argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): What a mess! We get one thing one day and another thing the next. Yesterday, the Secretary of State was asked in the Brexit Committee, "Could the vote in our Parliament be after March 2019?" The answer he gave was, "Yes, it could be." Later in the day the Prime Minister had a go at correcting him, and then his own spokesperson had to clarify his remarks. Today, he says that the vote will be before the deal is concluded. That is not good enough. May I remind him that the commitment he has just referred to, made at the Dispatch Box, that we would have a meaningful vote was made when the Government were on the verge of losing a vote on a Labour amendment to the article 50 Bill to give Parliament that vote? That commitment cannot now casually be dispensed with The text of article 50 is clear: there can be no deal until the European Parliament has approved it and voted on it. The nonsense we heard yesterday about "nanoseconds" has to be put in that proper context. It would be wholly unacceptable if time was found for the European Parliament to vote on the deal before it is concluded but time was not found in this House. Does the Secretary of State expect us to sit here watching on our screens the European Parliament proceedings while we are told that we do not have time? I do not think so. We need a cast-iron guarantee that that will not happen The Secretary of State has repeatedly asked us to accept his word at the Dispatch Box. Given the events of the past 24 hours, will he now accept the amendments tabled to the withdrawal Bill that would put into law a meaningful article 50 vote, so that we all know where we stand and do not have to repeat this exercise?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State told the Committee yesterday that the Government’s aim was to conclude one agreement covering the divorce, the transitional arrangements and the new deep and special partnership with the EU, but he has also accepted that the last of these has to be agreed by a different process because that deal could not be finally concluded until we had left the EU. Given that it is likely to be a mixed agreement, only one Parliament objecting would mean it could not be concluded. In those circumstances, would that bring down the whole deal, and if so, is it not sensible to separate out the divorce and the transition, which would not require the consent of every Parliament of the 27, and the new deep and special partnership, which ought to be negotiated during the transition period?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): With the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), saying one thing from the Dispatch Box on 7 February and the Secretary of State saying not one but two things in the space of 24 hours yesterday, it is clear that ministerial assurances on this matter are not enough. Does the Secretary of State not agree that after the shambles of the last 24 hours, when he had to be rebutted by his own departmental spokesman, the only way to guarantee Parliament a meaningful say on and input into these most vital negotiations is to amend the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill accordingly?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): Hardly a day goes by without another example of the Government’s muddle about Brexit. Yesterday, the Secretary of State confirmed to me three times during the Select Committee proceedings that the vote could come after March 2019. This is not about leave or remain, but about the nation coming together for the big change ahead. Will he confirm what he understands by the term "meaningful"? Does it still mean a choice between leaving the European Union with a negotiated deal or not? If Parliament votes against a deal, what happens next? In the case of no deal, would the Government expect to leave the European Union without a vote of the UK Parliament, or would the Prime Minister seek further negotiating time? Is the vote meaningful if there is nothing that it can change? Has he taken into account the fact that, next year, the European Parliament will dissolve for elections? If we are delayed beyond October, will our deal not be left in limbo?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): The Foreign Secretary went around this country in a big red bus, saying that £350 million extra per week would go to the NHS if we voted to leave. That will not happen. The Environment Secretary said that the 3 million EU citizens in this country would be automatically granted the right to remain. That has not happened. This Secretary of State said that this House would get a vote on our withdrawal arrangements before we leave, and that does not look like it is guaranteed to happen either. Why should we believe anything that is said at this Dispatch Box? Clearly, we have to take what they say with a lorry load of salt.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Foreign Trade
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): Sorry, but the answer is not good enough. This is a critical question. The Secretary of State says that if the House votes against the deal, which could be a bad one, the Government will move ahead without a deal. Does that mean that the only choice is to crash out on to World Trade Organisation terms, which would be an absolute disaster for our country, or does it leave open the option of the Government continuing to negotiate, seeking more time or even staying in on current terms?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): The wording of amendment 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is clear. It would require "the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union." Surely that should be of concern to us all across the House, whatever form of Brexit we want and whatever size of divorce bill we think is acceptable. It is a simple matter about Parliament having the right to have its say, and guaranteeing that on the face of the Bill. Will the Secretary of State agree to accept amendment 7 or table a very similar Government amendment—yes or no?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): Surely the point is that a fait accompli is not a British concept in law. What the Government are trying to do, effectively, is present this House, Parliament and the country with a fait accompli—take it or leave it. If the Secretary of State were not a Government Minister now, I am sure he would be signing the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). Just in case the Secretary of State loses his job between now and Committee stage, would it not be a good idea for him to declare now that he is going to sign up to that amendment?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Paul Phillip Flynn (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Secretary of State ignore the voices of manic optimism that seem to be compulsory among Conservative Members and agree that the choice that will be made on the final deal will be very, very different from the choice made on 23 June 2016? Does he not believe that well-informed second thoughts are always superior to ill-informed first thoughts?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): The issue that we are debating today goes to the heart of the trust and confidence that the British people should have in our parliamentary democracy. The sad reality is that ministerial assurances are no longer good enough. The Secretary of State has said that he will not sign somebody else’s amendment, so why does he not table his own amendment to the withdrawal Bill to give this House and the British people the clarity and coherence that is so desperately needed?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): In the Bill, the Secretary of State is taking the power to set the exit date. Will he now acknowledge that he can allow Parliament as much time as it needs to take the primary legislation to approve the new arrangements?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Government Operations
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): It is not just Members of this House who want to be absolutely assured that parliamentarians will have a meaningful vote. My constituents have understood all along that I would come here to vote to represent their best interests, and that that would make a difference. Although I am sure that the Secretary of State means what he is saying to this House today, any assurance for the future is meaningful only if it is on the face of the Bill, so I ask him either to accept amendment 7 or to table his own amendment to achieve the same outcome.
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Christian John Patrick Matheson (Labour, Centre-left): There is a dangerous and sinister anti-intellectualism running through the Brexit ranks—we have seen more evidence of that this week. There is no substitute for facts, so if we are to have a meaningful vote, will the Secretary of State undertake to publish, before that vote takes place, his own Government’s impact assessments on the effect of Brexit?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Karin Marguerite Smyth (Labour, Centre-left): I think we have learned that the Government will not accept amendment 7, in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and that they will not table their own amendment, but can the Secretary of State at least guarantee that we will have a vote on a no deal strategy?
Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Jeffrey Smith (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State can keep parroting the words "the undertaking given to this House", but that is meaningless unless we know what happens after a supposedly meaningful vote. When will he explain to us what he means by, "We move ahead without a deal"?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Social Welfare
James McMahon (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the social care debate yesterday, the Minister claimed that the number of people working in social care has increased, yet the Office for National Statistics workforce data say that the number of people working in "other health and social care" has decreased every quarter consistently for the last five years. Is it in order to ask the Minister to confirm in writing the evidence base that informed that comment?
Modern Slavery Act 2015 — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Law and Crime
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend for raising that absolutely crucial issue. Often at the end of the statutory 45-day period of reflection, there is a period of further support that people may be given, but the evidence shows that the vast majority of people who enter into that fall back into exploitation or are re-trafficked. Something needs to be done to deal with this The police say that they have often referred the same individual into the national referral mechanism multiple times.
Modern Slavery Act 2015 — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Labor
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): One of the critical issues is inspection and enforcement within the labour market. Does my hon. Friend agree that resourcing that is crucial? A recent report by Focus on Labour Exploitation, a charity of which I am a trustee, detailed how far we are lagging behind other European countries in International Labour Organisation-recommended levels of resourcing. Is he concerned that we have only 0.4 inspectors per 10,000 workers while Poland has twice as many and Norway over three times as many, and that we allocate just £7.69 per worker for enforcement while, closer to home, Ireland spends twice as much? Does he think that the Minister needs to address this issue in her response?
Modern Slavery Act 2015 — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Law and Crime
Mark Richard Tami (Labour, Centre-left): A few months ago there were some police raids in north Wales. People were being kept effectively as slaves. A common response was, "We never realised that this sort of thing went on here." There is an idea that it only happens in London or other big cities, but it is happening throughout the country.
Modern Slavery Act 2015 — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: Law and Crime
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): I thank everyone who has taken the time to contribute to this massively important debate from across the country. I also welcome the Minister’s comments and the reforms she has announced—I think I have had a greater impact as co-chair of the all-party group than I had as policing Minister. [Laughter.] The serious point is that the changes she announced to the NRM, particularly around the extension of the period for which support will be available, are very important. Other extremely important changes are those around aligning the living costs available to victims vis-á-vis people in the asylum system and around awareness raising, particularly with respect to first responders There are other things, of course, that arose in the debate that we will need to discuss, but for now I just want to thank the Minister for her response and to say to her that the all-party group will continue to challenge the Government, not because we wish to be underhand, but because it is only by challenge that we can address what we all agree is a heinous crime. As we speak, there are still unknown thousands of children, women and men in sexual or labour exploitation. It is 2017, not 200 years ago during the abolition debate. We need to do more. The Minister has made some welcome comments today, and the House is united in doing all it can to stamp out this modern scourge Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the implementation of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Global LGBT Rights — House of Commons, 2017-10-26
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that when we look at DFID’s work, it is crucial to look at the support given to deal with the HIV/AIDS epidemic, particularly as it applies to the LGBT+ community and the MSM—men who have sex with men—community in developing countries and, particularly where we are looking at pulling out bilateral or multilateral aid, at ensuring that adequate services for those communities remain?
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-01
Topic: Government Operations
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): For the benefit of the House, let me say that a point of order was raised yesterday regarding the publication of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, and I think it might be helpful to make a short statement on the matter The Bill was initially made available in hard copy and online on Wednesday 29 November. An error was identified on Thursday morning and was brought to the attention of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), who immediately informed the Public Bill Office. The error identified was not in any way the fault of the hon. Gentleman; it was an error made during the manual inputting of the text into the Bill publishing software. The Public Bill Office is taking steps to improve this process to ensure that such a mistake is not repeated with future Bills The corrected version of the Bill was available online within 30 minutes of the error being reported, and hard copies were made available in the Vote Office within one hour, 10 minutes and five seconds. I am satisfied that there was no infringement of the notice requirements for the Bill and, just as importantly, that the error does not affect the debate that will take place on it, so I will not entertain any further points of order on this subject.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-01
Topic: Government Operations
Mohammed Afzal Khan (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for providing that clarification I am new to Parliament, but I have been in politics for decades, and in that time, I have seen trust in our political system erode. Today, only 20% of the UK trusts politicians at least to some degree. The public already see politicians as remote, self-interested and unaccountable, and the current boundary changes would make that worse. The Bill would preserve the MP-constituency link, the power to scrutinise the Executive and the strength of our communities. It would harness engagement in recent elections to reverse, rather than reinforce, the trend towards disillusionment This is a debate about our democracy. I stand to gain no advantage from the change I am proposing because, under the current review, my constituency would stay exactly the same. I am here to speak for the good of Parliament, not my own. I will briefly set out the five key arguments for my Bill, as I am keen to allow time for other contributions First, the public see politicians as remote. The boundary changes would take MPs even further away from their constituents. I am fortunate in that I can get from one end of Manchester, Gorton to the other in half an hour, but many colleagues come from rural constituencies that are already a challenge to represent. As we reduce the number of MPs, these constituencies will get bigger. Let us take the example of North Lancashire, which would stretch from the edge of the Lake district to the outskirts of Blackpool and Preston, covering more than half the county. Practically the only argument that the Government used in favour of reducing the number of MPs was that it would save money—apparently about £13 million. That falls apart when we consider that the previous two Prime Ministers appointed 260 life peers between them, at a cost of £34 million a year. Why increase the size of the unelected House of Lords if we are really trying to cut the cost of politics There are other ways to save money. Not embarking on five-yearly boundary reviews, which each cost about £10 million, would be a start. Gradually reducing the number of MPs could be another, but a drastic and sudden reduction in the number of MPs causes much more disruption, and costs more than is necessary. Clearly cost was not the real motivation; the change was an attempt to gain a political advantage Secondly, we cannot reduce the number of MPs without reducing the size of the Executive. With the same proportion of MPs as we have now, 48% of Conservative Members would be on the payroll. The job of Back Benchers in all parties is to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account. Reducing the number of MPs would tip the balance of power towards the Executive. The charge that politicians are unaccountable would only become stronger and louder. What we would lose in independent-minded dissenters cannot be justified by modest savings.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-01
Topic: Government Operations
Mohammed Afzal Khan (Labour, Centre-left): I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but the bottom line is that if we are trying to reduce cost, why are the Government putting more and more unelected people into the House of Lords, and appointing more and more special advisers? It does not make sense. I would prefer to have more elected people.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-01
Topic: Government Operations
David Drew (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend accept what the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee said in 2015: if the Government of the day got their way—this Government are trying again—it would break all locational links and completely undermine the representational basis of this House? That would be a very sad day.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-01
Topic: Government Operations
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Lady is making an incredibly important point. The population of Edinburgh is exploding, but the number of constituencies is going down. That surely means that the boundary changes are making this place less representative, rather than more.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-01
Topic: Government Operations
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. Lady not agree that it is better to represent a large constituency in a single unitary authority area, rather than trying to represent a smaller constituency, as set out in the Boundary Commission proposals, that straddles two borough areas with double the number of borough chief executives, clinical commissioning groups, police and—
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-01
Topic: Law and Crime
Khalid Mahmood (Labour, Centre-left): Yes, it does. [Interruption.] Conservative Members might find this funny, but it is not funny for those who live in the communities. We have been able to work together and the crime rates in that area of Birmingham have fallen. When I was elected in 2001 there was huge concern about that area, particularly in relation to gun crime. We lost two young women, Charlene and Letisha, in a gun fight over the Christmas and new year period. Since then we have managed to put together community policing, but the Conservatives have cut that so we cannot now have such policing in that area.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-01
Topic: Law and Crime
Khalid Mahmood (Labour, Centre-left): I am not going to take any more silly interventions from Conservative Members. They must realise what this means to my communities. This is about protecting those communities and building on the unity and bonds that have been formed. Conservative Members do not understand that, and neither does the Boundary Commission. I am passionate about keeping this unity, because of the work we have done over the last 16 and a half years, with the police, the community and many different sorts of organisations, to pull that together. [Interruption.] Conservative Members find this funny, but it is not funny for those people who have had huge numbers of issues to deal with. Thankfully, over the last 16 years, working with these organisations and the police, we have managed to address them. We want to continue to hold the constituency together, and support those people.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-01
Topic: Government Operations
Khalid Mahmood (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to me: my point is about the connection between the communities that we have, and we want to keep them together. [Interruption.] They will not be together under the boundary changes, because they will be divided between two different local authorities.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-01
Topic: Government Operations
Gareth Craig Snell (Labour, Centre-left): Is the right hon. Gentleman therefore saying that the cost of politics and the number of Members are not linked? His argument that the simple way to cut costs in this place is to reduce the number of MPs is undermined by his own evidence.