argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
A Green Industrial Revolution — House of Commons, 2020-01-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrea Jacqueline Leadsom (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady will hear that there is a lot of support for her initiative across the Chamber. She is right that we do not want Government to be telling people what to do; we want people to draw their own conclusions and to seek to protect and preserve our incredibly valuable biodiversity, our green spaces and our precious habitats for future generations At the same time as making the UK the best place in the world to work and to grow a business, we want our employment Bill, to which we committed in the Queen’s Speech, to make sure that work is fairly rewarded. We want to protect workers’ rights and ensure fair pay, to create a world where flexible working is just called "working", and to do more to support the crucial work that people do as carers and parents, helping people to balance work with the other things that matter in their lives. Margaret Thatcher ended her UN speech in 1989 by saying: "We are the trustees of this planet, charged today with preserving life itself—preserving life with all its mystery and all its wonder." I hope that that is something on which we can all agree, whatever our party or politics. Thirty years ago, politicians could barely have imagined the technologies that would be available today. Today, we can only dream of the world of 2050. Together—as a House, as a country and as an international community—we must act. Our action can make a global difference. Instead of self-doubt, we need self-belief in our ability to build the low-carbon, high-tech United Kingdom that we all want, a stronger, greener future for people across our shores, and a sustainable future for our planet.
A Green Industrial Revolution — House of Commons, 2020-01-15
Topic: Other
Nigel Martin Evans (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I remind the House of the informal time limit of 10 minutes—we will be quite rigid about that—and Members should observe the usual courtesies when a maiden speech is being delivered. I have great pleasure in calling the next Member to make a maiden speech, Simon Fell.
A Green Industrial Revolution — House of Commons, 2020-01-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Victoria Grace Ford (Conservative, Centre-right): It has been a pleasure to be in the Chamber this afternoon listening to the excellent maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook). Birmingham, Northfield is a place that I still hold very close to my political heart It is fitting that Members are making maiden speeches on the Queen’s Speech. As a one-nation Conservative, I warmly welcome this Queen’s Speech and the opportunity it unlocks for people all across our country. In particular, I welcome the investment in public services—in our NHS, in our police and in our schools. It is only because of our strong economy and the legacy of the past decade of Conservative-led Government that we can invest in our public services The world is changing at a remarkable rate. We are in the fourth industrial revolution. To maintain that strong economy, we need to continue to invest in science and technology and innovation. As a bit of a science geek, I welcome the Queen’s Speech commitment to keeping us as a world leader in science, to boosting our R and D funding and to unlocking innovation Innovation is not new in my constituency of Chelmsford. Exactly 100 years ago Marconi chose to locate its radar factory in Chelmsford, and 100 years ago the great Australian singer Dame Nellie made the first ever radio broadcast from Chelmsford—she sang to the world. We led the world that day in a communications revolution that we are still living through today. Marconi chose Chelmsford because of the skills of the people there and because of the infrastructure. Infrastructure matters, and, as the person who has been honoured to chair the all-party group on infrastructure in this Parliament, I believe that it is vital that we continue to invest in our infrastructure, as this Government propose Failing infrastructure is a big issue in my constituency. Our flyover, on which we have relied for many decades, suffered terminal damage in last summer’s heatwave. In Chelmsford, we have already seen how our infrastructure has to be climate change resilient. That is just one of the reasons why I have chosen to speak today on the green economy. Climate change is the biggest threat to our future. We have only one planet. The science is clear: we have to stop emissions, and we must achieve net zero I am proud that we are the first major economy to commit to net zero. We need to turn net zero into reality, and that means we need to have net zero embedded in all the decisions made at national and local government levels. We need a clear pathway.
A Green Industrial Revolution — House of Commons, 2020-01-15
Topic: Other
Robert Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my friend for allowing me to intervene. I speak as a friend of Dennis Skinner. The lesson for everyone new coming into this place is to realise that there is a difference between politics and friendship. Friendship stretches across the House; politics may differ, but friendship is firm. Dennis is one of those sorts of people who would be very welcoming when one sat down and had a chat with him.
Ockenden Review of Maternity Care: Shrewsbury and Telford — House of Commons, 2020-01-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Lucy Allan (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Clearly, the majority of women using these services have an excellent and safe experience. It is good news that there is progress and improvement, but we should not gloss over any of these cases. Regrettably, there have been new, recent cases in my constituency where women have come forward, having been made aware of the review, saying, "This happened to me a couple of years ago." It is good that the numbers are improving, but we must make sure that every one of those deaths is treated as another event.
Fishing — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Other
Douglas Gordon Ross (Conservative, Centre-right): To prove what will happen, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to wait for question 8 from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which is about exactly that. I will answer that point then, and I hope that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) will be encouraged by the response.
“Scotland’s Right to Choose” — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Other
Alister William Jack (Conservative, Centre-right): I will answer these questions together. There is no independence of thought in the questions The Prime Minister has received the First Minister’s correspondence, which contains the Scottish Government publication, and he will respond in due course.
Block Grant — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Housing
Douglas Gordon Ross (Conservative, Centre-right): I can reassure my right hon. Friend that Scotland will receive fair funding thanks to the block grant and the Barnett formula, and that will continue. On city and growth deals, we are already investing £1.4 billion across Scotland and we are committed to a deal in every part of the country, including in my own area of Moray, where we agreed to £32.5 million from the UK Government matched by the Scottish Government, making this the highest funded growth deal per head of population anywhere in the country. That is a sign to constituents across Scotland of what Scotland’s two Governments can do when they work together.
Growth Deal — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mark Rory Logan (Conservative, Centre-right): I fully support our Government’s ambitious plans to make sure that every part of Scotland benefits from a growth deal. Does the Secretary of State agree that the £1.4 billion that the UK Government have already invested in city and growth deals is another fine example of how Scotland benefits from being in a strong United Kingdom?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Housing
Questions: In the past 10 years, there have been volumes of reports, independent reviews and recommendations calling for an end to inappropriate in-patient care for people with learning difficulties or challenging behaviour. In the wake of the Winterbourne View scandal alone, there were seven such reports. As we start a new decade, would my right hon. Friend state how many people are still trapped in inappropriate care settings and instruct the Department of Health to act on those recommendations and the asks of families of campaigners so that these very vulnerable people can get the care they need and deserve?; Does the Prime Minister agree that at the heart of our one nation Government is our manifesto commitment that“A strong society needs strong families”?After last week’s £165 million boost to extend the troubled families programme, will he outline how the Government will additionally fulfil our manifesto pledge to champion family hubs, to“serve vulnerable families with the intensive, integrated support they need to care for children”?; Finally, it appears that some action is being taken against Northern Rail. Will the Prime Minister commit to stripping it of its franchise and to devolving the power and money to the regions, so that local people have the power over their local transport and never have to suffer the appalling catalogue of delays, overcrowding, cancellations and disruptions that have gone on far too long?; My right hon. Friend has always been a vocal advocate of localism, so what advice can he give to my constituents who are concerned about the local Lib Dem council’s unwanted housing plan in Eastleigh, which would lead to even more overdevelopment without securing the vital infrastructure that Eastleigh needs?
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not surprised by what my hon. Friend says about the cavalier behaviour of the Lib Dem council in Eastleigh. We will ensure that, in so far as we need to build many more homes, which we do, we will supply the infrastructure necessary and do it on brownfield sites.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Other
Michael Louis David Fabricant (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think that it will have escaped anybody’s attention—nevertheless, it is worth making the point—that we went through all the names on the Order Paper for Prime Minister’s questions and a number of other colleagues on both sides got in, and we finished at about 12.31 pm and no one had to suffer abuse from the Chair. With that, may I wish you a very happy new year and many more?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Immigration
Timothy Paul Loughton (Conservative, Centre-right): I was one of the supporters of the original family reunification amendments. I trust the Government and that this commitment will be stuck to in the appropriate place—an immigration Bill. Does the hon. and learned Lady acknowledge, however, that post-Dublin III there is a potential problem with the full extent of those family members who qualify for family reunification, and that that needs to be sorted out? There is also a problem with the rate at which potential applicants are processed in places such as Greece and Italy, which is not working well, and with the cost of applications. The whole scheme needs to be properly overhauled, and just bunging it into this Bill is not necessarily the best way of getting the best result that we all want.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Other
Roger James Gale (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. For clarification, and as the hon. and learned Lady indicated, although a considerable number of amendments and new clauses have been grouped for debate under this group, only the lead amendment at this stage is moved, so the Question is that amendment 38 be made. It gives me pleasure to call, for what will be his maiden speech in his capacity as a knight of the realm, Sir Robert Neill.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you very much indeed, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I do not share her political analysis, but I do have sympathy with some of the legal points she raises, which I will address I will start with the interpretation of retained EU law, which raises an important issue. As the hon. and learned Lady has said, concerns have been raised by many lawyers, regardless of their political views. I speak as someone who supported the Bill’s Second Reading, who will support it on Report and on Third Reading, and who stood on a manifesto commitment to implement the Bill. The lawyer in me, however, says that it is particularly important that we get this detail right. That is why I hope I can press Ministers for a little more detail and explanation as to why they have chosen a particular course to achieve their objectives I accept that there will be circumstances in which it will be necessary for courts to depart from EU law once we have left the European Union. I have no problem at all with that. I am concerned, however, that the Government’s chosen formulation for clause 26 has the potential to upset the well-established hierarchy and system of binding precedent that has characterised English common law and, to a greater or lesser degree, that of the other jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. The system of binding precedent is important because we have always regarded it as a benchmark of English law that gives certainty, in that lower courts cannot depart from the decisions of higher courts. That has served us well for centuries and is not something from which we should lightly depart It is going to be important for the future, too. If we are to advance Britain’s position as an international legal centre and an international financial and business centre—as I hope and am confident we will—certainty of law is important. I am a little concerned, however, that, without more explanation, the Government might risk getting to a stage where—inadvertently, I have no doubt, and perhaps for the sake of speed—they may undermine that valuable asset. That would have perhaps two consequences, which I will touch on. Judgments made over the years by the European Court of Justice have been embedded in domestic judgments of our courts, including those of the Supreme Court. It seems odd that power should be given to a lower court to, on the face of it, depart from a Supreme Court judgment interpreting the European law as it then was. On the face of it, and without more explanation, that seems to me to upset the doctrine of binding precedent and risks driving a coach and horses through a fundamental part of our system. That is not something we should undertake lightly. Will the Minister explain the rationale behind it and precisely how the Government will go about it? Why is it necessary?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robert James MacGillivray Neill (Conservative, Centre-right): It is indeed a very interesting paper. Having been brought up as a common lawyer myself, my preference is inevitably to move towards a stare decisis approach. I think that that is something that we all wish to move back to as we reconstruct our statute book and legal texts thereafter. My hon. Friend and I will be entirely in accord on that The question is really about the route that we choose to get there and ensuring that we have proper scrutiny of that route, because any deficiencies in regulations would likely result in a judicial review. That is another irony: I am sure that the Government would not want greater risk of judicial review of their actions than is absolutely necessary. It would be a funny Government who made work for lawyers in relation to judicial review. That might be interesting for some of us, but I am sure that it is not something that the Government wish to do. However, without more explanation as to why we are going down that route, that is the risk First, I suggest to the Minister that he should seriously consider whether we move to a "necessary" as opposed to "appropriate" test—an objective test—which is much more likely to withstand challenge in the courts, because it is more likely to be readily evidenced and, I would have thought therefore, to the Government’s advantage. If the Government get their ducks in a row early when making regulations and have evidence to back the objective test, they are much more likely to withstand legal challenge Secondly, the Government would be much less likely to face challenges and we would get better scrutiny if we moved—certainly for the majority of policy considerations —to using the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. That would perhaps be a fair balance in the House. We will not necessarily be able to do primary legislation for all of our withdrawal, because there is too much of it. Sensible use of secondary legislation, to remove references to the European Union or something of that kind, can of course be done by the negative procedure. When policy considerations are involved, however, the use of the affirmative procedure would be consistent with the Government’s objective of bringing back control to the House, and with the movement towards our traditional UK approach to legal matters. I hope that the Minister will say something about that when he responds.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Other
Desmond Angus Swayne (Conservative, Centre-right): Throughout the proceedings yesterday the Labour Back Benches were empty. For half the time there was only one Member there—Labour’s only surviving Eurosceptic—but for most of the time there was nobody there at all and we ended up finishing early, such was Labour’s determination to provide scrutiny.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience and passion on these issues. Of course I agree with him, but what we want is a free trade agreement for the whole of the UK that addresses these issues and allows us the most frictionless access to our neighbours and good trade for all of us. For Northern Ireland, that would be an excellent result. We have to focus on the fact that this Bill is about the withdrawal agreement, and that includes the protocol. We need to take through the protocol to ratify the withdrawal agreement and move forward into that negotiation The Government are committed to maintaining the highest levels of transparency and scrutiny in relation to this Bill and to the implementation of the withdrawal agreement. We have been clear on that, but the exact form of accountability needs to be appropriately framed, so the Government cannot accept new clauses 53, 54 or 65, which would place an undue burden on the Government but not provide the transparency and scrutiny that they purport to achieve. It is no surprise that the Opposition, through amendment 1, seek to place hurdles in the way of our exit, but the result of the general election across the United Kingdom shows that they lack the mandate to do so and that we have a clear mandate to proceed. We should do so without the hurdles that the previous Parliament consistently threw in the way of progress.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Immigration
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): I have answered that question many times. I am very happy to talk about many of the aspects of the political declaration that reflect some of the concerns raised in "Scotland’s Place in Europe", but that is not a matter for this debate On the important question of child refugees, which the hon. Member for Bristol West spoke about at length and with commendable passion, this Government are fully committed both to the principle of family reunion and to supporting the most vulnerable children. Our policy has not changed. Although she said that she had heard no whisper of negotiations, I can confirm that the Home Secretary wrote to the Commission on 22 October to start negotiations with the European Union on future arrangements. We will also continue to reunite children with their families under the Dublin regulation during the implementation period. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made clear, there is very strong support on the Government Benches for the principle of family reunion.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Immigration
John Michael Howell (Conservative, Centre-right): Perhaps I can help the Minister out. Is he aware that in 2017 the UK signed up to the Council of Europe’s action plan on protecting refugees and migrant children, which, among other things, enhances the integration of children into host societies, and that that commitment remains, regardless of what happens to these amendments?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Mixed Topics
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady just referred to the Council of Ministers. Would she deny for a minute, as is well understood by everybody else, that decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers by a majority vote of other countries behind closed doors and without a transcript? They are therefore not democratic. How can she talk about people being elected when the decisions are actually taken in that manner?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-08
Topic: Other
Desmond Angus Swayne (Conservative, Centre-right): Is the hon. Lady in denial, or has she been living in a bubble? We had a referendum, and we have just had a general election that reinforced the referendum result. Whatever she may say from that Dispatch Box, that ship has sailed, as one of her colleagues said.