argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Committee on Standards: Decision of the House — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Other
Robert William Henry Seely (Conservative, Centre-right): I abstained last week, so I thank the Government absolutely for the apology; it is completely the right thing to do. I want to put on record that, despite the fact that I abstained and I occasionally have the misfortune to vote against this Government, they continue to be nothing but supportive of both myself and the people of the Isle of Wight.
Committee on Standards: Decision of the House — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): It is clear that the Committee agreed by the House last week will not be able to develop proposals without cross-party participation, which is why we are continuing discussions and listening to views from across the House about the best way forward.
Committee on Standards: Decision of the House — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peter James Bottomley (Conservative, Centre-right): I am biased in favour of Paul Dacre because he and I were working to get the killers of Stephen Lawrence charged and convicted. If I was asked whether he is the right person to chair Ofcom I would say no, but I have not been asked Many will want to speak in this debate, Mr Speaker, so I will try not to repeat myself. I believe that the present system can work if we make it work. Those of us who find that others have taken a different view to the propriety of what we have done ought to trust their judgment more than we trust our own, and not just go on saying, "I thought I was right at the time." We can each do things that are wrong. If we do we should say so, say sorry, and try to let the House move on. That way we can ratchet up the standards of our achievements, as well as of our behaviour.
Committee on Standards: Decision of the House — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Other
Robert William Henry Seely (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman speaks with his customary eloquence, and he knows how much his speech was impactful last week. Are there specific issues that he would like to see improved or does he think that the current process is fundamentally sound?
Committee on Standards: Decision of the House — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Other
Craig Mackinlay (Conservative, Centre-right): I have just been outside the Bar of the House The hon. Member is making a point about sanctions; I wonder whether this might be helpful. I am interested to hear that there is progress on a new code of conduct. If we put the specific case aside, does he appreciate that there is a world of difference between a sanction of nine days and a sanction of 11 days, for obvious reasons? Therein might be the reason for an appeal, because of the changes and outcomes that could flow from it that my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) so ably put forward.
Committee on Standards: Decision of the House — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Other
Kevin Paul Hollinrake (Conservative, Centre-right): Someone did give my hon. Friend an answer to that. It was the Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who said that the facts were not in dispute, which is one of the conditions of setting up such a panel.
Committee on Standards: Decision of the House — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): No, I do not have time and we need to move on It is established in the recent Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme that a judge must be—and now will be, as far as I can judge—embedded in the procedure. An investigatory panel would be set up only infrequently, in cases of serious contested issues of fact that would not and could not be properly decided, and where the test of natural justice would be failed unless the Member was given the opportunity to call witnesses and/or to cross-examine witnesses supporting the complaint That is made abundantly clear by the 2003 Committee report that I have already referred to—that Committee actually had eight Lib Dem and Labour members and only three Conservatives—so why a panel was never set up is a complete mystery. I heard the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) say that he was a stickler for parliamentary procedure and due process in Parliament, so why did he decline to invoke the natural justice provisions, including examination of witnesses, under his own Standing Orders and, furthermore, consistent with the tests of fairness set out by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege Not only does every disciplinary committee in the land and other courts of justice and tribunals of every kind have rules of natural justice, but they have the right to appeal to the courts for judicial review. Members of Parliament cannot do so because of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which includes things such as equality of arms, examination of witnesses and no delay. The reality is that in this instance—in this serious, contested case—there has been a failure of natural justice I do not know, and now nobody will ever know, what the investigatory panel would have discovered, because it was never invoked. It is most regrettable and a deep contribution to this tragedy—it is the centre of gravity of this problem—that the rules of natural justice, which are prescribed under the Standing Orders, were not applied. I stand by that, because it is evident on the face of the facts and the law.
Committee on Standards: Decision of the House — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Other
John Flasby Lawrance Whittingdale (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I of course understand why it was not possible for you to call me in the debate. However, I am left in something of a dilemma. As I understand it, the House has still passed a motion that establishes a new Committee, which I am supposed to chair. I agreed to chair it on the basis that it would be a cross-party Committee that would have support from both sides of the House. It appears that that is not possible. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) indicated, I would not wish to chair a Committee that had support from only one side, but I am not clear what is the status of the Committee, given that the motion that the House passed last week, as I understand it, is still in place.
Environment Bill — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendment 33B, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu Lords amendment 45B, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu Government motion that this House insists on its amendments 75A and 75B, Lords amendment 75C, and Government motion to disagree Lords amendments 85D and 85E.
Environment Bill — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): I will now put on a time limit of three minutes so that we can get as many people in as possible. If people could speak for less than three minutes, that would be absolutely great.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
George Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): I welcome the Minister to her place. If we look back over the past few months, even the past year or so, we see very much that the resistance early on by the UK Government with Huawei, when other Five Eyes countries were banning it, has led to a remarkable back-cost for replacing all this stuff because we failed to take an early decision. While the amendment may not be perfect, it indicates clearly a big weakness in the Government’s position, even in this very good Bill. If Five Eyes countries, which are our main allies in intelligence, spot there is a problem, we should pause, investigate the reasons why, and then come back to the House with the reasons why we disagree or agree. The amendment aims at doing that, so perhaps the Government should think about amending the Bill in such a way.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
George Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): Is the main point in all of this that this was not a market failure? Although an industrial strategy is important, in reality this is a national security failure. Huawei has undercut the market progressively for nearly 15 years through its subsidies, breaking every rule and driving every company out of business. The single biggest problem we face is having a proper functioning market that requires those involved in it to obey the rules. China does not, and everyone has paid lip service to that. Is that the real problem?
Telecommunications (Security) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Other
Nigel Martin Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I am introducing a four-minute limit. There is hardly any time in this debate, and the votes will come no later than 9.37 pm. If people can be even pithier than four minutes that would be helpful.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrew Richard Rosindell (Conservative, Centre-right): I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendment 5, which was tabled by Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra The Five Eyes alliance is one of the most important strategic alliances that the UK shares. It is one of the world’s most comprehensive intelligence-sharing alliances, bringing together nations that have a strong bond forged through our shared history and values. The Government have recently taken a great stride towards strengthening our relationship with two of our Five Eyes partners, Australia and the United States, through the AUKUS agreement. I believe that Lords amendment 5 would further strengthen our ties with those great allies and ensure that we look to the future of the security and resilience of our telecommunications network. Telecommunications networks have become the foundation of our economy, allowing business, Government and communities to connect and share information. This ability to connect and communicate is now a fundamental part of the way in which our society operates. Only last year, however, the Government were still considering using the services of a Chinese company, Huawei, to manage the introduction of 5G technology in our country. That was deeply worrying, owing to the complete subservience of the Chinese tech companies to the Chinese Communist party. The unholy alliance of these so-called private companies and an authoritarian Government who have no respect for basic values such as privacy has allowed the CCP to increase internal surveillance to a level never seen before. We would be foolish to think that the CCP would not have used its access to the information accumulated by Huawei through its involvement in our 5G roll-out, given the immense levels of intelligence that it would have been able to gain from that This debacle of Huawei shows that we must be extremely careful in protecting the security of our vital infrastructure. Letting companies that are so intertwined with a malign Government manage the implementation of our telecommunications systems would be no less than an act of national self-harm. If one of our close strategic allies makes the decision to ban a telecommunications company from operating within its borders, it will have a good reason for doing so. Taking the time to consider the rationale for such decisions will cost us little, whereas I worry that not doing so could be catastrophic for our national security. I hope that this House will approve amendment 5, as it will send a clear message that technology companies that work against our national interest will not be allowed to operate in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government’s position.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
George Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, Centre-right): I will be brief, as much has been said already. However, I want to say a bit to my hon. Friend the Minister about Lords amendment 4. I also, by the way, want to recognise my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who is no longer a Minister but who was in charge of much of the Bill’s passage. I thought that he did an excellent job. It is a very good Bill which is long overdue, and there is much to praise in it I think that Lords amendments 4 and 5 are worthy of a little more assessment. Lords amendment 4 does have merits, because it recognises that there is a real problem about diversification. The point that I was trying to make to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) earlier was not an argument against any kind of strategic review or industrial policies; it was the argument that if a nation is in a sense rogue, in terms of its ability to stay within the market, and subsidises companies deliberately for strategic effect, that is why the number of companies will fall from 15 to three in the free world, which is what happened in this case. I think the amendment is about the need to recognise the fact that diversification, if not pursued deliberately, will lead us into the hands of a country like China, which then forces us eventually to have only one vendor on price, because that country has subsidised it As for Lords amendment 5, I heard the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I would not regard this as "gilding the lily". I do not much like lilies and I think they could do with a bit of gilding, but I think that this is more a case of locked doors, and if the amendment is about putting an extra door into the security panoply, I think it is important. I will be brief, but last year, along with many others, I had very strong arguments with the Government about Huawei, and we were disregarded, disregarded, disregarded. The Government even led out all the great security experts who told them that they could control everything, saying, "Don’t worry, we can manage the risk"—until it finally became apparent to them that they could not. We faced that at the time. Other Five Eyes members had already said that this was not on, but we seemed to disregard their views. So I simply say that this is not about gilding the lily; it is about reminding the Government that they must abide by these provisions I should also make the point that there are many other companies to which we should be giving real consideration right now, and which are being looked at and banned by the Five Eyes—such as Hikvision and ByteDance—and I urge the Government to think again about those as well.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-11-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Julia Louise Lopez (Conservative, Centre-right): With the leave of the House, I close this debate by thanking hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for making a number of extremely important points about national security. I am keen to address those not only now, in this legislation, but in the future, through horizon scanning for some of the challenges that are coming up I appreciate that some of the trust in the system has been undermined by the Huawei situation, and I am sympathetic to concerns raised about reporting, diversification and resilience. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) is absolutely right that this legislation is just one part of a wider security framework. The development of 5G and full-fibre networks brings new security challenges, which we must be prepared for This legislation sets up a strong regime for handling and removing high-risk vendors from our public networks, but it is just the start. Specific security measures will be set out in secondary legislation; there will be a lot of work to do in the next stage as we draw up that legislation, and we will be publishing a code of practice explaining the technical guidance that providers can follow to comply with legal duties The final secondary legislation and code will be agreed through public consultation, which I hope will provide another opportunity for hon. Members who have concerns in this area to provide adequate scrutiny. I am alive to some of those concerns, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) has outlined, MPs and Peers have had multiple chances to scrutinise and feed back on our diversification strategy, and we will continue to report on developments.
Menopause (Support and Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-10-29
Topic: Civil Rights
Esther Louise McVey (Conservative, Centre-right): I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward this issue and pursuing it in such a constructive, positive and enthusiastic way not just in the House but outside it too, and on the points she raises about the stigma attached to the menopause and the idea that women of a certain age are maybe past their prime. Absolutely not. People need to know that women’s lives actually might begin at 50. Thank you for what you have done and, I understand, for your constructive work with the Government. What you are doing today is a most important step forward—
Menopause (Support and Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-10-29
Topic: Other
Esther Louise McVey (Conservative, Centre-right): I was carried away by the excitement of the moment, but you are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady has done so much and will earn the gratitude of the whole country for what she is doing with this positive step forward today.
Menopause (Support and Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-10-29
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. The hon. Lady has already had one intervention, which was very long. I allowed that, but her second intervention is heading towards being very long and I cannot construct this debate like that. About 30 people wish to speak this morning. I am sure that the promoter of the Bill wants to make sure that as many people as possible get to speak, but that she also will not want to talk out her Bill. I hope that those who support the Bill will not make long interventions and long speeches, because otherwise the Bill will be talked out and we will not achieve the result we are intending to achieve. So I ask for brevity, please, on all sides.
Menopause (Support and Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-10-29
Topic: Civil Rights
Jacqueline Doyle-Price (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who has given a tour de force presentation of her Bill. She brings her characteristic charm and leadership with which she approaches all her campaigns. I am sure that when she was drawn at No. 3 in the private Members’ Bill ballot, the Government gave a collective intake of breath and thought, "Oh, my goodness! What is she going to bring in?" She has used that position to bring forward a Bill on a very important subject, which, as she says, affects 51% of the nation’s population. I am hugely grateful to her, not least because I have been banging on about exactly these subjects myself for a while. She is quite right when she says that there has been barely any reference to this debate or these issues in Hansard. Dare I say it, but that is because for a long time there just were not enough women in this place.
Menopause (Support and Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-10-29
Topic: Mixed Topics
Angela Joy Richardson (Conservative, Centre-right): I had that conversation with my predecessor, the right hon. Anne Milton, quite a few years ago, and she completely changed my mind about HRT. My mother and aunt had to go through this 30 years before me—I am now 47—and they had difficult reactions to HRT. My aunt died from cancer that, anecdotally, was blamed on HRT It was Anne Milton who said to me, in a frank conversation, "This is what women need to live good lives." I pay tribute to her for having the courage to have that conversation with me, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for the courage she shows in talking about it, too.
Menopause (Support and Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-10-29
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jacqueline Doyle-Price (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Lady for being so honest and open about this. She has just said that she did not know what was happening to her. Given that she is an intelligent, well-informed woman, does that not illustrate the importance of better education about this condition?
Menopause (Support and Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-10-29
Topic: Other
Sajid Javid (Conservative, Centre-right): I think every word that the hon. Lady has said will resonate with millions of people across the country for exactly the reasons she set out. It is powerful to hear from her about her personal experience, and I hope, especially after this day and going forward, that the whole House can co-operate and do much to help with this. I welcome her comments.
Menopause (Support and Services) Bill — House of Commons, 2021-10-29
Topic: Civil Rights
Ben Spencer (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and for pointing that out, but I would argue that it is maybe not 51% of the population who are in that situation of needing that care and support. Although 51% will go through the menopause, that is different from saying that 51% of the population will therefore need medical intervention and medical discussions around this But like I say, I do not particularly want to get into a deep debate on this; I just wonder whether we could ask the profession what it thinks it can do better, rather than us telling it, top-down. Of course, I would say that, I am a doctor—yadda, yadda, yadda; declarations, etc.—but I just wonder what the profession would say in response to the hon. Member’s campaign about how it can improve things and whether we can hear a bit more about that My final point is that, in a sense, I find the fact that we are having to have today’s debate deeply depressing. It is a wider indictment of the problems we have in society with the role and position of women. We have got the Equality Act 2010 and lots of legislation and statute, but as we have heard, when it comes to cultures and attitudes, it is just not there. There really needs to be a step change, given the events of the past year and what we have seen with sexual harassment. I have loads of constituents who come to me and tell me about the disrespect experienced by women. I hear the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). It is frankly appalling that women’s health has been left behind. We need to think carefully about what we can do as leaders of our communities and society to change things and increase respect for girls and women and the position of women in society. On that note, I absolutely pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East for bringing this debate forward and the campaign she is running.
Childcare Bill — House of Commons, 2021-10-29
Topic: Other
Richard John Holden (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a delight to be called in this debate on an important topic. It is something, as I mentioned in my intervention on the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), that I looked at a lot when I was a special adviser in the Department. It is always a pleasure to follow my neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison).