argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-07-15
Topic: Transportation
James McMahon (Labour, Centre-left): I absolutely accept the constituency issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises, and the poor consultation cannot be excused, but he must accept that with a route and project of this scale, the minor changes that are made in one part of it will have a massive impact if that is held across the whole route, and that has an impact on the budget and the timescale. Whether he supports the project or not, he must accept at some point that it is either time to back it or scrap it. There is this idea that we can keep throwing on hundreds of small, different issues and take that as a measure of the project, but that is just not a way forward. This is a major project for this country and it should be debated in that way.
High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-07-15
Topic: Transportation
Laura Smith (Labour, Centre-left): Can we not start looking at this perhaps as broadband infrastructure and rail infrastructure? All these things in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in mine would be a great benefit to us all. It should not really be either/or.
High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-07-15
Topic: Transportation
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): I have listened carefully to the Minister, and in the light of the power of our new clause 4, I withdraw new clause 1 Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 4 Independent peer review ‘(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent peer review of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) project (2) The review must include consideration of the project’s— (a) environmental impact, (b) economic impact, (c) engineering, and (d) governance (3) In this section, "independent" means it is carried out by persons who are independent of— (a) Government, (b) HS2 Ltd, and (c) persons contracted or subcontracted to carry out the scheduled works (4) In this section, a "peer review" is a review conducted by experts of equivalent professional qualifications, expertise and standing to the persons responsible for each aspect of the project set out in subsection (2) (5) A report of the review in subsection (1) must be laid before the House of Commons within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.’—(Rachael Maskell.) Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-07-15
Topic: Transportation
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England may vote. I call the Minister to move the consent motion Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of, and Schedules to, the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill: Clauses and Schedules certified under SO No. 83J as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence Clauses 1 to 33, 35, 37 and 40 to 62 of, and Schedules 1 to 28 and 30 to 32 to, the Bill (Bill 397).—(Ms Ghani.)
High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-07-15
Topic: Transportation
Stephen James McCabe (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister will no doubt be aware, as are other Members, of how often the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) likes to refer in this Chamber to the wise words of the Mayor for the West Midlands Combined Authority. Does the Minister think he may be interested to know that when I met the Mayor this morning he was extolling the virtues of HS2, and insisting how important it was for his work and for the benefit of the entire region?
Speaker’s Statement — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: Government Operations
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I will now announce the arrangements for the ballot for the election of Deputy Speakers. The ballot will be held in Committee Room 8 from 10 am to 1.30 pm on Wednesday 8 January. Nominations shall be submitted to the Table Office between 10 am and 6 pm on Tuesday 7 January. Nomination forms and the briefing note with more details about the election are available in the Table Office, the super-hub and Vote Office. I hope this is helpful to colleagues Adjournment (Christmas) Ordered, That this House, at its rising on Friday 20 December 2019, do adjourn until Tuesday 7 January 2020.—(Mr Rees-Mogg.) Allocation of Select Committee Chairs (Timing) Ordered, That the following provisions shall have effect in this Parliament in relation to Standing Order No. 122B (Election of select committee chairs); (1) In paragraph (3), the reference to "a week" shall be read as "three weeks"; and (2) In paragraph (5), the reference to "two weeks" shall be read as "four weeks".—(Mr Rees-Mogg.)
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): Over the past three and a half years, the Government’s mishandling of Brexit has delivered nothing but political gridlock, chaos and economic uncertainty. It has paralysed our political system, divided communities and nations, and become a national embarrassment on an unprecedented scale We recognise the clear message from the British public last week, however they voted in the referendum of 2016, and understand their determination to end the never-ending cycle of the Brexit debate, and get back to solving the day-to-day issues that challenge them in their daily lives. We must listen and understand that we cannot go on forever debating what happened in 2016. We have to respect that decision and move on However, understanding all that does not mean that we as a party and a movement should abandon our basic principles or ever give up the demand for a fairer and more just society. We warned before the general election that the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal was a terrible deal for our country, and we still believe that it is a terrible deal today.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I will give way later on This deal will not protect or strengthen our rights, or support our manufacturing industry and vital trading relationships, or protect our natural world in a time of unprecedented climate crisis. Neither will it address the deep inequality in our system, nor secure the interests of every nation and region in the United Kingdom Instead, under the Conservatives, this deal will be used as a battering ram to drive us down the path of yet more deregulation and towards a toxic deal with Donald Trump that will sell out our national health service and push up the price of medicines to benefit US drug corporations. It will take us away from the essential principles that we believe in: a country that looks after everybody and protects those communities left behind by the excesses of the free market This deal does not bring certainty for communities, for business or for the workforce. In fact, it does the opposite and hardwires the risk of a no-deal Brexit next year. I am sure that that will delight many Government Members, but it will not delight those who suffer the consequences in communities and workplaces all across the country That is why Labour will not support the Bill, as we remain certain that there is a better and fairer way for this country to leave the European Union—one that would not risk ripping our communities apart, selling out our public services or sacrificing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process This deal is a roadmap for the reckless direction in which the Government and the Prime Minister are determined to take our country. They have done their utmost to hide its likely impact, and they continue to use gimmicks and slogans to turn attention away from their real intentions.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: Labor
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I am disappointed in the right hon. Member, but in the spirit of Christmas I wish him well. He has not been listening to what I have said Nothing exposes the Government’s intentions more clearly than the steps that they have already taken on workers’ rights. For all the promises over the past few weeks that they are the party to protect rights at work, at the very first opportunity they have removed the basic provisions they said would be part of this Bill. That does not bode well for the separate Bill that the prime minister is now saying he will bring forward on workers’ rights. If he wants to assure people that their rights are safe in his hands, he should commit to legislate to ensure that workers’ rights in Britain will never fall behind European Union standards in future, and support amendments to enshrine that commitment within the Bill.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: International Affairs
Rupa Asha Huq (Labour, Centre-left): Is not the whole point that the withdrawal agreement seems to be diminishing all the time? This is worse than the agreement from the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). There are things that have vanished from the one that we had before the election. It is not only workers’ rights that have been downgraded. It is parliamentarians’ rights, because the legislature’s ability to scrutinise the Executive has been taken away. It is bad for democracy.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: International Affairs
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman mentions England and Wales, but in the last election 16.5 million people voted for remain parties and 14.5 million for leave. The remain vote was divided. Does he not agree that the least this Government can do is to provide democratic scrutiny and a soft Brexit that allows alignment on workers’ rights and the environment and, importantly, scrutiny over trade deals with the United States and elsewhere?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: International Affairs
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). I agree with her argument that we need to be able to disagree agreeably, as I think President Obama once put it If the Secretary of State is looking for some consolation for his Department being abolished at the very moment that we leave the European Union, let me tell him that it will also mean that he will no longer have the untrammelled joy of appearing before the Brexit Select Committee. I thank all Members who have served on the Committee and our wonderful team of Clerks and advisers, who have supported us with their expertise At the heart of this Bill is a gamble—a gamble with our nation’s economy. The Prime Minister has so much confidence in the Government’s ability to finalise a new relationship with the European Union by this time next year that this Bill will prevent, by law, any extension of the transition period beyond December 2020. If he succeeds, his gamble will have paid off—although I wonder how detailed an agreement he will manage to achieve in that time—but if he fails, the cliff edge of a no-deal Brexit beckons in just 12 months’ time The pillar on which that confidence is built is the argument that because we have been aligned with the European Union for the past 40 or so years, that deal should be easy to reach. That argument would have force only if the Government were planning to stay as closely aligned to the other 27 member states and their rules, but we know that that is not the case. The Government want to move away from European rules and regulations. Indeed, the Prime Minister said it today: no alignment with EU rules. As that intention becomes clear to our EU negotiating partners, it will make the negotiations not simple, but much more complicated No doubt the Bill will be passed today. The question that the House has to address is: can a deal be completed when, as we have just heard, it took Canada seven years to reach an agreement? Can it be completed in 12 months, when we know that we have to negotiate not just tariffs and quotas and rules of origin, but services—80% of the British economy is built on the service sector—data, aviation, medicine safety, co-operation on consumer rights, security, access to databases that have helped to keep us safe from terrorism, which we will lose if we do not get this right, foreign policy, co-operation on climate change, and a long list of other matters of huge importance for the British economy and British society?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: International Affairs
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): The Bill that the last Parliament passed did not hamstring the Prime Minister, because he achieved a renegotiation. However, to be fair, all he did was accept 95% of his predecessor’s deal and replace the previous backstop with a backstop that had been offered the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), but rejected on grounds that were clearly set out by the current Prime Minister to the Democratic Unionist party conference in November 2018—namely, that he would never, ever accept a border in the Irish sea, which is what he has promptly now done, which reminds us that it is not always wise to take the Prime Minister at his word.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has read the Government’s impact assessment for this Bill, which says at paragraph 241: "Goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be required to complete both import declarations and Entry Summary…Declarations," thereby flatly contradicting what the Prime Minister has been saying.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: Foreign Trade
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. We have been told repeatedly that there will be no border in the Irish sea; there is now going to be a border in the Irish sea. That will have consequences for the way in which trade is conducted This Bill is also a gamble because of the clause that says that no Minister is able to apply for an extension. Quite why the Government need to legislate to prevent something from happening that they have already made clear they have no intention of allowing to happen—an extension to the transition period—escapes me, but I gently point out to the House that the point of no return will be next June. Under the withdrawal agreement, if a further extension has not been agreed between the parties by then—and the Government are ruling it out—there will be no possibility of extending the period. I say to the Government that they will need to be really, really confident about how the negotiations are going by June next year—not very far away—if they are to be certain that they will not need that additional time to get what they want There is no doubt that the Prime Minister is looking for a hard Brexit, because a free trade agreement of the type he has put before the British people—and for which, I grant him, he has won a mandate—has already been assessed by the Government as the second worst outcome for the economy after a no-deal Brexit. It is extraordinary that the House has still not been presented with an economic assessment of the single most important decision that we are going to take and the nature of the future relationship—nothing; silence. History will record that that was an act of irresponsibility I say to the House—in particular to new Members on both sides, whom I congratulate on their election—that, as these negotiations unfold, businesses that we represent will be coming to us; they will want issues to be raised in the negotiations and will be concerned about the outcome of the negotiations. Some of the things they are looking for will not be consistent with the policy that the Government have set out. This should not be about ideology; it is about the practical implications of having thrown away—because that is what Brexit does—the best trading relationship we have with any countries in the world. It is about what kind of new long-term arrangements will be put in place, on which our jobs, our factories and our communities depend. If the Government get it wrong, it will be a question not of getting Brexit done but of some industries being done over by Brexit.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: Foreign Trade
Matthew Raymond Western (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend is making such a powerful speech. Does he not agree that the great concern for this place has to be that it was promised that we would take back control? The greatest deceit of all is the fact that there will be no scrutiny in this place of any element of the trade deals and the impact they will have on our economy.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: International Affairs
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with my hon. Friend: that is a matter of great regret I come to my final point. Our leaving the European Union will create great cheer on the Government Benches, just as it will sadden many of us on the Labour side. The divisions it has created will not easily be healed: many people still think that this is a terrible mistake that will weaken our economy and our influence in the world In the modern age, it is how we use our sovereignty that will determine how well we can advance our interests and protect our citizens. If we have learned anything from the events of recent times, it is that if we are to deal with the great challenges we face as a world—climate change, the movement of people around the globe, dealing with threats to peace and security, making sure that the global economy works in the interests of all—we can do it only by working together. We are about to walk away from one of the most important relationships that enables us to do that. I say to the Government that we will hold them to account as the process develops and unfolds.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I echo the final sentence of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) but not much else of what he said The Prime Minister was understandably very anxious to hold the general election before the Bill was scrutinised. As we go through the Bill in detail, the impact of his agreement on the UK will become apparent. The agreement will do a lot of damage to our constitution and to our economy, and Government Members will have a lot of explaining to do to their constituents as those impacts become apparent in the years ahead I want to raise two points. First, I want to deal briefly with an important subject that I raised with the Prime Minister in the House on 19 October. I asked him whether he understood the worries of manufacturing exporters, as set out by their organisation, Make UK, about new rules of origin checks and other red tape that his deal will impose on them. He answered: "The reason I am not worried about that is that there are no new rules of origin checks."—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 594.] But that is not what his deal says. Paragraph 22 of the political declaration, which he negotiated, refers to "appropriate and modern accompanying rules of origin" for the proposed free trade agreement, in direct contradiction to what he said in the Chamber. Of course, the reality is that there will have to be rules of origin checks to stop products from countries outside Europe entering the European Union via a UK free trade agreement Secondly, I want to talk about a subject—it has been aired already in the debate—where again the Prime Minister’s statements contradict directly the agreement that he has negotiated. The withdrawal agreement’s protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland—in paragraph 4 of article 5—states "The provisions of Union law listed in Annex 2 to this Protocol shall also apply…in respect of Northern Ireland." Annex 2 comprises 34 pages and lists what I count as 287 separate items of EU law that will continue to apply in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the UK. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley was celebrating exiting the customs union, but of course Northern Ireland will not exit the customs union The first of those 287 items of EU law is the European Union customs code, which will continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the UK has left the EU, and that will have far-reaching consequences for Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), who both made fine maiden speeches highlighting some of these issues. In an earlier intervention I quoted from the Government’s own impact assessment. Paragraph 241 states: "Goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be required to complete both import declarations and Entry Summary (ENS) Declarations because the UK will be applying the EU’s UCC— the Union customs code— in Northern Ireland."
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): Undoubtedly, the measure does that, but it is hardwired into the deal that the Prime Minister has done. What he means in claiming that there will be no checks across the Irish sea is anyone’s guess—just read the Government’s own documents. His statement is quite clearly untrue. The Treasury presentation on the Northern Ireland protocol that we have been reminded of makes the position clear: "At minimum, this means that export summary declarations will be required when goods are exported from NI to GB, in order to meet the EU’s obligations under the SAFE framework." It continues, in a slide in the presentation headed "Economic Impact on NI": "Customs declaration and documentation and physical checks on W/E and E/W trade will be highly disruptive to the NI economy." That is the truth about where we are heading. There will be major damage to the Union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. One of the ironies of this is that it has been directly facilitated by the party in this House whose raison d’être is maintain the Union The agreement that is implemented in the Bill will damage the UK, it will put the continued existence of the UK in its current form at risk, and it will damage the UK economy. I shall oppose it, and those who support it today will have a lot of explaining to do to their constituents as the impacts unfold over the years ahead.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2019-12-20
Topic: Environment
Helen Elizabeth Hayes (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not accept that that is the case. Nor do I accept that the Bill does anything other than leave those rights to the mercy of any future Government. I do not trust this Prime Minister to maintain the standards we have derived from the EU It is about the protection of our woodlands, rivers and coastal habitats at a time when the environment could not be more important. It is about the practical expression of our values in the way that we treat the world’s most vulnerable children I understand that the Prime Minister has a majority that means he will pass the Bill and we will leave the European Union, but my constituents will not be denied a voice in that debate. Make no mistake: the Bill will deliver nothing but damage to the UK on many fronts. I will oppose it, I will stand up for my constituents’ values and interests, and I will hold the Government to account for the consequences of their reckless actions.