argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-28
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am interested to know why the Minister felt that these amendments needed to be moved at this time; what provoked that? Furthermore, who decides—and in what circumstances—what is a hypothetical sale, as opposed to a real sale?
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
Martin Callanan (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for hesitating in my answer earlier. There is a danger of this "tin of biscuits" example assuming the same significance that the maiden aunts of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, did, during the EU withdrawal Bills. I see smiles from noble Lords who were involved in those debates. However, I am not sure that we should pursue the "pig semen" argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson To answer my noble friend Lady McIntosh, these are technical changes relating to drafting errors that became apparent in further studying the text following amendments tabled by noble Lords. Following further examination by government lawyers, the Bill was drafted fairly speedily over the summer. Our intention was to avoid government amendments, but we wanted to hear the replies to the consultation and the White Paper. They are technical and legal clarifications that change none of the policy intent I assure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that the minimum unit alcohol pricing policy is unaffected, because it is an existing measure that is excluded, and because it is specifically excluded in addition to that, via various clauses. I will write to reassure him of that. Regarding his points about gin and vodka, I am not an expert on the Scottish measure, but I think it affects the retail price of the sale and not wholesale prices, and therefore the product would need to be sold at a different price, as specified in the Scottish measure. However, I consulted officials when we first debated this legislation and was assured that the Scottish measure would be unaffected by this legislation. I am happy to write reassuring the noble Lord on that point.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-28
Topic: Other
Janet Evelyn Fookes (Conservative, Centre-right): We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 12. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press anything in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate Amendment 12
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-28
Topic: Other
Patricia Morris (Conservative, Centre-right): We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 14. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate Amendment 14
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-28
Topic: Other
Nicholas True (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I note and hear what the noble Lord has said, but I think he would allow me not to enter into speculative discussions. I have put to the Committee a response to a question—a response provided to me to advise the Committee. As for its application, that is a matter that would be speculative and could be considered further. I will stand by the words that I put before the Committee.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-28
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I perhaps need to correct something. I may have mis-spoken when I spoke to Amendments 17, 31 and 42. Of course I meant to refer to the devolved Administrations, as is written in the amendments. I apologise if I did not say that on every occasion, but obviously I was referring to consultation with the devolved Administrations. I am grateful for the opportunity to correct that. I am delighted to have a short debate on whether Clause 7 should stand part and, within that, Amendment 32 in my name. Clause 7 makes provisions relating to "direct discrimination", and, among these, Clause 7(1) sets out: "A relevant requirement directly discriminates against incoming goods if, for the reason that the goods have the relevant connection with the originating part, the requirement applies to, or in relation to, the incoming goods in a way—(a) in which it does not or would not apply to local goods, and (b) that puts the incoming goods at a disadvantage compared to local goods." Subsection (2) states: "Goods are put at a disadvantage if it is made in any way more difficult, or less attractive, to sell or buy the goods or do anything in connection with their sale." The particular difficulty I have in Clause 7 is subsection (3), and in particular: "‘Local goods’, for the purposes of this section, are actual or hypothetical goods" The purpose of Amendment 32 is to probe the description of local goods and, in particular, what actually constitutes "hypothetical goods" Again, I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for its help in briefing and preparing me and drafting this amendment. It has concerns about the definition of "local goods" within this purpose, including actual or hypothetical goods. It is very strange that there is no definition of hypothetical goods, and the opportunity that my Amendment 32 creates is to simply ask the Government what they mean by "hypothetical goods" and why on earth we are using such an expression in these circumstances. I am sure it will give my noble friend the opportunity to return to his favourite tin or box of biscuits in this regard I will also raise a question that my noble friend Lord Callanan did not answer in summing up an earlier debate, when I asked who decides what is hypothetical? So I will take this opportunity briefly to ask my noble friend the Minister why we have inserted "hypothetical goods" in this clause? What on earth does this mean, and who determines what is hypothetical and what is real? With those few remarks I beg leave to move Amendment 32.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-28
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Michael Morris (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I cannot presume to know what my noble friend on the Front Bench is going to define as "hypothetical", other than to say that I spent 15 years of my life in the marketing profession, as I have already said to your Lordships. In that time, I worked with food manufacturers and pharmaceutical, agrochemical and household-product companies. Each of those markets, and many others, will have on its list test-marketing activities with different strengths, varieties, perfume levels and activity levels: a whole host of variables The companies will not know which is the actual product they are going to market—and they might not even market it at all—so, at a certain point in time, those products are hypothetical. They are not registered under a trade name: they are test markets and, quite frankly, that is the normal process for consumer goods. So, as far as I am concerned—and I do not think that I need to speak at great length on this—this is perfectly understandable to anybody who has worked in the pharmaceutical, agrochemical, household-product or food world, or any other product category.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-28
Topic: Civil Rights
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this little debate, which I hope wins the prize for the shortest debate during the passage of the Bill. I am grateful for the attempt of my noble friend Lord Naseby to give us the benefit of his marketing experience and take a stab at what is meant here, but I am very much in line with the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Stevenson, in that I think it would help to have an explanation in the Bill. Many Bills include definitions, and it would help if this was one such One hypothetical example that springs to mind is that, in the days before cloning, one would never have thought that a cloned animal could be bred in the way that Dolly the sheep was by the Roslin Institute, which is part of the University of Edinburgh. As my noble friend has gone to the trouble of explaining—I hope I understand it a little better—in the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine. It is regrettable that we do not have a definition in the Bill that would save court time and legal fees, going forward I very much enjoyed the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, particularly his hypothetical question about how this would apply to virtual sales. I do not think we have had an answer to that, so I would be grateful if the Minister could write to us Generally, the difficulty I have with Clause 7 has been eased, to some extent, by the explanation from the Minister. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay said in an earlier debate, a lot of EU law has been passed over and retained. The non-discrimination part of EU law, under the treaties, is on the grounds of nationality and is inherently clearer. The complicated process we have come up with in Clause 7 could be summed up by how no one can discriminate against a good—or a service in a later part of the Bill—simply because it comes from a different nation of the United Kingdom. That could have been explained more clearly, but I am grateful for the opportunity to have had this little debate and the explanation, as far as it went, from my noble friend Lady Bloomfield. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-28
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak also to Amendment 67. I am grateful to the Law Society for its help, as with other amendments, including Amendment 37, in preparing and drafting them The amendment looks at bringing Clause 14 into conformity with the existing law of sale. The reason for this is that the Sale of Goods Act 1979 defines a contract of sale of goods as, "a contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price." It further defines an "agreement to sell" as a contract of sale whereby, "the transfer of the property in the goods is to take place at a future time or subject to some condition later to be fulfilled". The introduction of a new definition of "sale" as set out in the Bill, without reference to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, could produce confusion and lack of clarity among traders and consumers alike. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the reasons for the Government departing from the definitions of "sale" in that Act to avoid any confusion Similarly, Amendment 67 would leave out Clause 14(6)(c). This has the effect that I have just set out. Clause 14(6) applies to other means of transferring possession or property unrelated to sale, including barter or exchange, leasing or hiring, and gift. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government are seeking to extend the Bill to these transactions, in particular to gifts, which transfer ownership of the item donated without payment or consideration. With those few remarks, I would be grateful to hear from my noble friend why these changes are being sought in the Bill. I beg to move.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-28
Topic: Other
Olivia Bloomfield (Conservative, Centre-right): I remember the noble Lord asking that question earlier in the debate. I am more than happy to write to him on that and on the other issues that I have not been able to cover in my response.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
Martin Callanan (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, in moving Amendment 82, I shall speak also to Amendments 83 and 85 to 88 in my name Clause 20 provides the test for assessing whether a regulatory requirement is indirectly discriminatory in relation to service providers. The indirect discrimination test comprises several elements, including a test for difference of treatment between incoming and local service providers and a test to assess whether the difference in treatment gives rise to an adverse market effect. This group of amendments would provide greater clarity to readers, particularly in relation to differential treatment and adverse market effect. The amendments would break up concepts previously included in Clause 20(4) and deal with the unequal treatment test separately from the adverse market effect test. This revised drafting also allows for clarification of the language This change delivers the same policy objectives but with greater clarity. It is supported by consequential amendments throughout Clause 20, including new definitions for local and incoming service providers. The definition of "relevant connection" is also moved into Clause 20 to link it better to the provision. Limb C of that definition is deleted because it is not relevant to indirect discrimination. A consequential amendment to Clause 19 supports this In my detailed remarks, I will focus on Amendments 90, 91 and 93 upon which the other amendments are consequential. Amendments 90 and 91 would provide greater clarity and break up concepts that were previously packed into Clause 20(4). They deal with the unequal treatment test separately from the adverse market effect test, and this division also allows for a clarification of the language. These amendments would introduce and define the concept of "relevant disadvantage", tying it more clearly to the concept of unequal treatment between incoming and local service providers. Importantly, the more clearly laid out test for relevant disadvantage between local and incoming providers makes plain that it does not require all incoming providers to be disadvantaged or all local providers to be advantaged. That was the intended effect of the drafting; this amendment would ensure that it is clear Amendment 93 does two things. First, it defines local and incoming service providers—terms used in this group of amendments. Secondly, it copies the definition of "relevant connection" over from Clause 19, linking it more clearly to this provision. Limb C of the direct discrimination provision is deleted because it is not relevant to indirect discrimination Amendment 94, which is unrelated to the other amendments in this group, would simply remove a provision that is now no longer necessary. I beg to move.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-28
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Lucy Neville-Rolfe (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend the Minister for speaking on a technical amendment. I support much of the Bill and have limited my contributions accordingly However, I want to ask for a fuller explanation of Amendments 90 and 93, which again relate to services. Why do we need to make a distinction between incoming service providers and local service providers? Will that not create uncertainties and its own form of discrimination? Is this an insurance policy, for example against unwise anti-competitive moves by a devolved Administration? Is there any evidence that such an outcome is at all likely, given their well-known attachment to the EU single market? What is the underlying purpose of this approach The Minister was not able to answer my question on Amendment 68 about how marketing activity would be treated, or indeed the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on local language capability. The distinction between incoming service providers and local service providers may be part of the answer. I would welcome some simple examples that make some of this service area easier to understand. If the Minister needs notice of the questions, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me on these points, as it is late.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Lords, 2020-10-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
Martin Callanan (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank noble Lords for the brevity of their contributions, particularly given the late hour, and I shall endeavour—they shall be pleased to hear—to match that brevity We think that these amendments make the test significantly clearer. The relevant concepts are unpacked in distinct subsections, and the new subsections more clearly express policy intention on how the test for indirect discrimination will function. The additional clarity ensures that businesses can operate with certainty, which is what this Bill is intended to ensure I have noted the requests from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, repeated them several times—for details of how the service provisions will operate in things like marketing, language tests, et cetera, and for the legal definition of what "adverse market effect" means in practice. I will, of course, provide those for them in writing. With that, I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Covid-19: Economy Update — House of Lords, 2020-10-27
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Theodore Agnew (Conservative, Centre-right): It is important to differentiate between default and fraud. As the noble Lord will know, there are no repayment requirements on bounce-back loans for a year. The idea that banks are now hiring debt recovery firms to go out collecting is probably inaccurate. They are increasing their resources to deal with fraud because this has been a problem. I am concerned about this both as fraud Minister and as a Treasury Minister. No repayments are due on BBLs for 12 months from drawdown and we have recently extended the repayment period to 10 years.
Covid-19: Economy Update — House of Lords, 2020-10-27
Topic: Mixed Topics
Theodore Agnew (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not aware of an analysis of this kind. We have to be realistic. It is easy for people sitting in a dark room with spreadsheets to say how many deaths we are prepared to accept for the balance of the economy. Frankly, it is extremely difficult. So far, we have had more deaths than other European countries, which has brought us a great deal of criticism. It is extremely difficult to balance lives against livelihoods. I might have a completely different view from that of Members opposite. We have to try to strike what we consider to be a reasonable balance—protecting lives where we can, but also protecting livelihoods.
Covid-19: Economy Update — House of Lords, 2020-10-27
Topic: Housing
Theodore Agnew (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, a great deal of thinking is going on, but this matter might be worth some pragmatism. If landlords collectively behaved in the way suggested by the noble Lord, there would be a mass exit from commercial buildings when the point comes. Doing that would surely be shooting themselves in the foot.
Covid-19: Economy Update — House of Lords, 2020-10-27
Topic: Mixed Topics
Theodore Agnew (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I suspect that this is just speculation. I am certainly not aware of any government policy promoting that. As we know, groups of six people, socially distanced, can eat if they are in an outside setting. Those facilities are being made available by pubs and restaurants, but I am not aware of any special treatment that the noble Lord refers to.
Timber and Timber Products and FLEGT (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 — House of Lords, 2020-10-27
Topic: Immigration
Zac Goldsmith (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the noble Baroness for the question. Our ambition on this issue is no less than that of the European Union. We will clearly have to work together and fully intend to. This instrument does not change the 2018 exit regulations on which VPA applies in Northern Ireland, so the effect is that the UK VPA would apply. We are working on ensuring the operability of the agreement in Northern Ireland, alongside the protocols. There are questions that remain unanswered, but those discussions are happily with our European Union colleagues. There do not seem to be issues there that we will struggle to resolve, but discussions will need to continue for the foreseeable future.
Covid-19: Disparate Impact — House of Lords, 2020-10-27
Topic: Civil Rights
Elizabeth Rose Berridge (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the noble Baroness. As Minister for Women, one of my specific concerns is the underachievement of Gypsy Roma in most categories. The Government are firmly committed to delivering a cross-government strategy to tackle these inequalities. I will have to come back to her on the specific point about BAME; I presume that BAME registration would include that as an ethnicity but I will double-check. My noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, who is the MHCLG lead on this issue, wrote to local authority chief executives in April to point out the specific support that those communities might need in terms of services such as water sanitation and waste disposal on their sites. We have been working closely with the various representative organisations to ensure, again, that the message gets out to communities that might be harder to reach than others.
Covid-19: Disparate Impact — House of Lords, 2020-10-27
Topic: Civil Rights
Elizabeth Rose Berridge (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. It might not be a royal commission, but the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities has been set up by the Government, building on the Race Disparity Unit. It is reviewing inequality in the UK, focusing on areas such as poverty, education, employment, health and the criminal justice system. Again, we know that there are disparities, and we want to know why and what the causes are. If the noble Viscount would like to submit evidence, there is a call for evidence at the moment. I have not read of any government policy on distributing hand gel and so forth, but there has been most impressive work in transport interchanges and so on, and a lot of institutions, including Parliament, have taken it upon themselves to make those kinds of precautionary measures available.
Covid-19: Vaccine Taskforce — House of Lords, 2020-11-10
Topic: Other
Questions: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the appointment process of the chair of the United Kingdom’s Vaccine Taskforce, (2) the code of conduct setting out the framework within which this postholder works, and (3) the budget for the Vaccine Taskforce.
Martin Callanan (Conservative, Centre-right): I think I just answered that point in my previous answer, but the presentation focused on publicly available information and said little that expert delegates at the conference could not have deduced for themselves. Her attendance at this seminar was approved by officials, and the presentation was signed off by officials.
Environment and Wildlife (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 — House of Lords, 2020-11-10
Topic: Other
Olivia Bloomfield (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, and with the leave of the House, I beg to move the three Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper en bloc.
Covid-19 Regulations: Assisted Deaths Abroad — House of Lords, 2020-11-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Bethell (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Baroness is entirely right on the question of travelling abroad for the purpose of assisted dying. It would be regarded as a reasonable excuse, and therefore anyone who did would not be breaking the law. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, under Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, a person does commit an offence if he or she "does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person" and that act "was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide." The 1961 Act provides no exceptions to the prohibition on assisting suicide. The maximum penalty, as noble Lords may know, is 14 years, and there is nothing in the Coronavirus Act or any recent legislation that in any way changes that.