argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Michael Louis David Fabricant (Conservative, Centre-right): The agreement has unfortunately enabled Iran to spend over $100 billion over the past five years on its operations in Syria, and it is spending even more on its intercontinental ballistic missile programme. Many people believe that a country does not spend billions on an ICBM programme merely to put a $100 TNT warhead on it. Can my right hon. Friend not at least understand the motivation of the United States Administration and perhaps work with them on this?
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): We are of course working hand-in-glove with the United States, but we do believe that there were advantages in maintaining the discrete deal at the heart of the JCPOA and stopping Iranian breakout. We thought that was a good idea. We certainly share the general ambition across the House to constrain Iran’s malignant activity.
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Andrew Theakstone Percy (Conservative, Centre-right): The truth is that there are no moderates in the Iranian regime, and the use of the word "moderates" leads to conclusions that are simply not the case. It is a regime that murders its own people, including minorities, that is an exporter of terrorism, and that is destabilising the middle east. Perhaps the fact that none of that is covered under the JCPOA explains why Iran may indeed be compliant with it. I therefore urge the Foreign Secretary to work with the United States on a replacement to the deal, that deals with Iran’s increasingly malign and dangerous influences elsewhere in the middle east.
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Zac Goldsmith (Conservative, Centre-right): Is it the case that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are still being denied access to key sites across Iran? If so, how can we have any confidence at all that Iran is honouring its commitments?
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): I thought that we made a series of very fruitful suggestions, and we will continue to make such suggestions. The central idea is that, around the core of the JCPOA, we build a superstructure—a follow-on agreement—that addresses the problems of the sunset clauses and the issues of the ICBMs, and satisfies the anxieties of the President and of many colleagues in the House today.
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend is obviously much better briefed than I am but, as I understand it, Iran is not in compliance with all the letter of the agreement. Can he assure me that Israel, which the Iranians have sworn to wipe off the earth, will not now strike Iran in a counter-attack to prevent any further escalation in building nuclear missiles?
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): As I have said several times, to the best of my knowledge Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA. It would be rash of me to seek to pronounce on behalf of the Israeli Government at this stage.
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
James Spencer Cleverly (Conservative, Centre-right): The JCPOA was rushed and flawed, and it was never ratified by Congress, which is one of the reasons why it was vulnerable to being changed by President Trump. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that whatever structure replaces the JCPOA is built on firmer foundations and goes through Congress, and is therefore sustainable, to ensure that Iran does not continue to flout international laws and norms and does not abuse its own people and others, and to minimise the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran?
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): The JCPOA took 13 years to negotiate, so to say it was rushed is perhaps a slight exaggeration. I want the House to remember the crucial point that the JCPOA has not gone. The JCPOA is there, and the UK is a party to it, as are France, Germany, Russia, China, the EU and Iran, and that will continue. We will do our level best, around that core, to build a superstructure or entablature—whatever we want to call it—to allay my hon. Friend’s understandable concerns.
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): For the hon. Gentleman’s reassurance, I refer him to the answer I have given several times today. Iran has decided, for the time being at least, to remain in compliance with the JCPOA, and the UK will work to try to perpetuate that agreement.
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Robert John Blackman (Conservative, Centre-right): One of the problems faced under the agreement is that Iran has continued to develop nuclear facilities, such as the one discovered at Fordow and that recently discovered at Natanz—Natanz was discovered only by opposition groups in Iran. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that those facilities, which were not included in the original agreement, have been inspected and are in conformance with the deal? Is not one of the problems that the deal does not constrain Iran from developing further nuclear facilities?
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend speaks on this matter with a great deal of interest and authority. The IAEA has conducted 400 inspections and confirmed nine times that Iran is in compliance. Iran has reduced its number of centrifuges by two thirds and its stock of enriched uranium by 95%. On that basis alone, the agreement must be counted a success.
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Philip Thomas Hollobone (Conservative, Centre-right): The nuclear deal with Iran does not end Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. At best, it just pauses the programme until 2025. By the Foreign Secretary’s own admission, Iran will then be capable of developing a deliverable nuclear weapon within a year. The price for all that, in the meantime, is that the sanctions relief is funding a campaign of terror throughout the region. We complain frequently in the House about the fact that millions of people are living in misery in Yemen. Well, that is because of the Iranian-backed Houthi rebellion, which is funded by this sanctions relief. There are hundreds of thousands of rockets on Israel’s northern border. Appeasement did not work in the 1930s, and it will not work now.
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): I am absolutely at one with my hon. Friend in his desire to be tough on Iran. The question is whether we can achieve that by getting rid of the JCPOA. If we get rid of the JCPOA, what would our subsequent plans be? What would be the options, really, for being tough on Iran in the way he wants? The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) suggested bombing but, after closely interrogating everybody I could find in the White House, I would say that there is no enthusiasm in the United States for a military option, and there is no such plan. What we want to hear now is the successor plan.
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Atta-Ur-Rehman Chishti (Conservative, Centre-right): I refer the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister’s statement at the Gulf Co-operation Council summit in 2016: "I am clear-eyed about the threat that Iran poses to the Gulf and the wider Middle East." She said that we will work with our GCC partners to "counter that threat." Can the Secretary of State clarify what tangibly has been done to counter that threat? Apart from all the countries named today, another country, Morocco, expelled the Iranian ambassador this May in relation to Iran’s aggressive behaviour in Morocco. The deal was defective, so do we carry on with a defective deal, or do we stand by our principles and say that enough is enough?
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): What we do is recognise that the deal itself is not defective, but that we have other challenges in countering Iranian malign behaviour. As my hon. Friend knows, we have 214 separate sanctions regimes, and the UK is in the lead in trying to halt the distribution of Iranian missiles and other malign activity across the region. That is the way to do it.
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Matthew James Offord (Conservative, Centre-right): The breadth and scope of the Iranian nuclear programme indicates that it is not exclusively for civilian use. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the Prime Minister of Israel’s comments that Iran has already taken steps to revive its nuclear programme and is very likely to do so, particularly in 2025?
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): As I say, the show and tell by Benjamin Netanyahu indicated that Iran did have a nuclear ambition in the run-up to 2003. I thought that his logic indicated that it was a good idea to have a JCPOA and to stop Iran going ahead with a nuclear weapon. I must say to all those who have alternative ideas for restraining Iran in its acquisition of a nuclear weapon that if they have a military solution and if they have alternative ideas, now is the time for them to come forward with those ideas.
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Pauline Elizabeth Latham (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he believes that the agreement is being upheld by Iran. What is his view on encouraging legitimate trade between it and our country to help to foster good relations?
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative, Centre-right): Nobody is in any doubt that the Iranian regime is responsible for great terror and often war, certainly in the region and in other areas of the world. My right hon. Friend, as a scholar of Churchill, will recognise the phrase, "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war," so may I congratulate him on going out to Washington? He will also recognise that this is about not just the White House, but Capitol Hill. As we try to lead America to work on the deal and see how it can be adjusted, he should therefore also give attention to the House of Representatives.
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for his work in building our relationships with Capitol Hill. As he knows, in Congress there is a very wide measure of support for the JCPOA and a great deal of confusion about the exact motives of the White House in choosing to walk away from it.
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Helen Olivia Bicknell Whately (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend would have preferred America to stay in the nuclear agreement, but given that it has not, will he say what scope he sees in working with the US to constrain Iran’s wider activities, which are destabilising the region?
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
James Stephen Heappey (Conservative, Centre-right): The Foreign Secretary has my support for the line he has taken, but he probably has less support from the Israelis, Saudis, Emiratis and other key partners in the region. What steps has he taken over the weekend to reassure those friends of ours in the region of our commitment to supporting them against the malign threat of Iran?
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We have made it very clear to our good friends in the Gulf that we do not share entirely their perspective on this matter and that we do think there are merits in the nuclear deal—they understand that. I must say to all those who want an alternative future in the Gulf and elsewhere that it is incumbent on them to show us a better way of constraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions, specifically.
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Julian Carlton Knight (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my right hon. Friend agree that whereas some may disagree with what the President has done, it is a mistake to indulge in any anti-American rhetoric, as the US is, and remains by a country mile, our most important ally?
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Kevin John Foster (Conservative, Centre-right): When the House considered this deal a couple of years ago, I said that it was about one issue and not about taking our eye off the range of appalling issues the Iranian regime is responsible for, not least its appalling human rights record. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is regrettable that the US has pulled out, Iran still needs to stick to this deal and, ultimately, it will be up to Iran whether it has a nuclear programme or not?
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Ross Thomson (Conservative, Centre-right): From Beirut to Basra, Iran is a malign influence in the region, with its destabilising activities and its hegemonic ambitions. I agree with, and welcome, the statement from my right hon. Friend at the weekend that there are flaws in the deal. What reassurance can he give the House about steps he will be taking, alongside our ambassador in Iran, to cover those flaws? What tangible progress is being made to curtail Iran’s activities?
Iran Nuclear Deal — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): The most important thing we can do, as I have said several times, is to deal with the problem of the sunset clauses, which has been identified repeatedly across the House, and with the ICBMs—I think we have dealt with the issue of inspection—and then to constrain Iran’s wider activity in the region. As I have said repeatedly, we are working closely with the Americans and others to do so.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: Technology
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): I will come on to what has changed in the many years since 2013, not least of which is the fact that we now have a full-blown independent press regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which did not exist back then.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: Technology
William David Wiggin (Conservative, Centre-right): I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. First, IPSO is not a press regulator, because it does not comply with the requirements to be a regulator; it is merely a complaints handler. Secondly, he may have inadvertently misled the House, because it is not necessary to join IMPRESS as he said earlier on. It is necessary for regulators to comply with the rules, which is slightly different.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: Technology
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): We have three separate systems of media regulation in this country: a separate system for broadcasters; an essentially self-regulated system under IPSO for newspapers; and then there is the issue of how we make sure that what happens online is properly regulated as well. I will come on to that last point, because it is a very important part of the debate. The impact of the new clauses on the local press should not be underestimated. Two hundred local newspapers have already closed since 2005, and these new clauses would accelerate that decline. However, there is one national newspaper that is carved out in the small print of the new clauses as it only covers newspapers run for profit. Which newspaper is exempted? It is The Guardian. If those who tabled these new clauses thought that they were making friends with The Guardian, they were wrong. The Guardian has said that "the Data Protection Bill should not be used as a vehicle for imposing an unfair and partial system on publishers." It did not ask for the measures, and it, too, opposes them. Indeed, in a recent consultation, 79% of direct responses favoured full repeal of section 40, compared with just 7% who favoured full commencement.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: Technology
Thomas Georg John Tugendhat (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in many ways, there are two forms of media already operating in this country? One is printed, published and broadcast from reputable sources, which have assets in this country that we can take action against, or not, and the other form is websites that have either very low assets or no assets in this country with very different accountability. Bizarrely, could we not find ourselves in a position under this system where the only people who can get justice are those who are rich enough, such as Peter Thiel, to destroy the website Gawker, in this case, because it was acting against him, rather than those of us on more modest means who would have absolutely no recourse against these organisations, but yet all the news would have gone online because these regulations would force out our newspapers?
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: Technology
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is completely right about the gap between online and print in terms of standards of regulation. That is because IPSO was brought into force—I was glad to see it being introduced in 2014. He is also right that tackling the problems online is critical. Our internet safety strategy, which will be published in the next couple of weeks, will address that matter directly. I know that there are many Members who have concerns about the impact of content online, of abuse online, and of the ability to get redress online, and we will not let that rest. We will ensure that we take action to tackle the problems online in the same way that IPSO deals with the press and indeed that these new clauses deal with publications in the press I am glad that IPSO now has the power to require front page corrections as it did, for instance, just a couple of weeks ago with The Times. As the House knows, I have pushed IPSO to bring in further measures. It recently introduced a system of compulsory low-cost arbitration. This means that ordinary people who do not have large sums of money can take claims to newspapers for as little as £50. Almost all of the major national newspapers have signed up to it. That means that anyone who has been wronged by a national newspaper can, for the first time, ask for arbitration and the newspaper cannot refuse. The scheme applies not just to words, but to images. This must be the start of a tougher regime, and not the conclusion.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: Technology
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): I have a lot of sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend. MailOnline is, of course, an online publication, and we are looking at that as part of our internet safety strategy. I am very happy to talk to him about how that can be done. Only in the past week, however, many publications have joined the IPSO low-cost arbitration scheme, which is binding on them, and I very much hope that more will join in the future.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: Law and Crime
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): That is absolutely right. The minimum access cost will be £50, which means that everybody has access to justice at low cost. There is more to it than that, however. Some people argue that the £60,000 limit on damages is too low, but the arbitration scheme does not stop somebody going to court, so there is access to justice where damages should be higher. The arbitration scheme is an addition to, rather than a replacement for, going to court. It introduces a robust and fair system that is easy for everybody to access, so everyone can have access to justice The section 40 amendments would, ironically, have the opposite effect, because anybody with the means to take small newspapers to court could stop them publishing stories for fear of having to pay the costs, even if they get everything right.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: Technology
Andrew William Murrison (Conservative, Centre-right): Is it not the case that IPSO proposed its arbitration scheme only when a number of colleagues had tabled amendments that were distinctly unhelpful to the print media? Can we trust that organisation? Will my right hon. Friend be extremely careful about removing the boot from the neck of IPSO, particularly in relation to the review period? I know that he will come on to talk about that shortly, but will he consider tightening the review period, because at the moment it gives IPSO the best part of a decade before there is any prospect of further change if the industry does not behave itself?
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: Social Welfare
Victoria Grace Ford (Conservative, Centre-right): I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State refer to a low-cost scheme. People have told me about their concern that £60,000 may be too low because there needs to be a deterrent. Will the four-year review also cover that £60,000 cap?
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: Law and Crime
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): I am glad that my right hon. Friend acknowledges the diligence and hard work of Sir Brian Leveson in the inquiry. He highlighted the particular vice of corrupt police officers giving the names of persons—perhaps whose premises are being searched—to corrupt journalists who publish them before charge, and very often those people are never charged. No amount of redress can undo that damage. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and other concerned Members to consider revisions and what additional legal protection can be given to people post-charge to prevent this trade in muck and dirt, sometimes without anybody ever coming before a criminal court, which undermines the presumption in favour of innocence?
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-05-09
Topic: Law and Crime
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): Yes, I will. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are discussing the rules around the disclosure of the names of people who are under investigation before arrest. This is a sensitive area, and we have got to get it right. I want to work with colleagues and others to explore the reporting restriction rules further, and I look forward to meeting him and any others who share those concerns.