argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Data Protection Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-14
Topic: Technology
Guy Vaughan Black (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, standing on one leg will at least ensure my brevity. I declare an interest as deputy chairman of Telegraph Media Group I agree entirely with the comments of my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the advisability of sending this amendment back to the House of Commons. Were we to do so, we should remember a few points on the substance of the noble Baroness’s amendment First, we should always bear in mind that the amendment would produce yet another inquiry covering the same ground that has been ploughed over not only by the first Leveson inquiry but by three police investigations, at least three Select Committee inquiries, a Joint Committee of this House, the US Department of Justice and, in this country on the question of corporate liability, the DPP. There is little left to uncover Secondly since Leveson reported, there has been a genuine, wholesale change in press regulation. We have moved from a voluntary complaints handling service, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, to a system of tough, legally enforceable regulation with strong powers of sanction. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that it is those tough legal powers which IPSO possesses that mean there could be no backsliding to the standards of the past Thirdly—this an important point we all need to bear in mind—since IPSO introduced a mandatory arbitration scheme in the past few weeks, there are virtually no lawful recommendations of Leveson that have not been introduced. It has produced a sea change in how newspapers are run, managed and deal with complaints, and in how journalists are trained and monitored Fourthly, since the first Leveson inquiry, the situation facing the press has changed dramatically. I note the noble Baroness seeks to cut out the local press from this but all publishers, including national ones, are under huge and sustained commercial pressure, which will not abate. It is a struggle for survival on a day-to-day basis, which will be made all the more complicated by having to wind the clock back 10 to 15 years to rake over a world which, frankly, no longer exists Fifthly, the biggest threat today to the sustainability of high-quality journalism comes from Google and Facebook, which are not even mentioned in the amendment. If we go down this route, in 20 years’ time people will ask why on earth this Parliament insisted on endlessly rerunning the repeats of an ancient black and white drama rather than looking at how journalism could survive in the global digital environment I have always been taught that this House must try to understand that, as an unelected Chamber, it needs at least to try to understand the realities of the outside world and take note of the will of the people. During a consultation on what is, in effect, this amendment, the people spoke in huge numbers and, by an overwhelming majority, rejected it. For all the reasons that I set out today, so should we.
Data Protection Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2018-05-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Keen (Conservative, Centre-right): With respect, that is not the test. Of course, families in this situation are placed in a very difficult position and we recognise that. I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, had an opportunity in the course of preparing his report to actually interview the senior press officer at Greater Manchester Police, although he will be aware of the view she has expressed with regard to the media’s behaviour, but he did not mention that in his earlier speech to the House. There are diverse views and interpretations of what was happening at the time.
Schools that Work for Everyone Consultation — House of Lords, 2018-05-14
Topic: Education
Theodore Agnew (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the response by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education to an Urgent Question in the other place on the Government’s response to the Schools that Work for Everyone consultation. The Statement is as follows: "By 2020, core school funding will rise to £43.5 billion a year, the highest ever figure and 50% higher per pupil in real terms than in 2000. Last Friday, I announced important measures that create more good school places. This includes our response to the Schools that Work for Everyone consultation As previously announced to the House, we will not be enabling the creation of new selective schools. However, selective schools are an important part of a diverse education system and it is right that they can expand where there is need, as others can. The Autumn Statement 2016 announced funding for the expansion of existing selective schools, and on Friday I launched the selective schools expansion fund for existing selective schools that commit to improving access for disadvantaged pupils and working in enhanced partnership with local non-selective schools. Fifty million pounds is available in 2018-19 We are retaining the 50% cap on faith-based admissions in free schools. I do recognise the positive role that faith providers play, and also recognise that some feel unable to establish new schools through the free schools programme. We are developing a capital scheme to support the establishment of new voluntary-aided schools. We will continue to work with universities and with independent schools to encourage them to work in lasting partnerships with the state sector. Our joint understanding with the Independent Schools Council sets out how independent schools will support this. Overall, this package of reforms will help to ensure that we are delivering a diverse education system providing choice and opportunity for all".
Schools that Work for Everyone Consultation — House of Lords, 2018-05-14
Topic: Education
Theodore Agnew (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a number of questions. I hope I have been able to write them all down. I will have to write to him to give him a breakdown of the response to the original consultation On the annexes of existing grammar schools, we are very clear that for any grammar school applying for this fund it has to be a bona fide extension of an existing school. I cannot give the noble Lord exact distances but the spirit of the intention is very much that they are here for existing good grammar schools The capital scheme that we are talking about is a £50 million sum in the current year. I think it is important to put it into perspective: we envisage that it might create about 4,000 places. We have so far created 825,000 places since 2010 so it is a small amount in the overall context. However, it recognises that it is much more efficient for us to create good places in existing good schools. That is the logic that underpins it In relation to SEN, I do not have the detailed information here but I can say we have just announced 14 free schools specialising in special educational needs, including autism and mental health. I think we have opened something like 70 free schools over the last five years that, again, focus on special educational needs.
Schools that Work for Everyone Consultation — House of Lords, 2018-05-14
Topic: Education
Theodore Agnew (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raises some important points. On the benefits of grammar schools, we know that pupils attending selective schools make better progress. On average, they achieve around half a grade better in eight GCSEs across core subjects compared to pupils with similar prior attainment in other schools. When disadvantaged children attend selective schools, the attainment gap is significantly reduced. So it is worth remembering that I want to tackle the issue of the low proportion of disadvantaged, free-school-meals children attending grammar schools at the moment. Launched in conjunction with the announcement on Friday were two important initiatives. First, to be eligible to apply for what we are calling the selective schools expansion fund, the grammar must submit a fair access and partnership plan. It has to set out very carefully what it is going to do about increasing the vulnerable group that the noble Lord refers to. Secondly, we also announced a memorandum of understanding with the Grammar School Heads Association, which represents 90% of all grammar schools, for it to take steps to widen access to all the other grammar schools. So they know where the wind is blowing on this. We are very focused on it.
Schools that Work for Everyone Consultation — House of Lords, 2018-05-14
Topic: Education
Theodore Agnew (Conservative, Centre-right): I was just going to finish my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on his question about capital. To put the £50 million sum in perspective, we are spending over £1 billion a year on basic-need increases across the country. I am not saying it is a trivial sum but I do not want people to think that we are literally raiding the pot for ordinary schools. Against that also, the capital allocation for schools in this spending round is £23.5 billion.
Schools that Work for Everyone Consultation — House of Lords, 2018-05-14
Topic: Education
Theodore Agnew (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, there is no intention to impose sanctions at this stage, but the very fact that we have made a short-term announcement on the allocation of capital is sending a message to the grammar school sector that if it does not play by the unwritten rules of increasing its access, it will not be able to carry on with any future expansion. I think this follows the approach that we have taken with universities, with the very big programme of universities spending nearly £200 million a year on widening access, and similar principles apply in this situation.
Environment: 25-year Plan — House of Lords, 2018-01-29
Topic: Environment
John Eric Gardiner (Conservative, Centre-right): That this House takes note of A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment and of Her Majesty’s Government’s stated goal of working with communities and businesses to improve the environment within a generation so that it is left in a better state than that in which it was found.
Contaminated Blood — House of Lords, 2018-01-29
Topic: Government Operations
George Young (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the noble Baroness. This is a UK inquiry. The problem affected the whole of the UK. There are provisions under the Inquiries Act for consultation to take place with the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, but it is a UK inquiry. There is a specific issue about the arrangements made for helping those who suffered. It is a devolved responsibility. Those particular responsibilities may differ in Scotland from the rest of the UK.
Contaminated Blood — House of Lords, 2018-01-29
Topic: Law and Crime
George Young (Conservative, Centre-right): The noble Lord asks a question that is right at the extremity of my familiarity with the subject, but I looked it up and the noble Lord is quite right. There was an independent inquiry in the early 2000s by the former Solicitor-General for England and Wales, Lord Archer. I understand that it held no legal or official status at all. It was unable to subpoena witnesses or demand the disclosure of documents, but it looked at some of the issues and discovered that some important documents had been destroyed. There were issues of missing evidence. After he reported, Lord Jenkin, who was also a former Secretary of State, voiced his difficulties about obtaining documents for the inquiry. That inquiry is available and will be available to the statutory inquiry. I hope that it will be able to build on some of the work that Lord Archer undertook.
House of Lords: Allowance — House of Lords, 2018-03-27
Topic: Government Operations
Natalie Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): That— 1. (1) The Resolution of 20 July 2010 relating to the House of Lords allowance is amended as follows with effect from the beginning of 1 April 2018 (2) For paragraph 1(3) substitute— "(3) The amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance in the year beginning with 1 April 2018 should be— (a) £305, or (b) if paragraph (4) applies, £153. (3A) In relation to the year beginning with 1 April 2019, and each subsequent year beginning with 1 April— (a) any formula or mechanism included in the IPSA determination for the year as a result of section 4A(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (adjustment of MPs’ salaries) should be treated as applying for the purposes of adjusting for that year the amount of the allowance payable to a Member of this House, and (b) accordingly, the amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance in that year should be— (i) the amount obtained by applying the formula or mechanism to the amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph (3) or this paragraph) in the previous year, or (ii) where no formula or mechanism is included in the determination, the same amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph (3) or this paragraph) in the previous year." (3) After paragraph 1(4) insert— "(4A) In paragraph (3A)(a) "IPSA determination" means a determination under section 4(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (4B) Any fraction of a pound in an amount obtained under paragraph (3A)(b)(i) should be rounded up to the nearest pound if the fraction is 50p or more, but otherwise should be disregarded." (4) In paragraph 2(1) for "Accordingly, the" substitute "The" 2. In respect of a day of attendance before 1 April 2018, the Resolution of 20 July 2010 relating to the House of Lords allowance continues to have effect without the amendments made by this Resolution.
House of Lords: Allowance — House of Lords, 2018-03-27
Topic: Government Operations
Natalie Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, the Motion in my name proposes changes to the current and future rates of the daily allowance that would come into effect from 1 April. It follows the agreement of a report by the commission, which has also been put to the House for agreement. The current system was introduced in 2010 and was rightly considered to be a more direct, simpler and more transparent system, as well as being much easier to administer than the previous, discredited expenses system The daily allowance rates of £300 and £150 have been fixed since their introduction in 2010, and the House made a conscious decision at that time that this should remain the case until the end of the 2010 to 2015 Parliament. No decision was taken about how the scheme would operate after that Parliament, and rates have remained the same. I believe that, after almost eight years of the rate being frozen, the time is now right to introduce a modest uprating. While freezing the rate during that time was justified in line with public sector wage restraint and expenditure more generally, it is clear that, unless some means of providing a modest uprating mechanism is introduced, over time the amount of the daily allowance will reduce significantly in real terms The question then arises of what uprating mechanism should be used. I believe that the method that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has used to determine annual increases in MPs’ pay for the last few years, in line with the independent ONS figures for average increases in public sector pay, is a sensible method which we should apply to the level of the daily allowance, beginning this year and for subsequent years. I am pleased to confirm that the commission agreed to my proposal that an initial uprating should be made to the daily allowance from 1 April 2018, in line with this year’s IPSA increase to MPs’ salaries of 1.8%, with subsequent annual upratings being pegged to subsequent annual IPSA determinations. Initially, this would result in a new rate of either £305 or £153. The result would be a modest and sustainable adjustment to the rate which I commend to the House. I also welcome the commission’s endorsement The overall cost of such an uprating in terms of the impact on the House of Lords estimate would be approximately £339,000 per annum. This can be accommodated within the current financial plan, which reflects overall savings year on year in the total running costs of this House, and means that we would continue to fulfil our important role at a rate that represents good value to the taxpayer. If IPSA were to change its method of determining future upratings, the commission would, of course, want to reconsider this approach. I beg to move.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill — House of Lords, 2018-03-27
Topic: Energy
Oliver Michael Robert Eden (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 Nuclear Safeguards Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
GKN/Melrose Takeover: Update — House of Lords, 2018-03-27
Topic: Macroeconomics
Thomas Jeremy King (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, the House will recognise that this is a very serious announcement about a major British company that is obviously facing some difficulties in its present operation and is now the subject of this takeover bid. It is extremely worrying that this has occurred at a time when, obviously, the future prospects for our economy are far from certain in the present Brexit developments. The Secretary of State was absolutely right to ask for the clearest undertakings, although, as the noble Lord from the Front Bench said, it has come rather late. I do not understand at all the idea that the Secretary of State has up to four months in which to intervene in something that may have already taken place. However, he does recognise that it is not just a matter of national security: the Secretary of State says he has a wider concern that the takeover should not act against the interests of the economy. He asked for undertakings from Melrose Industries plc, but I find them extremely inadequate. The company says that it is prepared to give an undertaking to maintain its UK listing and UK headquarters for five years, and to, "ensure that the Aerospace and Driveline divisions retain the rights to the GKN name" However, it goes on later to say that if a strategic purchaser comes forward with an investment proposal prior to 2023, it hopes that it would be allowed to consider that. It goes on to add: "Unfortunately, as a result of the nature of the transaction, we have not had access to the information we would expect in order to make detailed commitments" By the end of that, I wonder just what commitments are being given. This is a very serious matter and the Government need to think very carefully indeed. I pay tribute to Melrose, which is obviously an extremely successful company, whose business will be to acquire it and to sell it on. No doubt it will make a great success of that, and full marks to it for its approach. Whether or not it is appropriate in this situation, a heavy burden is on the Government to get far clearer and far more binding undertakings that will give some form of security to an essential part of the UK industrial economy.
GKN/Melrose Takeover: Update — House of Lords, 2018-03-27
Topic: Government Operations
Rodney Elton (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, my noble friend and other colleagues have brought forward the term of five years as though it was reassuring, but surely all the issues that are alive now will be equally alive in five years’ time. Merely pushing a cataclysm back does not solve the problem. Can we have some assurance that the Secretary of State will look to the longer term and not merely to the contractual niceties that he has set out so far? Can the Minister answer the question—a question to which I too should know the answer—of what the extent of his power to intervene is if he decides to do so?
Northamptonshire County Council — House of Lords, 2018-03-27
Topic: Government Operations
Nicholas Bourne (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their contributions. I will try to deal with the issues that they raise. Both of them used the word "tragic" and I absolutely agree that this is a tragic situation that has arisen in Northamptonshire. I remind them both, particularly the noble Baroness, that it is clear from the Caller report and other investigations that this is not a failure because of finance; it is a failure because of governance. It is clear in the report that that is the case In response to questions from the noble Lord, I say that the timetable for the district councils and county councils to respond in relation to the appointment of the commissioner is 12 April. It will then be for the Secretary of State to consider any representations or points made. The Secretary of State would anticipate responding by the end of April and then, if appropriate, appointing commissioners to take on the role, which is clearly the direction that Max Caller and Julie Parker, in their excellent report, would anticipate On the timescale for the restructuring, I remind both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that Max Caller says that restructuring is necessary. It is a recommendation of the report. This is not the Government’s view: it is a recommendation to the Government. We ask the relevant seven district councils and the county council to respond by the end of July. We are open-minded on the different options. It is important that we look at what the councils say, bearing in mind the considerations that apply to any restructuring, as my right honourable friend set out: the proposals should, "improve local government; be based on a credible geography; and command a good deal of local support" My right honourable friend went on to say that the councils should state how they, "have consulted with their communities" That is all absolutely right I echo what the noble Baroness said about the people working for Northamptonshire, who have clearly worked incredibly hard to deliver services and continue to do so, and what she said about many councillors finding themselves excluded from decision-making, questioning decisions or having the ability to critique, which is not how the local government service should operate and not how the vast majority of local government behaves The noble Baroness referred to financial pressures. Quite separately from this, we recognise that there are challenges, but I am keen to keep impressing the basic principle that this is not a failure because of finance. There is no unique feature of Northamptonshire—that it has been discriminated against or has not had the necessary finance. This is a failure of governance, as the Caller report readily recognises. In saying that, I acknowledge that we are looking at fair funding by 2021. That is an important principle and we will be considering the fair funding formula, but that is separate from this issue. Otherwise, I accept the points made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.