argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Tenant Fees Bill — House of Lords, 2018-12-11
Topic: Housing
Nicholas Bourne (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, it might be helpful to the House if I deal with the rental issue first. If anyone wants to speak on that, I suggest they do so now. I apologise that we glossed over it earlier If there are no other points on the rental, I shall deal with the issues raised by my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lord Flight, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton On the point that we have moved significantly from six weeks to five weeks, yes, it is a movement, but it is scarcely, as the noble Lord suggests, a fundamental shift. It is not as if we are moving from 10 weeks to one week. Perhaps I may provide some reassurance. All the evidence is that most people currently take deposits of between four or five weeks. It is not therefore massively inconsistent with current practice At the top end of the market we are retaining the six-week limit for the most expensive properties where the fittings and fixtures may be more costly. It will remain at six weeks where the annual rental is more than £50,000. I hope that provides some reassurance to those noble Lords who have raised the concern These are not issues of principle so much as matters of judgment. It is the judgment of Solomon and there will always be some people who disagree with where we are. However, as I say, we have looked at current practice, listened to what outside organisations have said and on that basis we have fixed it at five weeks for most people, but at the top end of the market we have retained the six weeks. On that basis, I beg to move.
Tenant Fees Bill — House of Lords, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Nicholas Bourne (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, it may be convenient for me to say that I regret any misunderstanding. I too thought that we had an agreement on this matter. Perhaps I may say two things. First, I propose to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Secondly, I will be very happy to engage in discussions on this issue ahead of Third Reading. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, suggested, I am convinced that there is no reason for the noble Lord to be concerned—but I know that he is and so I will be happy to engage in discussion ahead of Third Reading. I hope that that is helpful.
Guidance on Age-verification Arrangements — House of Lords, 2018-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): That the draft Guidance laid before the House on 25 October be approved Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 39th Report, 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B).
Guidance on Ancillary Service Providers — House of Lords, 2018-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): That the draft Guidance laid before the House on 25 October be approved Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 39th Report, 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B).
Brexit: Negotiations — House of Lords, 2018-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Natalie Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): As the outline political declaration shows, we have reached consensus on key elements of our future internal security partnership—as I mentioned, on extradition, data exchange, fingerprints, DNA, vehicle records and passenger name records. On foreign, security and defence policy, we have agreed arrangements for consultation and co-operation on sanctions, participation in missions and operations, defence capability development and intelligence exchanges. As I said, now that we have agreed the withdrawal agreement, we will be able to get into the detail of the future relationship. Both sides are very clear that security is a key area in which we want to continue to have a very strong partnership.
Privileges and Conduct — House of Lords, 2018-11-15
Topic: Other
James Peter Hymers Mackay (Conservative, Centre-right): I said it was obliged to obey the rules laid down by this House for the conduct of these proceedings. It was 11 years ago, but the rules have been subject to review by the sub-committee ever since. They are still the rules, and they were the rules when the lady came along. We must give that fact a fair hearing on the side of the lady. She came to this place complaining on the basis of the procedure laid down in our rules, and these rules were completely obeyed. No one has submitted that the commissioner did not know what she was doing or had not obeyed the rules: she obeyed the rules as she had them. The idea that she could have employed someone to cross-examine the complainant does not have any support in the rules whatever. She had no authority under the rules to ask someone to cross-examine the complainant.
Privileges and Conduct — House of Lords, 2018-11-15
Topic: Other
James Peter Hymers Mackay (Conservative, Centre-right): We accepted what she has put in. It was just an elaboration of what she had said already. As I say, we gave the noble Lord, Lord Lester, a full opportunity to comment on what she had said, and he did so. That was the last part of the proceedings In my view, we were as fair as we could possibly be. I take this responsibility very heavily and no one in the Privileges Committee considered this matter lightly. We considered that the matter had been given a fair hearing according to the rules—to both sides—and the commissioner decided the matter.
Privileges and Conduct — House of Lords, 2018-11-15
Topic: Other
Fiona Sara Shackleton (Conservative, Centre-right): To accommodate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I shall be very brief indeed. I have read the report from beginning to end and I am extremely uneasy about convicting a fellow Peer for misconduct with that standard of investigation.
Privileges and Conduct — House of Lords, 2018-11-15
Topic: Other
James Peter Hymers Mackay (Conservative, Centre-right): Is the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggesting that this lady, appointed by the House as a commissioner, did not have the necessary skills to probe the evidence on both sides? According to her, that is what she did and she had to form a view about it which she presented to the committee. I have no reason to suppose that she did not reach the correct conclusion.
Arrangement of Business — House of Lords, 2018-11-15
Topic: Other
John Taylor (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, we now move on to debates. It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that we have decided that the last debate tabled for today, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will be postponed to a more suitable occasion so that there is time to have proper debate on the other subjects available to the House.
Veterans Strategy — House of Lords, 2018-11-15
Topic: Other
John Attlee (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend the Minister who, once again, has not disappointed us in the House The noble Lord, Lord Burnett, raised an issue about prosthetics of which I was not aware. I do not believe that the service charities should be funding prosthetics; they should be funded by central government. Service charities should be funding things that central government should not be funding. We will have to see how that issue progresses in the future. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation — House of Lords, 2018-11-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): I am tempted to say that I will write, but I will try to answer some of the questions, and I will write regarding some that I do not get around to. I was in at the beginning of the debate on AI and I listened to the noble Lord’s speech.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-11-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
James O’Shaughnessy (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, before I introduce this first group of what I hope are uncontroversial and technical amendments, I want to express my sincere thanks to all noble Lords who have been involved in a good deal of hard work between Committee and today in order to get the Bill into better shape. When we set out on this process at Second Reading, noble Lords had some concerns about the Bill, which crystallised in Committee. I think we have made a good deal of progress since then, which could not have happened without their contribution. I hope we are able to make similar degrees of progress today The amendments in this group straightforwardly make technical changes to the Bill. Amendment 1 reflects that transitory, or temporary, provision related to 16 and 17-year olds will be included in a new Part 8 of the schedule. Amendment 10 inserts a definition of "clinical commissioning group". Amendment 148 removes an unnecessary provision regarding statutory instruments from the Bill. Clause 5(3) reflects that regulations under Clause 5 will be made by statutory instrument. However, Clause 5(7) already provides that regulations under Clause 5 are to be made by statutory instrument, so the words in Clause 5(3) are superfluous. I hope everyone can follow that—I promise it is straightforward and technical. On that basis, I beg to move.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-11-21
Topic: Other
James O’Shaughnessy (Conservative, Centre-right): I will come to that. I am using that technical point to illustrate that there are concerns with the amendments as laid. We recognise the importance of this issue and the strength of feeling on it in the House. As I have said, I see merit in the argument for having this defined in statute, and I am sympathetic to that point of view. I can therefore give noble Lords some assurance, and confirm today not only that we are working on this matter, but that we intend to bring forward an amendment in the Commons to give effect to a definition. We want to work with all noble Lords and other stakeholders, and of course the JCHR, to ensure that we can table an effective amendment that achieves our shared aims and gains the level of consensus that we all want to achieve, and that we shall be able to lay it and have it agreed during the Commons stages of the Bill. I hope that in providing that commitment, I have been able to reassure noble Lords of the strength of our intentions. We absolutely want to do this, and we want to get it right. I still think it will take a bit more time, but I know that, working together, we can achieve that.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-11-21
Topic: Other
James O’Shaughnessy (Conservative, Centre-right): I am happy to give that commitment, bearing in mind that there is always uncertainty about the timing of Bills’ progress but, in terms of the work we will do to come up with the definition, I am more than happy to do that and to include estimates—I see the Chief Whip coming into the Chamber—of the timing of the further parliamentary stages.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-11-21
Topic: Civil Rights
James O’Shaughnessy (Conservative, Centre-right): I express my gratitude to the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Murphy, for tabling this important amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, pointed out, the effect of the amendment would be to ensure that liberty protection safeguards do not apply to a deprivation of liberty in a domestic setting, and that these should be dealt with under the Care Act. It further states that the schedule does not apply where the dominant reason for the deprivation of liberty of a person is for an underlying condition under the Mental Health Act The effect of the amendment as tabled would mean that people deprived of their liberty in domestic settings could not have that authorised through the liberty protection safeguards or the Court of Protection. Instead, their case would fall to be dealt with under the Care Act 2014. I appreciate that the intention is that in most cases deprivation of liberty would be avoided through care planning and safeguarding under the Act. But nevertheless, in some cases there will need to be an authorisation of a deprivation of liberty in domestic settings I absolutely sympathise with the noble Baroness’s intention to reduce wherever possible intrusions into family life; as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pointed out, that has perhaps not been given sufficient time during the passage of the Bill so far, although it is nevertheless a significant issue. However, we have a concern with regard to the amendment as laid in that the Care Act does not in itself provide adequate Article 5 safeguards, and to rely on such a process could result in a real risk of incompatibility with convention rights.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-11-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
James O’Shaughnessy (Conservative, Centre-right): The reason is that although the deprivation of liberty would take place in that institution, every single case would be examined by an AMCP. The pre-authorisation review and scrutiny would be carried out by the AMCP. They would have the ability to examine the case, to speak to the person and all other relevant interested persons, and to challenge, if necessary, the circumstances of the deprivation of liberty or the care that had been put in place To take the hierarchy of decision-making in a care home, for example, the arrangements are made by, but not carried out by, the care home manager. They are referred to the responsible body for preauthorisation review, and if there are concerns of a problem at the level of the responsible body—an objection on behalf of the person or on behalf of somebody who cares for or is connected to them—it would go immediately to the AMCP. In a sense, this vaults the decision-making process beyond the responsible body and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, there are particular issues over which body ought to take responsibility and go straight to, effectively, the last port of call before the Court of Protection. It provides that degree of oversight and challenge in these cases.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-11-21
Topic: Other
James O’Shaughnessy (Conservative, Centre-right): Absolutely—I would be more than happy to do so. I have tried to demonstrate our intention to deal with the issue, but we remain open-minded about the best way to do it. We have concerns with the amendments as laid—we were trying, if anything, to turbo-boost the approach. I recognise that the noble Baroness is concerned about an overfamiliarity between individuals, which she is trying to make sure that we avoid. There may be other concerns with the model that we are considering. I am more than happy to take that offline, and that would be a very fruitful discussion.
Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire (Fire and Rescue Authority) Order 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-11-21
Topic: Other
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): My noble friend makes a very interesting point because this measure was not prayed against. Noble Lords opposite are expressing their feelings in a regret Motion slightly after the event. I share my noble friend’s cynicism.
Brexit: Attorney-General’s Advice — House of Lords, 2018-11-29
Topic: Mixed Topics
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, again, the observations of the noble Lord merely underline the prematurity of the Question that is being posed. I think that noble Lords have to be realistic about this. No, we do not intend to repeat the mistakes of past Governments, nor will we. With regard to the advice over the Iraq War, I will not go into detail on that; it is a matter of history. The issue that was raised was whether the Cabinet had been shown the full legal advice or merely a summary, which, in the latter event, would have been contrary to the then Ministerial Code which indicated that when advice from the Law Officers was included in ministerial papers or in papers for the Cabinet, the full advice should be annexed to any summary. But that issue does not arise here at this time. Again, the whole Question that has been raised is one of prematurity. I am not going to comment on the issue of legal advice in a way that would intrude upon the Law Officer privilege.
Brexit: Attorney-General’s Advice — House of Lords, 2018-11-29
Topic: Mixed Topics
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I spent an interesting day on Tuesday before 26 judges in the Court of Justice of the European Union, where this matter was addressed. I am advised that the Advocate-General to the court will deliver his opinion—of course, it is not an opinion binding upon the court itself—on 4 December.
Brexit: Attorney-General’s Advice — House of Lords, 2018-11-29
Topic: Other
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, it is not for me to implore Members of this House not to worry in either the short or the long term, and it would be equally inappropriate for me to anticipate a Statement that has yet to be made by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General.
Brexit: Attorney-General’s Advice — House of Lords, 2018-11-29
Topic: Other
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): There has been a resolution in the House of Commons. We are aware of its terms and its scope. We will await the Statement from the Attorney-General to see to what extent it is considered by the House of Commons to meet the resolution that was made.
Brexit: Attorney-General’s Advice — House of Lords, 2018-11-29
Topic: Other
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not believe that it is being left at all. It is a question of timing and the availability of the Attorney-General to provide any report and to address the House on Monday regarding these issues. Again, I emphasise the prematurity of the present questions. If noble Lords have an issue arising in the light of the Statement clearly we will respond to that.
Brexit: Attorney-General’s Advice — House of Lords, 2018-11-29
Topic: Other
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): I quite understand the noble Baroness’s observations, but let me be clear that my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General is aware of the Motion made in the House of Commons and will be conscious of it when he comes to address that House.
Schools: Funding — House of Lords, 2018-11-29
Topic: Mixed Topics
Theodore Agnew (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I entirely accept that this is an extremely difficult subject that has been kicked down the road for a long time. Doing it at a time when there are not huge amounts of additional money makes it difficult, but the system puts a floor in the bottom so that no one loses out. Of course, the debate will always be about why we are not moving the bottom ones up quicker. I met a head from West Sussex only last week—
Bank Recovery and Resolution and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-12-19
Topic: Other
Michael Bates (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I confirm that this is indeed one of a whole series of statutory instruments—secondary legislation—which has been going through Grand Committee. The noble Lord may not have been in Grand Committee, but other Members of this House were. We had an excellent debate which raised a number of issues that have been taken into account in the consideration of these Motions Motion agreed.
Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-12-19
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Michael Bates (Conservative, Centre-right): Payment Accounts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018Motion to Approve3.43 pmMoved by That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 November be approved. Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A), considered in Grand Committee on 12 December
Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-12-19
Topic: Other
David Trefgarne (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord would like to refer to the reports of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has considered all these measures. The answers to his questions are in those reports.
Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-12-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, there is a statutory instrument available in the Printed Paper Office this week entitled the Companies, Limited Liability Partnerships and Partnerships (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations. Has this already been considered? If not, what is the proposed timetable for considering this instrument?
Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2018-12-19
Topic: Other
Michael Bates (Conservative, Centre-right): The usual channels will arrange for these discussions to take place and have debates on them. We are debating the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The regulations have been reviewed by the committees, as has been referred to. They have been reviewed and debated in Grand Committee and passed without objection, which is why they find themselves on the Order Paper.
Future Immigration — House of Lords, 2018-12-19
Topic: Immigration
Francis Maude (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, does my noble friend accept that very many people who voted for Britain to leave the European Union were not driven or heavily motivated by concerns about immigration? This was not a consideration for very many of them and if we end up with a plan B for Brexit—that we remain in the European Economic Area with the attenuated form of freedom of movement of people that that involves—that should not be considered to be a bar to going down that path. Does she also accept that, in the system that she has helpfully outlined to the House, it would be essential for the system to operate in a way that is unbureaucratic, smooth and efficient in the issuing of consents to immigrants to this country and in the way the borders actually operate? What assurances can she give the House that the implementation of this by her department will be a bit better than it has frequently been in the past?
Future Immigration — House of Lords, 2018-12-19
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my noble friend for that question. When he says that not everyone who voted to leave the European Union was driven by immigration concerns, I totally agree. I was one of them and as an immigrant I can hardly complain about immigrants. He suggests that we perhaps adopt a model such as Norway. I cannot say what the House of Commons will do and I would not like to predict what will happen, but I think Parliament needs to work through the whole process in a way that meets the result of the vote of the people of the UK My noble friend is absolutely right to mention the smooth and unbureaucratic processes that people should experience as they go through the border. We have already talked about opening up the eGates to additional countries: the Five Eyes plus Japan, South Korea and Singapore. I think that that will make the journey through the border a lot smoother. As for a lack of bureaucracy, the Home Secretary has also talked about a more digitally friendly immigration system. That is important, as we are not trying to complicate the system but we are considering the whole world in our future immigration system.