argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges — House of Commons, 2022-04-21
Topic: Government Operations
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The police may still have a hand in the twists and turns of this story. Given the events that have taken place, the House would look very stupid indeed if it did not refer the Prime Minister to the Committee of Privileges. The party won the vote on the Member for North Shropshire, Owen Paterson, but it very quickly regretted winning that vote. It might want to learn its lesson, because it does not want to regret its actions again; as the hon. Lady knows, that vote on Owen Paterson ultimately ended up with her taking her place in the House of Commons.
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges — House of Commons, 2022-04-21
Topic: International Affairs
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Prime Minister was certainly not under pressure in December on those matters when he did mislead the House. As the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) highlighted earlier, this is not the only time. The entirety of Northern Ireland was misled on paper, or a lack of paper, on the borders and the protocol, so there is a pattern going on here. The House has to take this one seriously: it was in here it happened.
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges — House of Commons, 2022-04-21
Topic: Government Operations
Owen George Thompson (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. So many people in so many constituencies across our countries have made huge sacrifices to help and support those around them to look after loved ones and do what they can, because they all wanted to follow the rules, which were in place to help all of us to get through the pandemic. While so many followed the rules, we had a Prime Minister who simply laughed in our faces I have yet to meet a single person who thinks the Prime Minister’s actions were in any way justifiable. There is one word that persistently comes from their lips. Thirty-four constituents have gone so far as to email me about the matter, some in anger and some in despair. For every one who has written to me, thousands are discussing it with their families, friends and neighbours. One email simply says: "I fear for democracy and our futures if this Prime Minister is not held to account" Another says: "I ask you to do everything in your power to challenge this and convey my disgust at the actions of his office at a time of huge sacrifice for everyone, not least the nurses and the teachers who have been dragged through the muck." That is before we even start to consider the countless other workers in jobs across our countries who had to keep working and get on with it while the Prime Minister partied.
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges — House of Commons, 2022-04-21
Topic: Government Operations
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Prime Minister was asked this question yesterday and he failed to give a reply, but I am pretty sure that his human shield will be able to answer this today. Why did Allegra Stratton resign?
Unusable PPE — House of Commons, 2022-07-19
Topic: Environment
Questions: If he will make an estimate with Cabinet colleagues of the amount of unusable PPE procured by the Government since the outbreak of covid-19.
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Public Accounts Committee found that there is £4 billion-worth of unusable, substandard PPE in storage, which is due to be incinerated, which is hardly environmentally friendly. While cronies and donors were fast-tracked, this substandard PPE put frontline workers’ lives at risk by preventing them from accessing the right equipment. How much of that £4 billion will be recovered, and what other actions are being pursued against these so-called suppliers?
Unusable PPE — House of Commons, 2022-07-19
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: If he will make an estimate with Cabinet colleagues of the amount of unusable PPE procured by the Government since the outbreak of covid-19.
Martyn Day (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): While the Tories flogged off PPE contracts to party donors and friends of Ministers through their unlawful VIP PPE lane, the Scottish Government’s processes ensured value for money, as we have heard; their PPE costs were less than a third of the UK Government’s. Will the UK Government follow Scotland’s example in future, and refuse to engage in cronyism and corruption?
Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement: Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2022-07-19
Topic: Agriculture
Andrew Egan Henderson Hendry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): This deal will punish the food and farming sectors—that is not my conclusion; it comes from the Government’s departmental advice. Those civil servants join the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the National Farmers Union, trade experts and academics. The Prime Minister’s former food tsar has outlined Australia’s "abysmal record on deforestation, animal welfare and climate" The benefits of the deal are pennies compared with the amount that we are losing from not trading as much with our EU neighbours. The Minister is a temp, in place under a lame-duck Prime Minister in a dysfunctional Government. Why is this deal not being brought forward for parliamentary scrutiny, as was promised in this Chamber? Why are the Government flouting their own advice? Why are they happy to sacrifice the food and farming sector? Why would they press ahead with the prospect of job losses, higher food bills and fewer safeguards on food standards? This deal should be halted until we get answers. Scottish households, farmers and businesses deserve better than these acts of wilful harm. They must be given the chance to choose better than this place.
Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement: Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2022-07-19
Topic: Foreign Trade
Martin John Docherty-Hughes (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The first thing that leaps out from the stats on the website of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is the export of 159 billion Australian dollars-worth of goods and services each year to communist China. The integrated review of 2021 stated that China posed a "systemic challenge" to UK interests, yet here we are attempting to sign a free trade deal with—I will be blunt, Mr Speaker—a state that has been enabling communist China to build capacity, clamp down on dissent and tighten its grip on Hong Kong with exports of raw materials for its economic needs. Can we assume that the Secretary of State will be ignoring the findings of his own Government in the integrated review and supporting China’s application to join the CPTPP alongside the UK and Australia, as he mentioned at the Dispatch Box only a moment ago?
Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement: Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2022-07-19
Topic: Agriculture
Deidre Leanne Brock (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Minister seems to think we should all just calm down about standards, but the text of the deal does not set out crucial conditionality or equivalence on imports based on animal welfare standards used in production. The absence of such equivalence language means that products produced to lower standards will enter the UK market. That is a fact, not spin, so I will ask again: what support do the UK Government intend to offer our farmers and food producers so that they can fairly compete?
Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement: Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2022-07-19
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Mark Flynn (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Is it the lowering of food standards, is it a couple of pence off a bottle of wine, or is it perhaps a colossal 0.08% of GDP growth that should most excite the people of Scotland about the fact that we left the European Union in order to sign this trade deal?
Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement: Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2022-07-19
Topic: Foreign Trade
David Michael Doogan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): This deal was signed in December 2021, and Parliament has never had an opportunity to scrutinise it properly and vote on it prior to ratification. The Secretary of State for International Trade has bottled it twice at the Select Committee, and she has clearly bottled it today, which is why the Minister is here: he has already admitted that this is not his brief. What is it that the Government do not get? Why are they opening up Scottish farmers to a country that is 30 times larger than the United Kingdom? Although the Trade and Agriculture Commission has said that we do not have to review our standards, it is not our standards we are worried about; it is Australian standards.
Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement: Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2022-07-19
Topic: Agriculture
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Minister laughed when Brexit was mentioned earlier, but it is no laughing matter for the Scottish seafood sector, which has been hammered by Brexit, and it is no laughing matter for farmers who have no access to labour to pick the fruit and veg in their fields. The Government’s own impact assessment on this free trade agreement shows that the British agriculture, forestry and fishing sector will lose £94 million a year and the food processing sector will lose £225 million a year. Given how important Scotland is to the overall UK food and drink sector, when will we see the publication of an impact assessment that shows the actual impact in Scotland of that hit of more than £300 million a year?
Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement: Scrutiny — House of Commons, 2022-07-19
Topic: Foreign Trade
Martyn Day (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I just dinnae like this deal, on top of which it sets a dangerous precedent for our future trade deals with nations such as India, Mexico and Canada, where we will be dealing with far more sensitive products such as eggs, pork and chicken meat. Why is the Minister pressing ahead with it without the promised scrutiny?
Contaminated Blood Scandal: Interim Payments for Victims — House of Commons, 2022-07-19
Topic: Law and Crime
Philippa Whitford (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Irish Government established their compensation tribunal more than 25 years ago, yet the UK Government continue to leave victims facing death, without even basic justice for the harm done to them and their families. I remind the Paymaster General that this urgent question is about interim payments. Will he at least commit to moving forward now with key recommendation 14, on interim payments, rather than leaving victims and their families to face ongoing financial hardship?
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-07-19
Topic: International Affairs
Richard Gordon Thomson (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I rise to speak to, or at least draw attention to, amendments 19 and 22 in my name, and to speak to the other amendments that have been discussed. On amendments 19 and 22, I do not intend to rehearse in any depth the arguments I put forward on day one, except to say that even if the Bill was not at risk of being in breach of international law, in our view it still gives Ministers far too much power to proceed without adequate reference back to this place and opportunities for scrutiny by Members. I make that point again for the consideration of the Treasury Bench; no doubt they will instantly dispose of it, but nobody can accuse me of not having made it again On amendments 44 and 45, it seems to me entirely reasonable that Ministers should be required to consult appropriately on the impact of dual routes, and to make sure there is an agreement with the EU and the option to choose between dual routes so that the dual routes procedure can operate as intended. It also seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to refer back to the directly elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in the Assembly on how they might wish such a mechanism to go ahead or to work, so we are supportive of amendments 44 and 45 On amendment 28, ensuring that an economic impact assessment is carried out before proceeding with a dual regulatory regime seems to me to be the very essence of common sense. If only we had carried out a thorough economic assessment before stepping into this morass in the first place, it might have given people some pause for thought Finally—I said I would be brief—new clause 15 would require the House to be informed timeously of the details of discussions in the UK-EU Joint Committee when they involved regulation of goods in connection with the protocol, and to be given details of the regard that has been offered to the strand 1 and strand 2 arrangements. That seems a perfectly sensible way to ensure that consent is in place and that the views of all relevant stakeholders have been properly taken into consideration before such a momentous step is taken We entirely support those provisions and, if they are selected for separate decision, we intend to walk through the Lobby in support of them.
DWP dedicated telephone line for advice services — House of Commons, 2022-07-19
Topic: Social Welfare
David Melvyn Linden (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Over the past few weeks, I have spoken to a number of local citizens advice bureaux that, as would always be the case, are concerned about the impact of social security cuts at Westminster on many of their clients. One issue they have raised with me is the increasing casework they are experiencing. In particular, it is taking their staff and volunteers hours and hours to get through to the Department for Work and Pensions I pay tribute to Liz Willis and Joan McClure from the Parkhead and Easterhouse citizens advice bureaux who have petitioned me The petition states: The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to set up a Department of Work and Pensions dedicated telephone line for advice services Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow East, Declares that punitive social security cuts as well as the rising use of conditionality means that more and more people are turning to advice services, such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, to advocate on their behalf with the Department of Work and Pensions; and further that many advice service staff and volunteers are spending far too much time waiting to speak with DWP staff on general telephone lines. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to set up a Department of Work and Pensions dedicated telephone line for advice services. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P002745]
International Criminal Court: Ukraine — House of Commons, 2022-07-05
Topic: International Affairs
Patricia Gibson (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The International Criminal Court celebrated its 20th anniversary last week, but it is striking that in that time the Court has managed only three war crime convictions. Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the Putin regime is to be held accountable, that will only happen with sustained international support and funding? Has he had discussions with international counterparts in Governments who are not members of the International Criminal Court to encourage them to join?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2022-07-05
Topic: International Affairs
Questions:   I recently had the pleasure of visiting HMP The Mount in my constituency, where I learned about its excellent work to provide inmates with practical work skills for life after prison. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that when individuals leave prison, they are given the tools and skills to successfully rehabilitate themselves back into society—as they are at HMP The Mount—and get back into work, and not to fall back into a life of crime?
Elizabeth Anne McLaughlin (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Last week, Russia followed the UK Government’s lead in ignoring a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, telling the Court: "Russia no longer complies with the prescriptions of the ECHR—that’s all there is to say" When the Lord Chancellor sees that kind of behaviour, does he ever have second thoughts about the type of company that he is taking the UK into as a result of his proposals? How does he think that will be viewed by the international community?
Standards in Public Life — House of Commons, 2022-07-05
Topic: Government Operations
Brendan O'Hara (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Here we are again, Mr Speaker. Once again, the Minister for defending the indefensible is sent out to defend his boss, but even he must realise the frequency with which we reconvene in this place to question the veracity of the Prime Minister’s version of events; it is like being on a merry-go-round that gets faster and faster. Today, it is the turn of Lord McDonald, the former senior civil servant at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to call out the Prime Minister’s claim that he was unaware of any specific allegations against the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) when he appointed him Deputy Chief Whip. In his letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Lord McDonald is unequivocal in saying that three years ago, in 2019, the Prime Minister "was briefed in person about the initiation and outcome of the investigation." Lord McDonald’s letter absolutely demolishes the Prime Minister’s claims that he did not know and, once again, raises serious concerns and questions about whether he has broken the ministerial code. How much longer will we have to endure this seemingly endless merry-go-round? Will the Secretary of State now commit to holding a full and transparent investigation into this matter, and perhaps finally allow us and the people of the United Kingdom to get off this appalling merry-go-round?
Standards in Public Life — House of Commons, 2022-07-05
Topic: Government Operations
James Neale Hanvey (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): A few short weeks ago, at Lord Geidt’s resignation, I asked the Minister what fresh scandal was coming down the tracks. He assured me that there was none, yet here we are. The principle at stake here should resonate not just in this place, but in Parliaments across the UK and beyond, because accepting personal responsibility, lawfulness and truth telling are essential conditions of honourable conduct. As President Nixon discovered, it was the cover-up and the decision to lie that delivered his undoing. Misconduct in public office is a serious charge. Following the recent revelations from Lord McDonald, can the Minister tell the House: what did the Prime Minister know and when did he know it?
Cost of Living — House of Commons, 2022-07-05
Topic: Social Welfare
Christopher Charles Stephens (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): It is a pleasure to follow my good friend, the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), and it is a pleasure to be a member of that Committee in holding the Government to account. I of course refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly my role as chair of the PCS parliamentary group, as I will have some things to say about the office closures issue I want to start with the Secretary of State’s appearance at the Work and Pensions Committee last week, when she said that, on Thursday, she was going to meet her officials to discuss a second remedial order on bereavement support benefits for cohabiting couples. This is a very important issue, and we have had many great campaigners, including my Glasgow South West constituent Ailsa MacKenzie, who has been in the vanguard of pushing this issue. I hope the Minister will update the House on that issue, because it affects many thousands of people. The quicker we get the remedial order laid down, the quicker people can start receiving those bereavement support payments, which will no doubt help them deal with the cost of living crisis Let me touch on what I think lies at the heart of the problems in the Department for Work and Pensions: the start of the claim, the five-week wait and the deductions that come with that. The Minister responded to a written question from me, and the figures are becoming increasingly alarming. Ever since, I have periodically tabled such questions, and the number of deductions and the amount deducted have increased over the past 18 months. A total of £11 million a month is now being taken off claimants as a result of deductions. In my view, that has become a poverty tax For example, figures show that in February this year, 189,000 households in Scotland—an increase of 9,000 in just three months—had an average of £60 deducted from their social security payments. That is mainly to pay back the loans issued by the Department to cover the five-week wait at the beginning of a new claim, but some of it is due to overpayments, which include the Department’s errors. I hope the Department will look at that issue, because there is already case law when it comes to pay. By law, if there has been a mistake and someone has been overpaid, the employer cannot take that back. I suggest that if the Department has made a genuine error, it should not be deducting payments from future claims. I hope the Government will look at that, because a number of organisations have said that a deduction should not be made if the Department for Work and Pensions is to blame.
Cost of Living — House of Commons, 2022-07-05
Topic: Social Welfare
Kirsty Ann Blackman (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the lack of reassurance regarding top-up payments, as announced by the Chancellor last week? We may end up in the same situation, because if DWP accidentally gives that money to someone, it might try to claw it back, putting people in an even worse state of poverty than they are in already.
Cost of Living — House of Commons, 2022-07-05
Topic: Social Welfare
David Melvyn Linden (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The hon. Lady hits the nail on the head. She has rightly put the scale of the cuts into context, and there is a point for the Government to reflect on here. They will think, after making cuts, "Well, that’s no longer a problem for DWP," but in many respects local authorities such as Glasgow City Council have to pick up the burden of the resulting destitution. My local social work office in Easterhouse has to deal with the homelessness, the debt, and all the other issues that ensue from Government policies.
Cost of Living — House of Commons, 2022-07-05
Topic: Macroeconomics
Kirsty Ann Blackman (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): It is a pleasure to take part in this estimates day debate. I do love estimates day; it is wonderful every time that this rolls around—I am not being sarcastic, I promise I will talk briefly about the shortcomings of the estimates process. We are discussing the DWP estimate today—which involves spending of £240 billion—under, I think, Standing Orders 53 and 54, which were written before I was born. We are unable to table meaningful amendments in relation to £240 billion of spending because of the way in which the Standing Orders are written. That is shocking. Has anyone here ever tried to explain the Budget process to people outside the House? Have they ever tried to explain the fact that we have to stand here and discuss hundreds of billions of pounds of expenditure without any meaningful way to amend that? It is absolutely ridiculous, flawed and deeply inadequate The DWP’s objectives in the main estimates book are, first, "Maximising employment and in-work progression"; secondly, "Improving people’s quality of life"; and thirdly, "Delivering excellent services for citizens and taxpayers". Those are the Department’s aims for the next year. I suggest that the Government have failed and continue to fail in what they are doing. I make it clear that that is not, for a second, the fault of DWP staff, who are working incredibly hard to make the social security additional payments.