argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: International Affairs
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I will make a brief intervention in the hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, will respond to it. I entirely understand that in negotiations—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, described the situation in which the Prime Minister and the EU are negotiating—there has to be give and take. What disturbs me is this: the Prime Minister might decide in advance to move outside the dates previously agreed by Parliament and go with an entirely fresh date into a negotiation. That is different in kind from negotiating when they sat down to discussion. It would be a deliberate attempt to go outside what Parliament has previously agreed to. It seems to me that Amendment 7 would enable her to do that, and I am profoundly uneasy about that prospect.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: International Affairs
Martin Callanan (Conservative, Centre-right): As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was kind enough to point out, I have not benefited from the disadvantages of a legal education, but I think I do know flawed and badly drafted legislation when I see it. Nevertheless, it remains the reality that this has been approved by the House of Commons, and that is a principle that I believe should be respected. Noble Lords opposite can be assured that I will remind them of their newfound enthusiasm to respect the will of the House of Commons when we come to future legislation I will comment first on the amendments. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said, the Government support Amendment 5, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. This seeks to remove Clause 1(6) and (7) from the Bill. As currently drafted, should the European Council propose a different date to extend Article 50 from that agreed in Parliament by virtue of approval of the Motion as set out in the Bill, the Bill would require the Prime Minister to return to the House of Commons on 11 April and put the EU’s counterproposal to that House for approval through a further Motion. As the Government set out last week, we have very real concerns about how that would work in practice The Government hope that Amendment 7 will also be successful, which would allow us to reach agreement with the EU on Wednesday, so long as that extension ends no later than 22 May. The Government have been clear, as I said earlier, that we are seeking an extension to 30 June In response to the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, scheduling of any further debates after the European Council on 10 April is a matter for the other place. I am sure it is paying close attention to our debates.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: International Affairs
Michael Bruce Forsyth (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, uncharacteristically, I think the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made a slight slip when he said that the Prime Minister would come back with a deal. She will not be coming back with a deal; she will be coming back with a date. The committee report states: "The date of the UK’s exit from the EU remains a matter of the greatest political and legal significance. It is right that the matter be debated in Parliament before the current date of 12 April is changed in our domestic law" When the Government changed the date from 29 March to 12 April, they did so by statutory instrument placed before both Houses, and we were able to discuss and debate that matter. What is proposed, as the 51st report of the committee makes clear, is to remove that right from both Houses to approve a change I must say that in introducing the debate the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, was very brief in his description. The outside world may not realise what is proposed here, which is entirely to cut the House of Lords out of approving the date, which the report rightly says is of the greatest political significance. Judging from the amount of grief I had at the weekend from people who are very disillusioned by the performance of Parliament on this matter, it is something that concerns many millions of our fellow citizens. I am therefore very surprised that this should be treated as just a matter of convenience The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is held in the highest regard and afforded the highest respect, made clear recommendations. The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is important: if this is to be done through a negative resolution, we will be invited after the event to consider whether we agreed with it, thus creating uncertainty. Again, we had the same discussion on Thursday. This is not about what the House thinks on whether we should leave the European Union; it is about whether our procedures and processes should be respected. The idea that it might be inconvenient or difficult to meet the timetable, and that we should therefore ignore our processes, is not good.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: International Affairs
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Centre-right): In the penultimate bullet point, it is clear that if the negative procedure is adopted and a Motion against the date is successful, the exit date will be invalidated and we will have to start again.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: Government Operations
Greville Patrick Charles Howard (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, it is worth reminding the Committee that the first steps to dictatorship have, through the centuries, consistently been related to abandoning procedures and precedents which are put in place in order to ensure that legislation is properly considered. I am not saying that we are going as far as the Enabling Act, but this is a very dangerous path.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: International Affairs
Michael Nicholson Lord (Conservative, Centre-right): In among what is obviously an increasing shambles, can the Minister confirm that we leave the European Union this Friday by an existing Act of Parliament, and that the Government have conceded that—although this is not their chosen course of action—it could be quite successfully managed?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: International Affairs
Martin Callanan (Conservative, Centre-right): I answered a question from the noble Lord earlier today on that, and I am not sure there is much benefit in going back over those subjects. We are extensively prepared for no deal because that is the legal default, but we are now supporting this legislation—however flawed—that has been sent to us by the House of Commons.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: International Affairs
Sheila Masters (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. My amendment would ensure that this legislation ceases to have effect on exit day. It could be said that the amendment is there just for the avoidance of doubt because, clearly, there is nothing to be done with this Bill after exit day. However, I wanted to table the amendment because this is, by almost common consent, a pretty terrible Bill. One of the best things that has been said about it today is that it is a bit of a mess. During the brief passage through your Lordships’ House, it has been improved, which is what customarily happens when this House considers ill-thought-out Bills from the other place As I said at Second Reading, I have accepted that the will of the other place will prevail in the case of this Bill. Therefore, the powers that it creates to restrict the royal prerogative in this important area of international relations will come into force to the extent now drafted. I regret that, but I hope that we will return to the normal practice of leaving the royal prerogative for international relations and negotiations with the Government on an unfettered basis. I have tabled this amendment to make the point more forcefully that this should not be a permanent part of our statute book; we should write it out as soon as the purpose of those who have sought to make it the law of the land for this week comes to an end. I beg to move.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: International Affairs
Sheila Masters (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, it does not surprise me that I have been supported by some of my noble friends and opposed by people on other Benches. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that the Bill does not stop us leaving this Friday. If the EU decides not to agree an extension, we will leave on Friday. I am not frightened about that. I believe that the Government have made many significant preparations towards it, as have many on the continent. A lot of scaremongering has been going on. But that is not the point of my amendment, which was to draw attention to the fact that this unfortunate piece of legislation has been brought before this House and the way in which it has been processed in both Houses. I will not delay the Bill further by seeking to call another Division, much though I am sorely tempted to do so. I beg leave to withdraw.
Online Harms — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: Technology
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I agree that those are serious issues and need to be addressed. We have made it clear in the White Paper the harms that are in scope, but have also been very open about those that are not. We have said that we are addressing some of the really serious issues on the internet which the noble Baroness describes as private harms. We have said that we cannot deal with everything, but we are dealing with matters such as disinformation and potential assaults on democracy. We do not want to duplicate within one big White Paper, followed by legislation, all the harms connected to the internet. We have said that we are not dealing with competition law, intellectual property violation, fraud, data protection and so on, but I absolutely accept that they are very important issues. The Cabinet Office is due to report on them soon, and it is right that that department, which has responsibility for the constitution, should be dealing with it. We have not neglected those problems.
Online Harms — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: Technology
Lucy Neville-Rolfe (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, as a former Digital Minister I came to the conclusion some time ago that we need some regulation to reduce online harm, rather in the spirit of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, which now has very wide support across the House. I welcome the White Paper. I had almost got to the point of tabling a Private Member’s Bill on duty of care, because time was passing My noble friend has kindly already answered my first question, which was about breadth. Like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, I am very interested in some of these wider harms, such as fraud, which affects millions online every year. My second question is whether there will there be a business impact assessment on some of this. I would encourage that, as these normally have cross-party support—although perhaps not today My final question is on the penalties. I cannot find them on a quick read, but the Secretary of State was talking in quite red-blooded terms this morning about fines of 4% of global turnover, prosecution of directors, and so on. That seems quite over the top, especially if you have a very strong regulator. We need to make sure that we do not chill future digital growth in the UK as people in small businesses—which the Minister helpfully referenced—and large businesses may take too risk-averse an approach. We will need to debate that when the Bill comes to the House.
Online Harms — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: Technology
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with the noble Baroness that the television regulator and other media regulators have done a good job and that they are a good example. However, I will not be watching that programme, because I have an enormous amount of work today. If she promises not to ask any questions about the statutory instrument tomorrow, I might have a bit more time. But seriously, that shows that the decisions we are asking regulators to make are not easy. We are not trying to censor the internet. We want a vibrant internet which allows discussion, debate and different points of view but which does not allow some of the worst harms, which are indescribably bad. We need to deal with those, and we want to make the areas which are regulated offline also regulated online, in a reasonable and proportionate way.
Online Harms — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: Technology
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with the noble Lord about money, although it is not only about money; individual liability is also important. If senior executives of companies are held personally responsible, that has a significant effect, as do criminal charges against companies. However, those things are part of the consultation On Russia and China, and countries that do not share our views about the open internet, obviously we have to take that into account, which is why, for example, there is a lot of discussion about disinformation and how companies will be expected to look out for that and deal with it by using technology and in many other ways Lastly, I am not aware of the detail of the international discussions, but no other country has taken this approach. For example, we have talked about individual measures that different countries have taken: Australia has set up a new safety commissioner, who is like an ombudsman, but again, that is reactive rather than proactive, and Germany has set up a law which insists that companies must take down material, but again, that is reactive. We have talked to countries about individual bits of legislation, but no one anywhere has taken a holistic and proactive approach to internet regulation. We certainly expect that if this goes through, is a success and works well, other countries will be interested, and we will certainly be prepared to talk to them about it.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: International Affairs
Michael Nicholson Lord (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, this is really all about kicking the can down the road. I would guess that it must be quite a dented can by now. We have to ask where the road is leading: leave or stay, there is no middle way. All the other issues are just distractions. We have seen various complicated deals such as backstops, second referendums, customs unions—and now we have the thoughts of Jeremy Corbyn. They all muddy the water and they all hide the basic issue: are we going to leave to stay? Are we going to honour our promise to the British people or not The issue of timing, which is what we have been discussing, has become a farce. We were guaranteed that we would leave on 29 March, which then became 12 April. It may be 22 May, 30 June—or perhaps it will be Flexit. No one has any faith left. Perhaps the sooner we get to the stage where people have to vote for no deal or to revoke Article 50, the better. People have to decide to pin their colours to the mast by voting and taking the consequences This Bill is telling our Prime Minister what to do, which is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog, and therefore constitutional chaos. The Prime Minister will go to the EU and ask on bended knee for a change of date, or perhaps of terms. The EU members will leave her sitting alone in a separate room while they discuss her fate and our nation’s future. Nothing could better demonstrate how powerful and unyielding the EU has become, how much we are under its thumb, and why we should leave on Friday with a clean break Fortunately, change is already happening. On 29 March the passports changed, which is really good news. We need a clean break and a managed departure, not the catastrophic situation that the fearmongering remainers constantly pretend is the way to go. True, there might be some initial difficulties but massive advantages too.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: Foreign Trade
Michael Nicholson Lord (Conservative, Centre-right): Noble Lords may snigger, as they have done for the past two and a half years, but they have to listen sometimes. It would remove the uncertainty and businesses could get on with their jobs. We can make trade deals with nations like the United States and save £39 billion. It is the constant fruitless, pointless debates and discussions that are so wearying and so debilitating. Once free from our EU entanglement, we will be able to move forward again in our own way. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said that politics is sometimes thought to be the art of the possible. I think that sometimes politics is the art of having the courage to do the obvious.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-04-08
Topic: Government Operations
Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, may I be the first to wish the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, a very happy birthday on Friday? I think he and I both agree that we do not want to meet here on Friday if we can avoid it Notwithstanding the second proponent of this Bill in two sitting days, this remains a terrible Bill. That needs to be put on the record. Will we get Sir Oliver Letwin and Yvette Cooper perhaps to answer questions on it? I fear not, because they have no responsibility. This Bill was described by my noble friend Lord Lawson as "constitutional vandalism", and it is something we should all be concerned about. We know that the Government are in complete disarray, we know that Parliament is in chaos, and I have to say that this is an unwise move by this House to support it Noble Lords will be happy to know that I do not intend to talk for the next hour and a half.
Huawei — House of Lords, 2019-04-25
Topic: Technology
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for DCMS in another place earlier today: "Thank you, Mr Speaker. The security and resilience of the UK’s telecoms networks are of paramount importance. The UK has one of the world’s largest and most dynamic economies, and we welcome open trade and inward investment in our digital sectors. At the same time, the UK’s economy can prosper only when we and our international partners are assured that our critical national infrastructure remains safe and secure As part of our plans to provide world-class digital connectivity, including 5G, DCMS has been carrying out a cross-Whitehall evidence-based review of the supply chain to ensure a diverse and secure supply base. The review aims to ensure stronger cybersecurity across the entire telecommunications sector, greater resilience in telecommunications networks, and diversity across the entire 5G supply chain. It has considered the full UK market position, including economic prosperity, and the quality, resilience and security of equipment Despite the inevitable focus on Huawei, this review is not about one company, or even one country. We have to strike a difficult balance between security and prosperity, and recognise the reality of globalised networks and supply chains although our security interests are pre-eminent, and that has been the focus of the review. The way to ensure that the UK fully realises the potential of 5G is through its safe and secure deployment As you would expect given the importance of this subject, it is a thorough review into a complex area, which has made use of the best available expert advice and evidence, including the National Cyber Security Centre. It will report with its conclusions once ministerial decisions have been taken. This review is an important step in strengthening the UK’s security framework for telecoms and ensuring the secure rollout of 5G and full-fibre networks I am sure the House will understand that National Security Council discussions should be confidential and will understand why this must be the case. However, I know that honourable Members on all sides of the House feel strongly about this issue. I will make a statement to this House to communicate final decisions at the appropriate time".
Huawei — House of Lords, 2019-04-25
Topic: International Affairs
Norman Beresford Tebbit (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he is sounding much more hesitant and uncertain of himself than is normal? Is that because he is in fact one of those who are concerned that a company under the control of the Chinese Government will have a very large degree of control over our most sensitive communications? It really is no good that some Ministers are alleged to have said, according to the newspapers, that this will be about only the antennae. It occurs to me that all the important information goes through the antennae, does it not?
Huawei — House of Lords, 2019-04-25
Topic: Technology
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): I assure the House that I do not feel certain about many things. But seriously, my noble friend has a point. However, one should not be led into a false sense of reassurance by saying we should ban one particular company. There are really only about three main suppliers of this 5G equipment: Nokia, Ericsson and Huawei. Both Nokia and Ericsson either have their components assembled in or buy components from China. We must be very careful about trying to give a false sense of reassurance by banning just one company or another.
Huawei — House of Lords, 2019-04-25
Topic: Technology
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): I cannot answer for the Chinese Government, but I am sure there are many examples where they have given contracts to UK industry. We must remember that potential IT and cybersecurity problems can come from not just IT manufacturers but industry as well. This is a problem for all Governments. I take the noble Lord’s point about the report he referred to. The review we are doing will take into account all those factors, but a lot has happened in the six years since it was published It is a much more nuanced picture across the Five Eyes. I think that Australia has the only de facto ban. The US has restricted Huawei from its federal agencies; it is not barred from US public networks. In this country as well, Huawei is already excluded from defence and security networks.
Huawei — House of Lords, 2019-04-25
Topic: Technology
Thomas Ashton (Conservative, Centre-right): To pick up on one of my noble friend’s points, there is absolutely no question of inviting Huawei into this area; it is here already, and has been for 15 years. The issue is to look at how we mitigate the risks from Huawei—because there are risks, and we acknowledge that. I do not accept his slightly pessimistic view of how we are separating ourselves from the Five Eyes and other security partners in the way that he suggested. As I tried to explain, the Five Eyes approach to Huawei is much more nuanced. We are in exactly the same position as Canada, which is carrying out a review. The US has recently revoked its ban on ZTE and allows Huawei in public networks. New Zealand has suggested that one telecoms manufacturer should not be allowed but is also reviewing its position, so in many cases in the Five Eyes we are in exactly the same position as others. We understand that there is a risk; we have to do our best to mitigate it.