argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Civil Rights
Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Minister is quite right about building on experience to try to augment the PPERA recommendations. If the Government have done that with regard to finance, why did they not do it with regard to purdah?
Refugee Situation in the Mediterranean — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Immigration
Stephen Patrick Gethins (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on bringing this issue to the House? As he rightly points out, we are facing the worst refugee crisis since the war. Does he share my concern regarding today’s reports about the withdrawal of HMS Bulwark from the Mediterranean theatre, and will he join me in thanking the service personnel who have done a phenomenal job in very difficult circumstances?
Refugee Situation in the Mediterranean — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Immigration
Patrick John Grady (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): On the question of quotas and the Schengen area, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, irrespective of hard and fast numbers, it is vital that the United Kingdom takes its fair share of people who are seeking refuge from north Africa?
Refugee Situation in the Mediterranean — House of Commons, 2015-06-16
Topic: Immigration
George Kerevan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I commend the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, and I put it to him that there are two interlinked refugee crises. The Syrian crisis is distinct in that it involves a major political crisis, not necessarily economic migration, so there is a necessity for Europe, and Britain in particular, to take a mandatory quota of Syrian refugees.
High Speed 2 — House of Commons, 2015-06-11
Topic: Other
Andrew Egan Henderson Hendry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): With respect to the Secretary of State’s keenness to make progress, may I urge him to meet the Scottish Government Minister as a matter of urgency? Will he confirm that he will undertake to do so?
Anderson Report — House of Commons, 2015-06-11
Topic: Civil Rights
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Scottish National party also welcomes the publication of this report, but we will oppose any plans to introduce what is sometimes referred to as a snoopers charter, that being a charter that would sanction the mass collection of data and mass spying on people’s private communications. Although the SNP is supportive of law enforcement and security services having appropriate access to the information they require, the appropriate checks and safeguards must be in place to ensure that the requirement to keep our community safe is balanced against the civil liberties to which we are all entitled This report seems to urge much stronger oversight of the activities of the police and the security services, which we welcome and, like others, I wish to single out the recommendation that warrants be authorised by senior judges. However, the new legislation is required to be more than just a change of name. There must be substantial changes in substance from the previous draft Bill, which threatened to impinge on civil liberties Cross-party co-operation in this Parliament has already forced the Government to backtrack on their plans to repeal the Human Rights Act—at least for the time being. In reaching out across the Chamber to MPs with concerns about civil liberties, my party will also seek to defeat any Government plans to curb civil liberties in the Bill. However, we wish to take a constructive approach, and I have four specific questions for the Secretary of State. First, will she confirm that the new legislation, which is to be introduced this autumn, will be more than just a name change and that it will contain substantial safeguards for civil liberties Secondly, under the summary of proposals, paragraph 10 says: "A comprehensive and comprehensible new law should be drafted from scratch, replacing the multitude of current powers and providing for clear limits and safeguards on any intrusive power that it may be necessary for public authorities to use." Will the Home Secretary commit to implementing that proposal Thirdly, will the Home Secretary commit to engaging fully with her Scottish Government counterparts in so far as measures in any legislation impinge on the devolved competences? Finally, she has announced plans for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of Parliament. Will she confirm that representatives of the SNP will be invited to be part of that scrutiny?
Rohingya Community (Burma) — House of Commons, 2015-06-04
Topic: Immigration
Patrick John Grady (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Does the Minister have any indication of the number or proportion of refugees who might be making their way to these islands? What support are the British Government prepared to offer any of them who do end up here?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Michael Fraser Weir (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about amendment 58, and he is correct that Parliament cannot bind its successors, but if we put it into the Bill that there has to be a referendum of the Scottish people before there can be a change, that is a very powerful moral argument against this place, and the strongest we can make under the current constitutional settlement.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Other
Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I can feel the sap rising at various points in the hon. Gentleman’s speech. When he said that Scotland is where Ireland was in the early years of the last century, I felt obliged to check the record, because last week he said we were "where Ireland was in the 1880s."—[Official Report, 8 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 965.] We seem to have advanced 20 years in a week. Does that mean that in a week’s time, we will be where Ireland was in the 1920s?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Immigration
Ian Blackford (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): An important point has been made about opportunity. It is a real sadness that Scotland has lost a net 2 million people through migration over the past 100 years. One reason why we want powers over our economy is so that we can grow Scotland and ensure that we do not see tens of thousands of our young people being educated in Scotland and then emigrating and contributing to countries abroad. We need to grow the Scottish economy. That is why we need the powers over our economy.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election. I gently encourage him to remind himself of the position of the Conservative party in the run-up to the referendum on Scottish devolution. It was totally opposed to devolution, so he will perhaps understand why SNP Members, who have consistently supported home rule, wish to see that reflected in the legislation. He will have the opportunity to support the SNP amendment later.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Other
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Further to the point of order made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), France knows that it is France, but the UK does not seem to know that it is the UK. That is an extraordinary state of affairs.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I will give way in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman keeps calm Finally, as I have said, the issue of specific powers and what we might do with them is not all about tax: it is about other decision making, such as the minimum wage. We support a rise in the minimum wage to £8.70 by the end of this Parliament: that is the right thing to do. We do not currently have the power in Scotland to do that. Although we will table amendments to transfer that specific power, the last two examples demonstrate why we need full fiscal autonomy—to deliver a comprehensive, joined-up approach, which would allow us to increase the minimum wage to help those in employment who earn the least, while increasing the employment allowance to help support businesses to pay it.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Other
George Kerevan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The SNP won the majority of the vote on 7 May on the basis of a clear commitment to go beyond the proposals of the Smith commission. What we are trying to decide now is how far beyond Smith we should go. The hon. Gentleman seems to be rejecting that, while not coming up with a positive argument about what we should be doing.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I thank you, Sir David, for calling me to speak, and I thank my Back-Bench colleagues. Have not we been blessed on this first Committee day of the Scotland Bill? We have had contributions from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen)—who unfortunately is no longer in his place—and from the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). What have we done to deserve such good fortune today? We have all very much enjoyed their speeches. This just goes to show how different these debates are now. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and I are veterans of Committee debates on Scotland Bills, and we remember the braying, the aggressive shouting down and the interventions by 40 Scottish Labour Members of Parliament. They are no longer here. This is the salutary lesson of today’s Committee debate. We are now in the new Scotland, which has made certain critical decisions about how it wants to be governed and how it wants to progress with its constitutional agenda. The challenge for this Government, and for those on the Labour Front Bench, is to respond to that. They can ignore my hon. Friends who are sitting on these Benches in such great numbers—we represent 56 of the 59 seats in Scotland—and they can ignore the fact that the SNP secured more than 50% of the vote. They can pretend that we do not exist and hope that we go away, but we are going nowhere. We are going to be here on Committee days, demanding that the Scottish people secure what they voted for in overwhelming numbers I support my hon. Friend the Member for Moray in setting out the three key principles that we are advocating. The critical one—the one that we have to secure—is that the Scottish people get what they voted for and what they expect from this House, which is to have the Smith commission proposals delivered in full, alongside everything that was promised to the Scottish people in what Gordon Brown, the former right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, called the "vow plus", including federalism and home rule.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): My hon. Friend mentions the vow plus and the promises made to the Scottish people. In reality, these powers are wanted not only by the yes voters but by the no voters as well. The fact is that 100% of the people of Scotland voted for these powers. Whether they voted yes or no, they voted for this.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): My hon. Friend always gets right to the heart of the matter. We know that everything in this Bill that we have been trying to secure is supported by the Scottish people. It is also supported by the massed ranks of SNP Members here, and by the 60% of the Scottish people who want everything devolved to the Scottish Parliament other than foreign affairs, defence and treason. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) forgot to mention treason in his list of powers that would remain reserved. An opinion poll last week showed not only that we won more than 50% of the vote but that we are now on course to win 60% of the Holyrood vote next year. It showed that there is a clear desire to ensure that we move forward progressively I shall turn to the central issues in the Bill, starting with the permanence of the Scottish Parliament. That was about the most useful thing to emerge from the Smith commission’s report. It followed the vow that was reported in the Daily Record as stating that the permanence of the Parliament should be a predominant issue. We were disappointed that the draft Scotland Bill could not find an appropriate form of words to encapsulate that proposal. The thing that has struck me is the Scottish people’s surprise that this House could actually do away with the Scottish Parliament. I do not think that people really believed that that was the case. We have to resolve this issue The Scottish Parliament is now the key focus of the national debate on our nation and our political culture in Scotland. As we have continued to secure more and new powers for the Scottish Parliament, it has become an intrinsic feature of what we are about as a nation. The fact that this House can simply decide, perhaps on a whim, to abolish the Scottish Parliament is totally unacceptable to the Scottish people and has now to be put right. We have this one opportunity to address it by getting our amendment through this evening—we could sort this out I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) because he recognised that situation when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. He said—I paraphrase him and I will let him intervene if I have this wrong—that something must be done about it. It was then thrown over to the new Secretary of State to pick up; it now falls in his lap, and he has to address it and ensure that we get what we want, which is the permanence—
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): There is very little I would disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about on these things, and I agree that there is a real requirement for a written constitution in this country. But let me suggest another way we can get the permanence for the Scottish Parliament, as set out in our amendment 59: by putting this to the Scottish people in a referendum. The only way then that the Scottish Parliament would ever be abolished or done away with would be on the say-so of the Scottish people, as a directly expressed desire through a referendum. I hope the right hon. Gentleman supports us in that amendment this evening, because it is the way to go forward That deals with the permanence issue. We have not heard much about another matter, despite several of my friends from south of the border having spoken in this debate. I refer to new clause 2 on the constitutional convention, which I believe the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) is still to speak to. That has been a long-standing policy of the Labour party and it was central to its manifesto at the last election—I have to say that Labour did not have a great deal of success when it was put to the people of England. My problem with this idea that Scottish devolution and our constitutional journey should be mashed together with a UK-wide look at the constitution is that it would slow down our very clear progress and our clear statement of where we want to go. The cause of English devolution moves at an almost glacial pace, and any suggestion that we have to be slowed down, as England rightly works out what it wants to do, has to be rejected this evening. Just piggy-backing Labour’s concerns about a constitutional convention and about English devolution on to a Bill about Scotland, and the things we were promised in the vow and that were progressed with the Smith commission is totally unacceptable. I say to the Labour party: do the work yourselves. There is no need to bring it to a Scotland Bill in order to progress this agenda. Bring in your own piece of legislation. Bring it in however you like and we will play a part in that. There are interesting things to be discussed on the further progress of constitutional change all over the UK.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I am not disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman; he probably heard me say that these issues are important and have to be looked at and considered, because they are the things that make all the rest of it work. What we are debating tonight is a Scotland Bill that is the end part of a proposal by the former Prime Minister, the previous leader of the Labour party, the previous leader of the Liberal Democrats and the leader of the Conservatives—it was promised in the vow.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Thomas Sheppard (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): May I deal with this point, and then take an intervention? I have not been in this job long, but I am surprised—I expect I will be surprised by various things over the next five years—to find such a passionate and eloquent exposition from the Conservative Back Benches of a position with which I agree. I suspect that there is little else on which the hon. Gentleman and I would agree. On this point, he makes his case very well. However, I wonder whether there is an element of mischief at the back of his mind. Perhaps he believed the propaganda from his own Front Bench several weeks ago that we were weakening in our commitment to full financial autonomy, and he thought that he might embarrass us in this debate today. I must reassure him that we are not lukewarm and our commitment is not weakening. In fact, we like the idea so much we have brought our own amendment before the Committee. I am intrigued at the suggestion that all we need to do is vote for it—
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Other
Thomas Sheppard (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Why do we not do a deal? I will try to ensure that all my colleagues vote for the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, if he makes sure that all of his party do as well. Perhaps we can have it sewn up by 10 o’clock this evening. The strange thing about this debate so far—
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Ian Blackford (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Scottish people voted overwhelmingly for the Scottish National party in the general election on 7 May? Fifty-six Members of Parliament were sent to this Chamber with the express view of the Scottish people that we want home rule—the home rule that Gordon Brown talked about before the referendum. Why does the hon. Gentleman not accept that Labour lost the general election in Scotland because it was out of tune with the Scottish people? It is about time it started to listen to what the people of Scotland want and to deliver it.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Patrick John Grady (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Given that the Scottish Parliament, at the insistence of the Labour party, was founded through the process of a referendum, will the hon. Gentleman support our clause to ensure that it cannot be abolished without a referendum?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): That is just not good enough. These are fundamental and profound issues for the Scottish Parliament. We are dependent on the Human Rights Act for the competence of the Parliament. Will the Minister vow to go forward, make sure this is looked at properly, and come back with a more suitable and substantial response?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): We are also grateful to see the hon. Lady in her place, and she is always welcome to make a contribution to Scottish debates, but I regret that her contribution today does not give us the comfort we seek on the protection of human rights in Scotland. We do not wish to press our amendment to a vote tonight, but we reserve the right to return to these matters later in the Bill’s proceedings. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 Scope to modify the Scotland Act 1998 Amendments made: 108, page 13, line 32, before "section" insert "section 112(1) and (3) to (5)," This amendment would allow the Scottish Parliament to modify subsections (1) and (3) to (5) of section 112 of the Scotland Act 1998 to the extent that those subsections apply to any power exercisable within devolved competence to make subordinate legislation. Amendment 109, page 13, line 34, leave out from "power" to end of line 36 and insert "exercisable within devolved competence to make subordinate legislation)," This amendment would allow the Scottish Parliament to modify the sections of the Scotland Act 1998 to be listed at sub-paragraph 4(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 so far as those sections apply to any powers exercisable within devolved competence to make subordinate legislation (including Orders in Council). Amendment 110, page 13, line 37, at end insert ", and (iii) section 124 (so far as that section applies to any power exercisable within devolved competence to make subordinate legislation),"—(Stephen Barclay.) This amendment would allow the Scottish Parliament to modify section 124 of the Scotland Act 1998 to the extent that the section applies to any power exercisable within devolved competence to make subordinate legislation. Amendment proposed: 89, page 13, line 42, at end insert— ‘(2A) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 (protection of Scotland Act 1998 from modification), insert new sub-paragraph— "(5A) This paragraph does not apply to amendments to Schedule 5, Part II, Head A, Section A1 insofar as they relate to: (a) taxes and excise in Scotland, (b) government borrowing and lending in Scotland, and (c) control over public expenditure in Scotland." —(Joanna Cherry.) This amendment would enable the Scottish Parliament to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to remove the reservation on taxation, borrowing and public expenditure in Scotland, with the effect that the Scottish Parliament could then legislate in these areas to provide for full fiscal autonomy in Scotland. Question put, That the amendment be made.
Navitus Bay Wind Farm — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Housing
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me and many people in the highlands of Scotland that locational price modelling causes distortions in the market? I can hear from what he is saying that the idea of these things being built is not very popular in south Dorset. Such things might be more popular in other areas, such as the Tiree Array, but locational price modelling makes it expensive to connect to the grid from some parts of the coast, whereas other parts of the coast are almost given a subsidy. That is distorting the market, seemingly to the detriment of his constituents.
FIFA — House of Commons, 2015-06-01
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I declare an interest of sorts as the Member representing Hampden Park in the south side of Glasgow. I know that the Scottish Football Association and the FA are looking to work through UEFA to address both the immediate FIFA governance issues and the ongoing efforts to clean up the beautiful game. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that either he or his Department will seek the views of the SFA, the Football Association of Wales and the Irish Football Association as well as the FA before undertaking any actions for FIFA in the future, and will he keep the Scottish Government fully updated on his Department’s work?