argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Retirements of Members — House of Lords, 2015-05-19
Topic: Other
Frances D'Souza (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I should also like to notify the House of the retirements with effect from 27 March of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Nickson; with effect from 30 March of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe; with effect from 31 March of the noble Lords, Lord Shaw of Northstead and Lord Tombs; with effect from 3 April of the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft; with effect from 20 April of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside; with effect from 30 April of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Hope of Thornes, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharman; with effect from 1 May of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby; with effect from 7 May of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury; with effect from 8 May of the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg; with effect from 15 May of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart; with effect from 18 May of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon; and with effect from 19 May of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank all the noble Lords for their much-valued service to the House.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Lords, 2015-01-26
Topic: Immigration
Nazir Ahmed (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I apologise to the House that I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I have a couple of points on Amendments 100, 101 and the rest of the group. Under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Authority to Carry) Regulations 2012, the Government have the powers to refuse entry to an individual. It is not clear why classes of passengers are targeted in this Bill. Will a whole group of people be covered under the new legislation? I say that because I have some experience. When I was travelling from Birmingham Airport last year, the immigration officers were stopping, under the Immigration Rules, the entire PIA flight to Islamabad—including myself. I was questioned about where I was going and whether I was carrying any money while I was going to Pakistan. I fear that, without scrutiny by Parliament, these extra powers could be used against a group of people of a certain ethnicity. I fear that the perception of the British Pakistani community, Pakistan International Airlines and other airline carriers which occasionally carry people who could be suspected under the Terrorism Act will mean that entire families travelling on these airlines could be affected. Will the powers be used proportionately and will they be targeted? The Government already have powers to impose penalties on airlines for carrying certain passengers or to stop passengers getting on to flights. Therefore, I support the amendment and seek more clarification.
Retirements of Members — House of Lords, 2015-06-01
Topic: Other
Frances D'Souza (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirements, with effect from today, of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank both noble Lords for their much-valued service to the House.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Luke — House of Lords, 2015-06-24
Topic: Other
Frances D'Souza (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Waddington — House of Lords, 2015-03-26
Topic: Other
Frances D'Souza (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Privileges and Conduct Committee — House of Lords, 2015-03-24
Topic: Other
John Sewel (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising that issue. It is important to clarify this matter. The committee saw this as being in exceptionally rare circumstances. It would be a very occasional route to take in very specific circumstances. I have been Chairman of Committees for more than three years now and I can think of only one example that would come anywhere near this. It is certainly not meant to be as part of a routine consideration of a sanction.
Deputy Chairmen of Committees — House of Lords, 2015-06-08
Topic: Other
John Sewel (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): I am happy to give the noble Lord the news that this afternoon the Liaison Committee is considering the very point that he has raised. I hope to be able to write to him in a matter of a few days with details about how the matter is being taken forward.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill — House of Lords, 2015-03-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Paul Myners (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, and will be very surprised if the Government do not see merit in it. The coalition Government have made very serious efforts to address the impact on the economy of a shortfall in credit availability. They have launched multiple schemes, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, indicated. The previous Government, of which I was a member, did likewise, and we found it extremely difficult to stimulate sensible extensions of credit to support business. The coalition Government found that they finally got lending going largely through the mortgage market. Only time will tell whether that has long-term economic benefit The Government have encouraged us to leave relatively undisturbed the dominance of the major banks. The market share of our major banks would be sufficient in normal circumstances to have triggered a competition inquiry many years ago. The dominance of the major banks is reflected largely in the absence of any differentiation in their products and pricing, and their basic business model is the same. They do not compete aggressively for market share; they do so at the margin but, on the whole, they sit on large legacy books of existing relationships. We know that, statistically, one is more likely to divorce than to change one’s bank Therefore, the Government should be encouraged to promote new forms of lending and should see this as an important adjunct to their own policies to support the economy. In those circumstances, I should like to believe that the Government would see real merit in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, thereby ensuring that we get clarity about how the banking and credit availability system is working. I do not think that Santander is a challenger bank; it is the old Abbey National. Aldermore, Virgin, Metro and Bank One are challenger banks, but not Santander. However, if progress is not made by these banks, that is precisely the circumstance in which the Government would want to reach to independent evidence to show this I do not quite share the anxiety of the Benches opposite about the sweeping powers implied by the final part of the amendment. I imagine that they could be exercised only within the powers of existing law. I hope that a Government who are committed to furthering and promoting competition and transparency will not put themselves into contortions to reject the amendment. If they do so, they will stir continued anxiety that sitting opposite are a Government of bankers, for the bankers, rather than for society and our broader economy.
Death of a Member: Baroness Platt of Writtle — House of Lords, 2015-02-04
Topic: Other
Frances D'Souza (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, on 1 February. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.
International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill — House of Lords, 2015-02-06
Topic: Other
John Sewel (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I recognise that it is unusual for the Chair to make an intervention in Committee like this, but I understand that clarification is needed. The advice that I have received is that the amendment before us should read: "Page 1, line 2, leave out the third "the" and insert "a"" I hope that is of help to the Committee.
Retirements of Members — House of Lords, 2015-05-27
Topic: Other
Frances D'Souza (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirements, with effect from 23 May, of the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Roper, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lords for their much-valued service to the House.
Queen’s Speech — House of Lords, 2015-05-27
Topic: Other
Frances D'Souza (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that Her Majesty was pleased this morning to make a most gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament assembled in the House of Lords. Copies of the gracious Speech are available in the Printed Paper Office. I have, for the convenience of the House, arranged for the terms of the gracious Speech to be published in the Official Report. Motion for an Humble Address Moved by Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows: "Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-11-09
Topic: Domestic Commerce
John Eatwell (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): Why has the court’s responsibility been taken out of the Bill and replaced with "the Bank"? The Bill originally said that the court should consult the FPC, but now it says that the Bank must do so. The noble Lord is saying that that means the court, so what is the point of this amendment?
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-11-09
Topic: Domestic Commerce
John Eatwell (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken, and in particular to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe for his exposition of yet further confusion in letters from the Bank of England, or from whoever, attempting to explain what the Bill is really about. I must say that I am sympathetic to the suspicion in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that "the Bank" means "the governor" The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has said that the answer is that the court is responsible for deciding what "the Bank" means, and the court may delegate those purposes how it might wish. This House spent many hours working carefully with the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, who I am delighted to see in his place, to define precisely the roles of different committees within the Bank of England and their responsibilities. It is very striking that in the crucial role of financial stability, this definition is lacking. For the Monetary Policy Committee the definition is clear and, in respect of other activities within the Bank, if one reads the Bank of England Act 1998, one can see that the responsible entity is clear. In respect of the vital role that arose from the financial crisis and the failures of the Bank of England during that crisis, however, there is to be no clarity or clear definition of role I think it will be necessary to amend the Bill to make the position clear, because if it is not amended, parliamentary scrutiny has less insight than it requires to perform the role of ensuring that the Bank is democratically accountable. At this time, I will say that unless the noble Lord amends the Bill appropriately on Report—he may be encouraged to do so—I will produce appropriate amendments myself. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-11-09
Topic: Domestic Commerce
John Eatwell (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, the Bill reeks of the feeling that non-executive directors are a nuisance. Everywhere, we find the role of the non-executive directors in the Bank being reduced. This simple numerical reduction is something like arguing about the number of angels who can dance on a pin. None the less, let us remember why legislation was brought to this House and argued for so forcibly by the noble Lord, Lord Deighton. It was because the Bank of England was seen to have significantly failed during the financial crisis: in particular, that the Bank of England had not had sufficient alternative voices or challenge within its decision-making process. That is what underlay the Financial Services Act of, let me remind the Committee, 2012—just three years ago. From its vesting date to today, that Act has been in force for about two and a half years. How, after that period, can it be decided that the experience of the Act and the structures put in place by it were misconceived? This seems to be simply an attempt for the Bank to return to business as usual, ex ante—before the financial crisis. If the size of the court is too large then that should be the subject of a careful review and the evidence should be presented to this House. That has not been done. Where is the evidence The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that what the court does is of course not very much. I wonder whether she was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, just now when he said that the court is responsible for deciding delegation of powers within the Bank. That seems to me to be quite a lot. With respect, perhaps in the day of the noble Baroness the court did not do very much, but the 2012 Act was specifically designed to empower the court and to produce on it a variety of views and the potential for challenge. There is not much of an issue between seven and nine. The issue is: why is this being changed now? What was wrong in 2012 that is now to be righted and what evidence is there that the decisions which this House made in 2012 were misconceived?
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-11-09
Topic: Domestic Commerce
John Eatwell (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I find this a somewhat naive and shocking part of this small Bill, in the sense that the clause under debate has two objectives. The first is to reduce the powers of the NEDs and the second is to reduce the powers of Parliament. Both of those goals I regard as reprehensible. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, set out, these issues were debated extensively in this Chamber with respect to the Financial Services Act 2012. We went through them in great detail and, in particular, we followed the advice of the Treasury Select Committee of another place It is obvious that this measure is designed to reduce the powers of the non-executives, but perhaps I may comment on the second point that I made about the powers of Parliament. That derives from the statement by the Treasury Select Committee of another place, which at that time was referring to a new supervisory board. That, in debate, was transformed into the oversight committee. The Select Committee said: "Our recommendation that the new Supervisory Board have the authority to conduct retrospective reviews of the macro-prudential performance of the Bank should, if operating successfully, provide", Parliament, "with the tools for proper scrutiny" Those "tools for proper scrutiny" are being removed in this clause. I think that Mr Carney’s explanation of the role of the Independent Evaluation Office, which can be summoned into action only by the oversight committee, is particularly revealing It has also been argued that, in some sense, the Bank now has two boards—the court and the oversight committee—and that this is causing confusion and reducing the effectiveness of the Bank. That is a very foolish argument. The notion that there should be an independent non-executive committee reviewing the activities of a main board is commonplace, particularly given that the reviews are specifically defined by legislation to be retrospective and not to question the contemporary acts of the court. That process is one that the best unitary boards have embodied in their codes of practice. I am amazed and, as I say, shocked that the Government are attempting to reduce the powers of non-executive directors in this way and, in particular, to reduce the powers of Parliament.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-11-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Eatwell (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): The noble Lord, having not been present at our discussions, sadly, three years ago, has not appreciated the loss of confidence in this House in the general accountability of the Bank of England Given the structure of the Bank of England and its role in national and international life, the position of the governor is extremely powerful, and quite rightly so. He needs to carry the gravitas and status of his or her office. However, in those circumstances, it is important that an Oversight Committee, charged with retrospective evaluation of the performance of the Bank with respect to its objectives, should not include the governor or the deputy governors. That is a crucial element of our thinking which underpinned the 2012 Act. In repeating that powers have now been simply transferred but still remain, the noble Lord has failed to take that aspect into account and has failed to reflect on the experience of the financial crisis of 2008 and the Bank of England’s performance during that crisis.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Edmiston — House of Lords, 2015-07-22
Topic: Other
Frances D'Souza (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
UK Opt-in to the Proposed Council Decision on the Relocation of Migrants within the EU (EUC Report) — House of Lords, 2015-07-22
Topic: Other
John Sewel (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): Time is up. The Tellers for the Contents and for the Not Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order 53. A Division therefore cannot take place, and in accordance with Standing Order 56, which provides that the Question before the House shall be resolved in the negative unless there is a majority in favour of such rejection, I declare the Motion disagreed to. Happy Recess.
Palace of Westminster Committee — House of Lords, 2015-07-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Sewel (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): That the Commons message of 16 July be considered and that a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons to consider the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster; That the following members be appointed to the Committee: Lord Carter of Coles, Lord Deighton, Lord Laming, Baroness Smith of Basildon, Baroness Stowell of Beeston, Lord Wallace of Tankerness; That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman; That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers; That the Committee have leave to report from time to time; That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place; That the reports of the Committee from time to time shall be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if the Committee so wishes, be published.
Palace of Westminster Committee — House of Lords, 2015-07-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Sewel (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I should say first that I think we are fortunate that the two Back-Bench Members of the Joint Committee from this House will bring to its deliberations a very deep level of expertise and experience of the issues. I do not think that we could have selected two stronger candidates On the particular issues that the noble Lords raised, the basis of selection for the Joint Committee is party allocation. I understand that the usual channels in both Houses decided a party allocation to represent the relative strength and standing of the parties in the two Houses. Of course, in this House the three officeholders—the Lord Speaker, the Chairman of Committees and the Deputy Chairman of Committees—put aside all party affiliations during their terms of office, so clearly could not be considered in a scheme based on party allocations. I also point out that the individual who does my equivalent job in the House of Commons has not been nominated as a member of the Joint Committee.
Palace of Westminster Committee — House of Lords, 2015-07-20
Topic: Other
John Sewel (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): I am sorry that I forgot the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—a sin of omission indeed. My understanding is that the committee will operate on the basis of Mr Grayling in the Commons chairing one session and the Leader of this House chairing the alternate session. I understand that that is how they will proceed.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-07-13
Topic: Other
Frances D'Souza (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): I beg your pardon, my Lords. I did not hear any "Not Content" voices. Let me put the Question again. The Question is that Amendment 2 be agreed to—as many as are of that opinion will say "Content", the contrary "Not Content".
Transport for London Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2015-11-30
Topic: Other
William Laming (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): My Lords, I well recognise the interest that the noble Lord and maybe others have in this Bill. In these circumstances, I think it is fair that I seek leave from the House to withdraw the Motion. I will re-table it at a time when it can be debated.
Equality Act 2010 and Disability Committee — House of Lords, 2015-07-08
Topic: Civil Rights
John Sewel (Non-Affiliated, Unknown): That, as proposed by the Procedure Committee, and notwithstanding the normal practice of the House in the conduct of divisions: Members of the Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 with restricted mobility shall be entitled to vote in the room in which that Select Committee meets in any division in the Chamber occurring while the Select Committee is sitting, providing conditions (a) and (b) below are satisfied (a) The Member has notified the Clerk of the Parliaments of his or her intention to make use of this entitlement at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting of the Select Committee in which he or she first proposes to make use of the entitlement; (b) The Member is present in the Committee room by the time the question is repeated three minutes after the division is called.