argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Space Industry Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-16
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Christopher Fox (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I will be very brief. We welcome this probing amendment because this issue is very important. It is analogous in one sense to the potential for flagging out a particular enterprise. If the regulator is minded to allow a transfer of licence, what legal basis would there be for any enforcement of those licence agreements once they cease to be within the domain of this country? The second point is on the role of takeovers and acquisitions, where companies that own a licence and are within the remit of the United Kingdom are acquired and move beyond these shores for regulatory purposes. Perhaps the Minister can include those points in his answer as well.
Space Industry Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jennifer Elizabeth Randerson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I rise to say briefly how pleased I am that the noble Lord has raised this issue. I have already referred to drones several times this afternoon. The Minister probably thinks that I think of little else in transport terms, because I raise it frequently. In the previous Parliament the Government said they were thinking about what to do about drones. At the beginning of that Parliament, we were told they would be doing something along with the rest of the EU. Now, of course, it is something on which we have to take the initiative ourselves. The Government now say they have consulted on the issue, so I too would greatly value the clarification that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has asked for—exactly the timescale the Government are working to. There is a real urgency about this. Thousands of drones are being sold every month, and there is little control over how they are sold and virtually none over how they are flown. Day by day, it is becoming increasingly urgent that something be done. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response.
House of Lords: Lord Speaker’s Committee Report — House of Lords, 2017-12-19
Topic: Other
Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Absolutely. He saw my speech when I drafted it and I saw his, and I am in absolute agreement. I will come to the point that I think the noble Lord wishes me to address in a moment.
Space Industry Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-23
Topic: Civil Rights
Anthony Lester (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I will say few words in support of the general propositions that my noble friend Lord McNally has referred to. I have come to the sad conclusion that the Government do not believe in parliamentary democracy but in executive government, and that they use every means they can to avoid Parliament’s scrutiny. The particular example that I am concerned about is what has happened to the Joint Committee on Human Rights; that goes back many years to when the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, chaired it and I first joined it. Lords committees are relatively safe, because we can protect them within this House. However, a Joint Committee of both Houses depends upon co-operation by both Houses. The Joint Committee on Human Rights is a vital constitutional safeguard that looks at every Bill and some delegated legislation for its compatibility with human rights. It is quite unacceptable that on the Commons side, the places have not been filled and the committee has therefore not met or sat, not just for weeks but for months now. It is an outrage and I very much hope that the Minister will pass on that message to some of his colleagues. Without that public watchdog, parliamentary scrutiny is very much weakened, and therefore I support everything that my noble friend Lord McNally has said.
Space Industry Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-23
Topic: Other
Tom McNally (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Certainly, the two amendments over which I have control, Amendments 40 and 41, will not be pressed. The best compliment that Jim Callaghan ever paid me when he was Prime Minister and I was his political adviser was, "You’re my mine detector", by which he meant that I supposedly had the knack to warn him when he was walking into a major problem. History shows that that did not always work, but that is another story I say with all sincerity, this is a small debate in a small Committee at the end of a Bill which, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, indicated, we all want to see pass into legislation. However, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made some powerful criticisms which the Minister should read and take note of. When he brings to the House the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as well as a couple of our regulars, the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Moynihan, all saying that this is a big issue that needs a lot more thought, as a mine detector—retired—I recommend that he gives it some thought between now and Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Space Industry Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-23
Topic: Mixed Topics
Tom McNally (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Over the past hour or so we have been wrestling with the same problem: that there is a deep unease in this House—and probably down the corridor as well—that our parliamentary procedures are not flexible enough to deal with much legislation that deals with rapid technological change. I refer to the Data Protection Bill, which we will soon be considering. Over the period of my involvement, in both Houses, in broadcasting and the media, often, 10 or 20 years have passed before a new technological development has arrived—for example, the introduction of radio in the 1920s, and then television, slightly delayed by the war, in the 1940s. Now, we can have technological change within months. How do we get the proper legislative framework in which our judges can work, in a system that is rapidly changing under our feet and before our eyes Every Minister that I have heard has always said that SIs give both Houses of Parliament a chance to look at something. To the uninitiated, that seems perfectly reasonable. However, particularly at this end of the building, we know that, if there is any attempt to mess around with SIs, all of a sudden the skirts are lifted and there is shame and outrage at what is going on—the second Chamber ignoring the democratic wishes of the other House, because the legislation will have gone through the Commons on the nod, or with hardly any debate. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is then rolled out to give one of his opinions. The great thing about the noble Lord is that he has given an opinion in favour of almost any argument regarding change in this House, over his long and infamous career—I have enjoyed serving with him for 11 years of it.
Data Protection Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I will briefly comment on Amendment 108B. Taking up the position of the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, is it not the case that if we leave the European Union, the GDPR will then become, by means of the repeal Bill, part of UK law and therefore could be changed, which is why the amendment makes sense However, while I agree with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, that if parts of the GDPR were amended, repealed or revoked after we have left the EU, this may affect the adequacy decision of the European Union. Presumably, if the European Union makes changes to the GDPR it would be advantageous for the Government to be able to respond quickly by means of secondary legislation to those changes to ensure that we can continue to have adequacy—that is, when the change is on the EU side rather than on the UK side. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.
Data Protection Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, Amendment 133ZL is an amendment to Clause 42. Clause 43 deals with a data subject’s right of access. The onus is on the data subject to ask whether their personal data is being processed. If so, they have a right of access, although there are provisions about restrictions and the controller must tell them We have already touched on how you know that you are a data subject. The amendment would place an obligation on the controller to tell you. I appreciate that there would be considerable practical considerations. However, in a different context, time and again during the passage of the Bill we have heard noble Lords express surprise about what organisations know about each of us. It is irritating when it is a commercial organisation; it is a different matter when it is a law enforcement body Amendment 133ZM is a way of asking why the information to be given to a data subject under Clause 42(2) is limited to "specific cases". Is this is a bit of the narrative style that I referred to earlier? Restrictions are set out later in the clause. What are the specific cases to which the controller’s duties are restricted? Should there be a cross-reference somewhere? The term suggests something more—or maybe something less—than the clause provides Amendment 133ZN takes us to Clause 42(4), which refers to the data subject’s "fundamental rights"— this phrase is used also in a number of other clauses. My amendment would insert references to the Human Rights Act and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, seeking not to reopen the argument about the retention of the charter but to probe how fundamental rights are identified in UK law. It is not an expression that I recognise other than as a narrative term. This is fundamental—if noble Lords will forgive the pun—to my questioning and the workability of all this On Amendment 133ZP, the same subsection refers to an "official" inquiry. I know what that means in common sense—in human speak, if you like—but what does it mean in legislative speak Amendment 133ZQ is a cross-reference. I queried what was in the clause and have had exchanges with officials about it. I thought that the Minister’s name would be added to the amendment. I would have been very happy if the correction had been made quietly, but apparently that was not possible. So the drafting is not mine, but it corrects a mis-drafting—would that be a gentle term for it? At any rate, that is what the amendment is about. I beg to move.
Data Protection Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, need not have been apologetic: it is perfectly fair to make the point that he did not think the amendment was proportionate. I will not claim the credit for Amendment 133ZQ because it is not my drafting, but much more importantly, yes, fundamental rights should be interpreted by the UK courts, but on what basis? It really is a matter of "New readers start here" with that, and the same applies to "official inquiry": the very fact that there is an Inquiries Act was in my mind in asking what an official inquiry is. It is all the same argument—the same discussion, would be a better way of putting it—as on earlier groups. I said then that I was troubled; I am troubled in this connection. I think I made it clear that I was not trying to reopen the question of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights now; there will be other occasions to do that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Data Protection Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-15
Topic: Other
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Certainly. I feel that I ought perhaps to apologise to the House for the speed at which we have been going; it has caused a bit of a flurry. I know that I have been quite telegraphic in speaking to the amendments. I have possibly been too telegraphic, but I will read the detail of the response, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Data Protection Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, sensitive processing requires meeting at least one condition from the menu in Schedule 9 and one in Schedule 10. This could be achieved, for instance, because the processing is necessary to protect someone’s vital interests under Schedule 9, and for the same reason under Schedule 10 when consent cannot be given. I wondered whether the repetition amounted to there being only one condition to be met, rather than two or perhaps one and a half—hence Amendment 137R. Amendment 138A is another amendment suggesting that the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power is too wide under the Bill. In our view, the Secretary of State should be able to add conditions—in other words, protections—but not vary or omit them. That is a thread that runs through the whole of the Bill Amendments 139A and 139B probe the condition in Schedule 9 that processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the controller or a third party to whom the data is disclosed. Again, "legitimate interest" made me pause. It is made lawful by Clause 84 because it meets one of the lawfulness conditions, so there is a circularity here. The schedule then applies a condition to the condition—it is not lawful if it prejudices rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of data subjects, or rather is unwarranted because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or interests of the data subject. Does that allow for the risk of prejudice? It struck me as quite a clumsy phrase—"unwarranted … because of prejudice". I realise that the person who drafted it—I do not want to say "draftsman"—must have had some very particular thoughts in mind.
Data Protection Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I cannot be quite so quick but I will be fairly quick. Amendment 142B concerns Clause 91(3), which states: "The controller is not required … to give a data subject information that the data subject already has" When I read that, I wondered how the controller would know that the data subject had the information. Therefore, my alternative wording would refer to information which the, "controller has previously provided to the data subject" There can therefore be no doubt about that Amendment 143A concerns Clause 92, which deals with a right of access within a time limit of a month of the relevant day, as that is defined, or a longer period specified in regulations. What is anticipated here? Why is there the possibility of an extension? This cannot, I believe, be dealt with on a case-by-case basis as that would be completely impracticable and, I think, improper. Is it to see whether experience shows that it is a struggle to provide information within a month, and therefore a time limit of more than a month would benefit the controller, which at the same time would be likely to disbenefit the data subject, given the importance of the information? I hope the Minister can explain why this slightly curious power for the Secretary of State is included in the Bill. Amendment 146B concerns Clause 97, which deals with the right to object to processing. I might have misunderstood this but I believe that the controller is obliged to comply only if he needs to be informed of the location of data. I do not know whether I have that right, so Amendment 146B proposes the wording, "if its location is known to the data subject", so that the amendment flows through in terms of language, if not in sense. The second limb of Clause 97(2), whereby the data subject is told that the controller needs to know this, suggests this. That enables me to make the point that this puts quite a heavy burden on the data subject Amendment 148A concerns Clause 101. I, of course, support the requirement that the controller should implement measures to minimise the risks to rights and freedoms. However, I question the term "minimise". The Bill is generally demanding in regard to this protection, so to root the requirement in the detail of the Bill the amendment would add, "in accordance with this Act" As regards the test of whether a personal data breach seriously interferes with rights, I suggest this is not as high a threshold as that required by the term "significantly" proposed in Amendment 148B Following the noble Lord’s co-piloting analogy, I now say, "Over and out".
Data Protection Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-15
Topic: Other
Sally Rachel Hamwee (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Before the Minister moves on, I asked whether the power would be used on a case-by-case basis, which I thought was what she was saying, or as a result of overall experience—and then she went on to talk about overall experience. So is it the latter, extending to all cases in the light of experience gathered over a period?
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-01
Topic: Immigration
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, said in her answer to a question earlier this week that Foreign Office issues are not her area of expertise. They are not mine either, but this Bill overlaps to some extent with my responsibilities on these Benches for home affairs. I have one question for the Minister on Clause 40 and the power to make provision relating to immigration appeals. If noble Lords will allow me, if we can deal with this matter today by means of a comment from the Minister in his summing-up, it will obviate the need for amendments later in the Bill’s passage As noble Lords will know, the Bill gives powers to Ministers to impose sanctions, and among those sanctions are immigration sanctions or the power to designate persons to be excluded persons for the purposes of Section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971. In essence, part of the sanctions package could be either to remove designated persons from the UK or to prevent their entering the UK. In addition, the Bill provides mechanisms for those affected to ask for the decision to impose sanctions to be reviewed, initially by a Minister and subsequently by the courts—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has said, the Court of Session in Scotland and the High Court in the rest of the UK—including a decision to designate them as an excluded person. This would in effect be an appeal against the decision to impose the sanction An excluded person could also claim that they have a right to claim asylum in the UK, or that their human rights would be infringed if they were returned to their country of origin or refused entry to the UK. These would be appeals against the consequences of the imposition of the sanction, rather than appeals against the decision to impose the sanction itself. It is clearly important that these two potential routes to challenge either the decision to designate or the consequences of being designated are kept separate. My understanding is that that is what Clause 40 would allow the Government to do by regulation Clause 40 is quite complex and I wonder whether the Minister can reassure the House when he sums up that, as the Explanatory Notes appear to suggest at paragraphs 115 and 116, claims of asylum and human rights will continue to be dealt with by the Home Secretary—the Minister with the knowledge, experience and expertise to decide these matters—not the Minister imposing the sanctions, and that any appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision would be to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, a specialist tribunal with expertise in deciding such claims, not the High Court or Court of Session, where an appeal against the imposition of the sanction would be heard. I appreciate that that is what is contained in the Explanatory Notes, but that does not have legal effect, whereas clarification from the Minister at the Dispatch Box would.
Online Hate Speech — House of Lords, 2017-11-30
Topic: Mixed Topics
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, in his tweet criticising our Prime Minister, President Trump talked about "radical Islamic terrorism". Does the Minister agree that there is a difference between Islam, a religion, and Islamism, a violent political ideology that seeks to overthrow democratically elected Governments and liberal values, and that the expression "Islamic terrorism" is both a contradiction in terms and deeply unhelpful? We must clearly differentiate between violent criminals and the followers of a religion.
Grenfell Recovery Taskforce — House of Lords, 2017-11-06
Topic: Housing
Kathryn Pinnock (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register of interests as an elected councillor in the borough of Kirklees and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome today’s Statement on the interim report of the task force. However, I draw attention to one of the four priorities that were set by the Secretary of State for the work of the task force—that it would, "ensure that all the immediate housing needs resulting from the fires are fully and promptly addressed by RBKC" But we have heard today in the Statement and the interim report that the number who have been permanently rehoused is pitifully low. Four months after the dreadful fire at Grenfell, only 26 of 204 families have been rehoused permanently and 130 are still in emergency bed and breakfast accommodation. I find that disgraceful and a tragedy; I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us why those figures are so low. The full report also asks for an immediate strategy and agreed targets for rehousing. It would be good to hear from him whether that has been done, whether targets have been set and what they are. That is the most important feature of the aftermath of this dreadful fire The second point that I would draw attention to is that the report, I am pleased to say, makes no immediate recommendation about the future of the tenant management organisation. Fears have been expressed in the media by residents that disbanding the TMO would lead to avoidance of effective scrutiny of its actions or inactions, and the avoidance of potential prosecutions. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Will the TMO remain in place until the report of the Prime Minister’s inquiry and for any consequences of that inquiry The third issue that I raise is not referenced in the report, which is strange. It is the consequences of the fire and the impact on those families in the adjacent tower blocks. For example, what action is being taken to have the fire hazard panels replaced? What government contribution will be made towards their replacement Lastly, the final recommendation in the interim report talks about the awful consequences of having the burnt tower remaining in place. It recommends: "Covering the Tower: Management of the site is not currently the responsibility of RBKC. Nevertheless we would strongly recommend that those responsible for it accelerate covering the Tower. It is reprehensible that it has remained uncovered for so long" It then gives a timetable for it to be done by December 2017—in six weeks’ time, perhaps. That is unfortunately not mentioned in the Secretary of State’s Statement, but it is an important step towards a healing process and I urge the Minister, if he is not able to reply this afternoon, to give us a written response.