argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Defence Fire and Rescue Project: Capita — House of Lords, 2018-06-21
Topic: Government Operations
John Thurso (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the Minister will undoubtedly be aware of the comments of the chief executive of Serco regarding government procurement to the effect that the Government have proved to be the worst procurer and the worst client, driving many large companies into difficulty. In that regard, what assurance can he give the House about the quality of the actual contracting process in this case so that that is not the end outcome here?
Armed Forces: Reserves — House of Lords, 2018-06-21
Topic: International Affairs
Julie Smith (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that clarification I conclude, following the call by my noble friend Lord Burnett and various other noble Lords, with the hope that there is no truth in the Financial Times article this morning that somehow the Prime Minister is asking the Secretary of State to think again about whether the United Kingdom should be a tier 1 country. I hope that the Minister can reassert that the Government understand that their primary duty is the security of the realm.
Offshore Environmental Civil Sanctions Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-06-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Malcolm Bruce (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanatory introduction, and I have just a couple of points to raise with him. I welcome the purpose behind this change in the law, which I assume is to reduce the number of incidents. Has the regulator made an assessment of the impact it will have? The figures the Minister gave are for the number of breaches, most of which were not serious. However, those that were serious cause a little concern, and obviously the point that prosecutions are not effective under the present law has to make it a consideration as to whether civil sanctions will make a significant difference My second point is whether the criminal burden of proof will have a difficult impact in the sense that it is quite a high standard of proof, although that is right and proper given that these are new regulations. Nevertheless, is the regulator satisfied that it will be able not only to prosecute effectively but, more importantly, that it will be able to create a climate in which there will be a significant reduction in the number of incidents? That is really what I am seeking. Has there been any assessment by the regulator of that?
Offshore Environmental Civil Sanctions Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-06-21
Topic: Environment
Robin Teverson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, when I first read the regulations, I had a vision of a motorboat chugging up to an offshore oil rig and sticking a parking ticket on it with a fixed penalty fine, but obviously that will not be the situation One of the questions I was going to ask is about numbers. I thank the Minister for going through them. It is certainly very stark that we have two prosecutions for environmental offences out of 4,000. I guess that is one of the reasons that this measure is needed Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states: "The need for the instrument has arisen due to a number of contraventions of environmental Regulations"— the Minister has gone through those very well— "going unpunished as a result of OPRED’s lack of a proportionate enforcement response" What resources does OPRED have? Is it an organisation with capacity? Is it underfunded at the moment? Is that part of the problem? Can it do enforcement in a quicker and cheaper way I want to expand on my noble friend Lord Bruce’s point. It rather surprised me that we were moving from criminal law to civil law but the burden of proof did not move to balance of probability; it stayed at the level of criminal proof—that is, beyond reasonable doubt Regulation 9(1) states: "A person on whom a final notice is served may appeal to the Tribunal in relation to the decision to impose the fixed monetary penalty" That is fair enough. However, Regulation 9(2) states: "In any appeal where the commission of an offence is an issue requiring determination, the relevant enforcement authority must prove that offence according to the same burden and standard of proof as in a criminal prosecution" If I were faced with a £48,000 fine, what would I do? I would just say, "Take me to court. Go through this criminal proof". If that is getting in the way of prosecutions at the moment, the barrier is still there. There is a quick and easy way for justice to be avoided once again Going through the regulations, I looked at the fixed penalties. Although I realise that they are rather more draconian than going through a Cornish village at more than 30 mph, I wonder whether £500, £1,000—as for most of them—or the top limit of £2,500 would even be in the petty cash of the sort of organisations that we are talking about, which I assume are the potential offenders. Although I realise that the fines can go up to £50,000, I wonder whether organisations would even notice these fixed penalties, which are the cutting edge of these regulations. It seems that it will be part of the P&L line where you just pay your money to avoid environmental regulations I have a final question for the Minister. I assume that the answer will be no. I like the idea of immediate penalties in low-impact environmental impacts, so that the system is sped up and more enforcement takes place. Might this apply to any marine-based activities other than the hydrocarbons industry?
Offshore Combustion Installations (Pollution Prevention and Control) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-06-21
Topic: Environment
Malcolm Bruce (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for that introduction. He has touched on my concerns, but I want to press him a little further. I appreciate that this is the implementation of an EU directive and we want to maintain compliance with EU regulations, but it is a fact, nevertheless, that the largest volume of offshore installations are in the UK or the Norwegian continental shelf. I am not denying that there are other installations in Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark, but the big ones in the most exposed conditions are in the UK and Norway Of course, in the past the EU has attempted to have more direct involvement in the regulation of the North Sea, which has been resisted, I think correctly, by the UK. What I want to explore, and the Minister did touch on this, are the concerns, particularly with some of the mature investments we have in the North Sea, that the difficulty or the disproportionate cost that might be involved in meeting these could affect future production. The Minister has indicated that the Government want to work with the industry, but how sure are they that we will not reach a situation in which significant production or investment could be compromised I say that with some hesitation. I know the environmentalists tend to want to shut everything down, or be resistant, and I certainly do not wish to give the impression that I am not keen to ensure that we operate the highest possible standards. But we have to operate within realities and it is true that large installations in really difficult conditions such as the northern North Sea are likely to have larger requirements for generating capacity, which could cause them problems My final questions are: given that it is an EU regulation, is Norway applying the same conditions? Is there any question that UK installations would be at any cost disadvantage compared with Norway, or do we have an assurance that Norway is operating at least the same standards?
Offshore Combustion Installations (Pollution Prevention and Control) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-06-21
Topic: Environment
Robin Teverson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, as this is a separate debate, I declare that I am still a board member of the Marine Management Organisation, as far as I am aware. I was going to start by telling the Minister that I very much support this but I am not sure that that is in line with my noble friend Lord Bruce’s contribution. I am sure we are agreed on this. The industrial emissions directive is generally an excellent piece of legislation. It is intelligent, in that it looks at best practice and varies its requirements according to what is possible and as best practice improves over time. Of course, it replaces the rather obsolete large combustion plant directive I have only a couple of questions about this because I welcome it. Coming back to one of my noble friend’s questions about cost, the medium combustion plant directive 2015, which is part of the EU’s clean energy package, says specifically that for new plant the directive applies immediately but for retrofit it does not need to apply until 2025 or 2030, which comes back to my noble friend’s point. My only real question on that is: is that the sort of timescale the Government are looking at in their understandable, correct and—lenient would be the wrong word—intelligent approach to getting these installations right? My other question is one I should know the answer to: what is the enforcing authority on this and how is it enforced—how are emissions measured—offshore? It is fairly straightforward onshore but how is that done offshore?
Scotland Act 2016 and Wales Act 2017 (Onshore Petroleum) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-06-21
Topic: Energy
Malcolm Bruce (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, of course I support the instrument, not least because, as the Minister said, it fulfils a pledge of the Silk and Smith commissions to transfer these powers to Scotland and Wales, but I have one question and a bit of context, because the transfer of these powers has generated a lot more heat than light in Scotland, where the Scottish Government claim that this gives them the power to ban fracking or any other form of onshore exploration, which the Court of Session says does not exist. In other words, the First Minister says that fracking is banned in Scotland, but the Court of Session says that it is not and is simply subject to normal planning considerations, so we are in a state of confusion, which is no responsibility of the Minister or the UK Government, having transferred that power This will become a significant issue only if there is a commercial desire to do significant onshore drilling or shale activity in Scotland, which Ineos has been preparing the ground for. It is entirely hypothetical, but it has been stated that if the future of Grangemouth, for example, depended on being able to extract shale oil that exists right underneath the plant, the issue would become politically more real, because you would be banning something that had a significant impact for Scotland, as opposed to current theological arguments about whether we should be doing that The only question I have for the Minister relevant to the regulations is on the section that says that everything is devolved except for the consideration—which is presumably the fee that might be involved. I completely understand that the administration and licensing of oil and gas energy is a reserved matter and therefore entirely for the UK Government, but I wonder, given the context that I have just outlined, whether adding to the pot the economic benefit of a licence—not only the commercial benefit but the revenue and royalties that might accrue to the Scottish Government—could change the tenor of the debate I have to make it clear that my party is not in favour of fracking and supports a ban. I personally do not agree with that; I think we should wait and look at the facts and the science rather than take a decision before it becomes a reality. Right now, it is purely theoretical; the whole thing is a power to do something that no one commercially is seeking to do and which the Scottish Government and public say that they do not want to happen. However, I can anticipate a situation in which reality will say that it is material and significant—that there are jobs and investment that matter—and the devolution of this power will become a problem, albeit one for Scottish politicians, not UK politicians. But I repeat what I said about transferring the consideration as well—not necessarily the licence, but the consideration. That would just be another factor that might realistically be put into the mix.
Scotland Act 2016 and Wales Act 2017 (Onshore Petroleum) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-06-21
Topic: Energy
Robin Teverson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, my noble friend has pretty well gone through everything that I might have said, except to say that from these Benches we fully support this extra act of devolution in an important area. It is about making sure that those in the energy field—in this area it is petroleum, but it can also be nuclear, renewables or whatever—such as energy developers and owners, put the environment or land back to what it was originally. Should be public need that, the Government or the devolved authorities are able to insist on a financial consideration. So we very much support these regulations.
Ivory Bill — House of Lords, 2018-10-24
Topic: Environment
Catherine Bakewell (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I rise briefly to speak against this group of amendments, and I shall not repeat arguments made at length at Second Reading and in Committee. I have tremendous respect for the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and his obvious passion for antique ivory and for others who have spoken in this debate, but I fear that I am not persuaded by their arguments It is essential in ensuring the success of the Bill when it passes into law that the restrictions and exemptions are very limited. To increase the exemptions to 20% for furniture and other objects and to 30% for musical instruments and to have unlimited size on pre-1918 portrait miniatures risks driving a coach and horses through the Bill. Any widening of the criteria will increase the market for ivory objects, weakening the entire purpose of the Bill by allowing trade in many additional items containing significant amounts of ivory. Similarly, moving away from the de minimis cut-off should be rejected. Registration of ivory-bearing items is fundamental to ensuring that items sold commercially meet the criteria set out in the Bill Having listened to the arguments made in Committee and this afternoon, I acknowledge that there is no meeting of minds over the rationale for the measures in the Bill. The Government and those of us who support the Bill believe that these restrictive measures will help to protect the elephant. Those who oppose it do not believe that this will happen and are therefore not prepared to support these measures. This is regrettable in the extreme. Everything that we know about CITES supports the Government’s Bill. We do not support making the Bill more flexible in terms of exceptions. I urge your Lordships to reject this group of amendments.
Ivory Bill — House of Lords, 2018-10-24
Topic: Environment
Catherine Bakewell (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hague, for so eloquently setting out the case. The removal of "outstandingly" or "outstandingly high" would substantially increase the number and types of items that qualify for exemption. The purpose of the outstanding artistic value exemption is to allow the older items of exceptional artistic value to be traded. The exemption before us would undermine that purpose and risk weakening the Bill by enabling trade in many pre-1947 worked items. The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to replace "important" with "significant" will similarly severely weaken the exemption criteria. It will already be possible for Art Deco items to be purchased by museums from private owners under Clause 9, which intentionally does not specify the age of ivory artefacts that can be acquired by museums. It is unwise and unnecessary to widen the exemption further As I said, those who support extending the exemptions do not see that this increase in items containing ivory will impact on the elephant population. Unfortunately, they are not correct. It is also wrong to assume that anything that is not exempt, or does not get a certificate, will be destined for the rubbish dump. Families will keep their personal artefacts and furniture containing ivory and pass them on to their children or grandchildren. Unfortunately, a lot of hysteria is being generated The monitoring of the elephant population, particularly in Africa, is much more sophisticated nowadays—due to the use of drones—than previously. The sad truth is that the population is down to 400,000. For the first time since records were kept, the number killed each year is higher than the number of live calves born. It is time to make a stand, and it is obvious that this House—across the political divide—supports the Bill. While the Ivory Bill is not perfect, it is a significant step forward in protecting the elephant. We must show the world that we are serious, in the hope that others will follow suit. We cannot support this group of amendments.
Ivory Bill — House of Lords, 2018-10-24
Topic: Government Operations
James Wallace (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, as a member of the Constitution Committee I subscribed to the amendments which were moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in Committee and I was delighted to be able support the concerns that he articulated so well about these provisions, which the Government have addressed very fairly. They have gone a considerable way to meeting the concerns that were expressed in the Constitution Committee’s report I know from conversations that I have had with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that he has been very appreciative of the time and consideration that the Minister has given to these issues. We have here a set of amendments which very much address these concerns, in terms of the restriction of the powers of accredited civilian officers, the role of OPSS and the designation that will be forthcoming under the 2006 legislation. It is a very good model of how this House works where a Committee produces a report and the Government listen and engage and come forward with some substantive changes which acknowledge the concerns that were originally raised. I am happy to support the amendments.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, again on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I have Amendments 64 and 65 in this group, as my noble friend Lord Paddick has trailed. The Bill gives powers, as does the Terrorism Act 2000, whether or not there is a suspicion. The JCHR’s amendment would insert a test of reasonableness—that is, a threshold of reasonable suspicion—to stop, search and detain for the purpose of determining whether an individual is involved in the commission of a hostile act, and would allow the exercise of these powers only when it is, "necessary and proportionate to do so" My noble friend said that he was not sure whether the second of those words was necessary, or possibly even proportionate. I find it quite difficult to know when one should articulate those criteria. We are told that they must always apply but sometimes it seems necessary to have the debate. The committee identified five potential interferences with Article 8 rights in the case of a person subject to the power: he must provide any information or document requested—failure to do so is punishable by a substantial fine and imprisonment; he can be stopped and searched; his personal belongings may be copied and retained; he may have biometric data taken; and he may be detained for questioning. These are of course existing provisions but there are distinctions from the 2000 Act. Under this legislation the purpose of the Schedule 3 power is broader and, we think, more ambiguous than the Schedule 7 power in the 2000 Act, giving a greater risk of arbitrary use of the power Professor Clive Walker, whom I have quoted before, has suggested that if the real mischief behind these powers is the Salisbury attack, the purpose should be confined to powers to stop, question and detain without reasonable suspicion on the basis that the person has information or is carrying materials which might relate to crimes under the Official Secrets Act or chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive crimes. Under the schedule to this Bill, there are also broader powers to retain articles and make copies of materials, including "confidential material", compared to Schedule 7. Under that schedule to the 2000 Act, material cannot be reviewed or copied unless officers have reasonable grounds to believe that it is confidential Under Schedule 3, there will be the oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, which is of course welcome. The Government also point to the fact that the decisions of the commissioner are subject to judicial review as a safeguard but, as the European court has commented, where statutory powers are wide, applicants can face formidable obstacles in proving that decisions are ultra vires. For that reason, among others, we think it is necessary that the statutory powers are clearly defined and sufficiently circumscribed.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2018-11-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. Perhaps reasonable suspicion of a particular individual is going too far, but I suggest to the Minister that the nationality of those suspected of coming to the UK to do harm to the UK, their arrival time and where they have come from might be the sort of intelligence that Assistant Commissioner Basu was talking about as fragmented and incomplete, not information about a particular individual. Whether that amounts to reasonable suspicion is arguable To give a personal example, every time I tried to go to the United States, I was taken to one side and all my personal property was gone through. This addresses the point about alerting people to the fact that they may be under suspicion. If it happens once, you think it might be random; when it happens every time, you begin to think that there might be some suspicion. There is a redress system where you write to the Department of Homeland Security. It writes back to you some months later saying, "We can’t say whether you were under suspicion or not, whether you are on the list or not, or whether you have been taken off the list or not". This is not giving away the methodology, or giving some intelligence to terrorists, but insisting that there is something more than simply an arbitrary approach to the situation I am getting increasing reports from individuals suggesting that examination might be being used arbitrarily or without due care, which is the other expression used by the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, makes a very powerful point. If the guidance says that stop and searches should not be arbitrary, why not have that in the Bill? I understand what the noble Baroness says, but how many people have the time, inclination or means to take civil action against the Border Force in circumstances where they feel that they are being improperly targeted? Surely it would be much better to have it in the Bill In summary, I will carefully reflect on what the noble Baroness and other noble Lords have said, and at this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.