argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Law and Crime
Robin Granville Hodgson (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that extensive reply and other noble Lords for their contributions to this debate I take issue with my noble and learned friend on two matters. First, it is perfectly possible for us to deal with the question of PPOs for mutuals by setting up a proper reinsurance programme. That could be done quite easily. Therefore, to say that we would like to do this but we cannot because mutuals cannot provide it is inaccurate. We can sort that out with a certain amount of technical help Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said that we were engaged in a nudge. Personally, I am engaged in a bit of a shove, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monks, will join us in in that shove. I am not sure that my noble and learned friend has given a shove; I think it is a very delicate pressure on the arm of the industry, which I am not sure will be effective We heard from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about how PPOs are declining in use and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, about the culture and question of fairness, which must be at the heart of all our discussions. I was encouraged to think that such an eminent jurist as him should think that the rules of court could provide the flexibility to enable the issues covered by my amendment to be incorporated. We are in an era where things are moving fast, and we do not want to find ourselves stuck in inflexibility My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern referred to the question of interference by the Executive with the judiciary. I made clear that I was concerned about that in my opening remarks. The amendment is designed so that Parliament, the legislature, makes its view clear. It is nothing to do with the Executive. It is giving judges a steer, but after that, it is over to them how they proceed. My worry about my noble and learned friend’s comments is that the best remains the enemy of the good. We have a system that is not working very well, but we are saying, "This is frightfully difficult, so we should not change it; we are likely to cause more trouble by changing it than we solve, let sleeping dogs lie" The system is not working very well. The transfer of investment and longevity risk away from the individual has to be a key part of making matters fair. It deals with important and difficult cases of the sort raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet some of us between now and the Bill’s next stage, because I do not think we have got to the bottom of this. We are missing an opportunity to do something seriously helpful for people who suffer long-term, life-changing injuries. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
James Peter Hymers Mackay (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I have Amendment 57A in this group, which would add the anticipated scale or amount of the sums in question. It is worth mentioning that the amount in question may affect the rate of return.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Law and Crime
David James Fletcher Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register, particularly as a partner in the global commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft. I completely agree with the words of the noble Earl. I understand that it is a favourite expression of officials in the Ministry of Justice that they are proceeding "at pace". This group of amendments and the important concept of a shadow process prior to Royal Assent at Amendment 89, which we will look at a little later, give the Minister a range of options from which to choose to demonstrate that he intends to do just that I will focus on and entirely support Amendments 58 and 94. The Bill allows a number of different periods, which could lead to delay. The amendments ask the Minister to consider better and more rigorous options. The idea of any delay between Royal Assent and commencement is of particular concern because it is open-ended and uncontrolled. As has been mentioned, in his letter of 30 April to noble Lords the Minister suggests that a period of two months may be needed, but there is no indication why. No regulations are needed. The decisions that need to be made to constitute the expert panel, as just mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, are obvious ones, and even if they have not been made already, the Minister still has a few months before Royal Assent in which to consider them. My concern is that there is nothing to keep it to two months; it could turn into two years or more. I recall that the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 was an uncontroversial statute, so much so that it was first considered in this House under the accelerated procedures for Bills proposed by the Law Commission, and indeed I participated in those debates. It received Royal Assent on 25 March 2010 but was not brought into force until 1 August 2016, more than six years later. I am sure that that will not happen in this case, but it is an example of how open-ended periods can give rise to all sorts of uncertainty and problems I am personally attracted to the idea of removing any possible delay between Royal Assent and commencement or between the commencement of Part 2 and the start of the first review. I therefore earnestly encourage the Minister to find a way of accepting these two amendments.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
David James Fletcher Hunt (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, which is in this group. The offending part of paragraph 8 is the legislative equivalent of putting the genie back in the bottle or un-casting the die Let us be clear: the option of the Lord Chancellor setting no rate does not mean leaving the current rate alone, or even setting a rate of 0%. I want to outline the sequence of events that will occur: having set the rate at least twice, the Lord Chancellor will decide that it is no longer appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to set the rate at all, that he should repeal all previous rates and that the whole matter should be thrown back to the courts. The effect would be to create a maelstrom in which no one can settle a case, because no one knows what the rate would be These sub-paragraphs, which Amendment 91 would remove, would in effect allow the Lord Chancellor to repeal the entire discount rate review mechanism, via secondary legislation, simply by deciding that he or she has had enough. I am surprised that the Delegated Powers Committee did not raise an objection, but the meaning of the sub-paragraphs is pretty opaque. It simply cannot stand up.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Edward Faulks (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, the question of whether this should be a political decision or one taken by the panel is difficult. I thought carefully about this, as I am sure other noble Lords did. Ultimately, I respectfully submit that it should be a political decision taken by the Lord Chancellor. Of course, that decision will be critically informed by what the panel tells him or her. The provisions in the Bill provide that, when a Lord Chancellor makes a rate determination, he or she must, "give reasons for the rate determination made, and … publish such information about the response of the expert panel established for the review as the Lord Chancellor thinks appropriate" My noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong, but, if the Lord Chancellor were to take a perverse view, ignoring all the advice or not giving sufficient reasons for it, he or she would potentially be liable for judicial review. Ultimately on the question of accountability, this is a political decision and a politician should be answerable for it Of course I yield to no one in my admiration for doctors—we have a number of distinguished doctors in your Lordships’ House, and they are the experts who can assist the House on questions of life expectation. However, with great respect, that is not quite the question that the panel is there to answer; it is there to answer the question of yield for investment having regard to an investor of reasonably cautious nature. While some doctors might have a view about this, I am not sure that questions of life expectation have anything to do with what is essentially an actuarial or financial calculation. Therefore, I am afraid that I am unable to support that suggestion.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
James Peter Hymers Mackay (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I want to say just one thing about the nature of the Lord Chancellor’s judgment in this case. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said that the Lord Chancellor is acting on behalf of the Government, but that is not the nature of the decision: it is the Lord Chancellor’s decision as representing the Lord Chancellor himself. He has the responsibility of a personal decision in this matter, in the way this Bill is drafted. Certainly, when I had responsibility for these matters it never occurred to me that I should consult the Cabinet about it.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Robin Granville Hodgson (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this wide-ranging debate. Perhaps I might return to Amendment 61, where we began 54 minutes ago, and say to my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench that the purpose of this amendment was to assist the Lord Chancellor, not to undermine him. It was designed to give him some air cover by somebody saying, "Oi! You need to be doing something about the rates of return". There was no fixed term to this; they could turn up at any time and say that. The idea was that they would somehow do it every year, but it would not be. It could be more frequently if interest rates changed sufficiently to justify the rate going up and down A permanent panel would have a role. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, talked about the MPC, which is not the same sort of thing but it has a collective institutional memory. If you dissolve the panel after each time it sits, and start again de novo with the next review, that seems a waste of the experience, knowledge and know-how of making these things work that would be built up in the operation of a panel. My noble friend Lord Faulks said that it is a political decision and I agree. It is, which is why Amendment 61 says: "The expert panel under paragraph 5 must advise the Lord Chancellor to undertake a review" It does not say that he must; it says that it must advise him and at that point the Lord Chancellor may say, "No thank you" and make his own decision Let us consider this situation. The Lord Chancellor has a wide range of duties so somebody will have to tip up one morning and say, "Lord Chancellor, it’s time you had a review of the rate". Somebody in the MoJ will have to survey the rates of return available and the unlucky official who has to do that will know that it will be an unpopular thing to say because the Lord Chancellor will not want to get into the controversy of having to establish and justify a new rate. That will not be a popular moment, so the much more likely time for it to happen is when the unlucky official comes along and says, "Lord Chancellor, the three-year period"—or five-year period—"is coming to an end and you’ve got to do something". We will have this series of events at the end of the period prescribed, depending on whether the Government accept my noble friend Lord Faulks’s amendment to have five years as opposed to three. I suggest that, from the point of view of efficiency, applicability and fairness, an expert panel being able to say to the Lord Chancellor, "It’s time we had a review" is a much better way to proceed and much more in keeping with the arrangements and purposes behind the Bill We shall obviously go no further on this tonight, but perhaps I can put it on the shopping list for when my noble and learned friend is kind enough to say that we can come and talk to him. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Edward Faulks (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful, or fairly grateful, to all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is entirely at a loss to understand the purpose of my amendment. Quite a number of other people seem to favour five years, so it is not a complete outlier. In fact, as many seem to favour five years as three years or any other period As my noble friend conceded, whatever period is selected is in a sense a compromise. It must be arbitrary. I am grateful to my noble friend for answering not only this group of amendments but an earlier group when dealing with the mechanism of the time limits for the Lord Chancellor to go through the process of conducting the review and appointing a panel. We have already been told that our suggestions are inappropriate in that respect, but it is nice to be told again. That was clearly in the speaking note As to the question of why three years, my noble friend said that there may be smaller adjustments after three years rather than five. With great respect, that depends on the economic climate. There may be some enormous economic event—we are not unfamiliar with those, sadly—which means that there could be a dramatic change in a short period. I am unconvinced by that argument My main point was gaming. I have personal evidence and experience that it is going on at the moment. Clearly, it is anecdotal, but I suggest that three years is definitely the wrong period. I will withdraw my amendment now. I shall do my best to accumulate better evidence to try to convince the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, among others, and the Government, that five years is a better period. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Law and Crime
Edward Faulks (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, in practice, when these cases come before a court, particularly where there is a party who lacks capacity, a judge, before approving one of these orders—they have the right to approve or disapprove a settlement—must be satisfied that appropriate advice has been taken on the split between periodical payments and a lump sum and that, generally, it is a satisfactory settlement from the court’s point of view. If they are subject to the Court of Protection, the court will then be able to manage investments according to the best interests of the protected party. If I may say so, the noble Lord has a good point on what happens to those who do not need the approval of the court or who are outside the protected party, and who are like anybody else who comes into a large sum of money in any other context. They will be well advised to take advice: some do; some, I fear, do not.
Civil Liability Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-15
Topic: Law and Crime
Charlotte Vere (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, Amendment 89 would allow the Lord Chancellor to establish a panel informally before the Bill has received Royal Assent. As we indicated in responding to earlier amendments, the Government share the objective of ensuring that the first review of the rate is begun and completed as promptly as is practicable. With that in mind, we have committed in response to the Justice Select Committee report not only to issue a further call for evidence to obtain any additional relevant information but to commission the Government Actuary’s Department to carry out further research and analysis The solution proposed in the amendment to the question of how to get the panel working at the earliest possible date is certainly imaginative, but it assumes that there will be a material difference in the time by which the proposed "shadow panel" and the "real panel" will be able to carry out that work. That is not necessarily the case. The panel will need evidence and analysis to carry out its work. That will take time. There are also the considerations that the process of recruitment should be in accordance with the principles of public appointments and that the review process must be open and transparent I am grateful to my noble friend for his suggestion, but I do not think that in a subject as sensitive as the setting of the personal injury discount rate I can accept it. I can, however, reassure him that the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the first review of the rate following the passage of the Bill will be conducted as swiftly as possible, while also on as fully informed a basis as it possibly can be. In the light of this, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Hate Crime — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: Law and Crime
George Young (Conservative, Centre-right): On the first question, of course we want to take those recommendations forward, and perhaps I could write in more detail to the noble Lord on that. On the question of police resources, I am aware of the exchanges that took place in the other place yesterday. After speaking to all forces in England and Wales, the Government have provided a comprehensive funding settlement that will increase total investment in the police system by around £450 million in 2018-19. Overall public investment in policing will grow from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to around £13 billion in 2018-19. We believe that the settlement enables police and crime commissioners to increase their direct funding by up to £270 million. It is then up to chief constables to decide how best to deploy officers in their force to effectively serve and engage their communities and to build trust and confidence. The Government have made it absolutely clear that this is one of the priorities that police forces must engage in as they deploy those resources.
United States Tariffs: Steel and Aluminium — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: Foreign Trade
Rona Fairhead (Conservative, Centre-right): Regarding the idea that this is in the national interest, we have been clear that the EU assessment is a safeguard. We are trying to stop this happening in the first place and trying to get exemptions. We are taking this forward through engagement, and we will need to create a list of measures with the EU that we will take on a proportionate basis if we do not progress. My sense is that the best thing we can do is to work on global steel capacity multilaterally. I think that that was the view of this Government and your Lordships’ House, who believe in that rules-based environment.
United States Tariffs: Steel and Aluminium — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: Foreign Trade
Rona Fairhead (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his remarks. We are engaging with the Trade Commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, and the Secretary of State will be acting on behalf of the UK but as part of the EU. We are working to stop this happening—job one will be to stop this happening; job 2 will be to get exemptions where we can—and the Secretary of State will be speaking on behalf of the EU and UK industry. I would welcome help from anyone in the industry and the unions who has an interest in this because there is a real issue here. We need to make sure that the benefits of free trade are fully realised, as we have seen in this country. A rules-based international system has lifted 1 billion people out of poverty and we do not want to set our face against that. The Secretary of State will be speaking to Cecilia Malmström later today ahead of his visit and he will feed back after his visit, so we are connected.
United States Tariffs: Steel and Aluminium — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: Foreign Trade
Rona Fairhead (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the noble Lord. We have had a long and enduring relationship with the US and, in the past, when protectionist measures were applied—for example, in 2002—they were eventually rowed back and the relationship continued. It is important that we continue to demonstrate the benefits of free trade. The number of jobs expected to grow in the UK steel industry versus the number that might be lost in downstream industries indicate that potentially, this is not a good move in the US. A recent think tank report said that there could be a net loss of around 146,000 jobs in the US if this was put in place. We need to argue for free trade. We have a long and enduring relationship and the UK/US economic, national and defensive co-operation will endure long term into the future.
United States Tariffs: Steel and Aluminium — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: International Affairs
Patrick Cormack (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the way she is handling this delicate and tricky matter. I hope that she will be involved in some of these negotiations and, if she is, that she will reinforce the fact that we are working with friends and neighbours in the European Union and that this ought to be an object lesson to everyone who has the interests of our country at heart.
United States Tariffs: Steel and Aluminium — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: Foreign Trade
Rona Fairhead (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my noble friend for his supportive words. Although officially I am not in the Trade Policy Unit—I am concentrating on exports—I obviously have interactions with it. It is likely that I will visit the US in a few weeks’ time and I will continue to represent the importance for us of addressing the excess steel capacity in the world, which is the root cause of the problem. We have made good progress along those lines. Where we see other countries behaving improperly, we are able to initiate anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures. In the UK alone there are 45, which have proved to be effective. We will continue to fight but it is important that we do so within a rules-based system.
United States Tariffs: Steel and Aluminium — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Jeremy King (Conservative, Centre-right): While the Minister is absolutely right that we must act in full conjunction with the European Union, there is no question but that we have a very special relationship—in whatever way that is described—with the United States. Although the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has said that we cannot possibly trust the President of the United States, he is the President and it is very important that the Secretary of State makes effective representations to him and his colleagues to ensure that we avoid what could otherwise be an extremely difficult situation.
United States Tariffs: Steel and Aluminium — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: Foreign Trade
Rona Fairhead (Conservative, Centre-right): I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord King. Very strenuous representations will be made. We think these tariffs have a very weak legal basis, and the EU deems that this will enable some countermeasures and, possibly, safeguards to be put in place. We need to engage with this very important friend and ally to make sure we get above this and move on to the agenda of building wealth right across the world, and make sure that we have a sensible global approach to global problems.
United States Tariffs: Steel and Aluminium — House of Lords, 2018-03-13
Topic: Foreign Trade
Rona Fairhead (Conservative, Centre-right): There are studies available. I mentioned a US trade body which represents downstream industries that think they will be negatively affected and that the net effect on US jobs will also be negative—its study is already a public document. We are trying to avoid protectionist measures that stop the further development of economic trade and of developing countries. The latter could provide a ratchet effect and bring us all up together.