argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Israel: United States Diplomatic Representation — House of Lords, 2017-12-07
Topic: International Affairs
Raymond Collins (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question. Through this act, Donald Trump has abandoned America’s role as a peace-broker between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, and done serious damage to his country’s relationships with other regional powers. I therefore welcome the Government’s Statement and the convening of the United Nations Security Council tomorrow. Alistair Burt said in the other House that all the Government’s efforts were to support the move towards statehood for the Palestinians. He also said that this unilateral act would lead to a new role for others to play. Just what steps are the Government taking to work immediately with our other allies to try to fill the mediation role which the United States has now deserted?
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-31
Topic: Government Operations
William David McKenzie (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, when we debated in Committee an amendment to Clause 14 requiring a more extensive parliamentary process for the dissolution of the SFGB than that set out in the Bill, the Minister promised to reflect on the matter. This she has done and we are grateful for that As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee set out in its first report of Session 2017-19, under the Bill as drafted the Minister does not have to be satisfied as to anything before deciding to abolish the body, does not have to consult, does not have to conduct a formal review and does not have to wait a certain time to see whether the new body is working well before deciding to abolish it. Each of those deficiencies appears to have been taken into account in the government amendments. Amendment 39 enables the super-affirmative process to be applied if either House or a relevant committee of either House so determines, and the process is reflected in the detail of the amendment. This requires that the Secretary of State must have regard to the representations received and any recommendations of either House or of a relevant committee. Effectively this means that Parliament can directly influence the terms of the regulations We should note that the provisions of Clause 14 have effect not only to dissolve SFGB but to determine where and to whom its functions are to be transferred We can support the amendments and I thank the Minister again for addressing the concerns which have been raised.
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-31
Topic: Social Welfare
William David McKenzie (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. If I understand the points he made it looks as though this will be another issue for us to consider on Third Reading, so I do not propose to dwell on it extensively. If that is not the case it will be good if the Minister tells us. The thrust of the amendment is to try to get interim rules in place to put a cap on the charges levied, particularly relating to PPI as the ability to claim is coming to the end of its natural life. The noble Lord raised an interesting point on what the remedy would be when people exceed the cap. Will the Minister confirm that the route would be that the excess is recoverable by the claimant, rather than some other more direct remedy? I look forward to his reply.
Universal Credit — House of Lords, 2017-11-23
Topic: Social Welfare
James Donnelly Touhig (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Minister will remember the comments made last week by my noble friend Lord Low of Dalston and myself about the impact of universal credit on people with disabilities and autism. I am sure she will be familiar with it because I have also tabled some Questions. Can we live in hope that there will now be something positive to benefit people with disabilities and autism, because we certainly have not heard anything in the Statement today?
Randox and Trimega Laboratories — House of Lords, 2017-11-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for repeating the response to the Urgent Question in the other place. Perhaps she can explain, when she comes to respond, why the Police Minister chose originally to make his announcement in a Written Statement on 21 November, and why it has taken an Urgent Question to get an Oral Statement from him. One would have thought that what we are hearing about was sufficiently serious to justify the Minister in the Commons coming to the Dispatch Box without being summoned there through an Urgent Question Regrettably, the 2010 Government abolished the Forensic Science Service. Perhaps this is one of the chickens coming home to roost as a result. Randox Testing Services, one of the companies involved, has been quoted as saying: "We are now well advanced in developing a foolproof testing system which would enhance the security of our operations in the future, to provide the necessary level of confidence" Surely a fool-proof testing system being in place would have been part of the terms of its contract to do this work. Will the Minister confirm that that really is not the case, as the statement from the company seems to imply Randox has also said that it will be paying the cost of retesting. What about the cost of the police investigations that have been taking place for some time, of the local authority investigations referred to in the Statement and of the costs of obtaining legal advice? Who is going to be paying these? Is it the company, the police, local authorities or the individuals affected? The Police Minister’s Written Statement of 21 November said, in relation to the other company, Trimega—which is now part of Randox: "The number of Trimega’s customers affected … is unknown. It may never be possible to identify them all, due to poor record-keeping practices" Is Trimega in breach of its contract, as a result of having poor record-keeping practices? If so, what are the potential penalties Finally, the information that has been given indicates that most drug tests from the current company, Randox Testing Services, between 2013 and 2017 are being treated as potentially unreliable. Will Parliament be told of the extent to which such drug tests—and those done by Trimega in the years before 2013—are found to have been unreliable and the precise impact this has had on individuals? That is the least that the Police Minister now owes Parliament.
Industrial Strategy — House of Lords, 2017-11-27
Topic: Labor
Tessa Blackstone (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, can the Minister address the question of skills? There is very little in the Statement about the urgent need for more skills training. I am sure he will agree that we will not achieve greater productivity, or be able to implement this industrial strategy, unless we can greatly improve the level of skills among the workforce. That is particularly the case in construction, where Brexit will certainly be damaging. We will have fewer European workers able to operate in this field in the UK, or indeed be likely to be willing to do so. We need some realisable targets, to use the expression of my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, for skills. We also need a timetable, and some urgency should be attached to this. Unless that happens, all the Minister’s brave words about the desirability of an industrial strategy in the areas he has identified are unlikely to be implemented; nor will we address the housing crisis or achieve the investment in infrastructure that he has just referred to.
Industrial Strategy — House of Lords, 2017-11-27
Topic: Education
David Blunkett (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests related to education, skills and employment. I welcome this substantive document, not least because Friedrich von Hayek will be turning in his grave due to government being part of the solution, rather than always being the problem Will the Minister be willing to have a word with his opposite numbers in the Department for Education? Following on from my noble friend’s question, I am deeply concerned about the capacity to meet the apprenticeships and skills challenge and to provide the wherewithal to match the desirable input into employment. Because he is new to his post the Minister will not know that, following the Green Paper and a meeting earlier this year of representatives of all the major infrastructure projects, the decision was taken to make a joint submission drawing attention to the need to map where skill shortages will occur and how they could be met by putting forward passportable skills, and to ensure we draw people back into the labour market. Will he ask his ministerial friends in the Department for Education to kindly invite representatives of those major infrastructure projects to what is being described as a skills summit on Thursday, so we can get it right for the future?
Industrial Strategy — House of Lords, 2017-11-27
Topic: Labor
David Edward Lea (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the Minister has just made a very interesting point about the interaction between employment levels and productivity levels. In a static world, you could have more employment, very low levels of pay and very low levels of productivity. In a macroeconomic sense, the measure of productivity is simply the output of the economy divided by the number of people at work. Within the firm, how—unless I have missed something—are the Government proposing to engage workers’ representatives in improving their world market share? There are targets—such an unfashionable word now, it is almost the same as saying Gosplan—but are we not missing out on some notion that we have to raise our sights in terms of targets for world market share and targets within the firm? The only targets there seem to be in the firm at the moment are to increase the share price and the distance between the board of directors and the average worker. Will the Minister say a little more about how he sees improved consultation and decision-making and joint work between the management, senior boards and shop-floor workers, whether in manufacturing, services or any other part of the economy?
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Public Health Functions) Order 2017 — House of Lords, 2017-11-07
Topic: Environment
Philip Alexander Hunt (Labour, Centre-left): After the Strathclyde case and the ruling from Lord Jauncey, the then Conservative Government took legislation through both Houses of Parliament to make sure that fluoridation was legal and above board. That was based on evidence that has not been undermined since.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Public Health Functions) Order 2017 — House of Lords, 2017-11-07
Topic: Environment
Philip Alexander Hunt (Labour, Centre-left): I am sorry to intervene again but I have just reflected on what the noble Lord said about fluoridation. He seemed to say that he was not prepared to come down on either side. That sounds to me like a new statement of government policy, as traditionally government has been in favour of fluoridation.
Charitable Incorporated Organisations (Consequential Amendments) Order 2017 — House of Lords, 2017-11-07
Topic: Government Operations
Robert Stevenson (Labour, Centre-left): Indeed—my final point was to be that we have something waiting in the wings which presumably is the answer and I thank the noble Lord for raising it. That is my main point and there are two minor points around it. The first concerns paragraph 8.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which suggests that minor amendments were made as a result of the consultation, which I felt was well handled. Only one is given, which is that this order does not include, "the requirement for charitable companies to have filed their most recent accounts or reports with Companies House before an application is granted" On the other hand, it states: "We will retain the requirement to refuse an application if a charity is in default" This seems to me to be the same thing. Has the Minister any light to throw on it? If a charity has not completed its formal registration, then it will be in default, so I do not know what this adds. I may be misreading it; if so, I will be grateful to be corrected on it Finally, those who have followed my long and extensive career in quizzing statutory instruments will know that I am fixated on dates. The date for the introduction of this does not fall within the common commencement dates. I accept that this does not affect business, so it is not necessarily caught by that, but to choose 1 January, a public holiday, for implementation seems a little perverse and I would be grateful for any comments.
Brexit: Sectoral Impact Assessments — House of Lords, 2017-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Dianne Hayter (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for repeating the reply, although I regret its content. Not only could we not get the Written Statement except by getting it off Twitter—it does not seem to be on the website—there is also the creation of a new excuse for the non-immediate release, which of course runs counter to the Commons Motion I would make one point in answer to aspersions made in the other House, although I do not think the Minister was in any way party to this. The question was asked of my side, "Whose side are you on?", implying that asking for information was somehow unpatriotic. I say to this House that it is because we are patriots that we need the information, to get as good a deal as possible from Brexit Has the Minister yet arranged to meet the noble Lord, Lord Jay, the chair of our EU Committee, as he indicated he would in his Answer to me on 2 November? Given the importance of parity of treatment between the two Houses, which is particularly relevant as we handle this most complicated of legislative, political and diplomatic tasks, can the Minister confirm that our EU Committee will receive the same information, on the same terms and at the same time, as the Commons Brexit Committee?
Brexit: Sectoral Impact Assessments — House of Lords, 2017-11-07
Topic: Government Operations
Elizabeth Andrews (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, while it is reassuring that this information has finally been wrung out of the Government, if there was confusion it was on the part of the Government over their terminology. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that when analyses of impacts are indeed available—he seems to be suggesting that what we have here instead is 18 months of information-gathering—they will be presented to the House, without reluctance?
Counter-Daesh Update — House of Lords, 2017-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
John Reid (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am sure that on the sad and sensitive case that has been mentioned the Foreign Secretary would benefit from the Minister’s wisdom. The Foreign Secretary today admitted that, in his testimony to the Foreign Affairs Committee on Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, his remarks "could have been clearer". We may think that is rather a generous interpretation and description of his testimony. However, leaving that aside, can the Minister explain why the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having said that today, refused either to apologise or, more importantly, to accept the invitation extended to him in the House by a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mike Gapes, to write and correct his transcript if he had misspoken. We know that we can all misspeak in front of committees and elsewhere. However, the opportunity is there to change that record by correction. He was given the invitation today and I do not understand why he did not accept it. Can the Minister impress this upon him? If he leaves it uncorrected through his own free will, he will compound the initial problem. It may well be, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, that it cannot be changed now in consequence, but at least it can be changed on the record. The wisdom of the Minister would be useful in speaking to the Foreign Secretary on this matter.
Counter-Daesh Update — House of Lords, 2017-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Elizabeth Conway Symons (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, the noble Earl has been kind enough to say that he will take back to the Foreign Secretary the remarks of my noble friend Lord Reid concerning the case of Mrs Nazanin Ratcliffe. However, the Foreign Secretary says in this Statement that he is concerned at the suggestion that his remarks "had some bearing" on Mrs Ratcliffe’s case. I put it to the Minister that of course they had some bearing on her case because he specifically mentioned her. That is the whole point. It is not that there was just an interpretation; he drew very specific attention to her. To pass it over by saying that somehow, it has been interpreted as having some bearing is—if I may say so to the noble Earl, for whom I have the greatest respect—verging on the disingenuous It is perfectly clear that the Foreign Secretary must write to the Select Committee with an apology for mis-speaking. It is the very least he can do following what he said and what has happened, and I hope he will do so with the full support of this whole House. He accepts that his remarks could have been made clearer, but he makes no apology for the fact that they should and could have been made clearer. I hope that any letter he sends to the Select Committee will not only contain an apology, but make it completely clear that he was wrong in what he said. Even the Foreign Secretary—important as he is and highly as he is regarded by many people—will have to face the consequences of what he said.
Israel: DfID Secretary of State Meetings — House of Lords, 2017-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
George Robertson (Labour, Centre-left): We have the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs telling a Select Committee of the House something that was not correct, and now we have another Secretary of State—for International Development—telling the press and the world that she had told the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in advance of her visit, then saying that she did not do it. What do you have to do in this Government to get sacked?
Yemen — House of Lords, 2017-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Raymond Collins (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I welcome the repeat of the Statement. Everyone would agree that the Houthi missile strike was totally unacceptable, but we also now face a blockade affecting hundreds of thousands of people. Some 800,000 people now suffer from cholera in Yemen. It is the biggest humanitarian crisis we face. Does the Minister agree that the blockade is unlawful and that it is some form of collective punishment against innocent people? In these circumstances, will the Government reconsider their position of arms sales to the Saudis until this matter is brought to a peaceful conclusion?
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-21
Topic: Labor
William David McKenzie (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I will say just a few words. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for her kind words. We are grateful again for the open-minded manner in which she and her co-pilot, the noble Lord, Lord Young, have approached the Bill. I never had the opportunity to ask him whether Luton Airport was on the flight path, but I will try to on a future occasion Invariably it is said at the end of a Bill process that the House of Lords has improved the Bill from its starting point. While tenuous in some instances, it is definitely true with this Bill. Support across the Chamber has enabled the framework for a debt respite scheme; consumer protection on cold calling; strengthening access to information and guidance on accessing pensions; a duty of care on setting standards; requiring that pensions guidance functions are provided freely and impartially; strengthening offences of mimicking; as well as securing the dashboard. These changes have come about because, broadly, we have had a shared analysis of what the Bill could achieve; a shared analysis with the Lib Dems and Cross-Benchers as well as with the Government, including the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann We are very grateful for the proactive approach of the Bill team, which went above and beyond in trying to fit our amendments into the confines of the scope of the Bill. I do not know how many variations of the debt respite provisions the team had to cope with, but there were many. I offer my thanks to the Lib Dems for their joint working on some key areas, among them the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Kirkwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer Finally, I thank my colleagues, my noble friend Lady Drake, our pensions supremo who unfortunately is not in her place today, and of course my noble friend Lord Stevenson for his experience and passion on matters of the debt space. It has made my role a good deal easier.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-21
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher Lennie (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I say for the record and from the outset, and for the avoidance of any doubt in the mind of the Minister, that we on this side of the House recognise the importance of such a Bill coming into being. We are leaving the EU. The Government’s position is that EU jurisprudence will no longer apply and therefore the Bill becomes an imperative. That is not the same thing as saying that everything in the Bill is rosy and we support it all, and that is why we are here. We strongly support the case made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover This amendment is the starting point of the Bill: it concerns the power for a Minister to act. Should it be when the Minister considers it appropriate or should it be when it is provably necessary to do so? One is an opinion, the other an evidential absolute. Does it weaken the Government’s position? No, it makes it more robust to have "necessary" replacing "appropriate". Will it inhibit the Government? No, it will make for greater certainty as other clauses in the Bill are debated. Does it strengthen the Bill? We believe that it does: it will become more bullet-proof and less able to be challenged On Friday, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the Delegated Powers Committee considered this and concluded: "In the light of the width and significance of the powers, we take the view that the Minister should only have power to make sanctions regulations if doing so is considered ‘necessary’ to achieve the purpose" That is where this amendment ends. Does the Minister accept this? Will he reflect on this and come back on this point?