larger. Is the noble Lord seriously suggesting that the Conservative Party needs a buffer of 50 or 60 seats in order to deal with the disunity in its own ranks?
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Dianne Hayter (Labour, Centre-left): Perhaps I may make one small point. I apologise to my noble friend, having said that I would stay quiet all day. I want to say one thing about why the Labour Party so supports this amendment. It was never about the political balance in this House. In fact, it has been a Labour Party claim for a long time that the idea that because people whose fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers and sometimes great-great-grandfathers did service for this country and were therefore put in this House, their subsequent children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren should be here is one that we no longer find democratic. That is the reason why we support this Bill. We put the issue of any political balance on the very wide and strong shoulders of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and when we are able to move to a smaller House, we will deal with it then. This is not the way to do it. The importance of the Bill is that it is incredible that in the 21st century, we are talking about having by-elections for people because of what their ancestors did.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Other
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): I am opposed to it being directly elected. In answer to my noble friend’s question: yes, believe it or not, after 60 years once in a while it may be the case that I do not say that I agree 100% with my party’s policies. Can he remind us how long he has been in the Labour Party and how often he has disagreed with the party manifesto?
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Other
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rooker may not care and my noble friend Lord Grocott may say that he has complete licence to disagree with the party’s policy. I respect that but it is not the policy of the party, which is for a democratically elected House. Anything else is a departure from that policy. I respect it but it cannot claim any moral or political virtue at all.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Bruce Joseph Grocott (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I will say only one sentence. Due to my noble friend Lord Adonis’s passionate support for the Labour Party manifesto, I look forward very much to him telling us that he strongly supports the commitment in its last manifesto to respect the result of the referendum. I really cannot resist that.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-09-07
Topic: Other
Andrew Adonis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I do not propose to press the amendment at this hour, given how thin the House is, having thinned out progressively over the last two hours. However, I believe the issue of a democratic second Chamber is the fundamental issue which we need to address in this House, not tinkering reforms of the kind we have been debating over the last few hours. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Grenfell Tower — House of Lords, 2018-06-11
Topic: Housing
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the Minister saying that action in the case of the private sector had not been ruled out. That should send a very important signal to the private sector that there needs to be action In the Statement I think I heard the Minister say that he thought the local authority had identified all the private property. If that is the case, surely the electorates in the area—the people who live in areas where these blocks exist—are entitled to know where those blocks are located whether they are in the public or private sector. My first question is whether that information will be made available to the general public Finally, there are a number of hotels nationally that are covered with what looks like the material we are talking about, but we simply do not know. What is happening in the case of those hotels with this material?
Grenfell Tower — House of Lords, 2018-06-11
Topic: Housing
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I welcome the Statement and, in particular, its acknowledgement of the anger felt by many in the area and many survivors. It says that it is, "essential that people living in buildings like Grenfell Tower are not only safe but they feel the state understands their lives and works for them" I do not know whether the Minister read the Observer yesterday—just to add to his reading list—but there were some very moving interviews in it, including with a survivor called Mouna El-Ogbani. One of the things she said really jumped out at me. She talked about, "how we were treated by the government, as if we are nothing. … It’s just box-ticking for them. They don’t look at us as humans, only as numbers" That suggests that the people of Grenfell do not feel that the state understands their lives and still do not feel that the state is really working for them. I welcome what the Minister said about talking to people around Grenfell about the forthcoming Green Paper, but what will the Government do now to ensure that both Grenfell survivors and social tenants generally feel that the state understands their lives and works for them?
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-14
Topic: Other
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): Perhaps I may add one further question to those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It relates to the urgency procedure. The noble Baroness has already asked who makes the decision on what is or is not urgent, but can we also have some feel, presumably based on the experience of the agencies concerned, of how frequently they expect to use this procedure?
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-14
Topic: Other
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I appreciate that the Government cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and announce that this will be used X number of times a week, a month or a year—of course I understand that. But is the provision there because of previous experience that there is a gap in the arrangements, for which we have had to pay a price because we have not been able to enact the procedure, or is it there because there is a feeling that there might arise a need for such a procedure in the future?
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-14
Topic: Civil Rights
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): Amendment 62 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to add a new clause to the Bill after Clause 21concerning the right to protest The right to protest peacefully is an extremely important right that we should all cherish. I have been on a few marches and protests in my time. I have usually gone with a few friends, standing up for what we believe in. Many of my noble friends have been on marches, and I am sure many other noble Lords have been as well. I do not think any one group can claim that they are the party of protest marches I hope that the Government will agree that this is an important issue. The right to protest is an important one that we should all cherish. I have generally agreed with the Bill, and am happy to support it. However, I accept that we are giving the Government some extra powers. I support the Bill because it has a narrow focus, dealing with some very important matters, so I hope to get some assurance from the Government. I would not want to see anything in the Bill to stop people protesting peacefully; it is very important that we do not have that The noble Baroness raised a point about domestic extremism, which is an important issue. I like the noble Baroness very much. We get on, and sometimes we agree on things, and sometimes we do not. I do not regard her as a domestic extremist; she is a campaigner and a noble Member of the House who makes a valuable contribution. It is important that people should not be branded or grouped together so that somehow, their rights can be taken away. However, let us be clear: there are dangerous people in this country. People who have been born here can be very dangerous; they can be on the hard right, the hard left, in other groups, or religious extremists. We need to have laws in place to deal with them, but at the same time we need to protect our right to protest and stand up for what we believe in. I look forward to the Government’s response.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-14
Topic: Other
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for that response and all other noble Lords who have participated in this brief debate. I am grateful to the Minister for saying, if I understood her correctly, that there will be further reflection on this issue. I accept that she has not, on behalf of the Government, accepted the amendment. I do not know whether it is the listing of potential questions that is the cause of the difficulty. If it is, one solution might simply be to make reference to the fact that there may be a screening process, without laying down specifically what the questions are that may or may not be asked as part of it, since most of the debate seems to have centred on listing the specific questions. These, of course, were lifted straight from the code of practice.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-14
Topic: Other
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I take it from that that the Minister will be coming back to let us know the outcome. On that basis, I thank the Minister for her response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-14
Topic: Other
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I will be very brief indeed. We will listen with interest to what the Government have to say in response to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, but—obviously, subject to what the Government say—it seems to us to have considerable merit.
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill — House of Lords, 2018-06-05
Topic: Mixed Topics
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I wanted to concentrate my remarks on the final group of amendments, but I will intervene briefly on this one. We should be told—perhaps I could have the Minister’s attention—who is actually objecting. We have just been told that local authorities may have concerns, but are private companies, petrol companies or garages objecting? In this particular area, somewhere along the line, there is a blockage. Can we be told who officials are meeting? What is being said at these meetings? What is blocking this change? Clearly, there is a lot of support across the House for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill — House of Lords, 2018-06-05
Topic: Housing
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, Clause 10 involves the classic dilemma of taking rights over private property for the greater good. I commend the fact that the clause is there, but whenever such rights are debated, you debate both breadth and reasonableness. I will listen to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, on that breadth with interest, because I think there is a case for an incremental improvement in the breadth and power of this clause My three amendments are about the other side of the coin: that the regulations should be reasonable. Amendment 27 seeks assurances on the whole matter of how the regulations shall be reasonably applied. Amendment 42 is about notice. We need to be assured that private owners will not be immediately required to do things, and there is appropriate and adequate notice. Amendment 43 relates to the consultation process being appropriate.
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill — House of Lords, 2018-06-05
Topic: Other
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): As I read it, it says that the regulations "may" require. It does not say that they are required. Why, in this particular case, can the Government not simply concede to the amendment? It is not a requirement. It says "may", so it is up to the Government to decide how they want to proceed.
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill — House of Lords, 2018-06-05
Topic: Other
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): On that point, if it is the Government’s intention to proceed, then the word "may" is not really required. Anyhow, why not leave "may" in and include the words in the amendment? I cannot see what the Government lose by accepting this amendment. It is totally at their discretion as to what happens.
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill — House of Lords, 2018-06-05
Topic: Other
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): I am somewhat confused. I thought we were still debating the group starting with Amendment 29, and my understanding of the rules is that no other amendment is yet moved. Anyway, I will make the speech that I was going to make. I thank the Minister for her help in trying to get me to understand the amendment, those that preceded it and the amendments to the amendments that preceded the latest amendments to the amendment. I have to admit that I am now totally confused. Hence I am absolutely delighted that the Minister has assured us that this group of amendments will be translated into a single government amendment. I will reserve my views on that amendment until I have seen it, and I hope it turns up quite soon. Because that amendment will be tabled, we may choose to bring forward amendments to it at Third Reading, but I will refrain from using the time of the House any more at this point.
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill — House of Lords, 2018-06-05
Topic: Mixed Topics
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, we may not be in the blame game, but the noble Lord has actually made a strong statement there about the response of TfL to the boroughs. I reserve my comments until, perhaps, we have had a response from those who almost stand in the dock—and perhaps I can raise my comments on Third Reading.
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill — House of Lords, 2018-06-05
Topic: Mixed Topics
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, Clause 12(1) states: "Regulations may make provision for the purpose of ensuring the ongoing transmission of charge point data to a prescribed person or to persons of a prescribed description" Amendment 41 would insert the following: "Regulations under subsection (1) may not impose requirements on owners or occupiers of domestic premises" There is a big hole in the Bill. I want to know where the Government will raise their revenue from when fuel duty is reduced. At the moment we raise £28 billion per annum. Over a period of years, as the use of electric vehicles increases, there will be a revenue loss. At the moment, the duty on petrol is nearly 60p a litre, on LPG it is nearly 32p, on natural gas it is 25p, and on diesel it is roughly the same as petrol The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has expressed concern about this. Its view is that revenue will come through road pricing, which I think some people call "spy in the sky". This whole question of road pricing has always worried me. However, there are other forms of raising the revenue. There is road fund licensing, which would be very expensive if it is substituting fuel duty, or a tax on the meter in the home. In the end, that is where they will have to raise the tax. However, I think that it would be based on the recorded usage on the meter at the residence. If it is based on tax according to the meter at the home, there will have to be two meters in every home—one for the domestic use of electricity and one for the raising of revenue to substitute for the loss of fuel duty—which means that there will be two separate rates. We are entitled to know the Government’s thinking on this. How do they intend to raise revenue in future to substitute for fuel duty losses? In the time that I have spoken, I am sure that the civil servants in the Box have provided the Minister with an answer to my question.
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill — House of Lords, 2018-06-05
Topic: Other
Clive Brooke (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, having been critical, I now extend a word of gratitude. In particular. I welcome subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause in the amendment to which the Minister drew attention, because that will definitely be needed in the future. It is a very helpful amendment indeed.
Arrangement of Business — House of Lords, 2018-11-06
Topic: Other
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, for the convenience of those of us taking part in the debates in the House, given the vagaries of how these things happen, is the Government Chief Whip minded to make that a matter of fact as opposed to probability, so that we do not start the electronic money debates until after the adjournment?
International Road Transport Permits (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-11-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anthony Gueterbock (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is outlining what she probably thinks is the best case. If we get the worst case—no deal—there may be no trucks going across the Channel apart from the small number with the permits that she has just outlined. Will we be allowing Bulgarians—or Romanians, or anyone else—to come in and drive trucks, or will we just be cut off?