argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-07-18
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): Could the noble and learned Lord clarify one point? When he was talking about volunteers, he said that it would be a matter for the chief officer as to how they would be used or deployed. Does that mean that a police and crime commissioner has no say over the extent to which volunteers will be used in his or her police force, or the kind of duties that they will undertake? If that is the case, and if a police and crime commissioner has been elected on a platform of saying in their electoral address that volunteers are being used too extensively or not extensively enough, that is meaningless because the PCC has no say—it is entirely a matter for the chief officer.
BBC — House of Lords, 2016-09-15
Topic: Government Operations
David Edward Lea (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am sure that, in general, this side of the House will always be in favour of transparency on salaries in every sector of the economy; we have advocated that. But can the Minister advise further about the rationale of demanding salary publicity for people in one sector of the broadcasting industry? I call it publicity because is not the idea to somehow spotlight the BBC salaries in some way for some purpose or another? Is it to whip up some sort of resentment about these salaries? Is it not true that, on the level playing field of the private sector, it is a total illusion that the public, who may pay the salaries of the BBC, do not pay the salaries of people who work in advertising agencies. Is this not an illusion about how our economy works and will it not prove untenable in the medium term to have this requirement without a similar requirement for the rest of the broadcasting industry?
BBC — House of Lords, 2016-09-15
Topic: Technology
Genista Mary McIntosh (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, or indeed with the Minister. But, as far as I am aware, there is not a competitive market for the services of Members of your Lordships’ House. Nor is there a competitive market in a number of other areas where this kind of transparency is commonplace. The fact is that the BBC is part of one market for the services of the talent that is being sought. The Minister referred in his opening remarks to the widespread consultation that had gone on with the public about the BBC. As far as I am aware, there was no great call in that consultation for this particular kind of transparency and there was a very high degree of support for the value for money that the BBC represents. In those circumstances, frankly, the only beneficiaries of this particular kind of transparency will be the BBC’s competitive rivals, who will not have to provide the same kind of information themselves. Will the Minister tell the House what the thinking behind this is, if it is not just to clip the BBC’s wings?
BBC — House of Lords, 2016-09-15
Topic: Government Operations
James Gordon (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am comparatively relaxed about the publication of salaries, unlike quite a lot of my colleagues. However, one thing could turn out to be counterproductive. There is at least anecdotal evidence that what has driven up executive pay in the private sector has been the publication of what competitors are paying. After all, because of the consultants who advise people—and indeed are encouraged by the Government to advise people on salaries—nobody wants to be in the bottom quartile. Mathematically, if nobody opts to be in the bottom quartile, salaries will go up—and historically they have gone up It is also fair to say that, a public company such as ITV, for example, has to publish its salaries. They are in the shareholders’ report. I am in favour of extending transparency and making publication compulsory.
Hinkley Point C — House of Lords, 2016-09-15
Topic: Energy
Anthony Gueterbock (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am not against nuclear at all, but the Minister has tried to say that this technology is proven and works, yet nothing I have heard in the Statement or in other noble Lords’ comments this afternoon indicates that that is the case. The Finland scheme is years out of date and is not finished. The last thing I read about the one at Cape Flamanville was that the French nuclear regulator had said it could not generate more than 60% of its planned output because the basic design of the welding inside the core, surrounded by concrete, was faulty. It looks as if that means the whole thing has to be broken apart and started again, if that is possible It is fine saying that we have learned from their mistakes, but how many more mistakes have yet to be uncovered? It seems to me pretty irresponsible for the Government to commit maybe in the end £16 billion of taxpayers’ money to a technology that is not proven when there are so many other technologies for generating electricity that are. I cannot think of any precedent—maybe the Minister can give me an example—of such profligacy with government funding apart from, of course, in the MoD. I leave them to one side.
Border Force Budget 2016-17 — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Law and Crime
Jonathan Toby Harris (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, it is this side I think—the noble Lord is not our side. Will the Minister tell us how many officers there are in the Border Force, how many will it fall to next year, and how that compares with the recommendation by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, in the report commissioned by David Cameron a few years ago that there should be 30,000 officers?
Border Force Budget 2016-17 — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Government Operations
Robert Hughes (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Minister has twice refused to answer a direct question this afternoon. He said that he cannot comment on matters of how the department works. He also said that he cannot tell us how many people are employed. Neither of those things can be state secrets. How many officers are in fact employed?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Government Operations
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I join others in welcoming the return of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, my old sparring partner in local government. Perhaps I should rephrase that and say "my long-standing sparring partner". It is so good to see her back looking so well. We very much look forward to hearing her contribute, preferably being somewhat more critical of the Government she supports than she was constrained to be in previous years. It is so good to see her back In that vein, the Opposition are very sympathetic to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. We hope that the Government will look sympathetically upon them. I cannot see any great difficulty in them so doing. It would be reassuring to hear from the Minister that the Government are as inclined to pursue this issue as they kindly indicated they would do in regard to property guardians—an issue that I raised. The Government have undertaken to look into that problem. I hope that they will go a bit further and either accept the amendment as drafted or come back at Third Reading with different wording that achieves the same objective—because I think that the objective is widely shared across the House.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Government Operations
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, can the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, say a little more about these amendments? As has been said, on the face of it they could be interpreted as giving considerable power to the Secretary of State or the Mayor of London. Can the Minister also confirm that in the case of London they will be exercised only by the Mayor of London and will not be exercised by the Secretary of State as well? Can he also explain further, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, outlined, what he sees are the circumstances when the use of such powers would need to be considered, and can he tell us, for the benefit of the House, how they complement localism? It seems that localism is spoken of less and less from the Government Benches as we discuss these Bills and these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, outlined very carefully a number of very detailed questions and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to those as well.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Government Operations
Elizabeth Andrews (Labour, Centre-left): May I just correct the noble Baroness? I thought there were 850 responses. That is not my main point—I wanted to ask whether she could lay an analysis of the consultation responses to the specific point about consultation on technical consents stage. My reading of a handful of responses—but important ones—showed that they are all very seriously worried that there will not be a requirement for local authorities to consult at that stage.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-20
Topic: Government Operations
Elizabeth Andrews (Labour, Centre-left): I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I appreciate that it is not easy, not having seen the consultation, but my instinct tells me that we will get the results that I am anticipating and I hope it will make an impression on the department—you do not want to ride roughshod over local opinion. The Government have committed to localism and to supporting local authorities. I am very grateful for the support and wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in this respect as well. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Economy — House of Lords, 2016-04-28
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Davies (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, is it not the case that the Treasury document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, makes it absolutely clear that the growth in our income as a result of our remaining part of the EU will be much greater than would occur if we left the EU under any circumstances and that the amount of additional gross domestic product that would be generated as a result would be more than sufficient to cope with any additional costs involved in social security, health or educational provision?
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-07-13
Topic: Law and Crime
Paul Murphy (Labour, Centre-left): The whole purpose of this legislation, whether we agree with it or not, is that there should be a double lock. When I was signing warrants for intercept, it was left to me entirely as Secretary of State. There was no involvement of the judiciary or anybody else, other than the security services providing you with a great deal of information on why you should take a particular decision. The principle behind the Bill is that a judge should look at and review the decision of the Secretary of State. The argument both in the Joint Committee and in the other place has been about whether the judge should take into account necessity and proportionality—which would have been taken into account by the Secretary of State in taking the decision in the first place—in the same way as the Secretary of State, or whether they should look at it simply through the eyes of a judge One of the most interesting sessions of the Joint Committee was in the Committee Room upstairs where we interviewed a judge from New Zealand—it was 5.10 am when the judge very happily came to address the committee. That is obviously a very different sort of country. With a couple of million people, they obviously do not have the same number of warrants to deal with as we do in this country. It seemed, however, from what the New Zealand judge was saying, that there was a happy relationship between him and the appropriate government Minister in New Zealand, in that when they looked at a warrant, they did so with the same eyes The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is saying that if you take into account modern judicial review principles, you also take into account proportionality and necessity. But that has to be made clear. I understand that the Government made some changes in the other place with regard to this matter, but the precise role of the judge needs to be made clear. Does he or she look at a warrant simply as a judge or as a human being, and is it in the same way as the Secretary of State does?
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-07-13
Topic: Government Operations
Paul Murphy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, this part of the Bill concerning Members of Parliament is a hugely important and grave issue, but I think it is probably about right now. As the House and the Minister will know, when the legislation went through the other place, there was a change. Instead of the Prime Minister being informed about a Member of Parliament or of this House having a warrant against them, now the Prime Minister must approve such a warrant. I think that is absolutely right There are a couple of points worth making. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, that the idea of the Speaker of the House of Commons being involved is a very difficult precedent to set, not only because it puts a great burden on the Speaker but because this part of the Bill refers not just to the British Parliament—both this House and the other place—but to the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and, for the time being at least, the European Parliament. If the Speaker was to be involved, surely it would be necessary for the Presiding Officers of those parliaments and assemblies also to be. Frankly, that is something that they would not particularly welcome With regard to the point made about the First Minister of Scotland, that same argument applies. If you say that the First Minister of Scotland ought to be involved, surely the First Minister of Wales would have to be involved and, presumably, the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland as well—not to mention, for the time being, the President of the European Parliament. I am not sure that would work. Nevertheless, it is important that such matters are raised Finally, is the Wilson doctrine obsolete as a consequence of the legislation? Will it be replaced by what is now in the Bill, or does the Wilson doctrine still stand in the sense that it has always referred to a change of policy, rather than to individual people— Members of the House of Commons or whoever—who might be subject to interception? I would be grateful to the Minister if he said, when he responds, whether the Wilson doctrine is now finally dead and buried.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-07-13
Topic: Government Operations
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): Perhaps I may make a brief comment about Amendments 85A and 85B in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We, too, want to hear the Government’s response to the views expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I will not go over those views, since the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has already set them out. In brief, the first is the fact that paragraph 33 of Schedule 8 includes a power to amend the provisions of Schedule 8 itself. The committee said that it needed "a very convincing explanation" of why that was necessary; otherwise, it would find the power inappropriate. The other, as the noble Lord said, concerns the fact that the powers conferred by paragraph 33 of Schedule 8 include a power to amend future enactments whenever passed or made. The committee commented that it felt that such powers were inappropriate. In view of the comments made by the committee, we, like the noble Lord, wish to hear the Government’s response to the committee’s points.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-07-13
Topic: Law and Crime
Jeffrey Rooker (Labour, Centre-left): Can I ask the Minister a question before he finishes? I did not want to interrupt what he was saying about the government amendments, but in reading Amendment 226, do I take it that the judicial commissioner gets involved only after the Prime Minister has given approval? It is not clear, but I am just assuming that has to be the case, so that the Prime Minister has also had oversight of the decision, rather than the Prime Minister coming in after the judicial commissioner has agreed, say, the Home Secretary’s decision.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-07-13
Topic: Law and Crime
Dianne Hayter (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I will not dare to try to better the arguments already made in this debate but will only emphasise two things with regard to the amendments to which I have added my name The first, which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is that this so-called privilege is of the utmost importance to clients—the description always sounds as if it is your privilege rather than ours. I speak as the former chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, where we represented the interests of those who—often in times of trouble—need the help and advice of a lawyer We know that very many people who could do with legal assistance do not go, partly because they do not know that they need it, partly because they do not know how to get it, partly due to cost, but also because it is all a bit too intimidating. It often falls to the lawyer to reassure them not just about the particular case, but that what passes between them will be absolutely confidential and—for example, in the case of a domestic break-up or a child’s custody—will never be revealed to their former partner or others involved, including agencies of the state Therefore, this confidential relationship is key to people getting good advice and advocacy and a fair hearing, as well as being key, as we have already heard, to the role of our lawyers and the rule of law. However, we also understand that there will be occasions when some details of this relationship might be caught by powers included in the Bill. We look for some assurance that the maintenance of clients’ confidence is absolutely understood, and that any such occasions will be as limited as we have heard, and only after proper due process We look forward to hearing in the Minister’s response the Government’s current thinking and perhaps some indication of what they will be willing to bring forward on Report.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-07-13
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I will make just one very brief point. These amendments on modifications relate to an area where the system could—and I use the word "could", not "will" or "would"—be abused, in the sense of a significant modification being made to a warrant perhaps not having to go through the kind of process one would have to go through with the initial warrant. I hope the Minister might respond in a rather wider context than the specifics of the amendments and set out why the Government believe, as far as the Bill is concerned, that the modification process cannot be used to achieve a major change in a warrant without having to go through the proper procedures of getting judicial authorisation. To some extent, I think that what lies at the heart of this issue on modifications is wanting an assurance, which can be given really only by spelling out the process that would prevent the system being abused in this way.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-07-13
Topic: Technology
Dianne Hayter (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, as was mentioned, Amendment 89 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser. Clause 222(6) contains what is to me the unusual phrase: "Different levels of contribution may apply for different cases or descriptions of case but the appropriate contribution must never be nil" "Must never be nil" is a slightly strange phrase, especially given that someone who, until a few hours ago, was the Home Secretary but is now the Prime Minister said on Second Reading: "I reiterate … that … 100% of the compliance costs will be met by the Government" She was asked to provide a long-term commitment for that and said, "we are clear about that in the Bill … it is not possible for one Government to bind the hands of any future Government in such areas, but we have been clear about that issue".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/16; col. 821.] However, being clear about the contribution which must never be nil is not what I call clarity Amendment 89 simply takes the then Home Secretary’s words as used in Parliament that the Government would meet 100% of the compliance costs, with full cost recovery for communication service providers, which, after all, have to implement the legislation. It is important to write it into the Bill to ensure that the financial impact of the legislation is transparent, not hidden, and to give forward confidence to those companies, whose activity in this country is already a little wobbly thanks to Brexit, that they will not at some point be hit by unexpected and unavoidable costs As was mentioned, Amendment 89 also allows for a proper audit to ensure that operators do not provide unduly high costings. Obviously, they can make no profit from these procedures because they are a departure from normal business, but they need those costs to be met. Cost recovery could be significant, but the Bill does not seem to put any limit on it at present. We will depend on the good will of these companies to make the Bill effective. We should not charge them for their willingness as well.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-07-13
Topic: Technology
Dianne Hayter (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, Amendment 93 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser and is on the same issue of encryption. Encryption is fundamental to keeping the whole of the digital economy safe and secure. It is widely used by business, government and consumers to protect sensitive and confidential information and as a building block in the advanced security technology which has been described The undermining of encryption would not simply mean that the communications of criminals could be read more easily; it would risk creating a major vulnerability in the security infrastructure, which could be exploited by various malicious actors, be they criminal gangs or rogue states. So it is important for this economy and for all the financial and other businesses that depend on it that the foundations of encryption technology remain absolutely firm There will be times when state security undoubtedly needs access to encrypted information for a specific investigation. This is not the problem. The problem is whether the Government would ever require a company to engineer such access, enforcing the company to create a model which, if then followed by other nations with perhaps less security than ours, would lead to a lowering of standards. We welcome the statement by the Government that they do not require industry to build back doors into their encrypted products. The Bill as it stands is perhaps not as clear as the commitments the Government have made Clause 226 risks making encryption intrinsically weaker if a company could be asked to build the ability to break the encryption. Amendment 93 seeks to address that. We hope the Government will understand that, when the request is made, they should not ask a company to develop a new way of breaking encryption that is not already within its ability. At the moment, the clause implies that, where companies that did not have the ability to remove the protection were issued with a notice, they would be required to build that capability so as to adhere to the notice. That is worrying the companies because of the general undermining of encryption. End-to-end encryption is essential to protect sensitive personal, commercial and security information. I think the Government share our concern that we should maintain that The thrust of Amendment 93 makes it explicit that a company would be required to remove the electronic protection only where it had the current capacity to do so and that it should not have to engineer it. We hope it will be accepted by the Government.