argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill — House of Lords, 2018-05-09
Topic: Transportation
David Brownrigg Craig (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I am speaking to my Amendment 11 is in this group—a probing amendment, again on the subject of safety. I noticed that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered a Department for Transport memorandum which stated that, "the Secretary of State will need to have regard to whether vehicles or types of vehicles have met international or domestic standards on the safe functioning of automated vehicles that will need to be met before the vehicles can lawfully be used on the roads" It went on to say about safety requirements that they were, "likely to be recorded in a vehicle’s registration document", and, "could therefore be identified either by type … or by reference to information in the registration document" Does that not overlook other essential safety requirements, such as the one I mention in my amendment—an MoT of the vehicle after so many years since new? Will the addition of greater and greater computer control and software mean that the current three years since new and yearly MoT thereafter will still be sufficient My amendment, and the much more comprehensive considerations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and by other noble Lords about safety requirements, suggest that, for a vehicle that is included on an approved list, there will be additional safeguards to consider before it can be legally insured for on-road use. I instanced an MoT as just one example of a safety issue that may have to be considered for the vehicle to be listed. Alternatively, can the Minister confirm whether existing or additional safety regulations may be required and are to be introduced in parallel with the Bill before a fully automated vehicle is insured for on-road use It is perhaps worth mentioning at this point that some test of competence might be required of the owner-occupant of a driverless vehicle. How might this bear on the issue of insurance cover for the individual in or in charge of the vehicle? I noted that a recent report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned, suggested that, even if the vehicle is travelling under automated lane control, for example, as is possible today, the driver’s seat has to be occupied and the occupant is responsible for retaining ultimate control of the vehicle, maybe without even briefly letting go of the steering wheel. From the Minister’s opening remarks, though, I now understand that this level of vehicle automation is not to be covered by the Bill. How then are the insurance arrangements for these types of vehicle to be taken care of—or are they already taken care of by existing legislation The departmental memorandum that I mentioned says that the Secretary of State’s decision is administrative in nature and so could be open to judicial review. In respect of introducing new technology, this could be a troublesome legal minefield, as the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, has already mentioned. So I should be grateful to hear from the Minister about her department’s thinking on these safety issues.
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill — House of Lords, 2018-05-09
Topic: Government Operations
David Brownrigg Craig (Crossbench, Unknown): On that point, the Minister says that the Government cannot introduce regulations at this time. Will it be primary legislation to do that, or does existing legislation give them the opportunity to produce regulations as and when required?
Gaza — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: International Affairs
Andrew Fleming (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of Medical Aid for Palestinians. Two days ago, we could not have imagined that 58 people would be shot, 2,000 civilians would be injured and explosive bullets—it is alleged—would be used. It is absolutely appalling. Frankly, for the Government simply to say that they are concerned is pathetic. In the face of that, they should condemn it and call for an immediate investigation, particularly into the nature of the ammunition used.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Law and Crime
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I want to draw attention to one or two other passages in the Government’s response, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred in his excellent introduction. Two features caught my eye. One is in paragraph 45. The Justice Select Committee had drawn attention to quite strong representation for the Civil Procedure Rules to make it a requirement that PPOs be offered; its advice was against that, because it was reasonably clear that not every case made a PPO appropriate—one has to be selective; some cases are better suited than others. The point of mentioning that is that one could adopt the approach of amending Section 100 of the 2003 Act, which is the basis for the award of PPOs, to toughen up the requirement that they be offered in every case, but that is not what is being suggested and, I think, rightly so The other question is whether rules of court are best equipped to deal with the problem. That is why I draw attention to what is said in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the Government’s response. In passages that are written out in heavy print and underlined, they undertake to, "investigate the quality and effectiveness of the advice currently available", with a view to endorsing, "guidance on standard practice to ensure that claimants are properly informed" Will the Minister expand a little on what the Government had in mind in that passage? Was it guidance rather than amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules, guidance to lie alongside the Civil Procedure Rules or guidance which will inform the committees responsible for the revision of those rules What comes through from that and the following paragraph is that further investigation is in the mind of the Government. A little more information may be needed before the rules are revised in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has in mind. If the Minister could expand a bit on that, it would be very helpful.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Law and Crime
Harry Kenneth Woolf (Crossbench, Unknown): There is an answer to the problem that the noble and learned Lord raises. It might have implications for the workload of the judiciary but I think that could be handled. We should get away from the idea that a judge should assess damages in appropriate cases only at one stage. There is no reason why you cannot have a system where the matter can be restored to a judge in a case of differences of opinion to take into account succeeding circumstances. If the power existed, the courts would find that in the majority of cases, litigants—properly advised, as they are in these big cases—would come back only when there was a real difficulty between the insurer in practice and the claimant. In that way, matters could be reviewed to reflect any differing circumstances. It was not a one-off assessment that I was advocating but the ability to change the assessment. That would apply to PPOs as it would to any other laws.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Charles Hay (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate—only 22 minutes, but we have discussed an awful lot of money. In good news terms, I am delighted to hear that at least some preparatory work is going on in appointing the panel, and that it will arrive in 2019. It was good to hear praise of Amendment 71—I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey—and what I thought were warm words about Amendment 94. However, I have quite a lot of experience with discount rates and I simply do not buy that this is so complicated that it will take 180 days. An awful lot of people here are familiar with discount rates. I am looking at one: the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, sitting next to the Minister. I find what was said plausible but thoroughly unconvincing. I wonder whether a couple of extra teabags can be put into the teapot so that we can come round when the Minister is at home, discussing the Bill, and talk about how we could trim days off. Every day that we can chop off is a big win for the country. With that said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Charles Hay (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. A standing panel would be a great advantage to a Lord Chancellor. Quite apart from the hassle of trying to reassemble a panel every whatever the periodicity is and the cost of assembling one—I assume a firm of suitably expensive headhunters would be involved—you would then have to take the panel up a learning curve as to exactly what is required of it, which would take some time. We do not need to go there The biggest thing, though, is that if I was the Lord Chancellor and Black Wednesday happened for a second time I would like to ring someone up and say, "Do I need to do anything here?" I would assume that, as Lord Chancellor, I would not be super-familiar with discount rates and things like that because my expertise would lie somewhere else. Having a standing panel that could answer curveball questions and interact as and when would not be expensive. It would probably cost the same as the periodic panel because of all the start-up costs associated with it, and it would be very helpful for a Lord Chancellor if something really bad happened.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Government Operations
James Hope (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, perhaps I may add a footnote to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in favour of the Lord Chancellor having the decision. Paragraph 6(2) of the new schedule, on the way in which the panel is supposed to work, states: "In the event of a tied vote on any decision, the person chairing the panel is to have a second casting vote" We then look at who is to chair the panel and see that it is the Government Actuary. I would much rather the Lord Chancellor assumed ultimate responsibility than the matter be determined in the event of a tied position by the Government Actuary. So the structure as set out supports the line taken by the noble Lord.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Charles Hay (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to Amendments 72, 73 and 75. Essentially, the points I made about the initial review apply here as well, and I shall not repeat them. But it seems to me that the sparking off of a review within a review period —not right at the end—because something has made the Lord Chancellor feel that there had better be a review now indicates that there is probably a need for one, either up or down. Therefore, I feel that we should trim the period of the review down. This is only a discount rate—it is not a very big thing and can be done relatively quickly. The three amendments merely suggest a way of trimming it down. Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that when we have that very large cup of tea, we kick this around as well. It would be a great shame if future trimming reduced the rate heavily. There may be people whose cases are being settled at the wrong rate, so we have a duty to try to do things at a reasonable pace.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Charles Hay (Crossbench, Unknown): I am sorry if I have confused the noble Lord. I am merely saying that once the review has been sparked off by the Lord Chancellor’s decision—it does not matter what the periodicity is; I was very interested in the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord—it should take place at a reasonable pace, because somebody is suffering if it is done slowly. That is the purpose of trying to trim the rates. This is not difficult; one discount rate has been set by a group of people who will have exactly the right sort of skills. I therefore think it can be done a bit quicker but, as I said, it is probably best discussed not in the Chamber but with the Minister.
United States Tariffs: Steel and Aluminium — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: Foreign Trade
David Hugh Alexander Hannay (Crossbench, Unknown): Does the Minister accept my view that it is very welcome that the Government are taking such a forthright attitude towards these measures taken by the United States—measures which seem to have no foundation whatever in the rules-based World Trade Organization order under which we have all lived so profitably for the last 70 years? Will she say quite unequivocally that we support all Cecilia Malmström’s efforts to get an exemption both for products and for the European Union as a whole, and that our support for her efforts is unequivocal? When the Secretary of State goes to Washington later this week, will he make it clear that we are supporting Cecilia Malmström’s efforts on our behalf? If the Minister will forgive me for correcting her, it is not only a question of sincere co-operation; we are part of a common commercial policy, and that means working to get an exemption for the whole European Union Finally, taking retaliatory measures is obviously extremely unpalatable, and taking a dispute settlement to the World Trade Organization is not something that we would have wished for. We are faced with a President of the United States who seems to think that trade wars are a good thing, but he had better learn some time that they are not.
United States Tariffs: Steel and Aluminium — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: International Affairs
John Anderson (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, when the Government consider which debating points to put before the United States, and to President Trump in particular, they might wish to remind him of his policy of putting America first. Will the Minister put on record, with supporting evidence, why these measures are detrimental to all US businesses?
Smart Meters Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: Energy
Alec Broers (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I wish to speak only briefly. First, I strongly support the Government’s commitment to offer smart meters to all households and small businesses. I believe that the potential for realising significant reductions in energy use through the use of smart meters will, as claimed by BEIS, be realised. Ultimately, the meters will allow users to monitor how they are using electricity and gas, thereby learning how to minimise their consumption Secondly, I urge the Government to press ahead as quickly as possible to ensure the supply of smart meters that are capable of monitoring individual appliances, together with lighting, heating and cooling systems. Batteries and energy sources should, of course, also be included. It should not be necessary to wait for appliances to be fitted with their own transducers to communicate with the smart meters, as they can be connected with existing smart plugs—which are all over the place—that are capable of monitoring the power used by an individual appliance and communicating this to a smart meter. This can be done by using a personal area wireless network such as Zigbee, which is a low-power, low-data-rate proximity wireless network designed especially for small-scale projects such as this. It has been around for a long time It will only be after all systems consuming or generating power are monitored that the full benefits of smart meters will be realised, as it will then be possible, for example, to see where power has been used and generated over a month or even a year, and optimise consumers’ own personal situations. I urge the Minister to ensure that meters capable of this extended monitoring are installed as soon as possible, but at the same time recommend that this should not delay the installation of SMETS 1 meters, as these will allow us to realise the gains in efficiency that the ability to monitor consumption on a half-hourly basis allows. In conclusion, I add my support to the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Teverson, in calling for the Government to just get on with it, please.
Northern Ireland Finances — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: Education
Paul Anthony Elliott Bew (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and thank him for the trenchant defence he has once again given this afternoon of the 1998 Belfast agreement. It is vital that he does so and that others recognise and listen to what he has to say I wish to press him on a point of detail in the Statement. I declare an interest as a former teacher in the two universities in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State’s Written Statement of 8 March says that there is an increase in real terms in the education budget. However, on the current figures, there is no way of working out what is happening in that regard in the higher education sector as against the rest of the education sector. I do not wish to be churlish about this because this budget is tremendously important. The £10.4 billion is crucial to Northern Ireland and is a clear benefit of the union to the people of Northern Ireland. Tomorrow we will hear a lot about the European Union. I think its contribution is 1% of that, and that quite a lot of that 1% is recycled United Kingdom money I am grateful for this budget but we need a little more clarity on it, if possible. The Secretary of State’s Statement says that later in the year there will be more detail on it. I urge against the idea that giving us that kind of detail is a move towards what is now called in the lexicon "full-fat" direct rule. I think this could be done without raising these theoretical or ideological problems. I wish to press the Minister on this as there is great concern about it. For example, as regards higher education, there are many rumours in Northern Ireland that the Government are setting their face against postgraduate funding in the universities in Northern Ireland and envisage introducing major changes there. We cannot tell anything about that from the Secretary of State’s Written Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, also referred to issues on which the Government could give us a little more information. I hope they will do so later in the year.
Northern Ireland Finances — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: Law and Crime
Alan Brooke (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question about the policing or Department of Justice budget, which may be £36 million. How much of that will go to front-line policing, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said about the various problems with filling a void? There is another point. Policing is not just about crime that is being committed today and nor is it just about terrorism; it affects every community and every person. The fear of crime is a very big issue—but I do not mean simply that individuals are afraid of crime. It is the Government’s responsibility to protect the community. Without a doubt, the level of resources for policing has gone down and that adds to the feeling of hopelessness in the community: "We have not got an Executive—and sometimes local policing is not very effective". We used to have a lot of community policing, which was all part of the Patten proposals—I declare an interest in that I was on the Northern Ireland Policing Board at the time—but we really do not have that now. We have mobile police stations, but that is not community policing. It is not keeping your finger on everything and it does not reassure the population. The lack of certainty from a government point of view has a very big effect on people’s outlook.
Syria: Protection of Civilians in Afrin — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: International Affairs
Raymond Jolliffe (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, this Statement is almost two months too late. The Turkish attack began on 20 January, supported by Leopard tanks and by militias containing many members of al-Nusra and ISIS. The attack was completely unprovoked. It has killed and wounded hundreds of people and displaced thousands of civilians. Turkey could have protected its border and its security by negotiations; it did not even attempt such a thing. Will Her Majesty’s Government condemn this brutal and vicious attack, which may well prolong the Syrian civil war? Will they re-examine Turkey’s right to remain a member of NATO and the Council of Europe Our Government rightly say that the Syrians must decide their own future. How can they possibly do so when Russia, Iran, Turkey and the USA have their own forces inside Syrian territory, and Israel makes constant air attacks whenever it feels a need to do so? It is surely not enough to boast about our aid for Syria since the war began. Will our Government become more realistic and press for the removal from Syria of all foreign forces, including volunteer fighters, money and weapons?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-04-30
Topic: International Affairs
David Hugh Alexander Hannay (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, this amendment also bears my name and the names of other noble Lords. I will focus my brief remarks on the eventuality of the United Kingdom facing the prospect of leaving the EU in March 2019 without any deal having been reached between the EU and the UK on the terms of a withdrawal treaty, or on the framework for a new relationship between them. I will, too, set out a pretty compelling case for this eventuality to be covered if a parliamentary approval process is to be genuinely meaningful This House is no stranger to debate on the no-deal situation. When we considered the Bill authorising the Government to trigger Article 50 before the end of March 2017, we voted by a substantial majority for a meaningful process that covered the no-deal eventuality. The other House, where at that time the Government had a single-party majority, rejected that amendment, and we did not insist. We must, however, face the fact that this Government have never made any commitment to give Parliament any say on a no-deal outcome, although they have committed themselves—rather inadequately—to giving Parliament a say if a deal is struck. The rest of this amendment deals with those circumstances. In the no-deal scenario, there is a void—a vacuum. That is not really tolerable for such an eventuality I do not intend to speculate about what circumstances might give rise to this eventuality—that would be a bit of a mug’s game six months before the end of a negotiation. The Government seem to have put away their rather foolish mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal, which I welcome. Suffice it to say that until the final moment of the Brexit negotiations, no deal remains a possibility and needs to be provided for in any meaningful process of parliamentary approval On the substance of no deal, I say only that there is now a much wider understanding of the fact that it would be seriously damaging to our economy, as we fell back on WTO terms. The Business Committee of another place brought that out very cogently as recently as last week. There are plenty of other disadvantages outside the trade field if we were to find ourselves going over a cliff edge in March 2019, but this is not the occasion nor the time to have that debate about what the consequences of no deal would be. What needs to be debated today, and I hope decided, is to set out the fact, as subsection (8) of the proposed new clause provides, that Parliament and not the Executive needs to be the ultimate arbiter in such circumstances. I hope that we will establish that in this House at the end of this debate.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2018-04-30
Topic: International Affairs
David Hugh Alexander Hannay (Crossbench, Unknown): The noble Lord is giving us the speech he gave us in the Article 50 Bill, when it was indeed the case that the amendment then moved did not differentiate between the Lords and the Commons. If he looks at this amendment with care, he will see that there is a very clear differentiation and that it is only the Commons that has the right of decision; we have the right of consideration.