argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Digital Economy Bill — House of Lords, 2017-02-08
Topic: Other
Rodney Elton (Conservative, Centre-right): Before my noble friend sits down, can she tell us a little more about the involvement of the Royal Society, when we might hear a result from it and whether it will be shared with this House? Can she in fact bring about a further debate in the light of its findings?
Digital Economy Bill — House of Lords, 2017-02-08
Topic: Other
Peta Buscombe (Conservative, Centre-right): I believe that my noble friend’s idea is very good. We hope to hear from the Royal Society and British Academy later this year and, on the basis of their recommendations, it might then be timely to have a debate in your Lordships’ House.
Digital Economy Bill — House of Lords, 2017-02-08
Topic: Other
Ralph Matthew Palmer (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have spoken in this debate. This is something which the Government should have their mind on. I am delighted that my noble friend on the Front Bench says that the Government are paying attention to this, and that we will get something we can get our teeth into later this year. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Digital Economy Bill — House of Lords, 2017-02-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peta Buscombe (Conservative, Centre-right): The Government do not accept that there is a difficulty in this. The important issue is that the powers remain broad in their application. To the best of my understanding, though, there is no difficulty regarding when they are triggered.
Digital Economy Bill — House of Lords, 2017-02-08
Topic: Other
Colin Moynihan (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way because it gives me the opportunity of declaring my interest as co-chair with Sharon Hodgson of the all-party group. I echo the view that without her extraordinary energy, a lot of the cross-party support in another place would not have been secured. We should recognise that as an important contribution today.
Digital Economy Bill — House of Lords, 2017-02-08
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I too would, of course, like to pay tribute, on behalf of the Government, to Baroness Heyhoe Flint today. I agree that it is particularly appropriate that we should be discussing this subject today In 2015 this House acknowledged the complexity of online ticketing by including the requirement for a review of consumer protection measures relating to online secondary ticketing in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Professor Michael Waterson conducted that review, and his independent report makes a number of points relevant to these amendments. I will come to the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in a minute First, Professor Waterson does not recommend a ban on the secondary ticketing market, recognising instead its benefit to consumers. Amendment 231, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the unauthorised resale of tickets, could in effect ban the secondary ticketing market. There would be no obligation for organisers to approve a resale platform, or to accept returns. As a result there would be no outlet to recoup money for those who found they could not attend an event. Consumers could be left unable to sell any tickets they cannot use, other than through the black market. That would expose buyers and sellers to much greater risk of fraud than using the online secondary ticketing market, which has safeguards and guarantees built in Significant market intervention should be carefully considered and consistently applied. Professor Waterson calls for the existing provisions of the Consumer Rights Act to be enforced and tested. We should therefore welcome and await the outcome of the recently announced enforcement investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority.
Digital Economy Bill — House of Lords, 2017-02-08
Topic: Other
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): Of course, as I said right at the beginning on day one, I am always open to meeting the noble Lord and other noble Lords. I am happy to do so. I think Report will be some weeks after the Recess, so we have some time.
Digital Economy Bill — House of Lords, 2017-02-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peta Buscombe (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I begin by apologising to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that she is, for the second time running, almost a tail-end Charlie. It was the same on Monday evening and she was extremely gracious in waiting for so long for us to get to her amendment. I welcome her amendment, which highlights an issue that most of us here are acutely aware of when buying goods and services online; namely, the consequence of not ticking a box or, in some cases, unticking a box The proposed new clause imposes a fine not exceeding 10% of a seller’s annual gross operating profit if a seller of goods and services on the internet were to retain, share or use the contact information of a buyer without the buyer’s consent to do so. It also makes it a requirement that websites provide a tick-box which is not pre-filled, as a means by which an individual can demonstrate their acceptance of having their contact information processed by the seller Although I accept the spirit of the amendment, I do not believe it is necessary, for the following reasons. Clause 77 already places a statutory duty on the Information Commissioner to publish a direct marketing code of practice. Putting the ICO’s direct marketing code of practice on a statutory footing will make it easier for the Information Commissioner to take enforcement action against those organisations in breach of the direct marketing rules under the Data Protection Act and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations. The current direct marketing rules are also clear, stating as follows: "Organisations will need to be able to demonstrate that consent was knowingly and freely given, clear and specific, and should keep clear records of consent. The ICO recommends that opt-in boxes are used" The general data protection regulation—GDPR—which will come into force in May 2018 will introduce tough new measures on consent and will place obligations on data controllers to demonstrate clearly how they obtained consent when processing personal data, such as contact information. Silence or pre-ticked boxes as a form of consent will not be permitted under the GDPR. The GDPR will also allow tougher penalties to be imposed on organisations in breach of the rules: up to 4% of the organisation’s total global annual turnover, or €20 million The noble Baroness also suggested that the time limit for retaining personal information should be limited, for example, to a year. The reality is that time is not specified: one should hold on to the information only as long as is necessary to process payment or whatever the application is made for. For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2017-02-21
Topic: Other
George Young (Conservative, Centre-right): That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 to 9, Schedule 2, Clauses 10 to 13, Schedule 3, Clauses 14 to 44, Title.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-02-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Nicholas Fairfax (Conservative, Centre-right): But there should be no rerunning of the referendum, despite the EU’s form in that regard. Let us pass the Bill without delay and unamended, as the elected House of Commons has done. The majority of the country is expecting nothing less.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-27
Topic: Other
Ralph Matthew Palmer (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his short CPD session, which I hope I shall manage to remember and will rehearse later in Hansard. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-27
Topic: Mixed Topics
Ralph Matthew Palmer (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I completely support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. I do not think that any Peer who has been involved in the Bill wishes it anything other than complete success. We are all behind the objectives and the methodology which is set out in the Sainsbury report and what has been built upon that. We want to ensure in the passage of the Bill that what we are producing will work well In the process of putting the Bill together, certain ideas have been developed which will not weather exposure to practice. When it comes to sitting down with industries, awarding bodies and others, the ideas that are being touted as the way things will be under the Bill will not be the things that work out. I want to make sure that the Bill has sufficient flexibility built into it so that, if things need to take a different turn to make this project succeed, they will be able to, and we will not find ourselves hobbled by primary legislation. I have one separate amendment in this group that is aimed at the question of multiple qualifications within one particular sub-route—I do not yet know what they will be called; in the picture supplied to us they look like the fingers of a hand, although I do not think they will be called fingers. To restrict yourself to one single awarding organisation creates a monopoly in the short term, and in the long term it reinforces it. If you take one particular skill set within the universe covered by the Bill, and you say, "Only this awarding organisation can create qualifications for this for the next seven years", what other awarding organisation will maintain the ability to compete? None of them will. Why should they? There is no business for seven years and they cannot afford to do it. It is all based on a collection of people, and anyway it is not something that stays still; it continuously evolves. There is no way that they will remain in a position to compete, so when you come up to the renewal of this single licence, there will be only one competitor.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-27
Topic: Other
Ralph Matthew Palmer (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful for what my noble friend said on my amendments, but to turn to the main group, where she has adumbrated some new ideas in very few words, might we have a meeting between Report and Third Reading so that we can better understand the details of what is proposed?
Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 — House of Lords, 2017-03-27
Topic: Other
Oliver Michael Robert Eden (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I get the impression that the House would like me to move this debate towards a close, so I shall deal with some of the points that have been made during what has been a wide-ranging and, at times, an obviously impassioned debate all across the House. I recognise the concerns that have been raised and welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government. I hope to make matters clear, and provide reassurances on a number of points.
Homelessness Reduction Bill — House of Lords, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
Nicholas Bourne (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that. The point I was seeking to make, although perhaps I did not make it as elegantly as I might have done, is that this situation is unique in terms of private Member’s legislation coming with any government money at all. I know the noble Lord welcomes that; equally, I understand that, speaking as he did as the 13th speaker, his welcome for it was perhaps always going to be muted. I accept his cry, which I suppose is usual from all opposition parties, of, "Let’s have some more money".
Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-02-24
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Olivia Bloomfield (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his support, coming as it does from a position of greater knowledge and experience in this field than I have. I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her constructive comments and support I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has raised important concerns relating to multiple ownership and non-commercial purposes of these multiplexes. These were debated at length in the other place and were addressed by the Minister in her response. As to lighter touch regulation, as the Minister mentioned, the Government have stated that there will be a full and careful consultation on the detailed arrangements for this As this is the first Bill I have had the privilege of leading in this House, it is encouraging to know that it enjoys support from all sides, if not perhaps the same level of interest as was evidenced in the debates held earlier this week. I ask your Lordships’ House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Abortion (Disability Equality) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-02-24
Topic: Civil Rights
James Peter Hymers Mackay (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am, of course, not a doctor, although I have the great honour of being an honorary fellow of the royal college of which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is such a distinguished member. I well remember the situation which produced the result that the noble Lord has spoken of—that of amendments on abortion being made to our very interesting, important and ground-breaking Bill on IVF and related matters. I was clear, as were the Government, that the approach to the main part of that Bill depended on one’s conscience, so there was a free vote in both Houses of Parliament. There was always the possibility that the result of a vote in this House would be different from one in the House of Commons. That was a very serious thought in relation to a Bill of such ground-breaking importance, and the introduction of amendments on abortion in the Commons rather increased that difficulty. However, I am glad to say that in the end we got what I think is regarded in the general scientific areas of the world concerned with these matters as a very good Bill. It allowed research which is not allowed in quite a number of other parts of the world. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has a different view from mine, but that was an important aspect of the Bill which depended very much on people’s consciences So far, I have understood this Bill to deal with the principle of equality as defined in our legislation in relation to disability. I understand that the Bill is based on the proposition that abortion would be in breach of the principle of not regarding disability as a ground for discrimination. It is as simple as that. The idea that this amendment would destroy the Bill and bring back back-street abortions and so on strikes me as rather excessive. It is an amendment to the existing Bill; it does not seek to abolish the Abortion Act. It simply suggests—with a good deal of merit, as I think my noble friend Lord Shinkwin has said—that the principle of not discriminating against disability should apply to this provision This amendment, produced by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggests that something else might be done. It proceeds on the basis that the nature of the condition is such, "that the fetus will die at, during, or shortly after delivery due to serious fetal anomaly" That is not quite the same as what is in the Abortion Act. If that were the formulation of the clause, it might well avoid the idea that this provision of the Abortion Act is a breach of the rule against discrimination on the ground of disability. This is a different point and I can see the force of it as a different matter entirely from the provision in relation to this matter which is currently in the Abortion Act.
Abortion (Disability Equality) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
Roger Mynors Swinfen Eady (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am a complete layman in these matters. When the noble Lord, Lord Winston, responds, can he tell the Committee what in his view is a "high probability"? What does he mean by that? Also how long is "shortly after" a birth? Would that be hours, days, weeks or years?
Abortion (Disability Equality) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-02-24
Topic: Other
John Taylor (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, it is the custom of the House on Fridays to finish at 3 pm and we are very nearly at that time. I do not think that we will do any debate justice by starting another amendment at this stage. I hope that noble Lords will understand if I now move that the House do now adjourn.
Children: Gambling Advertisements — House of Lords, 2017-09-14
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Peter Gummer (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I immediately declare what may be perceived as a conflict of interest, in that one of my children is head of policy for Google in the UK. The genesis of requesting this debate today was a summer of wonderful sport on television. However, every commercial break seemed dominated by gambling advertisements. As I watched sports that my extended family love, I found myself asking several questions. Are these commercials really what I want youngsters to see, seated around my TV set in the security and privacy of my home? Are they going to make these young people more responsible adults? Are they being encouraged to believe that gambling is a normal part of everyday life and something to which they should aspire? Are the warnings about the risks of gambling clear, strong and unambiguous?’ I obviously have the highest possible regard for the advertising industry, which I believe is an immensely positive and powerful tool that contributes significantly to the good of our society, so, in moving this Motion, I imply no criticism of the advertising industry or its regulators. I simply ask: do we know enough about the effects of the welter of gambling promotion on TV and online to which children are now subjected, and is there more we could do as a society to protect them from it? In the light of the Government gambling review due this autumn, this seems an appropriate moment to ask these questions I am pleased to say that I am not alone in these concerns. Mr Philip Bowcock, chief executive of William Hill, said at the firm’s 2017 half-year presentation: "My personal view is that there is too much gambling advertising on TV" He added: "I have teenage children and we are sympathetic to some sort of curb or some sort of review around the level of advertising" My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport recently told MPs: "My children can recite just about every gambling ad there is" Some of these worries are clearly shared by a majority of the UK public. According to research from the Gambling Commission, 69% of people in the UK think betting is dangerous for family life and 78% fear there are too many opportunities to do it. Indeed, the members of public who think the practice should be actively discouraged has risen from 36% in 2010 to 55% in 2016.
Children: Gambling Advertisements — House of Lords, 2017-09-14
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Michael Bruce Forsyth (Conservative, Centre-right): I am most grateful to my noble friend for raising this important subject. When, more than 20 years ago, I was Minister of State at the Home Office responsible for gambling, the principle that then applied was that there should be no attempt to stimulate demand, which restricted advertising. Does he think we should return to that principle?
Local Housing Need — House of Lords, 2017-09-14
Topic: Housing
Nicholas Bourne (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, very much for his contribution and I welcome the work that he does in this area. He set out two anxieties, the first of which was affordability. The fact that in the formula we are looking at the areas where prices are highest and affordability is a real issue—and putting an additional obligation on those areas to deliver more housing—should have a beneficial effect on prices in those areas. I agree that that could be exaggerated but, nevertheless, it will put some downward pressure on prices The second issue that the noble Lord raised was quality. I very much agree with what he said, and perhaps it is a point that I should have addressed earlier. This House has taken a particular interest in quality and design—and I think of the response that I gave in a debate on a Select Committee report on this very issue led by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. We are seeing what we can do within the department to mainstream design much more as an important part of the process. It is important The other thing that I should have picked up in response to the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Shipley, is planning committee fees. In addition to the money that we talked about in the Statement itself we will soon bring forward an SI on the 20% increase in planning fees. In the consultation there will also be, as noble Lords will see when they read it, an additional 20% on those authorities that deliver the housing set out in their housing need targets. That incentivises it, and of course that money must be ploughed back into the planning department; that is one of the attached conditions. I am sure that that will be beneficial too.
Local Housing Need — House of Lords, 2017-09-14
Topic: Housing
Nicholas Bourne (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for her characteristically honest and candid contribution on the shared blame we all have relating to the problems we face and why we must all move forward together. As she rightly said, this is about seeking to build more in less-affordable areas. As I said, that should have a beneficial effect in those areas, particularly for people struggling to buy. As I said, the cut-off date for existing local plans is that if they have gone in before 1 April 2018 they will not be subject to the new, consulted-on regulations. That is the cut-off deal The noble Baroness referenced the need for more local authority building. I agree. She will know, and I think I mentioned this previously, that we are seeking to do bespoke deals with authorities up and down the country. We are in discussion with many authorities. We are certainly at a fairly advanced stage with Leeds and the West Midlands, but there are others The noble Baroness then mentioned the construction industry. Obviously we consult it, particularly on employment issues and the impact of Brexit on the workforce, where we have concerns, as set out in the Farmer review, which was an independent review but commissioned by the Government on the industry. It is something we look at very closely and we are in discussion on a regular basis with developers about the industry’s needs.
Local Housing Need — House of Lords, 2017-09-14
Topic: Housing
Nicholas Bourne (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for that contribution. I reiterate the point he quite rightly made that this is about cost, but we must also have regard to quality. He refers quite rightly to the great growth in the housing needs of people aged 65 and over, not least because people, thankfully, are living longer. Their needs will be very different as they age. He will recall that on the then Neighbourhood Planning Bill there was discussion on this, prompted initially by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, I think. As a result of discussions on that, the Government were keen to ensure that we placed an obligation in the National Planning Policy Framework relating to elderly housing, which has been taken forward. It is very much at the forefront of our thinking and therefore places an obligation on local authorities to make provision for that age group when they present their plan.