argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Food Supply and Security — House of Lords, 2020-05-14
Topic: Agriculture
Alan William John West (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for raising this debate and for her wise words at the beginning Covid-19 has brought into stark relief a number of things that we had taken for granted. One of them is food supply. It is extraordinary that our nation should need reminding about the strategic significance of food supply: in two world wars we fought long and hard to ensure that we had enough food in this country because we could not produce enough. Luckily, our merchant marine and the Navy managed to keep us supplied. In the First World War, part of the reason for the German collapse was that we stopped them getting food supplies and their nation collapsed There is a very real need for us to be self-sufficient in food in this country. A number of measures are needed to ensure that we achieve that. Noble Peers have addressed a number of those issues and they are very important. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raised the issue of fish. I agree with him but, my goodness, if we are to protect our waters for fish—noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say this—we actually need more ships. That is the only way that we will be able to achieve it I know that the Minister feels strongly about this and he has been very helpful in the House on a number of these issues, but we need to focus on self-sufficiency in food. What are all the measures we can take to ensure that we achieve that? We also need resilience in the supply chain, which is not as strong as some people think. I am reminded of the ice storm in Montreal in the late 1990s, when power cuts stopped cash machines and so on being used. There were then riots because people could not get to food. Food is an absolute necessity for our people; we must get it right.
Covid-19: Transport — House of Lords, 2020-05-14
Topic: Transportation
David Edward Lea (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, what strikes me about this is that the virus is the subject of a huge amount of numerical modelling and forecasting. I am amazed at the lack of numerical modelling in passenger transport of intermodal splits on different scenarios. In the medium term—in the autumn or something like that—we will need to sustain public confidence with more information, options and explanations of the dilemmas in the trade-offs of social distancing, in this case, with the rate of growth or decline of GDP et cetera. It is very important to have a higher level of public engagement and understanding Initially, will the Government institute more transparency on where the pinch points will be later in the year—information on which I am sure exists in the files of the Department for Transport—so that we can have an adult conversation, as called for by one of the Minister’s colleagues the other day? The modal split in town, country, big cities and so on will be different for rail, bus, car et cetera, but we need to make sure that we do not run into gridlock in some centres by digging up the road to put in a wider pavement, such as Piccadilly Circus et cetera being dug up at the same time as Oxford Circus. Is that not a danger? I do not know which forum might be useful, but I know that there are a lot of very well-informed and interested parties. Would this be something to look into so that we can have some numerical forecasts to scrutinise, with no skin off the Government’s nose? Public engagement will heighten public understanding.
Covid-19: Transport — House of Lords, 2020-05-14
Topic: Transportation
Alfred Dubs (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, first, I understand that the Transport Secretary was quoted as having said that it is a civic duty to avoid public transport. Could the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s policy Secondly, going back to the question of face masks, even if they are only 50% effective, most of us would be much happier to have a 50% chance of not catching something than to be more liable to catching it. The Government’s argument on face masks is weak and unconvincing. Those of us who might be forced to take taxis would be much relieved if the taxis themselves were sanitised between passenger journeys. I do not want to get into a taxi that has been occupied by somebody going to hospital because they think they have been infected Lastly, what do we do at St Pancras when a passenger from Belgium arrives on a Eurostar train? How do we separate that passenger from somebody who has come from Paris?
Covid-19: Schools — House of Lords, 2020-05-14
Topic: Education
Michael Goodall Watson (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, we all want schools to reopen and children’s education to resume, but the primary consideration before that can happen has to be the safety of pupils, their families and all staff. Yesterday, in the Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Department for Education’s own chief scientific adviser revealed that he had not made an assessment of plans to begin reopening English schools from 1 June and had not been asked to. So much for the Government’s mantra about following the science. Does the Minister now accept that instead of asking schools to implement a hasty and unrealistic return by a specific date, they should be asked to meet certain conditions that, when completed, would signal that it was safe to reopen—a subtle but important change of focus?
Covid-19: Schools — House of Lords, 2020-05-14
Topic: Education
Winifred Ann Taylor (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Minister agree that the priority going forward must be those children, especially in deprived areas, who have received little or no education, whether at school or at home, over the last few weeks? Will she look in particular at ensuring the best possible experience for such children when they are leaving primary and transferring to secondary school in September? To this end, will the Government arrange, fund and consult on the provision of additional summer schools and extra classes to aid this transition, because those children who do not settle well into secondary school will lose out completely on their life chances?
Planning Process: Probity — House of Lords, 2020-06-16
Topic: Law and Crime
Roy Kennedy (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, can the Minister confirm that he believes in the principle of the rule of law that everybody is subject to the law and no one is above it? How is it justifiable that Mr Jenrick is in his post, having acted so blatantly and having accepted that he acted unlawfully?
Planning Process: Probity — House of Lords, 2020-06-16
Topic: Government Operations
George Foulkes (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, with respect, the Minister has not answered any of the questions put by my noble friends and others. Unless he does so now, will the House and the public not be justified in considering that the £12,000 that Richard Desmond gave to the Tory party at that Carlton Club dinner will be seen as cash for influence?
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill — House of Lords, 2020-06-16
Topic: Labor
Peter Hain (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, Amendments 83 to 86 are in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Hendy—who spoke so powerfully and compellingly earlier—and Lord Monks. Under them, companies would be excluded from moratoriums for not paying tax, for unpaid remuneration to employees and for breaching sex equality or equal pay The amendments are about setting standards with which firms in financial difficulty and seeking state support to stave off insolvency must comply. They aim to ensure that the interests of workers are not sacrificed in a blind rush to shore up businesses facing acute short-term financial pressures.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill — House of Lords, 2020-06-16
Topic: Labor
Robert Stevenson (Labour, Centre-left): I thank all noble Lords for the huge range of points that have been brought to bear in this debate. It was inevitable, given the way that the amendments are grouped, that we would range far and wide over the Bill. It was not a repeat of the criticism at Second Reading, because we were drilling down into important areas which in other times might have been picked up for further consideration during the later stages of the Bill, but cannot be because of the short timescale we are talking about The Minister made only two substantial points in his response. He is going to bring forward amendments to protect the way that debts are accrued during the moratorium period. I very much look forward to seeing those—we welcome the news. There is a concern around the House about this particular area, where we step into uncharted territory with the idea of a moratorium, and we want to protect it as much as we can. More statutory-based procedures on this will be helpful I disagree with the Minister that workers and employees are well looked after in this Bill. The evidence does not support that. I leave it to others to judge from the contributions that were made by my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Hain; they made an unanswerable case for further consideration, but if it is not to be, it is not to be and we will just have to wait for another opportunity. However, the Government are well out of step here, and that is going to cause trouble further down the track My original amendment, which headed the group, was not the only point raised, as I made clear, but it was about an issue that picked up a lot of support. I am grateful to those who spoke in support of it, particularly those who also had amendments down which were spoken to during the debate. This is the question of how we are going to support the new position of monitor. During the debate I was alerted to the fact that the Government had published their draft guide for monitors. It is a pity that it was not available before this debate, but at least it is now. On a quick read-through, it is interesting that it is based very much on the current IP regulations, and goes so far as to suggest some formal amendments to those regulations, to allow for the role played by the monitor to be given a backing. However, it also makes it clear that these are very temporary statements by the Government, pending further work through statutory instruments, and I am sure that is right.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill — House of Lords, 2020-06-16
Topic: Labor
Diana Mary Warwick (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, until recently, I was a member of the board of the Pension Protection Fund. I will speak to Amendments 20 and 63. Like my noble friend Lady Drake, I have yet to digest the contents of the Minister’s letter from yesterday evening and we have yet to see the actual amendments, but I want to set out my concerns, so that they can be tested against the concessions he has made I fully support the policy intention behind the Bill: to help otherwise financially viable companies avoid the prospect of failure, as a result of the unprecedented disruption that Covid-19 has caused. However, alongside its temporary measures, the Bill includes permanent measures—the moratorium, the restructuring plan and changes to creditor status—that will be far-reaching. On the current drafting, there will be consequences that have the effect of reducing the protection and rights of underfunded pension schemes and the Pension Protection Fund when companies are in financial distress—protections that have been carefully built up and developed over 16 to 17 years Amendment 20 removes financial debts being exempt from the moratorium payment holiday and the granting of super-priority to those debts in the event of a company entering into an insolvency process. Amendment 63 provides for the triggering of PPF creditor rights and a scheme Section 75 deficit at the start of a moratorium and of restructuring plan discussions We cannot overestimate just how serious this is. For many years, the covenant position of defined benefit pension schemes has been based on unsecured pension debt ranking side by side with debts owed to other unsecured lenders. This has underpinned all valuation, funding and covenant discussions. The super-priority status granted to finance debts in an insolvency following a moratorium removes that base. It weakens valuations and funding arrangements and is detrimental to members of pension schemes and to the role of the PPF acting as creditor. It also affects the scheme trustees. The liabilities of the scheme—the pension promise—are usually significant and payable over a significant number of years. Unlike other unsecured creditors, trustees are not in a position to manage the exposure to the scheme’s debt by ceasing to deal with their employer. Therefore the Bill dramatically enhances the interests of the finance lenders and weakens the interests of the pensioners and future pensioners in an insolvency situation.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill — House of Lords, 2020-06-16
Topic: Labor
Christopher Lennie (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I had rather thought that the Minister would speak at the beginning of this debate, as that might have obviated some of the discussion that we have had to have; he has not yet fulfilled what the Report stage amendments will be, based on the letter that he produced last night. There seem to be shared concerns among all speakers about the relative position of debt—finance debt, pension debt—and the weakness of the PPF. Does it or does it not have a seat on the discussion body? Would that be at the beginning of the discussions or, as someone put it, just a cc or copying in of the PPF into the information? Will the risk of gaming through acceleration of a company into insolvency by those who seek to gain from that position be guarded against? And so on At this stage, we should at least thank the Minister for his reconsideration in advance of signalling that there will be moves at Report stage. Whether they will be sufficient moves we will have to wait and see. This may not be the last word on these matters, but it may go some way towards putting in place a sensible, if not ideal, position for the PPF and the defined benefit pension scheme trustees, in the event of insolvency moratorium or restructuring plans. It is not yet clear how far he is prepared to go and it is a complex issue, as we have heard from all the speakers Secondly, I want to express my huge appreciation and admiration for the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Warwick, from the Labour Benches, assisted by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, from the Conservatives, in their pursuit of this matter. It is hugely important to everyone that we get this right. The 2004 protection fund legislation was profound, important and lasting. It should not be put at risk by what we are attempting to do in response to the Covid crisis, whether on a temporary or permanent basis. They deserve our thanks and praise for the thorough way in which they have conducted themselves. There is much more to come but, for now, we will have to await the amendments and judge on Report whether those intentions have been fulfilled Finally, I urge the Minister in the meantime to take up the offer of discussions made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Warwick, in advance of Report stage, to see if they can iron out any creases that there may be in what he may propose.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill — House of Lords, 2020-06-16
Topic: Law and Crime
Alan Thomas Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I will follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and make my comments in reference to Amendment 129 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I begin by commending him on the very strong statement of principle he made in the debate on the first group about the constitutional impropriety of too many aspects of this Bill His amendment dealing with the "relevant period" provides us the opportunity to touch on the constitutional principle of retrospectivity. The Bill’s provisions are backdated, altering the law on winding-up petitions as it stood after 1 March in some aspects and after 27 April in others. I do not in any way dissent from the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, to bring in a further measure to protect vulnerable businesses. None the less, we ought to recognise that it is generally held that retrospective legislation undermines the rule of law In this Bill, a legal right that people relied on is ex post facto wiped out, to the detriment of persons who relied on it. Provisions in Schedule 10 operate retrospectively to invalidate winding-up petitions made by creditors, albeit creditors exercising a statutory right. They could even be deprived of the benefit of a favourable court judgment previously made, as the noble and learned Lord just said. It allows the court to undo the effect of winding-up petitions and even to require petitioners to be liable for costs. This is a remarkable provision and appears to be incompatible with the rule of law Retrospective legislation should be very rare indeed. It is constitutionally objectionable in principle, so, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, I ask: how does the Minister justify it? If he considers it necessary to deal with abuses by creditors, how widespread are these abuses? How many instances have been reported? Why is a change in the law needed to deal with them, and why a retrospective change in the law?
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill — House of Lords, 2020-06-16
Topic: Labor
John Hendy (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you. Amendments 107 to 116 seek to add a third condition to the two proposed conditions for the court to approve a compromise or arrangement In Amendments 109 to 111, we seek to require that companies pay all outstanding payments of workers’ remuneration et cetera. This is a reflection of the amendments moved in group one, and therefore I will not develop the arguments again Amendment 112 would ensure that the company’s obligations to its pension scheme have absolute priority. Again, your Lordships heard the arguments for that in the debate on the first group of amendments, with contributions from my noble friends Lady Drake and Lady Warwick, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe Amendment 113 is a repetition of the condition that we proposed in the debate on the fourth group of amendments, which is that 30% of the sale of any assets should be used for the satisfaction of unsecured creditors. I will not repeat those arguments Amendments 114 and 115 are, in our submission, important. They are intended to redress the striking deficiency in the Bill of failing to include any mechanism of industrial democracy by which workers may have a say in the vital decisions contained in the Bill that are likely to have a profound effect on their lives Amendment 114 proposes workers on boards, just as in most of the rest of Europe. Such a proposal has been the subject of discussion since the 19th century and particularly since the 1977 Bullock report. It was proposed by Mrs May when she was Prime Minister. This is a golden opportunity to put it into effect as a condition. Workers being on boards would make the interests of all stakeholders being properly taken into account much more likely Amendment 115 proposes an alternative form of industrial democracy: collective bargaining. Our amendment recognises that there are no recognised unions in many workplaces. We therefore deploy the mechanism for workplace representatives to be elected, which is found in the legislation for collective redundancy consultation. The statutory requirement to bargain collectively has a long history, going back to the Trade Boards Act 1909 and, in a different and more limited form, Schedule A1 to the 1992 trade union Act. It is normal in Europe. The Government would also have the satisfaction of complying with their obligations in international law Amendment 116 is intended to discourage restructures intended to raise cash simply to pay dividends, buy back shares or pay the directors excessively Amendment 117 is intended to extend the benefits of the previous measures to the broader legal category of workers as well as that of employees I am disappointed that, because of the time, I cannot develop further any of the merits of these amendments at this point.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill — House of Lords, 2020-06-16
Topic: Labor
John Stephen Monks (Labour, Centre-left): I add my support to the contributions made by the three previous speakers on this group. It seems that there is one big gap in the Bill, which is to take account of the interests of the working people, for all the reasons that have been explained by other speakers, which are so essential to the future of the firm and of the country. This is a gaping gap, and I hope very much that the Government will address it. I am told that there are plans in government for perhaps another Bill at some time in the future, where the points that we are raising might be addressed. However, I want a clearer indication from the Government on whether they indeed intend to bring forward some proposals additional to the ones in the Bill at the moment, to improve the position of working people. The Prime Minister said that he wanted to embrace the working people of this country. The Bill and the amendments we have tabled to it are an opportunity to do that. I ask the Government to embrace the amendments and follow what the Prime Minister is apparently talking about.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill — House of Lords, 2020-06-16
Topic: Labor
Pauline Bryan (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 110, 112 and 114, but I shall speak only to Amendment 114, which is a recognition that workers are truly a company’s greatest asset. But how many company mission statements have used those words but gone on to treat their workers as expendable? If a restructuring plan is to work, it will need the benefit of workers at boardroom level. If the company is ready for insolvency, the ability of the current board to turn things around must be open to question. Elected workers’ representatives are uniquely placed to identify improvements and ways to increase productivity, while at the same time assuring workers that their interests will be safeguarded. So, along with the other amendments, I hope that the Minister will reflect on this one in particular and bring some alternative to the next stage of the Bill.