argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Education
Questions: Since the Government broke their manifesto pledge to allow the opening of Catholic free schools by removing the faith cap, the Catholic Education Service has had to find 50,000 new places. Despite a convoluted plan by the previous Secretary of State to open new voluntary-aided schools, not a single new Catholic voluntary-aided school has opened, and only one is out for consultation. Now we have a new Secretary of State, will he bring some vim and vigour to this and try to fulfil our manifesto pledge?
Tracy Lynn Brabin (Labour, Centre-left): At long last, after years of calls from the Labour party, settings, academics and even Select Committees, last week the Government finally offered some new funding for the 30-hour childcare policy. Sadly, predictions say it is only 10% of what is required to plug the funding black hole May I push the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, whom I very much welcome to her place, on how this funding will be spent? Will it be targeted to support outstanding providers that are struggling, to increase the amount of high-quality provision in disadvantaged areas and to reverse the disturbing trend of experienced staff leaving the sector?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Education
Questions: Since the Government broke their manifesto pledge to allow the opening of Catholic free schools by removing the faith cap, the Catholic Education Service has had to find 50,000 new places. Despite a convoluted plan by the previous Secretary of State to open new voluntary-aided schools, not a single new Catholic voluntary-aided school has opened, and only one is out for consultation. Now we have a new Secretary of State, will he bring some vim and vigour to this and try to fulfil our manifesto pledge?; I welcome the extra funding. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that each primary and secondary school in Wimbledon will benefit, and will he commit to writing to me on the revised settlement for each and every secondary and primary school in Wimbledon?; As a result of the introduction of universal credit in Coventry, 25,000 children are below the poverty line. What is the Secretary of State doing, or what are other Ministers doing, to fund school meals properly—not just in the holiday period, but generally?; Schools in rural constituencies such as North Warwickshire and Bedworth have long suffered from receiving lower levels of funding than their urban counterparts. The fairer funding initiative will go some way to rectifying that, but what more can be done to ensure that no matter where someone lives they will have equal access to the same resources?; I am sure Ministers are aware of the widespread concern in local government at the escalating costs of childcare, much of it driven by private fostering and care companies, often now owned by private equity, and of a tendency to put children into care at an early stage and not as a last resort. Do Ministers share that concern? If so, what are they going to do about it?; The recently announced multi-billion-pound settlement for education will be hugely welcomed by Stockport schools. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had many requests this afternoon, but may I invite him to meet headteachers in my constituency, when perhaps he might share the figures?; My constituent Bella has Down’s syndrome and started primary school last week. What was supposed to be a very special time for her was racked with anxiety because the school said it could not afford to make the adjustments necessary for her to be able to attend school. Fortunately, a compromise has been made, but the school will have to make cuts elsewhere now. May we have this money for special educational needs provision brought forward now?; Will the Secretary of State send a message to every young LGBT child in our schools up and down the country that they are loved and valued and that children will be taught about their existence in school lessons in an age-appropriate way?
Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Centre-left): For pupils on free school meals, buying water at lunchtime can cost up to 80p of their allowance, which is often more than the fruit juices and milkshakes available. Does the Secretary of State agree that free water should be available, with cups and bottles, for all pupils in all our schools?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to put on record my thanks to you for being a superb Speaker of this House, my thanks to you as a colleague in Parliament, and my thanks to your family for the way in which they have supported you through often very difficult times when many of the media have been very unfair on you. Your two sons are getting good at football. I did some kicks with them in Speaker’s Court the other day and I was very impressed, actually; they are coming on well. And I know you support the same club as me In your role as Speaker, you have totally changed the way in which the job has been done. You have reached out to people across the whole country. You have visited schools, you have visited factories, you have visited offices; you have talked to people about the role of Parliament and democracy. I have never forgotten you coming to City and Islington College in my constituency and spending the morning with me talking to a group of students, all of whom had learning difficulties, and we discussed with them the roles of democracy and Parliament You have taken absolutely on board the words of Speaker Lenthall that you are there to be guided by and act on behalf of our Parliament. This Parliament is the stronger for your being Speaker. Our democracy is the stronger for your being the Speaker. Whatever you do when you finally step down from Parliament, you do so with the thanks of a very large number of people, and as one who has made the role of Speaker in the House more powerful, not less powerful. I welcome that. As somebody who aspires to hold Executive office, I like the idea of a powerful Parliament holding the Executive to account; it is something I have spent the last 35 years doing myself So, Mr Speaker, enjoy the last short period in your office, but it is going to be one of the most dramatic there has been. I think your choice of timing and date is incomparable and will be recorded in the history books of parliamentary democracy. Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Labour party I thank you for your work in promoting democracy and this House. Thank you.
European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be brief, because the whole House wants to get on to the important debate that you have just agreed to. I want to ask for a very urgent debate on what I consider to be a matter of overriding importance and seriousness. The motion reads: "That this House has considered the welcome completion of all parliamentary stages of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act and has considered the matter of the importance of the rule of law and Ministers’ obligation to comply with the law." I welcome the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act, which has just received Royal Assent. However, there is deep concern not just across the House but across the whole country at the Government’s commitment to abide by the obligations set out in that Act and the outright statements in some quarters that they will disregard or seek to evade the law that has just received Royal Assent and therefore is an Act of Parliament. I am therefore asking you to grant an urgent debate under Standing Order No. 24, on behalf of the people of this country who want to live in a democratic society where the Government abide by the rule of law, on whether the Prime Minister will obey the law that this House has just passed into law.
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way to this girly swot. Does he agree that democracy requires a certain commitment to the truth; that to date there has been a reasonable expectation that when asked questions the Government will not actively lie and will tell the truth; and that the loosening of the current Administration’s moorings from a commitment to tell the truth is a direct threat to democracy?
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): There are few in the House who have the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s knowledge of its conventions and protocols, except, perhaps, you, Mr Speaker. Certainly, my constituents do not follow the differences between Prorogation, recess, Queen’s Speech requirements and so forth. However, they do know that my title is "Member of Parliament", which implies where I should be—in Parliament. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that at this time of constitutional crisis my constituents expect us to be sitting in Parliament, and expect it not to be shut down? Does he agree that the question of why we are being prorogued goes to the heart of the credibility of me as a Member of Parliament and the credibility of the House in its entirety, and does he agree that, for that reason, the public interest is absolutely involved?
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): Mr Speaker, may I first associate myself with the many comments about your role as Speaker in this House and the way in which you have performed it, certainly since I have been here? I did not have the chance to speak earlier, but I want to associate myself with those comments I rise to support this application in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). At the heart of the application is the simple principle that the Executive should be honest and open with Parliament so as to enable this House properly to scrutinise the Government’s policies and decisions. That should be a given, but it is not, and I am afraid that that speaks volumes. Two important decisions underpin this application. The first is the decision to prorogue the House for five weeks, at what should be the most important and intensive part of the Brexit negotiations. The second is the decision to deny the House the assessment of the preparations for a no-deal Brexit—the Yellowhammer analysis.
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, at the very least, Members of this House should be aware of the cost of a no-deal Brexit? That information is crucial to understanding whether the cost is £2 billion or £8 billion.
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I do agree with my hon. Friend It is regrettable that we are compelled to use this process of a Humble Address, but the reason is obvious. Today’s measure speaks to a wide truth, which has been touched on a number of times by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, and I am sad to say that it is the basic lack of trust that now exists between this House and the Executive. That has changed in recent weeks. That lack of trust arises very much from the actions of the Prime Minister over the last weeks, which have contributed hugely to it. That alone should be a profound cause of concern to all Members of this House, because in my experience—only four years plus—this House operates on the basis of trust. That trust is going, day by day, and that is why this application has had to be made. That is a concern to all of us and it should be a concern to the Secretary of State Let me take the two issues one by one. At this stage of the Brexit process, the House should be sitting as often as possible. Frankly, we should be sitting every day until 31 October. Instead, we have a five-week Prorogation. The Prime Minister and other Ministers say that this is to allow for a Queen’s Speech and a new legislative agenda. If anybody believes that, they will believe anything. As the Secretary of State is likely to try to make that case—I say "try" because I do not think he will succeed—I have two questions. First, why now? Why prorogue now at such a crucial time? What is wrong with proroguing in November when we know the outcome of the negotiations and have a decision? Secondly, why five weeks? There is no requirement for Parliament to be prorogued for five weeks.
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): That intervention speaks for itself I remind the House that in the past 40 years Parliament has never been prorogued for longer than three weeks, so it is extraordinary that this Prorogation should come now and for five weeks. In most cases, the House is prorogued for the purposes of the Queen’s Speech for a week or less, and often just for a few days, so to shut down Parliament for so long a period at this stage of the Brexit process is extraordinary.
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I accept that intervention, because the House is being shut down and we will not be able to do our job. It is not Members of Parliament who are being shut out, but those we represent. Whether in relation to the issues mentioned by the right hon. Lady or any other issue, the people are shut out when Parliament is shut down. It is all very well for the Government to say, "We will produce some documents in relation to our analysis of a no-deal Brexit," but we are not going to be here for the next five weeks, so when are we going to scrutinise them? Even if the Government do publish something, when do we get to ask questions? Not until it is far too late—two weeks away from the decision. To simply say, "We will publish some documents," under Yellowhammer or anything else misses the point, which is that there can be no scrutiny if we are not sitting There is a wider observation, which is that if the purpose of proroguing is justified by the need to pass a Queen’s Speech, how on earth do the Government think they can now achieve that? I remind the House that the Government now have a majority of minus 40. With Cabinet Ministers and even the Prime Minister’s family resigning the Tory Whip every day, one can only wonder what the number will be by the time the House returns. Surely the Government should now just give up on the idea of a Queen’s Speech and drop Prorogation altogether.
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): Yes, I have seen that. Why we are being closed down is blindingly obvious. As I said earlier, if anybody believes it is genuinely for the orderliness of the House and the convenience of a Queen’s Speech, they will believe anything. We are being closed down to stop scrutiny and to prevent this House from expressing a view on no deal. The only positive is that it galvanised the House last week to take the necessary action to prevent no deal, and Opposition Members were pulled together and spoke strongly on the Bill that has just received Royal Assent.
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am sure that we will have a general election soon, but not at the cost of a no-deal Brexit, which will so damage this country The second issue addressed in the motion is the Yellowhammer documents. I wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 25 August—a fortnight ago now—calling for the publication of the documents when Parliament returned after the summer recess. I have not yet received a reply. Instead of any publication, we have had an update, with no supporting documents and no significant new information.
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Antonia Louise Antoniazzi (Labour, Centre-left): The Yellowhammer report has been shared with the Welsh Government on a strictly confidential basis and is subject to the Official Secrets Act. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is an affront to the people of Wales not to tell them what is in that report?
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I understand that the people of Wales need that information. This House needs that information. Frankly, to take the country on a route that may well end up with a no-deal Brexit, but without providing the analysis of the impact, is so wrong in principle that we should not be where we are today. We have no documents or analysis to look at, and we are being shut down tonight, so even if some documents are produced, we will be unable to scrutinise them properly. We can only rely on leaks to the Sunday papers that, if right, show that, in the most likely scenario, the Government expect to see the return of a hard border in Northern Ireland—notwithstanding the efforts of many people to ensure that that does not happen—which will disrupt the fuel supply and UK ports, will cause severe delays in relation to medical supplies, and cause significant disruption and impediment to the ordinary functioning of British citizens’ lives and businesses.
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): The Government could save a lot of money by coming here and putting information in the public domain without the money attached. We could have had these documents last week. There is an irony in having a public information campaign when the impact assessments are not being made available to Parliament. The Government are spending millions of pounds on telling the country to get ready, but without having the decency to put the documents before Parliament and allowing Parliament to sit so that they can be scrutinised.
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I agree, and this goes to the basic question of transparency. If the Government want to take us down this path, which may end up with a no-deal Brexit, they should have the decency and the courage to put the analysis before Parliament.
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the difference between that £100 million that the Government are spending on so-called information and the information that we are seeking the publication of through this emergency debate is the difference between gross propaganda paid for by the taxpayer and factual information that ought to be in the public domain as we approach 31 October?
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for that intervention on a very serious issue, and it makes the wider point. Many members of the public are extremely concerned about the impact of a no-deal Brexit on their lives, which is why this is the right application to be made. The application has been made because Parliament is being shut down and preparations for a no deal are not being scrutinised I commend the motion to the House, and I urge Members on both sides to support it.
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Law and Crime
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): I am certainly not a lawyer, but general knowledge leads me to ask: is what the Government are doing here not, in effect, the equivalent, in American terms, of taking the fifth—refusing to give evidence on the basis that it might incriminate them or cause them to commit perjury?
Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications) — House of Commons, 2019-09-09
Topic: Government Operations
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): Like many Members’ constituents, many of my constituents in Cardiff have told me over the weekend that they are simply totally confused about what is going on. They are not interested in the procedures and the chicanery; they are interested in their lives, and what difference the proceedings here make to them So why does this motion matter and why am I supporting it? Well, the gag that the Government are going to put on Parliament tonight prevents us from having Treasury questions, Northern Ireland questions, Prime Minister’s questions, Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions and questions to the Attorney General, whose legal advice is so crucial to this situation. It prevents us from having debates on the battle of Arnhem, in which my grandfather served and was taken prisoner of war; the pension age of our police; sanctions; refugees; climate change; EU citizens; the middle east; fracking; Northern Ireland; chemicals; sexual violence; and children Proroguing Parliament will prevent the discussion and agreement of the Agriculture Bill, the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, the Trade Bill, the customs Bill, the Wild Animals in Circuses Bill and, crucially, the Domestic Abuse Bill, yet this Government have carried on with this gag. They tell us it is because they want to set out provisions for a new Queen’s Speech and a new programme for government. Who are they fooling? We know the truth. We know why this is being done—the Prime Minister’s own documents have revealed it The Prorogation plot was known well before. How was it that I was able to know about it in the early hours of the morning—before it was announced, before you had been told, Mr Speaker, before the Cabinet had been told and before the country had been informed? How was it that journalists were able to know that night and I was able to know, yet No. 10 Downing Street was still denying that this gag was going to go forward? No. 10 was denying it days before, yet as was revealed, the decision was taken on 16 August. That goes to the heart of this motion This is about trust in a Government who cannot be trusted, it is about our constituents’ lives and the issues that matter to them, which go well beyond Brexit, and it is about the national security and safety of this country. The Yellowhammer documents should be made public so that we all know the true risk to this country of a no-deal Brexit.