argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
National Citizen Service Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-12-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Richard Oliver Faulkner (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 13, which is similar but not identical to the amendment that I tabled in Committee. One important addition is the reference to inland waterways and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for raising in Committee the subject of young people working as volunteers on canals and other inland waterways. I am particularly grateful to him for putting his name to the amendment tonight I do not want to take up the time of the House this evening by repeating all the points that were made in Committee. However, I need to share with your Lordships the serious problem facing industrial heritage activities—particularly on heritage railways—undertaken by young people as volunteers, as a result of an ancient piece of legislation: the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920. The Heritage Railway Association—and I declare an unpaid interest as its president—has received a very unwelcome opinion from leading counsel that the 1920 Act expressly excludes the employment of children in an industrial undertaking, not only as paid employees under a contract of employment but as volunteers as well. Section 558 of the Education Act 1996 defines a young person as someone who has not reached the age of 16. So, as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences, an Act that was passed in 1920 to prohibit the exploitation of women, young persons and children in an industrial setting has now been found to make unlawful the voluntary engagement of youngsters on worthwhile voluntary activities connected with our industrial heritage The ideal solution would of course be to amend the 1920 Act, but it is not possible to do that with this Bill. The best we can do is to make it clear that, when young people are working as volunteers on heritage railways, tramways and inland waterways on programmes organised or supervised by the NCS—my information is that there are likely to be a great many of those—the 1920 Act should not be used to stop them. At present, the law unintentionally prevents young people enjoying the sense of adventure and achievement from involvement with a steam railway, which most noble Lords experienced in their younger days. For some it opens up a lifetime of enthusiastic volunteering; for others it can lead to a career in the industry. The supervisory and safeguarding arrangements now in place on heritage railways and other industrial undertakings and the voluntary nature of the engagement makes the provision of the 1920 Act irrelevant. There is no argument about this being a worthy objective. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, said in Committee: "We agree that it would be wonderful if a group of young people were to choose a local heritage railway as the focus of their efforts—either to fundraise for it or to spend time on site".
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Lords, 2016-11-02
Topic: Civil Rights
John Prescott (Labour, Centre-left): I am here; I am in the other part of Parliament. They did not mention the victims, who were promised justice by every one of us. What do you think those victims feel, reading in the paper now that we are preparing to consult? They were involved in the consultation following incidents in which they suffered press intrusion. I do not believe the situation has changed, and we will have to have a debate about the independence of the complaints system. But I am quite shocked that we are now about to back out of what appeared to be an overwhelming commitment from Prime Ministers and party leaders Consultation? It is not consultation. It is leaving via the back door because we do not have the guts to implement a charter that was first agreed to some years ago, and which we all agreed to for good political reasons some months ago. Everybody felt under pressure. Now they feel free to get out of their obligations. That is terrible. It is the start of Parliament reducing its powers. This is a terrible step towards getting rid of the obligation to the individual in our society, who has the right to privacy There has been lots of talk about security and about terrorism, but the ordinary person, for whom we all have to be responsible and accountable to, should be protected from such abuse. Frankly, even this Bill is giving more powers to the police. We have seen with the police and the press that it did not stop with Leveson. It is still going on. We have seen what has happened with the police at Hillsborough and Orgreave. All this is a massive way of ignoring our responsibilities in this matter, which we are not carrying out. I agree that it is a diversion, but it is bigger than that: it is a move to get rid of any recommendation to ensure the rights of the individual against the press, in the name of the freedom of the press. I disagree with that, as we all should I will support the amendment. If your Lordships really want to settle it, tell the Minister to implement the law and Section 40. That was the will of this House. Let the Government now do what they were supposed to do in agreeing that legislation and carry it out in the name of the freedom of the individual.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-11-02
Topic: Other
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to this short debate. Neither my noble friend Lady Henig nor the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, were able to be here today, so I was happy to propose the amendments on their behalf. I will reflect on the points made, read the debate and talk to my noble friend. I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but my noble friend may want to return to it on Report.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-11-02
Topic: Immigration
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): My concern was that "or elsewhere" might be used in cases involving foreign ships which are discovered within our territorial waters to contain, or are suspected to contain, refugees and others in need of international protection who might be in breach of immigration law but who nevertheless have certain rights which, on the face of it, could be overridden if there was a power to divert ships to a port elsewhere—indeed, anywhere in the world. It could mean them being sent back to a place where they would be in danger. It would also mean that they would not have had the right to have their claim for protection fairly determined before they could be returned. The question I was asking is, was my interpretation of the apparent power in the Bill for a law enforcement officer or the Secretary of State to be able to do that correct? If it was not correct—and I said I hoped it was not correct—will the Government explain to me why my analysis was not right?
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-11-02
Topic: Immigration
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I certainly will withdraw the amendment. Unless I was not paying as much attention as I should have been—and I accept that that is a genuine possibility, and I mean that—I am not sure that I got an answer to the question: what kind of current unspecified category of persons do the Government believe may need to be designated as a law enforcement officer that cannot be so designated clearly and specifically now in the Bill? That related to both Clause 82(3)(g) and Clause 94(3)(e) The only other point I would ask for clarification on, which comes back to the question I raised about how the powers could, on the face of it, be used to override the rights of those in need of international protection, is whether in giving the Government’s response the Minister said that it was not intended that the powers be used to override the rights of those in need of international protection, or that they would not be used in that way. The latter is rather firmer than a statement of intent.
Policing and Crime Bill — House of Lords, 2016-11-02
Topic: Immigration
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): Is there any clarification—or perhaps the Minister could write to me subsequently—of what was said in relation to the apparent ability to override the rights of those in need of international protection through the facility to divert a ship to a port elsewhere, or indeed anywhere in the world? Was the response that it was not intended that that power should be used to override those rights, or was it a clear statement that it would not be used to override those rights?
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-21
Topic: Domestic Commerce
William David McKenzie (Labour, Centre-left): Will the noble Lord help me on that point while it is on my mind? If you take on an associated entity and therefore have to join the scheme, what happens if you have a joint venture and that joint venture comes to an end? Are you perpetually in and out of the scheme? How does that work?
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-21
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Jean Lesley Patricia Drake (Labour, Centre-left): I listened carefully to what the Minister said. Clause 39(1) has two parts, (a) and (b). Paragraph (a) would apply some of the modified applications in respect of schemes that are currently not master trusts, while paragraph (b) would disapply some of the provisions in respect of schemes that are already recognised as master trusts. There is no question of their identity under Clause 39(1)(b): they are master trusts. The Minister said that the Government’s policy was that they would not modify any application on the authorisation criteria for master trusts, or that they would modify those criteria for existing master trusts only if there was an alternative regulation in place somewhere else. Are we therefore talking about a substitution, so that the authorisation criteria for master trusts would be modified only if there was a pre-existing regulation or piece of legislation that met the part that it needed to play? Is that what I understood him to have said?
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
William David McKenzie (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Minister for his response to those amendments, and am certainly grateful to my noble friend Lord Hutton for that important point about how, in the circumstances, it is better to have an express provision than an implied one. I will work through the record of what the Minister said to see how close we got to that express provision, or whether it is still essentially an implied power. I understand what the noble Lord said about the nature of the regulations. That will run through this Bill I return briefly to this question of when master trusts are set up but not under a trust. I think the noble Lord said that would be a rare or unusual occasion. I do not know whether he can say a bit more about that. Particularly, the raft of the Bill focuses on the obligations for the trustee or trustees who set up master trusts, but where it is not set up under trust, does it evolve into something that becomes a trust and therefore you get trustees in the normal way or does it continue with some other existence? If the latter, what is the nature of the person who would be a trustee were it set up under trust? That puzzled me a little. If the noble Lord felt it would be better to write to me, I would be happy with that, but if we could deal with it now that would be helpful.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
William David McKenzie (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the noble Lord. Just to be clear, in the follow-up I would like to try and see what the role or nature of that person would be who would be a trustee if set up under a trust. Are they something else under a regime that is not set up in that way? Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-21
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Jean Lesley Patricia Drake (Labour, Centre-left): I accept the clarification from the noble Lord. The amendment—which at this stage is partly probing, although underlying it is a principle that is a matter of substance—was not intended to prescribe the model. It does not say it has to be a compensation fund—it could be a provider of last resort—but there needs to be an explicit provision in the Bill that makes it clear what happens to protect the members’ pots when the supervisory and capital adequacy regime fail in a failing master trust. I do not believe that the Bill addresses that at the moment. I am not arguing for a particular model; I am arguing for a principle of absolute clarity as to how members’ protection against exposure to meeting the cost that I described—the risk that the Bill seeks to mitigate—will be addressed in an in extremis position It is not a plaintive request—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that I am not a plaintive request person. I am standing here quite firmly because potentially 7 million people are going to be affected and, over time, there will be trillions of pounds under management. This matter is worthy of interrogation, rather than us simply hoping.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jean Lesley Patricia Drake (Labour, Centre-left): I thank noble Lords for the supportive argument on the point that I am trying to make. I should pull this to a close. It is not that the proposals in the Bill around authorisation, supervision and resolution on failure are, of themselves, something one would want to challenge—although there is the issue of how they and some of the policy will work in practice—it is what happens in the situation that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, set out, when one has a failure, costs are incurred in dealing with that failure and insufficient financial resources are available. How are the members’ pots protected in those situations? The reasoning in the impact assessment is that the prohibition in Clause 33 works because there will always be financial resources to fund it, but it is not clear, in the terms of the Bill, that there will always be financial resources outside of accessing the members’ pots. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-21
Topic: Domestic Commerce
William David McKenzie (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed explanation. Again, we will need to read the record to make sure that we have fully understood the proposition. Incidentally, I should thank him for pointing out the spelling error, but offer even greater thanks to those who did not The nub of the issue is that this is to help the regulator establish financial sustainability and make it easier to interpret the data before it. One can readily see that there will be a range of circumstances where it will be quite appropriate for a separately constituted legal person to be the sole funder, but, as we have discussed, the issue is wider than that The Minister said that it is unnecessary to unpick shared service arrangements. I question how that is consistent with what is in the Bill. Clause 10(3)(b) states: "the only activities carried out by the body corporate or partnership are activities that relate directly to the Master Trust scheme" Where a scheme funder provides, on a transparent basis, services to a group company and charges for them without affecting the master trust scheme, how is that possibly consistent with the requirement that the only activities carried out by the body corporate are those that relate directly to the master trust scheme? I really do not see that it is. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that and write further in due course There is also an issue about how this is all consistent with arrangements for non-money purchase benefits. I think that the structure of the Bill is that you take them out of the picture—they are not considered in all this—but, again, if those are the arrangements in a single funder which is supporting both of those lines of business, it seems to me that you cannot simply ignore that for the purposes of interpreting Clause 10(3) This requires a rethink. I understand the Minister to say that there will be some period upfront when existing arrangements will be unpicked and restructured, and that may help, but how is an FCA-regulated entity, which is stringent in its capital requirements but covers a range of group entities, to be restructured? Do they have to be moved out? Does the single entity left, which is dealing with the master trust, have to go through an equivalent FCA approval process to ensure an equivalent position at the end of the day? It does not make sense. We understand the benefits of transparency, and there may well be a range of circumstances where it is better to have a separate body corporate, a legal person with a clearly identified, separate funding stream. However, if that is to be the only way it can be done, that creates enormous problems, particularly for funds operational now Like the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Flight, we have continuing concerns which, with respect, have not been answered tonight. I do not know whether the Minister wants to have another go, but if he does not, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-21
Topic: Other
Jean Lesley Patricia Drake (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for that clarity; that is quite reassuring in respect of one point, but I think that my noble friend and I will probably want to reflect on the detail of the Minister’s statement. It is also helpful that he has confirmed that the implementation strategy information charges are key in deciding the charges and the prohibition that applies. We will reflect on what is in Hansard, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-21
Topic: Other
William David McKenzie (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I thought for a moment that the glimmer of hope was going to be completely snuffed out, but I am pleased to know that it has not been. I accept the point about drafting and will look forward in due course to seeing this in the regulations. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
William David McKenzie (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for that response. I think we understand what the intent of this provision is. Obviously, the persons to whom this obligation applies are listed in detail in the Bill. Why, therefore, is it not possible to list at least some examples in the Bill—for example, a change of scheme trustees—as one of the significant events which might require action? There is silence on that side of the equation. However, there is a list of persons who are subject to this provision.
Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-12-13
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Robert Stevenson (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I should like briefly to echo the words of the Minister. This Bill has been a good experience and a novel and, for me, different way of doing Bills—something we might learn from, in fact, as we go forward. The Minister said that there were families of amendments, which was certainly true; and we became a little family as we tried to deal with the rather odd way in which the Bill is organised. That was because, every time we looked at one area, we discovered that we would have to amend the Bill in every other clause as well. We were in some danger of extending the small coterie of your Lordships who actually like IP matters, but that is a danger which I think not many would survive Like the Minister, I thank all those who gave evidence both in writing and in person. It was a rich and interesting experience. The Special Public Bill Committee worked very hard, and I would particularly like to thank, in addition to our chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, the representatives from the Labour side, my noble friends Lord Plant of Highfield and Lord Hanworth, who served a noble part on the Committee. I also echo the Minister’s thanks to the Intellectual Property Office and the Law Commission. Lastly, I thank the Minister. She has been rather modest in saying that we had improved the Bill; actually, it was she who took on the burden of heavy lifting not only by daring to go back to her own department and other departments to get clearance for various things, but also by taking on, in full measure, the Law Commission itself—and winning.
Wales Bill — House of Lords, 2016-11-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mair Morgan (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the noble Lord for those undertakings. I was particularly pleased to hear that the amount could even go above £2 billion. We will certainly underline and take note of that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Brexit: Article 50 — House of Lords, 2016-11-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Charles Falconer (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I entirely endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said. I recognise that the Government cannot and should not try to control the press. I do not read the result of the referendum as throwing away all our constitutional protections. One of those constitutional protections is the rule of law—that depends upon the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary is strong; it is fine as long as it knows that the Government will support it against scurrilous attacks What is so disappointing about this Statement and the conduct of the Government since Thursday, when these scurrilous attacks began, is that: first, at no stage have they said that they accept that the three judges acted in accordance with their judicial oath; and secondly, nobody on behalf of the Government has separated themselves from the remarks of Mr Sajid Javid, who described the three judges as thwarting the will of the people. We in this House respect the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, and we know that he will have prepared properly for this Statement. Can he confirm on behalf of the Government that they accept that the three judges acted entirely in accordance with their judicial oath? Secondly, can he make it clear that the statement of Mr Sajid Javid on Thursday evening did not represent the views of the Government?
Defence Estate — House of Lords, 2016-11-07
Topic: Public Lands
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, will Crichel Down issues apply in the case of selling off of much of the land? Also, in the case of sites contaminated by former MoD activity, will proper evaluation be made of the cost of decontamination to ensure that when they are ultimately sold, they are not sold at deflated prices? Are MoD officials—civil servants—well aware that the National Audit Office will pore over the sales at some stage in future?
Wales Bill — House of Lords, 2016-11-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mair Morgan (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for that and welcome the amendments he put forward relating to the modal grants, the cross-border initiatives and the loans for harbour authorities. I note he said there was an exception and that trust ports would not be allowed to access those grants. I assume they would be allowed to access other UK grants. Perhaps he could clarify that.
Wales Bill — House of Lords, 2016-11-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mair Morgan (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister. I noted he said that Milford Haven was essential to the Bill. He then said that he would take another look. I ask him to think about the issues that people have underlined today. The integration of the economy, the environment and safety have all been touched on. The noble Lord was on the enterprise zone for that area. He will therefore be aware of how crucial that interactivity—the interaction between local communities and the local authority—is. All those things need to be co-ordinated. Would it not be a lot easier to co-ordinate that if that power were given to the Welsh Assembly? I appreciate that he will also look at the issue relating to the coastguard and I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment.