argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Outcome of the EU Referendum — House of Lords, 2016-06-27
Topic: Civil Rights
Tina Stowell (Conservative, Centre-right): My noble friend is right that in moving from here it will be essential that we do so in a way that unites all parts of the country, particularly those who voted a different way There is a point about parliamentary democracy that I have not already made: as I have said, this was in our manifesto. We passed an Act of Parliament to bring forward the referendum, and that piece of legislation went through both Houses. We debated the terms of the referendum. This Parliament decided those terms and they were the ones that applied. We must remember that. We have all contributed to the way in which the rules were set and the way that the people of this country then exercised their democratic right to vote in the referendum.
Outcome of the EU Referendum — House of Lords, 2016-06-27
Topic: Other
Tina Stowell (Conservative, Centre-right): I hear very much the points that the noble Lord has made but they are very similar to points that have already been made that I have responded to. I do not have anything more that I can usefully add at this point.
Outcome of the EU Referendum — House of Lords, 2016-06-27
Topic: Other
Tina Stowell (Conservative, Centre-right): As my noble friend knows, he and I were on different sides of the argument during the campaign, but I absolutely agree that the decision has been made, it must be respected and it should be implemented.
Outcome of the EU Referendum — House of Lords, 2016-06-27
Topic: Other
Tina Stowell (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord is taking us into a stage which we are not currently at in asking about what we might want to negotiate, so that is something on which I cannot offer any detailed comment at this time I am very grateful to everybody, and I think we are about to move on to the next business.
House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-09-09
Topic: Other
Rodney Elton (Conservative, Centre-right): Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to make it clear that I entirely subscribe to all those beliefs. I am merely saying that until they are achieved, we are here to see that nothing less powerful succeeds.
House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-09-09
Topic: Other
Rodney Elton (Conservative, Centre-right): I declare my friendship for the noble Lord as well. If he persists in pursuing issues that are not part of this Bill, I suggest that he considers the Bill coming up, I believe, on 21 October, which will actually reduce the number of Members of this House, whatever the fate of this Bill.
House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-09-09
Topic: Other
Caroline Chisholm (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my noble friend for that interjection, I think. However, we feel that this should be part of a larger reform, when that comes, but this is not the time to do that. On the other hand, the new Leader—
House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-09-09
Topic: Other
Caroline Chisholm (Conservative, Centre-right): I think I have said all I am going to say on the matter in my speech. We are not taking forward reforms during this Parliament. However, as I said, the new Leader looks forward to working with Peers to support incremental reform that commands consensus across the House. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today.
House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-09-09
Topic: Other
Caroline Chisholm (Conservative, Centre-right): I assure my noble friend that after every debate in this House that I take part in I go back to whichever department I am speaking for and ensure that all the points that have been made are taken in. I will certainly do that today.
House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-09-09
Topic: Other
Benjamin Lloyd Stormont Mancroft (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I apologise very much for interrupting my noble friend again; she is doing a splendid job. When she passes on the message about your Lordships’ concern about the quantity of new Members of this House, could she at the same time pass on our concerns about their quality?
House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-09-09
Topic: Other
Robert Hayward (Conservative, Centre-right): Before my noble friend sits down, I have not spoken in this debate but I echo the comments made by other noble Lords that we believe this House is already far too large and should be reduced rapidly.
G20 Summit — House of Lords, 2016-09-07
Topic: Immigration
Natalie Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): I assure the noble Lord that the Prime Minister has been clear that she is determined to protect the status of EU nationals already living here, and the only circumstances in which that would not be possible are if British citizens’ rights in European member states are not protected in return—and that is something that I find very hard to imagine.
G20 Summit — House of Lords, 2016-09-07
Topic: Immigration
Terence Langley Higgins (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, does not this Statement, combined with a highly critical report from the Electoral Commission, demonstrate the very real dangers of holding referendums rather than relying on representative parliamentary democracy? Was there any discussion at the summit with regard to the enormous influx both of refugees and of economic migrants into the European Community area? Why are we continuing to encourage and facilitate traffickers by rescuing—quite rightly—people who are trying to cross the Mediterranean, at the same time aiding the traffickers, who can say, "Don’t worry if the boats don’t look safe—you’ll be rescued by the Royal Navy and arrive in Italy or Greece in due course"? It is highly dangerous, and we ought not to continue this practice, which simply exacerbates the immigration problem.
G20 Summit — House of Lords, 2016-09-07
Topic: Immigration
Natalie Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): The G20 summit focused on the need to develop a sustainable framework for the global management of migration. By reducing the incentives to make dangerous secondary journeys and stopping organised immigration crime groups from exploiting the vulnerable, we can achieve better outcomes for migrants. As my noble friend will be aware, the UK is a major contributor to Operation Sophia. We are also looking ahead from the summit to two high-level migration events at the UN General Assembly later this month: the UN Secretary-General’s high-level meeting on large movements of refugees and migrants and President Obama’s leaders’ summit on refugees. They will build on the work that was undertaken at the London Syria conference in February.
G20 Summit — House of Lords, 2016-09-07
Topic: Immigration
Mark Schreiber (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I note that the Prime Minister said that we will not shy away from dealing with illegal immigrants. Do the Government now recognise that the rate of immigration into Europe has become wholly unsustainable and that the EU’s system of quotas is not working because it has been completely ignored, and that a new approach is needed? Will my noble friend encourage the Prime Minister to take to the UN in America my proposal for having an area of desert, probably in north Africa, designated for the reception of all immigrants, where they can be sorted out and dealt with?
G20 Summit — House of Lords, 2016-09-07
Topic: Immigration
Natalie Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): As I have said, the G20 summit focused on the need to develop a sustainable framework for the global management of migration. I am not sure that the President of the United States will particularly listen to me.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-09-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Thomas Jeremy King (Conservative, Centre-right): This is a very limited amendment in one sense, but this has become something of a Second Reading debate on the Anderson report, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on the way he introduced it. He made it clear that there is a considerable degree of common ground on the importance of these powers, which have been so carefully scrutinised by Mr Anderson. The whole House will recognise the great debt that we owe him. People not just in this country but in many others will read this report with great interest. As we have said before, there is no doubt that the threat is severe and very real, and we need to ensure that we have all reasonable methods of combating it. We will go further into this issue. I listened with great interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I will also be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say about the panel and the noble Lord’s recommendation. Even if it is not identical to what he recommends, something along these lines may well have considerable merit.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-09-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Frederick Richard Penn Curzon (Conservative, Centre-right): Almost anyone has access to bulk personal datasets. Many of us have a telephone directory. A very wide range of public bodies and commercial organisations have access to bulk personal datasets, because that expression describes a wide range. I cannot be specific to the noble Lord, but if I am able, on advice, I will write to him to elucidate further.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-09-07
Topic: Other
Frederick Richard Penn Curzon (Conservative, Centre-right): I anticipate that between now and Report the Government will have reached a conclusion on Mr Anderson’s recommendation. We have not done so as yet, as I have explained but, if we come forward with an amendment, that would be on Report.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-09-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Frederick Richard Penn Curzon (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, this is the first group of amendments specific to Part 7, which relates to bulk personal datasets. In moving Amendment 218 I shall speak also to Amendments 219, 226 and 232 The Government agreed in the other place that we should provide further restrictions on the use of class BPD warrants, and the new clause provided by Amendment 219 and the consequential changes made by Amendments 218 and 232 honour that commitment This builds on Clause 187, "Additional safeguards for health records", previously introduced in the other place. That clause states that a dataset that includes health records can be retained under a specific BPD warrant only if there are exceptional and compelling circumstances to do so.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-09-07
Topic: Other
Frederick Richard Penn Curzon (Conservative, Centre-right): It may be for the convenience of the Committee to appreciate, as I understand it, that the noble Lord would like to put this group with the group that I think was originally separated out; that is, the group beginning with government Amendment 221. Is it his wish that we should deal with everything comprehensively in one go or shall we split the groups as originally proposed?
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-05-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 6. In moving them, I shall speak also to Amendment 12 In the other place, the Government made small changes to the provisions relating to the National Audit Office’s powers to carry out value-for-money studies of the Bank. As we have discussed in previous debates, these clauses deliver an important increase in the accountability of the Bank and its operations The NAO’s new powers are subject to a bespoke policy carve-out, designed to protect the independence of the Bank’s policy decisions. The Government have made two small but important technical changes to ensure that the NAO’s new powers are applied consistently across all areas of the Bank. These changes have been agreed by both the NAO and the Bank The original drafting of the Bill did not give the NAO the power to carry out value-for-money reviews of Bank subsidiaries unless they were indemnified by the Government. This was not the Government’s policy intention The first change ensures that the NAO is able to carry out value-for-money studies, not only of the Bank itself, but also of all the Bank’s subsidiaries, whether or not they are indemnified by the Government. The amended clauses will also allow the NAO to carry out value-for-money studies of any other company in which the Bank has an interest, but only if that company is indemnified by the Government The second change ensures that the policy carve-out applies consistently across all areas of the Bank. Under the previous drafting, the NAO’s powers to review the Bank’s indemnified subsidiaries and other companies came from the National Audit Act 1983. That means that its review of these companies would not be covered by the policy carve-out. The Government have amended the Bill to address this inconsistency On Amendment 12, the Government also made a small amendment to the clauses in the Bill relating to the Monetary Policy Committee. The Bill reduces the minimum frequency of MPC meetings from monthly meetings to "at least 8" meetings in every calendar year. The Warsh review assessed that this new timetable, "strikes the balance between timeliness and probity", and brings the MPC into line with other leading central banks, including the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank. The amendment made in the other place adjusts the reporting requirements of the MPC to match the new meeting timetable. At the moment, it is required to submit a monthly report and so, without this change, the committee would be obliged to produce reports even when it has not had meetings I hope that noble Lords will agree that these are sensible changes, and I commend the amendments to the House.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-05-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Terence Langley Higgins (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I had not realised until now that I am a wild enthusiast for a bespoke policy carve-out. The amendments reflect the considerable extended debates that we have had previously in your Lordships’ House, and I am very glad that they are now effectively implemented by the amendments that we have in front of us. There was a real problem with the relationship between the National Audit Office and the Bank of England. It is very fortunate that that seems to have been resolved now in a way that is satisfactory to both sides In a former incarnation, I was much involved in extending powers of the National Audit Office so that it did not merely act as an auditor but could look into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the bodies that it was investigating. I certainly think that there is a strong case for it including the Bank of England in its remit. To clarify one point on this, there are some aspects of the Bank’s operation that really need to be looked at. The present Governor of the Bank of England has taken to issuing forward guidance on interest rates, which I must say has not been an enormous success. Anyone who has followed that advice will almost certainly have lost money, depending on the precise timing. I think that he should consider very carefully whether it is an appropriate approach for the Bank to take—and perhaps the National Audit Office should do so, too I am not entirely clear what is covered by the expression "Bank company". In particular, does it include the body—I have forgotten its name for a second—responsible for managing the enormous quantity of gilts purchased as a result of the quantitative easing operation? Will the National Audit Office have the power to inquire into how that very substantive—indeed, enormous—quantity of gilts is managed Overall, however, this is a very welcome change—and I am particularly glad that the Treasury is proposing to finance the operation. As it pointed out in the notes that come with the Bill, it should increase the likelihood of a value-for-money study being undertaken relative to the Bank of England. This change reflects the work that your Lordships did at earlier stages, and is very much to be welcomed.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-05-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Higgins and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for their comments and for their support for these amendments. My noble friend’s views on the governor’s role in giving forward views are well known; he has expressed them before in debate on the Bill. We have listened to his views but they are not specifically a part of this Bill. On the question of whether "Bank company" includes the asset purchase facility and therefore allows the NAO to make value-for-money reviews, the answer is yes. Amendment 3 is the amendment that deals with that I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has acknowledged that we have been in listening mode and that we have moved. We are always happy to listen to sensible suggestions, and I am grateful for his acknowledgement of that.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-05-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Howard Emerson Flight (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, as I understand it, the proposed arrangements effectively give the Treasury Select Committee a sort of negative veto after the event. Why could this not be more straightforward, with senior appointments such as the head of the FCA requiring the approval of the Treasury Select Committee up front?
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-05-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
James Bridges (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, this amendment gives the Treasury a power to provide financial assistance to bodies for the purpose of taking action against illegal money lending. It also gives the FCA an obligation to raise a levy, which will apply to consumer credit firms, in order to fund this financial assistance Loan sharks prey on some of the most vulnerable people in society, cause untold misery to their victims and have a damaging impact on the communities in which they operate. As well as lending money illegally at high levels of interest without FCA authorisation, loan sharks frequently use blackmail, as well as violence, to intimidate their victims into repaying legally unenforceable debts Loan sharks are currently investigated and prosecuted by the England and Wales illegal money lending teams and the Scottish Illegal Money Lending Unit. The cost of the teams is around £4.7 million. While the FCA will consult on precisely how the levy will be apportioned and collected in its annual fees consultation, the cost of the new levy to individual firms in the £200 billion consumer credit market is anticipated to be small It is absolutely right that industry meets the modest costs of funding the teams—all participants in the consumer credit market benefit from their enforcement work. The teams ensure that the consumer credit market remains legitimate and credible by keeping illegal money lenders out of it. The amendment will ensure that the funding that the illegal money lending teams need to continue their crucial work is put on a sustainable, long-term footing. I beg to move.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-05-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
James Bridges (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I again thank noble Lords for their support in principle for much of this amendment; in particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his comments given his experience in this area Clearly, we disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said about why this is not being funded by taxation. As I said in my opening remarks, the current cost of the enforcement regime is around £4.7 million. Consequently, the costs to individual firms in the £200 billion consumer credit market is anticipated to be small. Therefore, it is unlikely that they will be passed on down the chain. With that in mind, I hope the amendment will be agreed.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-05-03
Topic: Other
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have replied. There seems to be unanimity that this is a serious issue that needs addressing and at least a partial acknowledgement that this is a start. We have accepted this amendment because we acknowledge that there needs to be a sensible approach to this problem The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, mentioned that guidance exists already. In many of my replies to noble Lords, I am going to fall back on the fact that, having begun the process with this amendment, a lot will depend on the consultation about the regulations that we will bring in before 2017. I urge noble Lords to take part in that consultation so that all the points that have been made today and the concerns that people have heard about can be brought into that consultation so that we can get a sensible set of regulations, which this House will be able to look at, in place before 2017 The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, mentioned penalties. Again, the degree of penalties will obviously be part of the consultation and will be included in the regulations when they come in due course.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-05-03
Topic: Other
Michael Morris (Conservative, Centre-right): My noble friend says that he is not in a position to indicate when the consultation shall start—but we are in May 2016, nearly half way through the year. That suggests that, if we are not very careful, it will be the back end of 2017 before anything happens. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised a particular family issue; and the noble Lord, Lord Wright, who is not in his place, raised one last year, if not the year before, relating to one son in Singapore and another in the USA. This is not a matter that we can just put into the long grass. I know that my noble friend is not doing that, but it is getting very near the outfield. I suggest that he should come back to the House and tell us exactly when the consultation will start and when we will get some substantive recommendations out of it.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-05-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
James Bridges (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Baroness, as so often, makes a very valid point. This is precisely what the consultation sets out to address. It aims to ensure not just that consumers are properly protected but that they make informed and proper decisions. I will write to the noble Baroness to make these points in more detail.
Trade Union Bill — House of Lords, 2016-05-03
Topic: Other
Thomas Jeremy King (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, can my noble friend say whether I am right in thinking that there has been some change in the order of business? I was under the impression that there would now be an Urgent Question on health. I myself arrived late in the Chamber, and that ought to be taken into account.
Trade Union Bill — House of Lords, 2016-05-03
Topic: Other
Michael Bruce Forsyth (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister. We did of course have extensive debates about the merits of this at an earlier stage of the Bill. Could she tell the House when and why the Government changed their mind on this matter?
Trade Union Bill — House of Lords, 2016-05-03
Topic: Other
Patrick Cormack (Conservative, Centre-right): Could my noble friend please answer the question that I asked about timescale? She used the expression "in due course" et cetera, but it would be helpful to know when this review will commence, how long it will last and when we will therefore be in a position to draw conclusions from it.