argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Criminal Finances Bill — House of Lords, 2017-04-25
Topic: Mixed Topics
Edward Faulks (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend and all noble Lords who spoke in this debate, and to the Minister for her response. It is a pity that the Government did not respond to these amendments in Committee. They have received support today and the code of practice does not seem to me to deal with them. On the simple question of purporting to comply, a number of speakers have said that one either complies or does not, and I say with respect that I fail to understand the response to those points. I think it was said that, even if there were purported compliance and not much information was obtained, it would still be technically successful as a UWO. That sounds very much like saying that the operation was a great success but the patient died. However, my noble friend the Minister seems convinced that this is sufficient and I bear in mind the fact that the agencies have no doubt had input into the provisions contained in the Bill Likewise, I am disappointed that there is no provision for a requirement to give evidence on oath. The mere existence of that power is likely to inhibit those who might otherwise wish to mislead the court. Of course, if they then came to give evidence, quite apart from the question of contempt of court, they could be prosecuted for perjury. That might give some more teeth to these provisions. I am, however, reassured that it will still be possible to feed some of these ideas into an improved code of practice, and I hope that these debates may have affected the minds of those who seek to improve that code of practice On the question of the London property market, I am afraid that I am still in the dark about the envelope tax. The existence of that tax does not seem to be consistent with the overall thrust behind the Bill. Its continued existence is an embarrassment, frankly, to the Government—but there it is. As to the amendment in relation to London property, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested that I had been a little timid in respect of that amendment. In some ways she is right, but the attempt was to tie it specifically to the register that we were told was to come into existence. My noble and learned friend was quite right about the date of commencement—but, for reasons that will be apparent, I do not think that we need to trouble ourselves too much with that As my noble friend the Minister quite rightly said, the position is that we are against a time limit. It is important that the Bill becomes law, and any attempt to prevent that would not be helpful since there is all-party support for this. It is very much a step in the right direction and I do not wish to spoil the party. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Criminal Finances Bill — House of Lords, 2017-04-25
Topic: Other
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): As always with Bills such as this, it is what is not in the Bill. Also, sometimes we should have gone further. But we have had a challenge in this Bill and in the main the challenge has been lack of time, not of consensus. I place on record my thanks to the Front Benches—the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Hamwee—and my noble friends behind me, who have kept me on my toes. I thank noble Lords for being so accommodating about having so little time to get through the business of the past 24 hours.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord was talking about logic. Could he tell us exactly—perhaps he will come on to this—what would happen were the vote to go his way on a second referendum? If it went one way each, would there then be a third referendum, with the best of three?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
William Spicer (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, did not ask the question the noble Lord has just said he asked; he asked whether there might be a third referendum. If the noble Lord cannot give an answer to that, why will there not be a fourth referendum to decide which of the previous three referendums was the real thing?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
John Taylor (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord is very courteous. He listens to what I say but chooses to ignore it. I would be grateful if he addressed the subject of the amendment and then let other noble Lords have a say.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Ian Bruce Lang (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am in no doubt that the referendum of 23 June was technically advisory but the Government of the day and the leaders of the campaigns had made it absolutely clear that the Government would implement its findings without qualification. It also featured in the governing party’s manifesto in the last general election.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
John Taylor (Conservative, Centre-right): It may help noble Lords if I explain that we hope to complete this amendment before we adjourn the Report stage for Questions. I hope noble Lords will be able to have some refreshment before 2.30 pm Amendment 2
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
Archibald Gavin Hamilton (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the noble Lord think that Parliament will be happy if they are given the response that, because the quarterly review is coming up and it is two months away, the question cannot be answered today; it will have to be answered in two months’ time when the clock next ticks round?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Civil Rights
James Peter Hymers Mackay (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am sure that the Government share the sentiments expressed from the Front Bench opposite—indeed, from both Front Benches opposite. The proposal would be entirely in the interests of the smooth development of policy in this difficult area, which I am sure we all understand is extremely difficult. The more help the Government can get, the better, and I think that they are sufficiently humble to know that If there were any slackness on the part of the Government, we would have plenty of means in this Parliament for getting them to respond, but I do not agree with putting that into an Act of Parliament, and the reason for that is simple. If something is put into a general Act of Parliament, the idea is that the courts are the enforcers, but one thing that the courts cannot do, in view of the Bill of Rights, is to interfere in proceedings in Parliament. Therefore, this is useless as a formal amendment, but the spirit of it is first-class. I feel almost certain that my noble and learned friend will be able to accept that, because the Minister in the Commons said just as much in a passage that I may refer to later.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, does the noble Lord also agree that there is nothing in this proposed new clause that precludes the approval of both Houses being expressed in an Act of Parliament? If that is correct, the Parliament Act stands behind it.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Michael Bruce Forsyth (Conservative, Centre-right): Can the noble Lord explain? He has repeatedly said that what he has put in his amendment and wants to put in the Bill is no different from what the Prime Minister indicated to the House of Commons. Surely the difference is that the Prime Minister’s undertaking was that there would be a vote in both Houses on the issue of a deal or falling back on WTO. Reading his amendment, his difference is between no deal and what? What happens? Can he explain?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
Michael Bruce Forsyth (Conservative, Centre-right): I shall give way to the noble Lord if he sits down and lets me finish my sentence It is a complete distortion to suggest that the Government are likely to renege on those promises or that the amendments that we are discussing today put on to the statute book exactly what was said by the Prime Minister and the Minister in the House of Commons. They do something completely different.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
Michael Bruce Forsyth (Conservative, Centre-right): I know that the noble Lord is very experienced. If he does not know the difference between a resolution in the House of Commons and putting in statute a power of veto for the House of Lords, I am very surprised to hear him making that point The point about the amendment that we are discussing, Amendment 3, is that it is a wrecking amendment.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
Michael Bruce Forsyth (Conservative, Centre-right): I do realise that. I have the utmost respect for my noble friend, who helped to get me elected in 1983, which may not be one of the most important things on his escutcheon. He has served the party with great distinction. But I have to say to him that it is not the moment for this House to grab the mace and challenge the authority of the House of Commons.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Michael Bruce Forsyth (Conservative, Centre-right): I appreciate that I am in a minority in this House, and not just because I am a Scottish Tory. I am in a minority because I support the views of the majority of people in this country. This House is absolutely full of people who still have not come to terms with the results of the referendum. This is a clever lawyer’s confection in order to reverse that result. That is what we are debating. That is what it is about.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
John Taylor (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sorry; I know that the noble Lord wanted to speak to Amendment 1 and perhaps it is a bit frustrating that he is actually now dealing with Amendment 3, but it is important that he addresses his remarks to Amendment 3, not to Amendment 1, which is a matter this House has already decided.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
John Taylor (Conservative, Centre-right): My noble friend Lord Hailsham is a signatory to this amendment and it is right that the House hear from him. Perhaps we can then hear from the Labour Benches, and then from one of my noble friends on the Conservative Benches.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Nigel Lawson (Conservative, Centre-right): I should like to develop my argument. The real mischief in this proposed new clause lies in subsection (4). As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, effectively conceded, without subsection 4 there is a possible reconciliation with his original thesis, since without subsection (4), Parliament would be faced simply with the decision of whether to approve the agreement that the Government had putatively reached with the European Union. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and one or two others, have already pointed out, the Government have pledged to put this before Parliament when the time comes The Government might, for example, have agreed to pay the Barnier ransom demand which our own European Union Committee has recently confirmed that we are under no legal obligation to pay. In that case, Parliament might have found that unacceptable. However, if, for whatever reason, Parliament refused to approve the agreement that the Government had reached with the EU, that would not prevent Brexit. It would mean simply that we would leave the European Union without an agreement—and, as I explained at Second Reading, that is nothing to be scared of. Far from jumping off a non-existent cliff into the unknown, trading under WTO rules is the very satisfactory basis of most of the trade that we do throughout the world today. I give way.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Daniel Finkelstein (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the noble Baroness accept that the reason the court made that judgment was that both parties had agreed that it was not unilaterally revocable? That is the reason why both parties had to agree, otherwise the court would have ruled differently. It ruled that this was a parliamentary decision of authorisation. That is the reason why it had to come back to Parliament. It would change the law.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
John Taylor (Conservative, Centre-right): I think my noble friend will find that my noble and learned friend has sat down. There will be an opportunity for him to speak, but I indicated earlier that I thought we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, at this stage.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
Nicholas True (Conservative, Centre-right): I was following the noble Lord’s argument, and I agree with it in terms of the imprecision and lack of clarity as to what happens if both Houses disagree. Does he agree that there is a further issue in relation to the different procedures of the two Houses? In the House of Commons, the Government control the agenda. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that what happens in this House will be up to the Government. But am I not right in saying that any noble Lord can put down an amendment at any time to disapprove a resolution and this House will vote on it? Surely there cannot be any circumstances in this House in which the Government control what might constitute approval or disapproval. Is this not a further difficulty with the amendment?
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
John Taylor (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I am sorry, but I did indicate that I was going to call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I am trying to compile a speakers list; I hope your Lordships will understand that that is a reasonable way of carrying on, as so many people have indicated to me that they wish to contribute to this debate.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-07
Topic: Other
John Taylor (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat. Then, unless anybody else wishes to speak, we will move on to the Front Benches to conclude this debate.
Brexit: Acquired Rights (EUC Report) — House of Lords, 2017-07-04
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): I will write to the noble Lord on the absolute detail about whether it could be refused. I am sure there will be circumstances under which it could be refused, and I can imagine the sort of circumstances that we might be talking about. As I have said, we intend settled status to be a very simple process, literally perhaps proving, perhaps with a gas bill or a rental agreement, that you are actually here in the UK. I will write to the noble Lord on the circumstances under which it might be refused I was about to come on to the noble Baroness’s question about the ability of those currently resident in the UK to bring in family members after we leave the EU, such as the elderly member of that family. It is important to note that they will have the opportunity to do so either by applying under post-exit immigration arrangements for EU citizens who arrive after the specified date or by applying under the same rules as those joining British citizens. I hope that answers the question.
Brexit: Acquired Rights (EUC Report) — House of Lords, 2017-07-04
Topic: Immigration
Susan Williams (Conservative, Centre-right): Can I write to the noble Baroness on that as well as I do not want to give her duff information either The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about the income threshold to qualify for settled status. EU nationals will not have to meet the income threshold. Further details on the eligibility criteria will be set out in due course, but the policy document sets out what the essential conditions will be—an applicant who arrived before the cut-off date and has been resident for five years and has had an assessment of conduct and criminality. That goes to my point, which I will clarify with the noble Lord, about refusal of settled status.
Higher Education and Research Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-08
Topic: Other
James Younger (Conservative, Centre-right): I respect the noble Lord’s experience. We have had discussions outside the Chamber about the data aspect and I will be coming on to speak about the data and about how the assessments are made. I would argue that this is not just looking at the high levels—the gold, silver and bronze—
Higher Education and Research Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-08
Topic: Other
James Younger (Conservative, Centre-right): Perhaps I may make some progress, but I would like to say again that the lessons-learned exercise is one that we take seriously, having listened to noble Lords both today and in Committee. I hope that the House will respect the fact that we will be looking at this a great deal over the next two years.
Higher Education and Research Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
George Young (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, these minor and technical amendments simply clarify the drafting of the Bill; they ensure that it is consistent across the board and refine the consequential amendments relating to HEFCE ceasing to exist. Essentially, they tidy up the Bill. I would be happy to explain any of them, should noble Lords so require. I beg to move.
Higher Education and Research Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-08
Topic: Other
George Young (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble and learned Lord qualified his question with the remark "with the resources at my disposal". The answer is that I do not have that answer at my disposal, but I will of course make inquiries and write to him.
Higher Education and Research Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Peter Hymers Mackay (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I did not understand why this provision is in the Bill. I was rather surprised when I first saw it, and when I raised the point at a meeting, those promoting the Bill seemed to be almost equally surprised. However, I have now found out exactly what it is for. It is intended to deal with situations where someone has gained a degree through various nefarious practices and that is discovered. Once you understand that, it is quite normal and certainly not unexpected that the same provision should apply to other arrangements. However, this is a special one for this particular situation. I am happy with the explanation and I shall not press my amendment.
Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) (Amendment) Order 2017 — House of Lords, 2017-03-16
Topic: Other
Patrick Cormack (Conservative, Centre-right): I am deeply grateful to my noble friend—he is a friend in every sense—but does he really think that one man or woman can adequately know and relate to the sort of area to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred, or to Lincolnshire, or for that matter to this extraordinary collection of towns and cities? How can one person—an elected Gauleiter—really relate?
Sky and 21st Century Fox: Proposed Merger — House of Lords, 2017-03-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not going to make any comment that would touch upon the merits of the proposed merger but the European Commission will of course take forward its inquiry into the competition aspects of this merger. My understanding is that the timing of that will fall within the time limit for the present investigation at the instance of the Secretary of State.
Commonwealth — House of Lords, 2017-03-16
Topic: Civil Rights
Nosheena Mobarik (Conservative, Centre-right): I can say only that this is outwith the scope of this debate. I am afraid that I am not able to give the noble Baroness any more than I have already. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, of course we will look very carefully at all the speeches and contributions made by noble Lords on the particular issue of LGBT human rights. We will remain in touch and I am sure that this will be an ongoing dialogue Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions—
Prisons: Overcrowding — House of Lords, 2017-09-07
Topic: Other
Rodney Elton (Conservative, Centre-right): Will my noble friend undertake to take copies of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and myself to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and discuss them over a cup of coffee, or perhaps a glass of whisky?
Parliament — House of Lords, 2017-06-13
Topic: Other
Natalie Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, it not being convenient for Her Majesty personally to be present here this day, she has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared in order to the holding of this Parliament.
Inshore Fisheries — House of Lords, 2017-07-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Eric Gardiner (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, the best thing may be if the noble Lord would be prepared to come with me to Newcastle to see the vessel-monitoring system, which I have learned a great deal about since his Question was on the Order Paper. It is a digital service which enables us to target those areas, so that we know every vessel that is at sea within our waters. I have some very interesting statistics on enforcement by the Royal Navy and others. In addition to that, not only are there three offshore patrol vessels but a further five new River class offshore patrol vessels are currently being built. They will be used for, among other things, fisheries protection. However, as I said earlier, we will have to review what we need to ensure that.
Grenfell Tower Update — House of Lords, 2017-07-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
David John Maclean (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, will my noble friend, and indeed the whole Government, defend the integrity and impartiality of the learned judge appointed to conduct this inquiry and deplore the comments made by some that the only person capable of being an impartial judge on this has to be a black woman who has lived in a tower block? We have had too many criticisms of noble judges before. I know that is not a general view, but there were comments in the press this weekend about that. Can my noble friend assure me that the inquiry will look at the advice on staying put? All my life I have laboured under the misapprehension, apparently, that when there is a fire one gets out ASAP. Yet it seems that even when the whole building was ablaze from top to bottom, the emergency services may have been giving advice to stay put. That is all very well when one little flat is on fire, but not when the whole building is ablaze. Will that issue please be looked at as well?