argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Lobbying (Transparency) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-18
Topic: Government Operations
Clive Brooke (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, again I express my gratitude for the explanations the noble Lord has given for these amendments. I hope he will not be surprised to hear that I am going to accept most of them. In Amendment 4, "controlling" is perfectly acceptable. I shall leave Amendment 5 to one side for a moment. Amendment 6 is, I believe, from and identical to the previous legislation, which is already in force, and I am happy to accept it. I am prepared to accept Amendment 7. The wording of Amendment 8 is better than the original, so that is accepted too. The noble Lord might not be surprised, given my background, that the bit about trade unions appears in there. I do not have quite the same close links with the media, but I do my best there, where I can, and we are prepared to accept the amendment The one area I am not happy about is Amendment 5, which would delete "or position". Again, I go back to my past experience. I was in the trade union movement for most of my life but also spent some time in business —I swapped sides, almost, so to speak. I was involved with people who were coming up with ideas about how they could make public service operations more effective. They would devise ideas and I would be part of that. We put the ideas in a bag and went to, for example, Australia and sought to persuade the Government that they could do a particular piece of public policy work better if only they would adopt what we had in mind. The Australian Government had no policy on that issue but we were able to persuade them that they should do it that way. Of course, we then bid for the business. We then took our portmanteau and went to Hong Kong and all round the world, persuading different Governments, in the UK as well. Often the Government were not running public services as efficiently as they could have been, and we came along with ideas on how they might change things However, such activities should be in the open. The public should be aware that efforts are being made to change not just the policy but the Government’s mind. We have a good example of that at the moment with Brexit. Technically, we have no real policy on Brexit, so far as I can understand—or that we have been able to elicit from the Government—but we know that positions have been reached and that people are lobbying. Technically, if you believe in transparency, that should be in the public domain. This is what the amendment would remove and it would limit the area in which it would take place. I hope I might persuade him that he should withdraw the amendment and reflect on it.
Lobbying (Transparency) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-18
Topic: Government Operations
Dianne Hayter (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, Amendment 16A is in this group and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Brooke will speak to it I want to be clear on one point on Amendment 28, which we will come to in due course and is about the ability to charge. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, may not like it but I think he is absolutely right—that is the end of his political career, but all our political careers are behind us—in that the regulators of virtually every sector, other than the Charity Commission, are funded by the sectors that they regulate. We have had an unhappy position with the Charity Commission when the Government were able to cut its funding, for understandable financial reasons. However, it leaves a regulator in some jeopardy if its running costs are, as in this case, in the hands of the Government—the very people who are being lobbied while we are trying to get a register of who is lobbying them. Amendment 28 is very important and I hope very much that my noble friend Lord Brooke will find it possible to accept this one.
Lobbying (Transparency) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-18
Topic: Government Operations
Clive Brooke (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I have some difficulties with this amendment. I declared at the beginning that I had no interests but I have been helped very considerably by a couple of NGOs, Spinwatch and Unlock Democracy. They have been very big parties to the preparation of the Bill and, in fairness to them, they are very unhappy indeed about any movement on my part on the charges side. They make the fundamental point of principle that it is open to anyone to lobby. It should be free, and there should not be any charge for anybody who engages in it, whether they be the highest in the land or the lowest. In particular, they are concerned that if charges are introduced charities may find it difficult, as might small businesses which might like to play a part in lobbying in one form or another and would have to register and pay, and that would be an imposition on them. They are strongly in favour of resisting any attempt to move away from what the Bill proposes, which is that the Government should bear the cost. They point out that in virtually every country in the world where there is a lobbying or transparency Act, the funding is from the Government. Scotland put a Bill through last year. It is coming into place, and the cost will be met by the Scottish Government. If we continue with charges, we will have a different approach within the UK, assuming this Bill becomes an Act.
Lobbying (Transparency) Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-11-18
Topic: Government Operations
Dianne Hayter (Labour, Centre-left): This is a slight aside, but I am sorry that the Government are taking this view. We know that they do not want the Bill, but it seems a shame that they are not engaging with how to make it as good as it can be—which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is doing—so that, should it become an Act, it can be made to work. I am sorry that the Government are taking the view that, because they do not like the whole Bill, they will not engage on its content. That is a small comment. There seems to be a slight loss of the expertise of the Cabinet Office and the Government to make this Bill as good as possible, even if, at the end of the day, we do not manage to get it on the statute book.
Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2016 — House of Lords, 2016-12-21
Topic: Macroeconomics
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, as we have heard, these regulations bring into effect a transitional scheme to phase increases and reductions on non-domestic rates following a revaluation. The scheme has been in place before and it applies only to England, as these matters are devolved in the other parts of the United Kingdom. I have no problem with the regulations as they stand but I have one or two questions for the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth On the consultation process, I noted that there was only one month down for consultation. Does the Minister think that was sufficient? Given that the Government received only 173 responses, is that a good rate of return and how was the consultation conducted? Was it just an item put on the department’s website or was more than that done, so that people were spoken to I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Beecham’s points in respect of council tax revaluations. I think that it is now 20 or 25 years since revaluation, which is long overdue. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who is not in his place today, bringing forward a Private Member’s Bill last year on this very matter of increasing the number of bands. He clearly outlined to the House the problem that we have, which the Government will at some point need to look at. I also agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the impact assessment I also note on the consultation that the department will not issue any formal guidance on the transitional arrangements, which the Government say will be implemented by very experienced staff. I hope it will be confirmed that informal guidance would be available to any authorities that need it from the department. With that, however, I am happy with the regulations as they stand.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2016 — House of Lords, 2016-12-21
Topic: Government Operations
Jeremy Hugh Beecham (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Minister is right to say that the Government are devolving significant new powers to Greater Manchester and perhaps to some other authorities as the process rolls forward. However, what they are not doing is accompanying the devolution of powers with anything like sufficient additional resources. The 10 local authorities in Greater Manchester will receive £30 million a year for 30 years for infrastructure projects. That is £900 million over 30 years. At the moment, these councils have suffered a loss of £1.7 billion a year in respect of their budgets. That is likely to rise to £2 billion a year across the Greater Manchester area by 2020. Far from meeting the needs of these authorities, £900 million over 30 years is really a flea bite in comparison with what those councils are having to contend with in terms of providing services.
Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Excluded Sites) Amendment Regulations 2016 — House of Lords, 2016-11-22
Topic: Energy
Christopher Suenson-Taylor (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction of these regulations, which are limited in scope and technical in nature. As she says, they will deter non-delivery of contract projects by excluding participants from taking part in future periodic allocation rounds should they not fulfil certain aspects of their projects. I am happy to agree to the regulations today as they would deter applicants to the CfD scheme from making speculative bids for projects that are unlikely to be delivered, thereby tying up parts of the budget for the scheme so that it cannot be delivered. As allocation rounds are being run less frequently than originally anticipated, this would ensure greater delivery of the wider objectives of investment in power-sector decarbonisation The Minister has already spoken of some of the effects in the first round but perhaps she could clarify a little further why these measures are being introduced. Can she explain the overall difficulties seen in the evidence from the non-delivery of projects in the first round of contracts for difference allocation? Has there been a certain amount of "hogging" or poor fulfilment of the projects by some participants in the first round? The Explanatory Memorandum was relatively quiet on the consultation outcome and reported generally supportive responses I am grateful to the Minister for confirmation that the sum coming forward to support renewable investments in the second round will be the one that has been widely reported. Is she satisfied that there is an adequate appeals process should the applicant consider that he or she has been unfairly treated? Are there adequate provisions for genuine non-compliance should circumstances out of the applicant’s control result in poor fulfilment? Is she satisfied from the experience of the first allocation round that interpretations of what it means not to have delivered are adequately defined I would like to follow up on one further aspect of these regulations. What happens to projects that make slow progress or are even abandoned? Can that part of the budget be reallocated to a later round, or are there some residual rights of the applicant to fulfil the project? It is not clear from the memorandum whether the CfD is terminated as a consequence such that it could not be recycled in an orderly manner. The impact assessment considers the overall CfD scheme, objectives and process without considering these regulations specifically. Is there a risk that exclusions to future bidding rounds could give rise to a series of legal actions that could undermine the allocation process more generally I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify those aspects of how the regulations might work in practice so that the operation of CfDs will continue to bring forward schemes at least cost to the electricity consumer over the longer term.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 — House of Lords, 2016-11-22
Topic: Environment
Margaret Beryl Jones (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the new regulations. As he rightly pointed out, this is in effect a consolidation exercise. The original 2010 regulations have since been amended some 15 times, making it difficult for businesses, charities and voluntary bodies to navigate their way around the permit system. As he also pointed out, the permit system covers a very wide range of activities—including the handling of asbestos, the use of landfill, managing mining waste, the collection of waste electronic equipment, the protection of groundwater and the control of industrial emissions—so it is easy to understand how complex the system has become. The fact that the consolidated regulations cover nearly 300 pages is testament to that We therefore accept that this is primarily a tidying-up exercise that will make the legislation more accessible and restrict the need for multiple applications. As the noble Lord pointed out, two specific changes have been made. One is to add restrictions to the number of fluorescent lamps containing mercury that can be crushed without a permit and the other is to amend the flood defence permit system to enable organisations with a statutory function, such as the Canal & River Trust, to dredge without a permit, as had previously been the case. Both of these are sensible amendments and we are happy to support them We are content to support these consolidating regulations as far as they go. There is, of course, a wider debate to be had about the further steps necessary to reduce pollution, improve our air and water quality and embrace the circular economy, so that we design waste out of the system altogether, perhaps leading to fewer permits being needed. It will be interesting to hear at some point how the Government intend to deliver on their promise to leave the environment in better shape than they found it in these important areas of pollution and waste There is an increasingly pressing question about the future of the regulations in a post-EU world and the process that will ultimately take place to review them. Can the Minister update us on the department’s thinking in this regard and the extent to which all such pieces of legislation will be included in a great reform Bill? But I realise that I am straying slightly from the main point at issue today. I hope that the noble Lord can give us some responses, but I will reiterate that we support the regulations.
Article 50 (Constitution Committee Report) — House of Lords, 2016-11-22
Topic: International Affairs
Meghnad Desai (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I want to dwell on the distinction made in the Constitution Committee’s report between resolution and legislation. It is very important that the Government introduce a resolution confirming that they accept the result of the referendum, so that, whatever delays are involved in invoking Article 50, the people do not think that their will is being denied. Although the margin overall was 4 percentage points, the margin in England was 7 percentage points and England voted with the same difference, 2 million votes, in favour of Brexit as did the entire country—so the rest of the country cancelled out between remain and leave. England made the difference and the English public will be extremely angry if their will is going to be thwarted. So I think a short resolution confirming that Parliament accepts the referendum result would be good. Then we may want an Act—legislation, again as recommended by the Constitution Committee—which would lay out what the Government should do before invoking Article 50. We should have a lot of parliamentary input in the process before and after, but during the divorce negotiations we should have a limited presence. I have once before advocated a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament which would have the information from the Government on Privy Council terms. We cannot really have, between this House and another place, 1,500 people trying to micromanage the Government’s negotiations. But a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament under Privy Council rules could be given all the information by the Government. It would be able to advise the Government on how to proceed and that would both give Parliament a voice in the procedure and not be too public. One difficulty in making it public is that we have a very vicious press. It will attack people for whatever reasons, as it already has done. It is very important that the Government can keep their cards close to their chest while negotiating with Europe I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr—one dare not disagree with him, I would say—that we need a smart Brexit. The correction I would make is that we need a quick Brexit and a smart framework of negotiations. We want a quick Brexit because we want to get out of this mess. Let the divorce be quick and let the cohabitation negotiations be fruitful and beneficial, because once we get the Brexit thing out it is not just the 27 we have to get on with; the other n minus 27 with whom we have to negotiate trade treaties are also waiting out there, and the quicker we do Brexit the better off we will be.
Article 50 (Constitution Committee Report) — House of Lords, 2016-11-22
Topic: Law and Crime
John Davies (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for that, but it does not really answer the question. The question is not whether the Government are in favour of the independence of the judiciary but whether they dissociate themselves from the appalling remarks made in the press about the judgment in the High Court.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2016 — House of Lords, 2016-11-24
Topic: Law and Crime
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, for presenting the order to the House this afternoon. It has the support of the Opposition. As the noble Baroness says, the first duty of government is to keep our people and our country safe, and the Government have our full support in that important work The order before us will renew the Secretary of State’s power to issue TPIM notices for a further five years, so long as the independent reviewer, the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the director-general of the Security Service have been consulted. I understand that they have been and that they have all consented. I note the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made about going for the maximum period of time. At present, I believe that that is the right decision. I also note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in considering the order did not raise that as an objection at all As noble Lords have heard, the notice has rarely been used, but it is an important measure of last resort to protect our security when it is not possible to prosecute or, in the case of foreign nationals, deport individuals believed to be involved in terrorist-related activity and when the Secretary of State has decided on the balance of probabilities that the person is or has been involved in terrorist-related activity and the restrictions that can be placed on an individual are both necessary and proportionate I am sure that the orders are not issued lightly and one would prefer to be in a position to mount a prosecution. It is welcome, on the other hand, that the orders can be challenged in the courts. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, said, when they have been challenged, not one has been quashed, which says much for the robustness of the system in place and the built-in checks and balances I seek confirmation from the noble Baroness that the Intelligence and Security Committee would be further involved in satisfying itself as to the robustness and operation of the TPIM orders. If that is the case, that provides a further level of parliamentary oversight but in an appropriate, confidential setting In conclusion, the order has my full support. It strikes the right balance between keeping the country safe, placing restrictions on individuals when no other option is appropriate and allowing those individuals to challenge them in the courts.
Aid Reviews — House of Lords, 2016-12-02
Topic: International Affairs
Raymond Collins (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in response to the Urgent Question. I very much hope, however, that proper time will be given to a fuller debate of these very important reviews. There are many issues that need to be covered. The good news from the reviews is that despite the Secretary of State’s expressed opinions about DfID prior to her taking up office, they confirm the overwhelming good that our aid does in saving lives and tackling poverty, but crucially, that this is in our national interest. I welcome that continued commitment The continued focus on fragile and conflict-affected states and on international agencies such as the Global Fund for HIV, TB and malaria, which are saving millions of lives, is welcome. However, there is a lack of detail in the reviews. In particular, are there any planned country programme closures? Are there any changes to some of our bilateral programmes, particularly on HIV, which we discussed earlier this week The emphasis on value for money is important, but we must ensure that success is measured not simply by the cash we put in but by the change we effect. I have no doubt we will return to the issue of investment when the CDC Bill comes to this House. There are big issues in that Bill that we need to discuss in detail What consideration has been given in the Government’s plans for exiting the EU to the reports’ conclusion that funding via EU institutions is some of the most effective of all global agencies? Is the Minister’s department being fully consulted on alternative delivery mechanisms and all the options? Is the Minister being fully consulted on the Government’s development objectives in a post-Brexit era?
Chagos Islands — House of Lords, 2016-11-17
Topic: International Affairs
Raymond Collins (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Yesterday’s decision is nothing less than a fundamental denial of the human rights of the people of the Chagos Islands. Their hopes were raised with the publication of the KPMG report about feasibility and those hopes and aspirations have, I fear, been cruelly dashed. On the issue of feasibility, will the Minister give us and the people of the Chagos Islands some indication of what factors were taken into account? Will he publish all the factors that were considered in reaching this decision, in order to ensure that there is full transparency Turning to the £40 million that has been promised over 10 years, the Minister indicated that communities would be consulted. Can he give further guarantees about how the people of the Chagos Islands will be involved in spending that money? In particular, what proportion will be devoted to ensuring that they can return to their homes—I find it difficult to use the term "visit"? Finally, what assessment has been made by the Government of the impact this decision will have on other overseas territories, particularly Gibraltar, which are feeling very fragile at the moment in light of the decision to withdraw from the EU? I hope that the noble Earl will be able to respond to these points.