argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-10-23
Topic: International Affairs
David Pannick (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Oates. In his opening remarks, the Minister emphasised that these regulations impose no new obligations, but that is not the concern; the concern is whether they remove existing rights. He was anxious to downplay their impact, yet at the same time he told the House that they are necessary because, unless they are implemented, this country might face problems at WTO level. I am puzzled as to how those two matters can be reconciled. I would be grateful for his elaboration on that point In any event, it seems to me, as it does to the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Oates, that these are very complex matters, and in my view they are highly inappropriate for a statutory instrument. They surely cry out for detailed assessment as to their purpose and effect as a matter of policy by primary legislation. The method being used by the Government is delegated legislation under Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Noble Lords will recall the sensitivity of that issue, the care and attention which this House in particular gave to the powers being conferred on the Government and its anxiety to constrain the use of such powers so that they did not relate to matters of policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, indicated by reference to the speech of David Davis, the then Secretary of State, that was the view of the Government themselves I remind the House that the Government have made it clear from the outset that these delegated powers would be used only in the most circumscribed way. The White Paper that preceded the publication of the Bill Legislating for the United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union said at paragraph 3.17: "Crucially, we will ensure that the power"— that is, the power to make delegated legislation— "will not be available where Government wishes to make a policy change which is not designed to deal with deficiencies in preserved EU-derived law arising out of our exit from the EU" The Explanatory Notes that accompanied the EU withdrawal Bill 2018 said at paragraph 14: "The Bill does not aim to make major changes to policy or establish new legal frameworks in the UK beyond those which are appropriate to ensure the law continues to function properly from day one. The Government will introduce separate primary legislation to make such policy changes which will establish new legal frameworks" It seems to me, as it does to the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Oates, that these regulations are in breach of those statements. I share the regret which the amendment proposed by the noble Lord expresses.
Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-10-23
Topic: International Affairs
Simon Denis Brown (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I am another lawyer, but I must not be mistaken for one who has worked on this particular problem. Indeed, I was not alive to it until I came into the Chamber this afternoon, so I am not another Lord Pannick or Lord Anderson of Ipswich—I am genuinely seeking a little clarification Perhaps I may focus the Minister’s attention on paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum. As I understand it, the whole question arises only if we leave with no deal, but the instrument is not required on leaving with no deal as matters currently stand, and there is nothing inconsistent with the directly effective rights currently enjoyed. The whole object, as I understand it from paragraph 7.8, is to prepare the ground so as to allow the Government, at some future date, "to make policies and legislative changes which depart from the directly effective rights" Paragraph 4 of the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states that it would, "enable the Department to introduce new policies and regulations that depart from this approach, for example by introducing new restrictions on EEA, Swiss and Turkish nationals or businesses" My question is this. If there comes, post leaving with no deal, a future point at which the Government do want to make policy and legislative changes to restrict rights, can they not at the same time as they would need the legislation to introduce those policies and legislative changes also do what is necessary to disapply what otherwise, absent this instrument, would be the continuing directly effective rights? In other words, why can we not wait until we see what future restrictive policies or legislation the Government would like to introduce post leaving with no deal? Can we not leave it until then to make any change that is then required and which is intended, by this instrument, to anticipate those future possibilities?
Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-10-23
Topic: Law and Crime
David Pannick (Crossbench, Unknown): I am very grateful to the Minister. I ask him a question out of genuine puzzlement, in the sense of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. His argument to the House, as I understand it, is that there is no need to worry because the individuals concerned will continue to enjoy the directly effective rights which are being brought across into our domestic law by the 2018 Act. My puzzlement is because Regulations 2(1) and 3(1) both say that any, "rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures", which continue by virtue of Section 4(1) of the 2018 Act, "cease to be recognised and available in domestic law" I am puzzled because I am concerned that the read-across is being disapplied by this very regulation.
Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-10-23
Topic: International Affairs
Deborah Bull (Crossbench, Unknown): To follow up the question of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, we are looking today not at the scenario of a future agreement but at no-deal legislation. Surely reciprocity cannot be dependent, in this legislation, on the future relationship documentation because this is no-deal legislation. I echo the question: where is the conversation about reciprocity, should the unfortunate thing happen and we leave with no deal?
Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-10-23
Topic: International Affairs
David Anderson (Crossbench, Unknown): The Minister has addressed a good number of questions but I raised one relating to the legal basis for these regulations, which is said to be a power to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in retained EU law. Deficiencies are precisely defined in the 2018 Act, but I have not heard from the Minister what provision of Section 8(2) or 8(3) these regulations purport to be made under, and I do not understand at the moment what the deficiency is said to be. There is some reference in the Explanatory Memorandum to the WTO but, as I understood what the Minister said earlier, the Government take no position on whether there is an incompatibility with the WTO.
Waste and Environmental Protection (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-10-23
Topic: Environment
Paul Anthony Elliott Bew (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this instrument, and I am very grateful to her for confirming that there will be no diminution of environmental standards, and that this really is about protecting environmental standards in the right way. I express the obvious regret that this is not being dealt with in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is now over 1,000 days. This is not the first time that the Government have had to come to this House with an issue of environmental protection which would have been better dealt with in the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, I would say to the Government that for a long time there was a certain chariness in doing things which had a hint of direct rule. I understand that, but in these areas where the two communities agree—there will be other issues coming before the House soon, I hope—I do not think that they need concern themselves overmuch with ideology. There is a genuine reason to be concerned, but there are areas where the two communities agree, and others are in the pipeline. Since the Irish Government understand the difficulty that the United Kingdom Government are in, there is no serious problem here. It is a matter of regret that for 1,000 days we have had no Northern Ireland Assembly, but none the less, the Government have no choice but to act as they are doing today.
Hong Kong — House of Lords, 2019-07-23
Topic: International Affairs
David Alton (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about the importance of insisting that an internationally guaranteed treaty is upheld at the United Nations. It would be helpful for the House to know what our intentions are in that regard and specifically whether this can be raised at the Security Council or with our allies. Would the Minister agree that, instead of remaining silent to the brute force of Triad gangs beating up protesters with iron bars, should Beijing’s increasingly authoritarian regime not understand that the answer to its fears about separatism is to be found in the free air of Hong Kong, not in the Uighur re-education camps of Xinjiang, and that a prosperous, harmonious and stable future for China will never be served by the use of violence?
Hong Kong — House of Lords, 2019-07-23
Topic: International Affairs
David Clive Wilson (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, there is no doubt that what has been happening recently in Hong Kong is a matter for enormous concern, particularly for those of us in your Lordships’ House who have been involved with Hong Kong and have great affection for it and its people. There have been mistakes and things have gone wrong on all sides. The bill to deal with extradition—the fugitive offenders ordinance—was put through with too great speed. The Hong Kong Government accept that it was not handled well. The peaceful demonstrations have had an increasingly violent element, which is very much to be deplored. What happened in Yuen Long in the New Territories over the weekend, with what seemed to be Triads beating up some of the protesters, was appalling. But would the Minister agree that there are some bright elements in the situation in Hong Kong? One is the resilience of Hong Kong, which reasserts itself. One hopes that it will do so this time. The second is the rule of law, which should be applied without fear or favour; it has been done up to now and must continue.
Personal Independence Payments — House of Lords, 2019-07-23
Topic: Social Welfare
Colin MacKenzie Low (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister says about the judgment, it is clear that there are still major problems with assessment of disabled people for benefits. Figures recently obtained from the DWP under the Freedom of Information Act indicated that more than a third of PIP assessments carried out by Capita were found to be defective—up 4% in the two years since 2016. This makes it clear that things are going in the wrong direction, and not the right direction as the Government habitually claim when such concerns are raised. What can the Minister say to assure the House that the Government are getting on top of these problems?
Irish Border: Checks and Customs Arrangements — House of Lords, 2019-10-01
Topic: International Affairs
Nuala O'Loan (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, in a situation where there is no technology to deal with the interface between the European Union and, in this case, the United Kingdom, and recognising as the Minister does the need for the economic interests of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to be protected, there must be a mechanism to allow manufacturing and trade to continue uninterrupted on 31 October and 1 November. Surely the Minister has to agree that, in the absence of other ideas—and we have not really heard any—the compromise must be a time-limited backstop which does not keep us in the European Union indefinitely, without any power to withdraw unilaterally? As I hope that the Minister is aware, the risk of attack on any physical structure, no matter where situated, is very high. Dissidents are still active, and the UVF on Sunday announced that it would continue to fight if the situation deteriorates further.
Homeless People: Prevention of Deaths — House of Lords, 2019-10-01
Topic: Social Welfare
Francis Hare (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, the Government recognise in their strategy that 10% of rough sleepers in London come from a background of local authority care and they have set aside money for personal advisers to support young people leaving care who are at risk of rough sleeping and homelessness so that they do not arrive at that stage. But recent reports have highlighted that local authorities are under such pressure that too often young people leaving care are placed in supported accommodation that is often anything but that. Can the Minister tell the House how effective the Government’s strategy has been so far in reducing the percentage of rough sleepers who come from a background of local authority care?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-09-06
Topic: International Affairs
Ruth Deech (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, this is a straightforward technical amendment to plug a gap which I noticed as soon as the Bill was published; indeed, I referred to it in my speech on it. As we know, the Bill mandates the Prime Minister to seek an extension to the withdrawal date provided for in Article 50 in the form of the letter in the Schedule. It goes beyond the earlier withdrawal Bill, known as the Cooper-Letwin Bill, of April. That Bill required the Prime Minister of the day to seek, but not necessarily to achieve, an agreement about extension. Mrs May could have picked up the phone, asked Monsieur Barnier for an extension and then said that on reflection she did not want it. Of course, that is not what happened That loophole is closed by the Bill in Clause 3(1) to (3). Subsection (1) says that, if the European Council agrees an extension to 31 January 2020, the Prime Minister "must, immediately" agree to the proposed extension, without qualification or consultation. But subsection (2) says that if "a date other than" 31 January is offered, the Prime Minister may not have to agree; subsection (3) says that if the Commons decided to disapprove the extension offer, the UK does not have to agree it I do not know why the two are treated differently. I note that the Commons is given this opportunity to consider the offer if an extension is granted that is not 31 January; it could be 30 January, or December next. But if the extension is 31 January, this is what might occur. Suppose the European Union agrees to an extension to 31 January but attaches a condition—for example, the holding of a second referendum, a payment of billions, settling issues to do with migration, or even a new Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has to accept it immediately, as set out in line 4 on page 3—no consultation, no Commons approval, unlike the provision in subsection (2). My amendment adds to the arrangement contemplated in subsection (1) the same requirement that the Commons should have two days to consider and accept or reject any condition attached. That must be right. I imagine the difference was an oversight, unless the proponents can explain the discrepancy I also note, but have not attempted to amend, a difficulty with the meaning of "two days" in subsection (2) and "two calendar days" in subsection (3). They are different—why? Imagine that the European Union offers an extension which is not to 31 January and that this is offered in early October or during some period when Parliament is not sitting. Is Parliament to be summoned to agree the question, or does "two days" mean two sitting days—indeed "Lords sitting days", whatever they are—as set out in Clause 1? Might Parliament be prorogued to sidestep these time provisions? It is not clear. What is clear is that the Commons should have some power, for two days, to scrutinise and approve any offer of an extension to 31 January in exactly the same way as it is empowered so to do if the date were to be 1 February. That is the purpose of my amendment. I beg to move.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-09-06
Topic: International Affairs
Graham Stirrup (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I rise in the hope that some EU constitutional law expert may assist me. My understanding was that until the end of the Article 50 period we remain a full member of the EU, with all the rights and obligations of such a member except in instances where we have voluntarily decided not to exercise such rights. Therefore, an extension to the Article 50 period would be an extension of our period as a full member of the EU. Any such extension that was offered with some sort of reduction in those rights would therefore seem to be not an extension of the Article 50 period but something else entirely. Have I misunderstood?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-09-06
Topic: International Affairs
Patrick Lawrence (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I support the noble Baroness’s amendment. She is clearly right, and I hope that will be accepted around the House. The drafting of the Bill treats the European Council’s response to the request for an extension as if it might take one of two forms, but in fact the position is not binary; there are three possibilities The first is that the Council will unconditionally agree to the extension. In that case, pursuant to the Bill, the Prime Minister is bound to accept that. The second possibility, which is different, is that the Council might agree to the extension until the end of January, subject to conditions that may or may not be acceptable to the Government and the people. That is not an unconditional agreement; it is a counter-offer. As a matter of law, a counter-offer destroys the initial offer, which no longer remains open for acceptance, and is a new offer that can either be accepted or not. It is that possibility which has been overlooked by the Bill as presently drafted. That is why the noble Baroness’s amendment is plainly right The third possibility is that the Council will make a different type of counter-offer, which is to propose an extension that ends on a different date. That is a separate type of counter-offer, and that, as the Bill is presently drafted, triggers the provision in subsection (3). The noble Baroness’s point, as I understand it, is that the second type of counter-offer should also fall under the scope of subsection (3). She is plainly correct.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-09-06
Topic: International Affairs
John Kerr (Crossbench, Unknown): I had not intended to follow my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup’s remarks because he included in them an invitation to some EU constitutional experts. I absolutely do not aspire to the status of an EU constitutional expert, but what he said was absolutely correct. There are two possible statuses: one is the that of a member of the European Union, the other that of a former member. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is absolutely right that there is no provision in Article 50 for qualitative conditions on an extension. Temporal conditions—the length of the extension—are possible. That is what we are talking about The point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, about the European Council decision refers to the treaty rights and responsibilities of a member, one of which is the duty of loyal co-operation. That is set out in the treaty. It would not be possible to withdraw treaty rights by European Council decision. The only way to change treaty rights is by amending the treaty, which requires unanimity, and while we are members we would presumably not vote to limit our treaty rights The language in the decision referred to by the noble Baroness relates to the contingency, which sadly has now arisen, that the United Kingdom is not present and voting in all committees and regulatory organisations of the European Union. The United Kingdom has voluntarily decided not to exercise some of its treaty rights. Some of these organisations operate by unanimity. If there is an empty chair there and we are a full member with full voting rights that we have not exercised, decision-taking machinery among the European Union—of which we are a member—being exercised by only the 27 could grind to a halt. That is why that language is in the European Council decision. That is why our Government, though in my view quite wrongly, has decided to operate an empty-chair policy in certain parts of the European Union organisation. They have agreed that the Finnish presidency shall exercise our voting rights as though we were there so that unanimity, where it is necessary for a decision to keep the business going, can still be reached. That is the purpose of the language of the European Council’s decision The key point is that paragraph 3 of Article 50 is about only temporal extensions. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for whom I have huge admiration—of course, she is a lawyer and I am not—that I believe it is not possible to set conditions to the extension of time under Article 50. I therefore say to her and to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, that both amendments are unnecessary and should not be pressed.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-09-06
Topic: International Affairs
John Kerr (Crossbench, Unknown): That is absolutely out of the question. The treaty language, including in Article 50, is absolutely clear that it is for the member state to proceed under its own constitutional procedures. That is specifically spelled out, including in Article 50. The idea that the European Union would interfere in our domestic decision-taking constitutional arrangements is out of the question.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-09-06
Topic: International Affairs
Patrick Lawrence (Crossbench, Unknown): Perhaps I may assist the House by addressing this point, which arises out of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. He indeed drafted Article 50. It is drafted in terms that do not expressly confer a right to withdraw an Article 50 notification. However, according to his views, it has now been held that such an entitlement impliedly exists. It is not difficult to argue for an implication that it is legitimate for the European Council to seek to impose conditions to our request for yet another extension, which is a request for an indulgence. Can the noble and learned Lord assist on that?
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-09-06
Topic: International Affairs
John Kerr (Crossbench, Unknown): I do not think it is for me to comment on discussions in the European Council. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I do not know what happened when President Macron argued for a shorter extension at the last European Council. It is perfectly possible that dialogue with the British Prime Minister might take place, but what is not possible is that there could be a conditional extension. The extension would be unconditional because that is what the treaty says, or rather the treaty contains no powers for imposing a conditional extension.