argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-18
Topic: Other
Peter Lilley (Conservative, Centre-right): The point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and others is that we should not leave that process to Ministers. The noble Baroness seems to be saying that our doing so in the past was jolly good because they defended our interests.
Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-18
Topic: Other
Michael Bates (Conservative, Centre-right): I know the noble Baroness is seeking to make a point, but the Treasury does have a representative in your Lordships’ House. I know the noble Lord, Lord Deben, thinks, with the Chief Whip present, that I will be here today, gone tomorrow. That may well be the case.
Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-18
Topic: Other
Michael Bates (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord did ask me to assure that that will apply, and I am happy to do so. With those assurances, and conscious that we will touch on many of these matters again later in the evening, I beg to move.
Official Listing of Securities, Prospectus and Transparency (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-18
Topic: Other
Euan Michael Ross Geddes (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I say that the Motion before the House is that these draft regulations, laid before the House on 21 January, be approved. The Question is that this Motion be agreed to Amendment to the Motion
Official Listing of Securities, Prospectus and Transparency (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-18
Topic: Domestic Commerce
James Bridges (Conservative, Centre-right): I should declare an interest as I am an adviser to Banco Santander and take considerable interest in these matters. Is the noble Lord saying that the finance industry, including UK finance, agrees with him that there has been no consultation whatever?
Official Listing of Securities, Prospectus and Transparency (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-18
Topic: Domestic Commerce
James Bridges (Conservative, Centre-right): I had not had direct contract with the Government on these matters. However, I shall read to the noble Lord a newsletter that has just come into my inbox from the CEO of UK Finance: "We are working closely with members and partners with regard to onshoring, to emphasise continuity with EU law and to avoid sudden and unpredictable legal changes in the UK in light of a ‘no-deal’ outcome. We have to date assessed close to 40 legal instruments relating directly to financial services which have been published and/or laid in Parliament, with a handful more to come. We have also responded to a number of onshoring relating consultations issued by the Financial Conduct Authority … and the Bank of England"— a point that I am sure the noble Lord will have heard Sam Woods make to the Select Committee in the other place last month. Therefore, what precisely does he mean when he says "no consultation"? Does he mean "no consultation" or "extensive engagement"?
Official Listing of Securities, Prospectus and Transparency (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-18
Topic: Domestic Commerce
James Bridges (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord needs to be very clear, because that paragraph then goes on to say that the Treasury, "has engaged with relevant stakeholders on its approach to financial services legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, including on this instrument, in order to familiarise them with the legislation ahead of laying" Therefore, there has been extensive engagement. Perhaps the noble Lord would be very precise on this matter.
Official Listing of Securities, Prospectus and Transparency (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Bridges (Conservative, Centre-right): I am making the point that the noble Lord’s amendment—I am obsessive about these things—includes the words "no consultation". This House should be absolutely aware that there has been plenty of engagement. I am sure that if he were to write to UK Finance and others, he would find out more. I totally accept the point that several on the Liberal Democrat Benches have made about the inadequacy of some of the processes. I was fully aware of that when we started and that point was well made. However, it is very important that when we have these debates we are very accurate. As far as I understand it—I have not been directly involved in this matter at all myself—there has been quite extensive engagement, so I would like the noble Lord to make that clear to the House.
Official Listing of Securities, Prospectus and Transparency (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-18
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Howard Leigh (Conservative, Centre-right): I very much agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. His remarks were spot on. This has been around for some time, everyone in the industry is adamant that it is necessary for ongoing financial services success, and there is no quibble about its importance. The only quibble that I might have with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—who has explained that he is not a financial services expert—is about what he was focusing on in note 10: the underestimate of 2,113 firms having to bear the cost of £700 each. Of course, the £700 is calculated assuming that firms will use lawyers at £330 an hour in each and every case. I can assure noble Lords that my firm, for one, will not be.
Official Listing of Securities, Prospectus and Transparency (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-18
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Michael Bates (Conservative, Centre-right): This is a separate debate. The noble Lord is moving his amendment, expressing regret from your Lordships’ House that there has been no consultation with industry on this measure. That is what his amendment says, as my noble friend Lord Bridges pointed out. I am not trying to raise the temperature to the same level as perhaps existed earlier in the Chamber; I am trying to maintain it at a level where we are focusing on the legitimate scrutiny which the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, are applying to this process. My noble friend Lord Bridges talked about UK Finance; I was about to quote TheCityUK.
Benchmarks (Amendment and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Peter Hymers Mackay (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I have a great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, as I heard him many times answering questions as a Minister. The answers were always clear and a full answer to what he was asked. I also remember his difficult time as a Minister of State in the Department for Education, struggling with the impediments being placed to the implementation of his policy by judicial reviews, which he described in one of his books. But I have listened to a good number of these debates we have been having recently, and I regret to say that I cannot agree with the way in which he approaches this matter. I think that this is all part of the decision to leave the EU that the electorate took, advising Parliament that they wished that to happen Industry generally, and the financial industry in particular, is well aware of the situations that may arise as a result of that. Therefore, I would expect representatives to get in touch with the Treasury, for example, if they had any concerns in relation to these instruments. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has had any communication from any financial services people as to whether or not they would like him to succeed in his amendment to decline to approve these regulations.
Public Record, Disclosure of Information and Co-operation (Financial Services) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-02-18
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Michael Bates (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, as a great deal of financial services activity takes place across borders and across regulatory regimes, the ability of national regulators to co-operate with each other and to exchange information is vital if they are to discharge their supervisory functions effectively. As noble Lords will know, an important function performed by financial services regulators is the gathering of supervisory information from firms. Regulators use this information so they can ensure that regulated firms are operating in a way consistent with regulatory requirements so that they are alerted to any development that may need supervisory intervention. The information gathered by regulators is often confidential and commercially or market-sensitive, so it is right that there are strict rules and safeguards on how regulators share such information with other regulatory authorities. EU law currently plays an important role in setting these rules. In order to ensure the effective functioning of the single market in financial services, the EU has developed a joint supervisory framework for national regulators and supervisory bodies in the EEA. This makes co-operation and the sharing of certain supervisory information between EEA national regulators mandatory. In addition to that, the EU has established the European supervisory authorities—ESAs—which are responsible for co-ordinating the approach of EEA national regulators. Co-operation and the sharing of certain information with the ESAs is also mandatory for EEA national regulators As well as setting out what information should be shared, EU rules include restrictions and safeguards. In the UK, these rules are implemented by Part 23 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000—or FiSMA, as it is known—and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disclosure of Confidential Information) Regulations 2001. For third-country authorities, there are additional restrictions when disclosing confidential information. The UK regulator may need to be satisfied that the third-country authority has protections for confidential information in place that are equivalent to those of the EU. There may also be a requirement to enter into a co-operation agreement with the third-country authority. In addition, if the UK regulator is disclosing confidential information to a third-country authority which originated from an EEA authority, the UK regulator may need to seek the consent of the EEA regulator which originally disclosed the confidential information.
Personal Statement — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Other
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to make a short statement to correct something I said in closing last night’s debate. I attributed to my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean some comments which were in fact made by my noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick. I have apologised to my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, and I am grateful for the opportunity to correct the record.
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Other
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): I am obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her observations. I, too, extend my thanks to all who were engaged in bringing this Bill to fruition. I thank in particular the Bill team, which did so much work to ensure that the passage of this Bill was as simple and swift as we would all wish.
Tenant Fees Bill — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Housing
John Taylor (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Tenant Fees Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill Clause 11: Interest on payments under section 10 Amendment 1
Tenant Fees Bill — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Housing
Nicholas Bourne (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 1 and 2 in my name. They are minor and technical, and consequential to an amendment we agreed on Report that would require landlords and agents to be up front about why they are retaining a holding deposit. Amendments 1 and 2 to Clause 11(3)(c) specify the day on which interest is to be payable where reasons for retaining the holding deposit have not been provided within the required period, and the holding deposit needs to be repaid. This date is the day after the end of the relevant period. I beg to move.
Tenant Fees Bill — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Other
Nicholas Bourne (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions concerning these amendments. I will say more at the final stage of the Bill—the passage, I hope—about the points the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, raised, but I thank her very much indeed. As always, I thank the most reverend Primate very much indeed for his positive contributions and engagement, and his most kind comments. He is extremely gracious. As always, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asks a question that goes straight for the middle stump. I will write to him, if I may, on that issue because I do not want to mislead him.
Tenant Fees Bill — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Other
Nicholas Bourne (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I now have the answer, and it is "any day". I am very grateful to the noble Lord for coming back on the issue, which gave me the opportunity to get expert advice on it. I hope he is content with that. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his contribution.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Other
Edward Garnier (Conservative, Centre-right): Before my noble friend sits down, I caution that sometimes lists can become exclusive and that some good things are easier to recognise than to define. He ought to stick to the way the Bill is currently drafted and allow himself the freedom to consider rather more carefully, despite the charming way in which the noble Baroness has advanced her case.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Immigration
Mark Schreiber (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, this Bill was intended to do everything necessary at present to counter terrorism and protect our borders. It does not. I have made repeated attempts to persuade the Government to evaluate—just evaluate—the need for a secure personal identity number system, with biometrics held on a secure central database with which the biometrics of any UK citizen could be compared online by those authorised to do so. The Home Office has refused point blank to even consider this suggestion. This is inexcusable. I recognise that the default position of the Home Office has long been to ignore, reject or oppose external suggestions for changing its procedures, practices or policies, but that is not a satisfactory situation. That it may get away with such behaviour can of course be a reflection on the effectiveness of Ministers, some of whom are coaxed into being mere parrots of Home Office views. I suspect that a rule of the department is, whenever necessary, to remind Ministers "Theirs not to reason why". On border control, I will make three points. First, the list published in Hansard, in response to Written Questions I have put down periodically since 2012, of Home Office immigration officials who have been sentenced to often long periods of imprisonment, up to eight or nine years, for misconduct in public office—that is what Hansard describes their offence as being, in most cases—now includes over 50 such cases. This is a disgrace which should have been tackled long ago. All that has happened is that the Home Office has now decided to withhold the names of those who, in open court, have been so convicted, apparently on the grounds that it infringes their privacy or human rights. Secondly, there is still no record, for online access at entry and departure points, of other passports held by UK passport holders. Thirdly, the Home Office seems to have been caught by surprise, with the Home Secretary having had to hurry back from holiday, by the sudden increase in the number of illegal immigrants who have sought to travel to the UK across the Channel in small boats. This was both predictable and predicted, and it can be expected to increase greatly next summer unless effective action is taken to halt it Perhaps I could end by quoting Sherlock Holmes: "From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of … a Niagara" I am afraid there is a shortage of logicians in the Home Office.
Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peta Buscombe (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, it is interesting that the noble Lord has taken one quote from one article on this. Certainly, our understanding from our discussions with industry is that because this focuses on cross-border activity, it is up to the industry to decide whether to do something different if we leave the EU with no deal. Our focus has to be on the resulting associated costs to all parties involved—for example, extra resources invested in trying to clarify the situation: in other words, certainty of the law post exit from the European Union Our focus is on what happens if there is no deal. Should different companies in the pensions industry choose to do something different post exit, there may of course be other impacts on business, but certainly in our discussions with business, that was not the impression we received.
Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Other
Peta Buscombe (Conservative, Centre-right): When have I made the assertion that we do not need to take time on them? We have spent an enormous amount of time in the department ensuring that what we carry out in relation to these SIs is detailed and careful, to the best of our ability.
Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Other
John Gummer (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I invite the noble Lord to give way, because it gives me the opportunity to say that I think my noble friend the Minister will now understand that when I said that if one looks as if one is hiding something, I did not refer to her at all. I referred to a very long experience of exactly what the noble Lord refers to: a refusal to consult the very people who could have made sure that the SI was correct. In the case we talked about yesterday, it seems to me that the Government are very likely to have to withdraw that SI and then replace it, as they did with this SI. I did not think it was unreasonable to point that out.
Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Other
Peta Buscombe (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord has clarified the situation, in that the Act came in some time after his then party came into power and the consultation took place prior to the general election that brought it into power.
Services of Lawyers and Lawyer’s Practice (Revocation etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sorry to belabour the point, but I am slightly confused about why we are being so nice and kind to EU lawyers—the non-British lawyers who are working here—and we not seeking to protect the rights of British lawyers who are working in Brussels, Denmark, Sweden and other EU countries. Are we not trying to be reciprocal now?
Services of Lawyers and Lawyer’s Practice (Revocation etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord is quite right: he was not here when I began. I said that with regard to Scotland, this is a devolved issue and the Scottish Government are addressing that matter. However, in taking forward negotiations with regard to reciprocal rights in the future, we would have in mind the interests of all lawyers within the United Kingdom, wherever they qualified. But for the purposes of determining the rights of registered European lawyers in the United Kingdom, we will deal with it by way of this instrument for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland, and the Scottish Government are undertaking to address it in the context of that jurisdiction. That is where we stand. As the noble Lord is aware, this is a devolved competence.
Services of Lawyers and Lawyer’s Practice (Revocation etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes, I am most obliged to the noble Lord. Registered foreign lawyers are those lawyers of third-party countries who are registered in the United Kingdom. We have lawyers from many jurisdictions—for example, the United States of America—who practise under their foreign lawyer qualification in the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord will appreciate, London is an international legal centre as well as an international finance centre. This instrument has no impact at all on those foreign lawyers but it aligns registered European lawyers with registered foreign lawyers for the reasons that I have indicated.
Services of Lawyers and Lawyer’s Practice (Revocation etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): By definition, this instrument is to be of a limited duration. Is it temporary or is it of unlimited duration? I understood my noble and learned friend to say in response to my questions that this could well be overtaken by events at such time as we have a negotiated withdrawal agreement. At what stage will the negotiations be expected to start to make sure that British-qualified EU lawyers practising in other member states will be aligned with those EU qualified non-British lawyers who are practising in this country? I understood my noble and learned friend to say that we are going to have two categories of European-qualified lawyers as of 29 March. There will be those non-British EU-qualified lawyers who are qualified to practise in this country, who will continue after 29 March. But there will be those like me—clearly, I am non-practising now—who will not be able to practise in another EU country post 29 March. For the avoidance of doubt, for a newly qualified European lawyer coming through in this country, is it understood that our qualifications, whether as a Scottish advocate or solicitor or as an English barrister or solicitor, will be recognised in other EU countries as entitling that person to qualify in European law in those countries, or will they have to go through, for example, a Danish jurisdiction, an Irish jurisdiction or a Belgian jurisdiction should they wish to practise in that particular member state?
Services of Lawyers and Lawyer’s Practice (Revocation etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-01-15
Topic: Immigration
Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sorry to persist, but could my noble friend answer my second point? After 29 March, will the qualification of anybody who is newly qualified under United Kingdom jurisdiction be recognised to enable them to practise automatically in another EU country, or will they have to requalify in that country on 30 March?