Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Results 41–60 of 1000 for (in the 'Commons debates' OR in the 'Westminster Hall debates' OR in the 'Lords debates' OR in the 'Northern Ireland Assembly debates') speaker:Paul Clark

Oral Answers to Questions — Home Department: Ex-Offenders (12 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: What steps the Prison Service is taking to help offenders secure work on release from prison. [151701]

Oral Answers to Questions — Home Department: Ex-Offenders (12 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that jobs—as he clearly said—and stable accommodation are two of the most important factors in ensuring that people do not reoffend? Does he acknowledge that current research suggests that only about 10 per cent. of offenders get a job, and that 40 per cent. have no stable accommodation on release? Crime is falling overall in...

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Appointed Day (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: As the sponsor of the Bill, I inform the House that the promoters are willing to accept this group of amendments.

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Interpretation of Part 2 (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: I beg to move promoters amendment No.1, in page 3, leave out line 42.

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Interpretation of Part 2 (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: I shall be brief, as the three promoters amendments are all linked and will rectify a problem with book dealers. The intention of the Bill was to exempt such dealers from legislation, in so far as the business is related to books. As drafted, the effect of the Bills on dealers who sell other goods, for example, maps or prints, would be to require records of the transactions relating to books...

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Interpretation of Part 2 (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: The promoters are willing to accept amendment No. 41 as they have no problems with it. Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Registration of Dealers in Second-Hand Goods (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: After some consideration, the promoters have decided that the amendments in the group are acceptable. Amendment agreed to. Amendment made: No. 26, in page 4 line 20, at end insert— '(4) The council may not impose a charge for registration under this section'.—[Mr. Wyatt.]

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Information to Be Kept by Registered Dealers in Second-Hand Goods (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: I beg to move promoters amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 26, leave out (7) and insert (8).

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Information to Be Kept by Registered Dealers in Second-Hand Goods (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: Amendments Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are drafting amendments as a consequence of various small issues that relate to changes elsewhere. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 relate to the levels and items required to be recorded by those involved in the second-hand trade. The Select Committee heard detailed evidence and arguments from the promoters, petitioners and their counsel, and witnesses...

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Information to Be Kept by Registered Dealers in Second-Hand Goods (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: That is a valid question. Obviously, a judgment could be made and subsequently the item bought could be found to be more valuable than at first thought. The Bill Provides for that not to be a criminal offence. Clearly, if someone consistently undertook that line of defence, one would take the necessary action. I commend the amendments to the House.

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Information to Be Kept by Registered Dealers in Second-Hand Goods (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: My hon. Friend's amendments are opposed for the simple reason that the effect of raising that limit to £500 would be virtually to annihilate the basis of the Bill. As for excluding specifics, such as jewellery or watches, they are the very items that the police will say are stolen and passed on and that they want to follow through. We must remember that at the end of the day about £110...

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Information to Be Kept by Registered Dealers in Second-Hand Goods (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: We do not accept that. The simple reason is that if one takes away the requirement that purchases outside the county of Kent be recorded, a rogue trader could argue—when questioned about a certain item—that he or she had bought it outside the county. That excuse could be used by people who did not want to assist in providing the information required under the Bill. The claim that items...

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Defence of Due Diligence (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: The defence provided under the clause is extremely well precedented in national as well as local legislation—for example, in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Trade Marks Act 1994, the Video Recordings Act 1984 and many other Acts, and all other private Bills would contain such a provision. The amendment could result in courts wasting time and it would allow the person charged with an...

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Defence of Due Diligence (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: The Select Committee considered in detail the case of someone who owns a permanent antiques fair or market that includes different traders. Obviously, the individual traders will be responsible for recording information and so on, and the provisions allow for those circumstances. Having said that, as I told the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), there will come a time when the...

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Defence of Due Diligence (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. I do not wish to take too much of the House's time, bearing in mind Mr. Speaker's earlier ruling. The Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill are identical and, therefore, the provisions cover the whole county of Kent. We had an interesting debate on Second Reading. I congratulate the Select Committee on its work and its...

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Defence of Due Diligence (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: I recognise the report to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. He will recognise that the Select Committee allowed the Bills to go forward. Although I accept that national legislation may well be preferable, does he agree that it is not on the horizon? Eight other measures, including the City of Newcastle upon Tyne Act 2000, contain similar provisions, so does he not agree that the people...

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Defence of Due Diligence (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that similar Acts exist in other parts of the country? He seems to be making the case that the Bill will be detrimental to people who come to Kent. Does he accept that of all the registrations under the North Yorkshire County Council Act 1991, sources outside Kent confirm that about 51 per cent. are of traders who run their business outside the county and go...

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Defence of Due Diligence (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: This is not national legislation and there is no requirement for a cost benefit analysis, but does my hon. Friend accept that consultation on the ideas behind the Bill has been extensive and began even before the first draft was started two and a half years ago? Does he accept also that the proposals have seen part and parcel of Operation Radium in Kent and Medway, so it is not as though the...

Orders of the Day — Kent County Council Bill [Lords] (By Order): Defence of Due Diligence (22 Mar 2001)

Paul Clark: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate on Third Reading. I welcome the comments by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), about looking carefully at the provisions of the Bill if it is passed tonight. He is absolutely right about Project Radium, which, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for...


<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>

Create an alert

Did you find what you were looking for?

Advanced search

Find this exact word or phrase

You can also do this from the main search box by putting exact words in quotes: like "cycling" or "hutton report"

By default, we show words related to your search term, like “cycle” and “cycles” in a search for cycling. Putting the word in quotes, like "cycling", will stop this.

Excluding these words

You can also do this from the main search box by putting a minus sign before words you don’t want: like hunting -fox

We also support a bunch of boolean search modifiers, like AND and NEAR, for precise searching.

Date range

to

You can give a start date, an end date, or both to restrict results to a particular date range. A missing end date implies the current date, and a missing start date implies the oldest date we have in the system. Dates can be entered in any format you wish, e.g. 3rd March 2007 or 17/10/1989

Person

Enter a name here to restrict results to contributions only by that person.

Section

Restrict results to a particular parliament or assembly that we cover (e.g. the Scottish Parliament), or a particular type of data within an institution, such as Commons Written Answers.

Column

If you know the actual Hansard column number of the information you are interested in (perhaps you’re looking up a paper reference), you can restrict results to that; you can also use column:123 in the main search box.