argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Review of Gaming Machines — House of Lords, 2017-10-31
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Timothy Francis Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, Liberal Democrats have been calling for a £2 stake on these highly addictive machines, which have been a catalyst of problem gambling, social breakdown and serious crime in communities, for nearly a decade. We therefore give a qualified welcome to the review, but, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, we are disappointed that a range of options rather than a firm recommendation is being given, and that we now have a 12-week consultation rather than action. Reducing the maximum stake to £50 would still mean that you could lose £750 in five minutes, or £300 if the stake was reduced to £20. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to resist Treasury pressure and move to take effective action by focusing on stake reduction to £2, which would put a clear and sensible limit on all high street machines. Can the Minister tell us what the role of the Gambling Commission has been and will be in the consultation? It has a duty to minimise gambling-related harm and protect children and the vulnerable. Will the Government act on that advice? Will the review examine the proliferation of betting shops on the high street and the self-referral or exclusion system, which is so ineffective? As well as reducing the maximum stake, will it look at limiting the spin rate? Finally, will the consultation address stakes in online equivalents to these games, such as blackjack?
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-31
Topic: Domestic Commerce
John Thurso (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I have followed the passage of this Bill with great interest but I have not felt the need to intervene. However, today I support my noble friend in this amendment based on two experiences The first is as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, which, as I am sure many Members know, is a well-run fund and gives a great deal of excellent advice. However, it is always surprising to discover how many well-educated, highly numerate and literate people fail to grasp much of what there is to do with pensions. If those of us who regard ourselves as reasonably well educated, quite numerate and quite literate are having difficulty with pensions, it stands to reason that many people who have not had those advantages will have even greater problems. To my mind, therefore, the need for advice is a case that is clearly made The second experience arises from my time on the banking commission of the Treasury Select Committee in another place. We worked extremely hard to ensure that the Financial Conduct Authority had a proper consumer remit. I am delighted that the Government accepted what we had to say because the FCA has proved to have undertaken the remit well and with a degree of teeth. If we want to ensure that a regulation works, we must make sure that the person promulgating it has teeth. It is absolutely right that the FCA should be the body to make the regulations and to follow up on them In summary, it would not surprise me if there is considerable resistance from the Treasury, but that is simply a manifestation of its well-known terminal "not invented here" syndrome. Experience shows that where the Treasury is obliged to take on regulation, it comes round to accepting its wisdom in due course. The test of this amendment, therefore, is not "Why should we?" but "Why shouldn’t we".
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-31
Topic: Other
John Kevin Sharkey (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, that it would be better to have Amendment 29A on the face of the Bill. I think that it is a perfect complement to the elegantly crafted Amendment 29. However, I hear what the Minister says and I beg leave to withdraw.
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-31
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Archibald Kirkwood (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I will move Amendment 40 on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who regrets that she has had to leave the Chamber to attend to an unexpected and unforeseen family problem. I can dispatch the amendment without taking up too much time. It is part of a process. As colleagues will see, it would insert a new clause to bring in interim rules restricting charges for claims management services The Government, through the FCA, are promoting public interest in completing applications for PPI claims. There is a public interest in that, and a lot of advertising encouraging people to do so, but as we heard in Committee, many people are being caught up in this and caused significant detriment as a result of the mis-selling of PPI. They are incurring fees of 30% or sometimes more when using a claims management company, when they could achieve the same thing by themselves directly from lenders without charge. Citizens Advice has advised that almost half of the problems and complaints relating to claims management concern disproportionate fees I have been involved only at the margins, but it should be acknowledged that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has been working on this issue intensively with the Minister and her team. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has spent a lot of time trying to make sense of it. This is an interim but necessary measure. The amendment is part of a process and its purpose is to seek assurance that something could be brought forward at Third Reading, and that that is being worked on A lot of intensive work is being done, which is welcome, but during the gestation of the ideas currently in play, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and I would like serious consideration to be given to the quantum of the cap we are talking about. One of the figures being considered is approximately 20% plus VAT. We can consider that in more detail at Third Reading, but it sounds quite high to the noble Baroness and me. There may be a technical reason why it has to be set at that level, but our plea in moving the amendment is for careful consideration to be given to the level at which the cap is set It has been suggested that if a company charges more than the cap allows under the amendment, that would not be a breach of statutory duty, but the excess only would be recoverable by the claimant. The mechanism is not clear and is difficult to understand. If the Minister can explain why an excess charge would not be a breach of statutory duty, I, as a provincial solicitor many years ago, would go to bed this evening in a happier place The process being undertaken by the ministerial team is acknowledged and welcome. On our side, we have had help from Lloyds Bank and Citizens Advice, but I hope the Minister can give us some welcome assurance on the process going in to Third Reading. This is a probing amendment, and anything he can say in that regard would be extremely helpful. I beg to move.
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-31
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on sticking with this issue, because it is fundamental. I say to the Government that a duty of care is so important and should be so central to every piece of our financial services industry that we should not let the perfect—having a general duty of care—be the enemy of the good, which is the opportunity to put a specific duty of care in this Bill. I hope the Government will consider that I have the privilege to be on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. As we sought to strengthen the framework of regulation and to expose a lot of misdirection within the financial services industry, I think everybody, not only on the committee but far more broadly, agreed that the key problem lay in culture. We have turned to the banking and financial services industries and asked them through various bodies to improve their culture, but surely we also have a responsibility to drive that with every piece of legislation that comes our way. Duty of care reflects that whole-culture approach: the underlying, underpinning approach that we expect our financial services to take, where the interests of the customer are at the centre. It is not that the financial services should not be able to make profits—of course, that is the business they are in—but it should never be at the expense of that central interest of the client or customer I urge the Government to take seriously this opportunity in an area where there has been extraordinary abuse. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for example; others talked about whiplash and issues around holiday sickness. In issue after issue, we have seen a complete failure in the culture of the bodies that provide such services. We should tackle that issue head on and not be afraid to use language that is clearly around that duty of care—not considering it too soft or too difficult—so that it becomes a general habit. I hope we will not rely just on general duties of care, because those can sometimes be imperfect, but will make sure that in every piece of financial services legislation this issue is underscored. In that, this legislation could be a leader.
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-31
Topic: Domestic Commerce
John Kevin Sharkey (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, Amendment 42 is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. Given our extensive discussions of cold calling at every stage of the Bill, I can be brief This amendment would require the FCA to ban cold calling for claims management companies. Critically, it would also ban the use by these companies of any data obtained by cold calling. Together, these provisions would make cold calling for CMCs illegal and cut off the revenue stream to cold callers, by preventing CMCs using their data. The amendment would also allow the FCA to set the appropriate penalties for any breach of either of these bans. The bans would come into effect with the passing of this Bill—in other words, fairly soon. I will not rehearse here the manifest evils and dangers of cold calling, either in general or for CMCs in particular, but I will just mention that the disgraceful whiplash and holiday sickness scams are a prime and continuing example of why cold calling for CMCs remains an active and current problem. There will inevitably be another scam along any time soon We discussed all this at some length last Tuesday, when the House showed the strength of its dislike and disapproval of cold calling, not for the first time and from all sides. The House voted by a large majority last Tuesday to enable a ban on all types of cold calling where consumer detriment could be shown. During the debate that led up to that vote, the Minister pointed out that our proposed mechanism for banning cold calling involved quite a lengthy process. She went on to make a generous offer to do something about cold calling for CMCs faster than our amendments would allow. The Minister said: "I have asked officials to consider the evidence for implementing a cold-calling ban in relation to claims management activities, and I am pleased to say that the Government are working through the detail of a ban on cold calling by claims management companies" She also proposed to bring forward a government amendment in the other place to meet the concerns of the House. Towards the end of her speech on the issue, the Minister said: "To reiterate, the Government agree with the spirit of these amendments and will bring forward legislation in this Bill, in the other place, in relation to cold calling for claims management activities".—[Official Report, 24/10/17; cols. 861-63.]
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-31
Topic: Other
John Kevin Sharkey (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate, but especially the Minister for what she has just said to the House. There is only one possible response to what she said, which is to say thank you and to withdraw the amendment.
Grenfell Tower — House of Lords, 2017-10-19
Topic: Housing
John Warren Shipley (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on the vital role of public sector staff, who have done a magnificent job. I had not realised until a couple of weeks ago that a large number of people from all over the United Kingdom have assisted at Grenfell. We should note that contribution in what has been a very difficult time for everybody I wish to ask the Minister two specific questions. First, the Statement makes it clear that the Government expect councils and housing associations to fund measures that they consider essential to make a building safe. But what if the Hackitt review says that such works are essential? Will the Government step in at that point? As I understand it, there will be an interim report from the Hackitt review some time during the autumn, which may well make clear statements about what should be done Secondly, sprinklers have been required since 2007 in all new high-rise buildings in England over 30 metres, whereas in Scotland, the relevant height is 18 metres. Will the Minister explain why that is the case? Do the Government expect that sprinklers will be retrofitted in buildings constructed prior to 2007?
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-21
Topic: Other
Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, as well as congratulating the Minister on bringing the language of "vulnerable circumstances" to the Bill, I want to congratulate the others who have made this issue so clear during our very positive and engaged debates; namely, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins, Lady Finlay and Lady Hollins. When the Minister first put down a slightly earlier draft of the amendment, which reordered some of the opening sections of Clause 2, because I am a naturally suspicious person, I tried to see whether there was some bear trap in there or something that I should be afraid of. I could find no such bear trap—and nor could my colleague, my noble friend Lord Sharkey, who I think now has a reputation for the most incisive examination of language in a Bill. I fully understand the desire of the Government to be clear and transparent—they seem very positive. I shall have more to say about the Bill in later stages—but, with this first grouping, we start off on a rather good note for the opening of Third Reading.
Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-21
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I apologise, as when I last spoke, I attributed to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, a very eloquent speech that was made on cold calling and the way it targets vulnerable people, when it was the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who made that speech. I apologise to both parties. If I have any excuse, it is that I confuse my own children, and one of them is male and the other is female, so it is even more embarrassing As regards this group of amendments, my only regret is that the cap on fees is set at 20%. It would have been better to have a lower cap. However, we congratulate the Government on the underlying principle of taking temporary action because it is very likely that by the time the FCA gets its grip on this issue we will be beyond the reach of future PPI claims. However, other than that, I once again thank the Minister for being responsive to the issues that have been raised all around the House, including this one and those of cold calling, debt respite and financial inclusion. This is a very important move by the Minister and her name will be attached to these issues well into the future.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-21
Topic: Other
Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Can I just confirm that the Government’s response to any such move would be exactly as we saw before? That is an important piece of information for this House to know. I believe that that is what the Minister has just confirmed.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): May I ask for a clarification? The Minister just said the context could not be ignored. Is his conclusion that it is inappropriate for a statutory instrument related to sanctions ever to be voted down by either House? Is that the conclusion that we are to draw from his comment?
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Shaista Sheehan (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 46 and 78 There is a lack of specific instruction that the Government can dissolve or close down companies in cases of violations or sanctions regulations made under the Bill. The amendments would rectify that omission. It must be made clear that the Government have the power to prevent trading or any other business activity by company structures. That is key to ensuring, for example, that action against shell companies brokering arms is captured in the Bill Consider a recent case: S-Profit Ltd v South Sudan. The UK-registered shell company, set up by a Ukrainian, was used to broker arms, in violation of sanctions, in a deal worth $44 million. A company can be set up in the UK in a matter of hours for just £12. HMRC has acknowledged—there are numerous other examples—that it cannot prosecute such brass-plate and shell companies under existing law where the burden of proof is criminal standards of evidence. That is impossible to get because such companies have a limited physical presence in the UK and little hard evidence can be gathered That case, highlighted by Amnesty International, starkly illustrates the current loophole and legal vacuum that allows companies posing as reputable UK corporate entities to supply arms to some of the most dangerous places and actors in the world. The lower burden of proof suggested in the Bill before us—a reasonable knowledge test—would give the means to use sanction powers to take action against such shell companies and crack down on illicit arms brokering. The amendments would give enforcers powers to wind up such companies and disqualify their directors Furthermore, reasonable knowledge is the threshold used in existing sanctions regimes in both the EU and UN. That is why it has been replicated in the UK, so that we can have legal powers to mirror and enforce our international obligations in this area. However, there must be at least a due process mechanism to allow a right of reply, or an appeal process to challenge decisions and overturn them. This amendment would add additional tools to improve controls over the arms trade and arms-brokering activities, which would be welcome I will speak briefly to Amendment 78. Currently, companies can be wound up by the Insolvency Service relatively easily for corporate abuses such as non-reporting, but they can also be wound up on the ground of public interest under Section 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986. However, the sanctions regime and these powers are not used together. It would make sense for brass-plate companies known to the Government to be in breach of sanctions to be wound up using these powers. Now that BEIS’s criminal enforcement team has been transferred into the Insolvency Service it also has the ability to prosecute. It would therefore make sense for the two to be linked for enforcement purposes. This amendment would have that effect.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Lindsay Granshaw (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I extremely glad that the Minister wishes to align so closely with the EU. I can think of very simple ways he might achieve that. In the meantime, in moving Amendment 18 I will speak to Amendments 20 and 21 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sheehan. I am sure the Minister will be relieved to know that we are returning to our main theme: whether the scope of the Bill is too wide in giving him extra powers. Our concerns here are about unintended consequences of the sanctions, so I am afraid we are seeking to restrict the Minister again If these bans on aircraft and ships prove detrimental to those fleeing persecution, what exceptions might there be? We understand why the Government would wish to have such sanctions, but we are once again scrutinising for wide powers with unintended consequences. Clearly, we would not wish to include traffickers in any exception, but one can envisage, for example, a plane leaving North Korea and seeking asylum for all those on board or, more commonly, those commandeering a boat wishing to escape a terrible regime. What is emerging from the Minister’s account is that the Bill is drawn widely to allow sanctions in unusual and ingenious cases. We need to see what the protections might be where wide powers are sought.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-21
Topic: Immigration
Shaista Sheehan (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I have only a short sentence to say on this. Clause 8, on "Designated persons" is so widely drawn that it occurs to me that in a prescribed country anyone who is not a designated person will doubtless be a refugee.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-21
Topic: Other
Lindsay Granshaw (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. This clause does indeed seem to be challenging, and I look forward to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, perhaps coming up with some overarching set of protections for the whole Bill which would apply to this as well. The Minister mentioned reviews: we will be coming to reviews later in the Bill, and there are questions around those, so that is not tremendously reassuring. He also mentioned answerability to Parliament. That has the problems that my noble friend Lady Kramer referred to earlier in our initial debates.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-21
Topic: Mixed Topics
Donald Thomas (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Can the Minister explain what the point is of having sanctions if you do not know who they are against? I am looking again at the memorandum to which I referred earlier, which says in paragraph 44: "Designated persons attract individual sanctions, including asset freezes. Designations are an effective way of coercing or constraining individuals who are directly involved or closely associated with the activity or behaviour targeted by the sanctions. The Government would intend to publish the names of designated persons on a list on its website, and would also notify those persons, where possible, in accordance with clause 1. There are currently around 2000 designated persons under existing sanctions regimes implemented by the UK" If that is the purpose of it—to coerce or constrain individuals when you do not know who they are—how can these sanctions be effective in any way?
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-21
Topic: Civil Rights
Lindsay Granshaw (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the Minister and others. He will know that the deletion of clauses is, as is usual in this place, a challenge to the Minister to come up with something that is more consistent with amendable primary legislation. That is what we are seeking here, along with more specific detail. I have already made reference to the fact that it is difficult to see that the Human Rights Act is necessarily the protection the Minister thinks it might be, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.