Skip to main content

1-20 of 65 results for subject:Technology

Member X
Lord De Mauley

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More
De Mauley, Lord (65)

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Today the Government has published our strategy on agri-tech.

The UK’s entire agri-food supply chain, from agriculture to final retailing and catering is estimated to contribute £96bn, or 7% of GVA1 and employment for the whole food supply chain for 3.8 million people. This is the first time the UK Government,...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Department
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Written statements
Date
22 July 2013
Reference
747 c151WS
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Lords, Lord Gordon and Lord Puttnam, for their contributions. I respect and appreciate their views. These things are not easy, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, acknowledged. Noble Lords were generous to appreciate our preference for a commercially...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
3 March 2010
Reference
717 c1515
House
House of Lords

My Lords, we have a number of concerns with Clause 28. Noble Lords will recall from previous debates that we do not believe that the solution to the problems in the regional and local media sector is more taxpayers’ money. I did not find the Minister’s comments in Committee particularly...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
3 March 2010
Reference
717 c1511-2
House
House of Lords

136: Clause 28, leave out Clause 28

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
3 March 2010
Reference
717 c1511
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling Amendments 54A and 120A. The many objections to Clause 17 were made perfectly clear in Committee, but while the Government’s amendments are an improvement, they do not take account of the fundamental objection that the Government are asking for...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
3 March 2010
Reference
717 c1458-9
House
House of Lords

I thank the Minister for listening to the concerns expressed in Committee. What happens to the money extracted by this process? The debates in Committee got somewhat convoluted on that point. As I understand it, since a penalty will be awarded when there is a breach of the code, but...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
3 March 2010
Reference
717 c1479
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his comments. It is quite a complicated area. I think we probably both need to take each other’s words away to reconsider them. As I said, Amendment 175 is certainly not perfect. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 January 2010
Reference
716 c1321
House
House of Lords

175: Clause 11, page 13, line 25, leave out "or" and insert "and"

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 January 2010
Reference
716 c1320
House
House of Lords

Amendments 175 and 176 focus on the reasons that the Secretary of State may give for imposing a technical obligation. They raise a number of points so, while being as brief as I can, I shall try to set out my concerns as clearly as possible. Amendment 175 was intended...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 January 2010
Reference
716 c1320
House
House of Lords

Taking into account the comments of both noble Lords, we are happy to wait for the Government to come back with their proposed wording. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 175 withdrawn. Amendment 176 not moved. Amendment 177 Moved by

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 January 2010
Reference
716 c1322
House
House of Lords

I sympathise with the concern that a technical obligations order does not just run and run without any further assessment of its impact or effectiveness. Having a clear expiry date would also ensure that Parliament had an opportunity to assess whether the replacement order was still justified. We would object...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 January 2010
Reference
716 c1324-5
House
House of Lords

My Lords, following on from the last group of amendments, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that consultation should be required before this power can be exercised. When we discussed Amendments 216, 217 and 218 a few minutes ago, my noble friend referred to disquiet at the possible...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 January 2010
Reference
716 c1402
House
House of Lords

My Lords, we come now to another threshold. I was glad to see the qualifier "serious" in subsection (1) of new Section 124N, but was baffled to see it absent from subsection (4). It appears that any adverse effect, no matter how trivial, counts as serious if it relates to...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 January 2010
Reference
716 c1400-1
House
House of Lords

219: Clause 18, page 19, line 25, at end insert "seriously"

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 January 2010
Reference
716 c1400
House
House of Lords

My Lords, Amendment 215 is a very simple one. Its purpose is to ensure that if a notice has been received by a registry it will have a reasonable length of time to prepare and make representations to the Secretary of State. The effect of being given this reasonable length...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 January 2010
Reference
716 c1397
House
House of Lords

215: Clause 18, page 19, line 16, after "period" insert "of not less than three months"

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 January 2010
Reference
716 c1396
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I would like to think a little further on it. For this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 215 withdrawn. Amendment 215A Moved by

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 January 2010
Reference
716 c1397
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, concern has been expressed to us, and no doubt to other noble Lords, about the potential for these powers to be applied to all domains, not just the t.UK domain, and perhaps...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 January 2010
Reference
716 c1396
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Perhaps, in the light of my noble friend's intervention, he might like to give this matter further thought. For this evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 219 withdrawn. Amendment 220 not moved. Amendment 221 Moved by

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
26 January 2010
Reference
716 c1401
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I thank the First Secretary of State for the Statement and for his courtesy in showing it to me beforehand. Like him, I pay tribute to the great strengths of our higher education sector and to the talented people who work in it. This strategy document has been...

Member
Lord De Mauley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
3 November 2009
Reference
714 c126-8
House
House of Lords