argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Higher Education and Research Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-21
Topic: Education
Carol Frances Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Let me begin by associating myself with what was said by the Minister and the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) in thanking those who were involved in the preparation of the Bill, and all the stakeholders who have provided input for the Bill and supplied excellent briefings throughout its passage Despite the raciness of the Bill, we still have concerns about many aspects of it, some of which affect Scotland directly. Although Scottish higher education providers will not be bound to participate in the teaching excellence framework, it is feared that Scottish universities that do not participate will be disadvantaged when it comes to attracting international students, who are a crucial source of funding for all higher education institutions. That is compounded by the Government’s refusal to reinstate post-study work visas, despite calls from HE institutions throughout the United Kingdom, as well as business leaders and all political parties in Scotland. Now Brexit has been added to the mix, along with the reputational damage that it has done to UK higher education internationally. There are serious issues in the sphere of higher education, and we should be addressing them before we proceed with the Bill.
Higher Education and Research Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-21
Topic: Government Operations
Patrick John Grady (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is making very clear why so much of the Bill is important to our constituents in Scotland, and not least to the University of Glasgow, which is in my constituency. Does she share my concern about the fact that what we witnessed a few moments ago in the Grand Legislative Committee procedure makes a mockery of the scrutiny that ought to be given to clauses that affect England and Wales in particular? Does she also agree that if there is an answer to the West Lothian question, the current "English votes for English laws" procedures certainly are not it?
Higher Education and Research Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-21
Topic: Technology
Carol Frances Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I am not sure who those procedures served, but I cannot imagine that they served the people of England particularly well The establishment of UKRI without a proper devolved voice—a voice that would understand the distinct nature of Scotland’s research landscape—could lead to a lack of consideration among the decision-making bodies of the research councils and Innovate UK of Government priorities and research needs in Scotland and other devolved nations. We welcome the Government’s movement on that in their amendment, but it simply does not go far enough or offer the guarantee we sought Scotland is already disadvantaged in terms of infrastructure spend for research—it currently attracts only about 5% of UK spending. Therefore, to prevent further leakage of funding or continued disparities, the firewall between the HEFCE and the rest of the UKRI must be in place. That would ensure not only that funding followed excellence but that the vibrant research community in all devolved nations continued to flourish Like the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), SNP Members have concerns and are not able to support the Bill’s passage tonight.
Access to Justice — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: As the Minister has mentioned, an important element of improving access to justice is reform of the courts system. Would he like to say a little more about the modernisation of that system and, in particular, whether Lord Justice Briggs’s concept of an online court will be introduced?
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Minister says that the Government take a "markedly different" view on tribunal fees from my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). However, when the Justice Committee published its review of court and tribunal fees earlier this year, its excellent chairperson, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—a Government Back Bencher—stated: "Where there is conflict between the objectives of achieving full cost recovery and preserving access to justice, the latter must prevail." Does the Minister agree with that statement?
Access to Justice — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Labor
Questions: As the Minister has mentioned, an important element of improving access to justice is reform of the courts system. Would he like to say a little more about the modernisation of that system and, in particular, whether Lord Justice Briggs’s concept of an online court will be introduced?
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Employment tribunal fees are an additional pressure on people who have been relieved of their employment in inappropriate circumstances, and they create a very real restriction on access to justice for those who are vulnerable. The group Maternity Action has said that, since the introduction of employment tribunal fees, there has been a 40% drop in claims for pregnancy-related detriment or dismissal. Why do the Government not follow the example of the Scottish Government and commit to scrapping employment tribunal fees?
Leaving the EU: Departmental Responsibilities — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: International Affairs
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Official figures show that between 2010 and 2015 the UK made 1,424 requests to EU members under the European arrest warrant, as a result of which 916 successful arrests were made. Will access to the system continue when the UK leaves the EU?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: I hope that the Secretary of State is aware that the Scottish Government are going to grant a pardon to men who were convicted of historical consensual same-sex offences involving parties over the age of 16. Will she follow the Scottish Government’s example and commit to a pardon that covers the living as well as the dead?; One of the Secretary of State’s four departmental priorities is to build a “One Nation justice system…for all citizens whatever their background”.What impact does she think yesterday’s Orgreave announcement will have on ordinary people’s confidence in our justice system?; The Lord Chancellor, in her role as head of the judiciary, has oversight of all legal action that continues in our country. Today there is an abuse of power whereby soldiers are facing, in effect, double jeopardy through the work of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. Although I understand that the Ministry of Defence is leading on this, will she, as the chief judicial officer of this land, please comment?; Given that 20% of the prison population have spent some time in care, what steps are the Government taking to prevent children in care from ending up in the prison system?
Lisa Cameron (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): My constituent, Mrs Fleeting, tragically lost her son, Robert, when he was serving honourably on an English base. The family cannot gain closure, as there is no automatic inquest by jury, and they are understandably distraught. Will the Minister meet Mrs Fleeting and me to discuss the case and access to justice for the late Robert Fleeting?
Orgreave — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Law and Crime
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I listened very carefully to what the Home Secretary had to say yesterday, but, as has already been indicated, her argument that there were no wrongful convictions does not hold water when one realises that the cases collapsed when a decent lawyer revealed collusion on the part of the police The absence of deaths at Orgreave is also a red herring. Is not the real issue here as follows: when the redactions to the June 2015 IPCC report were revealed, they showed striking similarities between the personnel and the alleged practices of South Yorkshire police at Orgreave and Hillsborough? Of course, we all now know what went on to happen at Hillsborough. Did the Home Secretary not feel that the striking similarities between personnel and practices at Orgreave and Hillsborough alone justified an independent inquiry, even as an opportunity to increase public trust in the police Moreover, there is a very important issue raised by Orgreave, which is the alleged political interference by the then UK Government in operational policing. If there was political interference from the Government in operational policing, it would be a deeply troubling matter and one of huge constitutional significance. Did the Home Secretary give this grave accusation consideration as part of the process leading to her decision yesterday?
Orgreave — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Law and Crime
Christopher Charles Stephens (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign is supported by people throughout the United Kingdom, including many of my constituents. Yesterday’s decision ultimately means that South Yorkshire police will not be held to account for their actions and required to answer the serious allegation that they were deliberately trying to create circumstances in which riot charges would stick, a narrative that was briefed to the then Prime Minister and her Cabinet. In the absence of an inquiry or an independent review, how do the Government intend to deal with that very serious allegation?
Orgreave — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Law and Crime
Margaret Ferrier (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Many of those campaigning for an inquiry into Orgreave drew hope from the result of the Hillsborough inquiry. Is the real reason that no inquiry will be allowed in this instance the fact that the Government fear that it would show that, unlike at Hillsborough, the police conspired in advance and initiated the confrontations, which would undoubtedly lead to questions about Government involvement?
Press Matters — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Law and Crime
John MacKenzie Nicolson (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): As the House knows, section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was passed to implement the recommendations made by the Leveson inquiry that any new regulator set up should be accredited as independent and effective. The purpose of that section is to provide costs protection for claimants and Leveson-regulated newspaper publishers. Section 40 extends to England and Wales only. Regulation of print media is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, which has provided cross-party support for the UK Government’s actions to implement the royal charter. Does the Secretary of State understand the difficulties that local newspapers face and recognise that the majority of the press, especially the regional press in Scotland, was not involved in the sort of malpractice that prompted the Leveson recommendations It is important that we balance respect for the freedom of the press and the public desire for high standards, accuracy and transparency. That said, does the Secretary of State agree that the protection afforded by section 40 would be available to Scottish litigants who chose to sue newspapers based in England and Wales in the event that section 40 was enacted? In the meantime, Scottish National party MPs will support the House of Lords amendment to the Investigatory Powers Bill that will introduce a new clause 9, on the back of clause 8, which was introduced as an SNP amendment.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Law and Crime
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Minister is in a slightly unfair position because he did not pilot the Bill through the Bill Committee, but I did serve on the Committee, and he can check what happened with his ministerial colleagues. The Government accepted clause 8, on the back of which this amendment rides, as a result of an SNP amendment to reintroduce the tort—or, to use the Scots word, delict—in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This further Lords amendment rides on the back of an amendment that arose from the historic event of the Government actually accepting an SNP suggestion. I was absolutely delighted about that and will mention it at every opportunity.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Government Operations
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I hesitate to give the hon. Gentleman a lecture on constitutional procedure, but I can give him full comfort on the points he has raised if he cares to consult the devolution guidance note 10. It states: "During the passage of legislation, departments should approach the Scottish Executive about Government amendments changing or introducing provisions…or any other such amendments which the Government is minded to accept… No consultation is required for other amendments tabled. Ministers resisting non-Government amendments should not rest solely on the argument that they lack the consent of the Scottish Parliament unless there is advice to that effect from the Scottish Executive." The note goes on to explain what happens in such a situation: "The Scottish Executive can be expected to deal swiftly with issues which arise during the passage of a Bill" With great humility, I want to say that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman is mistaken.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Law and Crime
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I agree that the legislation is essential. The SNP believes that it is important to give the security services and, indeed, law enforcement necessary and proportionate powers. I welcome, as I have said repeatedly in this House, the attempt in the Bill to codify the law and to provide an enhanced oversight regime. However, I will not demur from the position that I have held throughout, which is that in some respects the Bill does not provide sufficient safeguards. The SNP and many other stakeholders mentioned by the shadow Home Secretary remain very concerned about allowing significantly unfettered collection of, and access to, communications data including internet connection records. We also oppose far-reaching bulk powers to acquire the personal and private data of our constituents when a proper case for the necessity and proportionality of those powers has yet to be made I consider it a matter of deep regret that the review of bulk powers by David Anderson, QC reported not to this House, but to the House of Lords. This House—the democratically elected and accountable Chamber—has not had an opportunity to debate that review. It is an excellent review as far as it goes, and I would not dare to undermine much of what it says. It is what is missing from the review that is important. It makes out a case that bulk powers can be of use to the state, but it does not address the necessity and proportionality of those powers. Those matters are yet to be addressed, and we will not get to debate them here. As the shadow Home Secretary said, they are very likely to be the subject of litigation in the future, and they are likely to be addressed by courts in the United Kingdom and in Europe—for as long as we have the sense to remain part of those European systems.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Law and Crime
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I do not accept that the Government have gone as far as some of us would have liked them to go on the double lock, which is by having full-blown judicial warrantry with the power to look at the merits as well as at the process. However, I accept that this is an improvement on what was originally in the Bill, and its inclusion is a great tribute to the hard work that was done by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), as well as by Labour members of the Committee. If there had not been such root-and-branch opposition, many of the Government amendments that have finally been passed in the Lords would not be with us today.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Law and Crime
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Indeed, but the fine detail on the double lock—that is what enables the Solicitor General to get up and say that it goes as far as it does—was inserted by way of amendment during the Bill’s passage.
Financial Services — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What progress his Department has made in engaging with the financial services sector on the potential effect on its revenues of the UK leaving the EU.
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Secretary of State has said that he does not want to discuss leaks, but it is important that we get factual information out there. According to the Financial Times, the Government are to spend billions on keeping the City of London in the single market. Will the Secretary of State confirm what steps he is taking to ensure that the people of Scotland get a similar deal?
Business Revenue — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: What progress his Department has made on engaging with the tourism industry on the potential effect on its revenues of the UK leaving the EU.; My constituency is home to the Cambridge science park, a centre of innovation and technology. Last week, I met David Newble, the chief executive of TTP Labtech, who is concerned about maintaining access to overseas talent, following the vote for Brexit. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that we continue to attract the international expertise that is helping to drive our tech sector in the UK?
Stephen Patrick Gethins (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Will the Secretary of State tell us what assessment his or any other Department has made of the impact of leaving the EU on the economy, and when he will make that available to this House?
Scottish Universities — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Education
Thomas Sheppard (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): There are 4,512 students at the University of Edinburgh from other EU countries and several thousand other EU nationals engaged in research, teaching and administration at the university. I ask Ministers again: do they not realise that the refusal to guarantee the status of those people in our community is placing in jeopardy much of the work of that great institution and is causing unnecessary anxiety in our community?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Labor
Questions: In Camden, where I live, the Back to Business and FastForward programmes benefit enormously from the European social fund. Those programmes create a more inclusive labour market employing 400 people in my constituency, many of whom are disabled. Will the Minister outline what plans he has to protect the funding for such programmes, which promote social inclusivity?; I did not quite catch the Minister’s response earlier, so will he tell us again what priority he is giving to ensuring that universities and research funding more broadly will not be adversely affected by Brexit, and that current research protocols will be protected?; My right hon. Friend may be aware that according to Cornwall Council’s own figures, only 1,300 jobs will be created from a £350 million EU spend between now and 2020. Does he agree that a much more tailored approach to regional funding could create more jobs more quickly for Cornwall?; Yesterday’s employment figures show that this Government’s successful policies are leading to more people being in employment than ever before. The NHS relies on thousands of EU nationals, not only highly skilled individuals, but cooks, consultants, cleaners and porters, so does the Secretary of State want to reassure the NHS that it will be able to continue to employ those EU nationals after Brexit?
Kirsty Ann Blackman (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): People in Scotland are scared about being left on a relatively small island without the protection of the EU and with perpetual Tory Governments in charge of employment law. Will this Government commit to fully devolving employment law so that we can better protect our workers?
BHS — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Labor
Margaret Ferrier (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I was contacted by email by a constituent, Irene, who shared the following: "I have two friends that worked in BHS in Glasgow and they are devastated at what has happened to them and their pensions. They worked there for years and don’t have much chance of getting another job or being able to build up works pension...This has happened to my friends and their colleagues all because he risked his worker’s pensions while he made huge profits. I feel that we most certainly should not be honouring people like that." Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Irene, and me, that this man does not deserve his honour after what thousands of hard-working people across the UK have endured?
BHS — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Macroeconomics
Ian Blackford (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I agree with every comment that the hon. Gentleman has made, but does he not accept that part of the difficulty we are in with defined-benefit schemes has been the Government’s policy of giving responsibility to the Bank of England in the quantitative easing programme, which is now at £435 billion? If we look at what has happened recently, the 50 basis point reduction in yields means about £120 billion on the defined-benefit pension deficit. The Government have created that by refusing to balance fiscal and monetary policy.
BHS — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Labor
Ian Blackford (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I will make some progress and then perhaps I will give way—[Interruption.] I will give way in a second Philip Green’s weak apology is a case of too little, too late. He lined his pockets and did not stop to think about his employees. On Tuesday 18 October, Philip Green decided to say he was "sad and very sorry" for the hardship caused by the BHS collapse and that he still wanted to sort out the pension deficit. Green has still tried to defend the indefensible and duck his duties to workers by shifting the blame.
BHS — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Labor
Ian Blackford (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am aware of the time and I am about to sum up. The point I was making is that we have been put in a situation whereby workers have suffered as a consequence of the actions of Philip Green, but the Government must not think that they can walk away from their responsibilities to regulate business and pension schemes in this country effectively I recognise that Sir Philip owes it to the BHS pensioners to find an urgent resolution, but we need to look at corporate governance in the UK to see what can be done to offer protection from the kind of corporate excesses that have taken place with BHS. The Prime Minister has talked about doing that, so she should bring forward the proposals. While Philip Green’s hands are filthy, the Tory Government’s paws are not so clean either. After a lifetime of shying away from an effective crackdown on the corporate irresponsibility of the likes of Green, we are beginning to catch up in the United Kingdom. It is about time that the UK Government took action and the Minister gave us some answers.
BHS — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Labor
Alison Emily Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I agree with the case that the hon. Lady is making. Does she agree that not just the people in the stores who were directly employed by BHS, but the catering and cleaning staff and everyone in the supply chain will be adversely affected?
BHS — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Labor
Margaret Ferrier (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend agree that, although Sir Philip deserves to be stripped of his knighthood, we also need to address the very real issue that exists: that of all the Philip Greens of the world being able to treat workers in this manner? They need to be made an example of by the Government.