argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Trade Union Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-20
Topic: Government Operations
Angela Smith (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thought the Minister was making quite a good fist of it until she said that we had misinterpreted the intention of the Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. That has been very helpful It may assist the House if I very briefly make it absolutely clear what my Motion seeks to do. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, hit the nail on the head when he said it was about the impact of the legislation, not the intention. The Minister says that the impact assessment will be published tomorrow. That is great but it would not have informed this debate at all, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, because there is nothing in there about any impact that the Bill may have on party-political funding We strayed a long way from the specifics of my Motion. My Motion is quite clear. It is not about party funding as a whole; it is not about the Trade Union Bill as a whole. It is very specifically about the two clauses in the Bill over which there is a clear difference, as noble Lords have heard, between the Minister and this side of the House—between the Government and I was going to say the Opposition but I think it is much more widespread than that—about whether those clauses will have an impact on political funding The Minister reminded us of the Conservative manifesto. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was quite right to challenge on this—I apologise for citing him again. The Conservative Party manifesto says, on page 49: "In the next Parliament, we will legislate to ensure trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for subscriptions to political parties", but now she tells us it is nothing at all to do with political parties. Is the manifesto right or is she? The manifesto goes on: "We will continue to seek agreement on a comprehensive package of party funding reform" I entirely agree but that is not what is in the Bill. The Bill looks at what the Committee on Standards in Public Life says and picks one area. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, was quite clear that one of the recommendations is reflected—I am not saying it is exactly the same—in these proposals I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for his contribution—wise words, as usual. I remind him how narrow and specific our Motion is. He says that he would much rather not have the clauses implemented. That could be debated by the Committee on the Bill when we get to those clauses. What I am proposing today is the opportunity to inform the debate on those clauses on one specific point; otherwise, the debate on those clauses will be clouded by the debate on whether or not there is an impact on party-political funding, although I entirely accept the point about what was in the manifesto about the opt-in or opt-out. I am seeking to remove that party-political element from the debate and debate the specifics of that in a Select Committee in order to then inform the Committee.
Trade Union Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-20
Topic: Government Operations
Angela Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I understand the point the noble Lord is making but I respectfully say to him that he is wrong. The timescale of this is dictated by the timescale that the Government have set to debate the Bill. These issues have to be debated in that timescale because that is the timescale the Government have set for conclusion of the Bill. With due respect to both noble Lords—I think the noble Lord, Lord Bew, made this point—this committee would not address the far wider issues of party funding. Both noble Lords are absolutely right: it could not do so in that timescale. But what it can do is inform the Committee that will be discussing the Bill as a whole in the timescale set down by the Government. It is purely to inform. If we do not have the committee that I am suggesting, those issues will be discussed in the same timeframe but without the external information provided by the Select Committee The key thing here is not what the Minister or I think. It is about an assessment of what the impact will be—a forensic assessment of whether it will have that impact. The Minister says no, and I say yes. Who is right? I do not think that we can reach a conclusion on that here, but a Select Committee could look into that impact and it can inform our deliberations on the Bill I apologise for citing the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, again but he gave reasons for not voting for my Motion. I say to him that there were reasons for not bringing forward the Bill in the first place because those clauses are so deeply flawed. For the Government to produce an impact assessment which does not even address one of the major issues of controversy that is causing concern across your Lordships’ House is an absolute disgrace. I have heard the Minister but I do not think that she made her points very well and I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Immigration Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-20
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I think there will be a degree of disappointment at the response we have had from the Minister today, although I appreciate the offer that he has made, along with the reply that he has given and the detail that he has gone into in order to explain the Government’s position. I also appreciate the contributions that we have had to the debate Bearing in mind that the Minister has offered to have the meeting between Home Office officials, himself and interested Peers—as I understand it, I think he said that he would consider whether Mr Ewins might also be there—and that the Government have said they will bring forward proposals in response to the Ewins report on Report of the Bill, I certainly have no intention of declining the offer that he has made. I thank him for making that offer and for giving the detailed explanation of where the Government now stand, and I can only sincerely express the hope that we are able to get to the point where the proposals that the Government bring forward on Report meet the wishes of the House and of those who have been campaigning so hard on this issue.
Immigration Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-20
Topic: Labor
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): The noble Lord referred to the position in most of the European Union where people have to wait for nine months before they can work. Is he saying that he would support a time period of nine months?
Immigration Bill — House of Lords, 2016-01-20
Topic: Social Welfare
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, in response to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the Minister referred to the nature of voluntary work. I think we may need a little more detail on that, and perhaps it would be a good idea if he wrote to noble Lords. It is an important point because voluntary organisations and the people who work for them need to be very clear about their position on this matter.
House Committee: First Report — House of Lords, 2016-04-14
Topic: Government Operations
Jack Wilson McConnell (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the past week has shown how important transparency and dealing with any perception that there are different rules for different people in society are for rebuilding trust in public life. Earlier this year, your Lordships’ House discussed the fourth report of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. A key paragraph in that report stated that the strongest sanctions—expulsion, suspension and denial of access to House facilities or financial support—would be unavailable should someone who was being investigated continue to be investigated following their retirement from the House. The report before us today from the House Committee makes it clear that it is possible for retired Members to retain their parliamentary pass, to sit on the steps of the Throne and to use the Library and certain catering facilities and therefore to have access to facilities that could be withdrawn should an investigation be continued following a retirement I would like to ask the Chairman of Committees three questions. First, does he believe that it would be possible at some point in the future to revisit the previous decision, given that it will now be possible to have a sanction against retired Members? Secondly, will the House Committee minute discussions where it has been proposed that the access privileges be withdrawn but the House Committee decides not to withdraw those privileges? The report mentions at the moment only that there will be a minute of any decision to withdraw the privileges. Thirdly, will there be a public record of those who have retired from the House but who have had their privileges withdrawn?
High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-14
Topic: Macroeconomics
David Edward Lea (Labour, Centre-left): I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have in my hand a copy of the Government’s response to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee on the economics of HS2, which I thought was very well analysed indeed. Has the noble Lord in turn studied that response? Can he give chapter and verse as to where he disagrees with or faults the analysis? I have no axe to grind with the Economic Affairs Committee, but it seems to me that the noble Lord ought to acknowledge that it received a very full reply.
High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-14
Topic: Transportation
Jan Simon (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am certain that no one doubts that the United Kingdom and the future economy need a more efficient and speedy transport structure, whether it be our roads, our airports or our railways. We have heard some very interesting speeches today, including the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mair The question we have to address is whether HS2 is the correct solution to our railway problems. Is it financially viable and will it deliver the Chancellor’s dream of growing his much-vaunted northern powerhouse? The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in his fantastic speech, mentioned that the Bill is 25,000 pages long. I suspect that I am not alone in admitting that I have not read it There may well be Members here today who have studied logic. That particular skill seems to have deserted the champions of HS2, and some noble Lords have raised some concerns today, including my noble friend Lord Berkeley, who is an expert in these matters Many people to whom I have spoken have formed the extremely logical conclusion that this faster rail link will inevitably carry certain people to their businesses in a very timely fashion. But will it carry business people from London to the north? I suggest exactly the opposite will happen. There will be a rush of businessmen and women from the north going to the City of London, where they will invest, do deals and then go back to Birmingham for supper. Who benefits from this? London. The line will certainly be used by many passengers. I do not understand why little consideration has been given to an alternative scheme that has been developed, I am told, by two eminent railway engineers with decades of service between them. The facts and figures provided by HSUK, to which the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, referred, indicate a lower cost on a like-for-like basis. It avoids the Chilterns in its entirety and has a vastly reduced overall environmental impact, and it would also have a far greater effect in reducing transport CO2 emissions Many people believe that there has been a failure in due process in arriving at the present proposals for high-speed rail in Great Britain. This has resulted in the HS2 scheme apparently failing every test of network performance. However, the Bill cannot be changed to take advantage of the major changes—such a pity These proposals were virtually nodded through by all Members involved immediately before the Easter recess, which, to me, is unbelievable considering the obscene costs involved during a period of austerity, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the misery for thousands of citizens from Camden to the Chilterns. It is imperative that we consider what we are putting in place for the future, including modernising parts of the country, which some noble Lords have mentioned. This is not like a country across the water, where trains travel long distances at fast speed. This is the United Kingdom—totally different.
High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill — House of Lords, 2016-04-14
Topic: Government Operations
Robert Stevenson (Labour, Centre-left): I checked with the Deputy Speaker to see whether I could come in after the completion of the Second Reading but he advised that I should interrupt now and ask my question. Therefore, I am following on from my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. The description the Minister gave before he got to the alternative provision arrangements was that that was a matter for the House to determine, not the Government. I would be grateful if, when he writes to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, he could specify exactly where the precedent is that he is relying on for that. Presumably these words are not his but words of the House and the House authorities, and obviously we would like to check chapter and verse. I might well wish to return to this later but it is my understanding that there are several precedents which suggest that what he read out was not correct; that previously in two major Bills—the Crossrail Bill and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill—additional provisions were considered by the second House; and that on occasions, although intimations about the powers have been made, the general position appears to be that it is possible, as my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe suggested, that with an instruction the committee could consider and recommend an alternative provision. It is such an important point because the more the Minister narrows the position, the more difficult it will be for those who have suggestions to make to the Select Committee to be able to do so within the petitioning process as he has described it In addition, this does not seem to accord with what has been said to the public. He might wish to reflect on this when he replies. The clerks of the House have done a very good job in reaching out to those who wish to petition your Lordships’ House. There is a petitioning kit, which is a novel innovation, but it is certainly worth looking at because it is very informative. It says that, "individuals, businesses and organisations specially and directly affected by a hybrid bill are given the opportunity to ‘petition’ either or both Houses of Parliament to seek to mitigate the effects of the bill on themselves, their business or their property" There is no qualification in that. That is a straight statement that mitigation can be provided. The kit explains what a petition is and says: "A Select Committee … will be appointed to consider your petition and any other petitions deposited against the Bill … They have the power to amend the Bill, but not reject it" I do not understand how he can arrive at the position he has just articulated, given that and what has been said publicly. Without wishing to prolong the proceedings of the House, a lot of what has been said today has been about the confidence that people have in the House. We are in great danger of losing that.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-03
Topic: Government Operations
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): Does my noble friend agree that one reason for raising these points today is the wholly unsatisfactory way that the Bill has been put in front of us? We have no regulations and we will get none before the Bill is passed into law. It is a ridiculous situation and why we have raised these points.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-03
Topic: Government Operations
Patricia Hollis (Labour, Centre-left): It would be really helpful if the Minister could assure the House—we really do need this—that proposed draft regulations will be before this House before we get to Report. If not, we will have major problems in this and other areas. It is not too much to ask. The Bill started in the other place last autumn, so there has been abundant time for the Government to determine what their policy intent is behind these "anything goes" powers for the Secretary of State. We must know, otherwise some of us will seek the House’s authority to defer consideration until we have those regulations. We cannot do our job of scrutiny when so much of the information that we need is absent.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-03
Topic: Government Operations
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister is right to say that local authorities know their market. The core problem with this Bill and its provisions, which has not been taken account of, is that of the powers being taken to the centre of the Government.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-03
Topic: Government Operations
Tessa Blackstone (Labour, Centre-left): When is that date going to be? Of course consultations should be meaningful; they are often not, but I hope that this one is. Still, it would be useful to know the timetable that the Government have in mind.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-03
Topic: Macroeconomics
Patricia Hollis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I understand why the Minister has been unable to pick up all the questions that have been thrown at her, but one question I asked was: have the Government considered an income cap as well as an age cap? If they have rejected that idea, why?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-03
Topic: Government Operations
Patricia Hollis (Labour, Centre-left): No, my Lords; the problem with the noble Lord’s comment—I do not know whether he was here when we were discussing this earlier—is that we are dealing with what is essentially a skeleton Bill. We do not know how this scheme is going to work in any sort of detail. We have spent some time today and some time on Tuesday trying to tease out the detail. We do not blame the Minister; we entirely sympathise with her in the situation she is in, but she is trying to answer questions to which she cannot know the answer because, deeply foolishly, the Government have started a consultation exercise on all these questions so late that the results of the Government’s thinking, as affected by that consultation exercise, cannot be fed into today’s discussions in Committee The fault is with the Government’s timetabling. It is not the Minister’s fault—she is doing her best and we have every sympathy with her; none the less, the Government have put her in this position, trying to answer questions she cannot answer, because they have not banked their consultation exercise in appropriate time, but they expect this House to go ahead with scrutiny of major policy developments without the detail that should inform it.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-03
Topic: Labor
Dale Norman Campbell-Savours (Labour, Centre-left): Once again I express the need for us to see, at a very early stage today, this document that sets out the Government’s estimate of regional demand, based on the number of people who have applied. We need to see those figures and where they are coming from. If they are available in the Chamber now, why can they not be circulated during this debate?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-03
Topic: Government Operations
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): That is very helpful, thank you. We used to hear from the Benches opposite about how local authorities knew best but it has all gone very quiet now. I am thinking of the Localism Act, which was never mentioned again from the Benches opposite.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Lords, 2016-03-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My noble friend indeed makes a valid point. If people went on to do that, it would be fraudulent activity, so I presume that there would be appropriate penalties. People need to know that, if they behaved like that, they would get caught and pay a heavy price.
Recall of MPs Act 2015 (Recall Petition) Regulations 2016 — House of Lords, 2016-02-11
Topic: Government Operations
Dianne Hayter (Labour, Centre-left): As an amendment to the above motion, at end insert "but this House regrets that the Government have made the decision to legislate on restrictions of use, supply and disclosure of the marked register following a recall petition in the draft Regulations, rather than in primary legislation."
Recall of MPs Act 2015 (Recall Petition) Regulations 2016 — House of Lords, 2016-02-11
Topic: Government Operations
Rita Donaghy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, in the debate on the Recall of MPs Bill, as it then was, I recall my noble friend Lord Grocott saying that it is a measure of constitutional significance that will, as the Constitution Committee has said, affect the United Kingdom’s representative democracy. He reminded the House that had the Bill been an Act of Parliament 25 years before, only two MPs would have been affected. Although there were some supporters, including the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Windrush, in his maiden speech, the overwhelming majority of speakers expressed concern. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, summed it up by saying: "Members of Parliament are, bit by bit, dissolving their authority and removing the primacy of the House of Commons".—[Official Report, 14/1/15; col. 820.] As a former member and acting chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, I expressed the view in debate that the Bill was unlikely to improve standards in public life or the standing of Members of Parliament. I thought it would enhance the powers of the Executive at the expense of parliamentary democracy Nevertheless, we are where we are. The Bill is an Act and will not be implemented fully until the draft statutory instrument before us today has been approved. As has been said, the Bill was 60 pages long and the draft statutory instrument is 174 pages long. I must admit that I approached it with some trepidation, secretly hoping that it would do credit to Jarndyce v Jarndyce. In the interest of staying onside with my noble friend Lady Hayter, who has been incredibly loyal to her Front Bench on this and has played a straight bat throughout, I shall not reveal whether the draft fulfilled my secret hopes or not I think we all hope that the Act will never have to be used. I would be grateful if the Minister could give some guarantees about the issues raised by my noble friend in moving her amendment to the Motion. First, what guarantee will there be that people walking in to sign for recall will not be intimidated? Secondly, how will he ensure that there will be no double voting? Thirdly, how much would overseas people be able to put into a campaign? Fourthly, is the Minister content that the election returns will be checked?