argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. If I was keeping everybody in order, your speech would have finished 15 minutes ago. We have latitude for all sides here tonight, so let us see how we go, but I do hope that you will recognise that others are waiting.
Driving Offences: Government Consultation — House of Commons, 2017-02-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Wayne David (Labour, Centre-left): I acknowledge the Minister’s argument, which I have heard before. If we went out to consultation on this specific issue, which we have not really done, would it not be far better if the Government were informed by a wider legal debate as well as public opinion in case they might want to change the law in the future?
Transitional Arrangements — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Daniel Stephen Zeichner (Labour, Centre-left): The tech sector is clear that the UK needs a watertight legal agreement on international data flows from the day we leave the EU; transitional arrangements just will not do. The best route will be an adequacy agreement, as other means are currently under legal challenge. As it took seven years to negotiate an adequacy agreement with Bermuda, what is the Secretary of State doing, with colleagues, to ensure that we avoid a cliff edge on data flows?
Human Rights — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said about the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights. With that in mind, will he consider giving his support to a fourth summit of the Council of Europe to look at the way forward for the Council and how human rights could be strengthened through the European Court of Human Rights?
Non-UK EU Nationals: Residency Rights — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Immigration
Questions: If he will protect the rights of non-UK EU nationals resident in the UK as part of his Department’s plans for exiting the EU.
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): I have had constituents come into my surgeries in tears because of the uncertainty about their future. They cannot apply for new jobs, they are worried that they do not know what their status will be if they apply for a university course, and they cannot apply for mortgages. These are not itinerant migrant workers—these are people who have made their homes and lives in Bristol—and they need assurances now from the Government.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Martin McDonnell (Labour, Centre-left): That is a process of bringing MPs together as individuals, not as party representatives—let us be absolutely clear about that. We look forward to any proposals that come forward for consideration from any source. If we can find a practical way forward, we certainly will The most important thing is that we have an emergency at the moment. We need £2 billion now, not over three years, because people are suffering now. Families are imploding. I felt a sense of relief when it was trailed that we were going to get £2 billion. I then felt extreme disappointment when we were then told it would be £2 billion over three years. That was never mentioned in the press releases before the announcement.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Immigration
Keith Anthony Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): On Brexit, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend shares my concern that no provision has been given to the Home Office for processing the applications of 3.2 million EU citizens. The Home Office has suffered enormous cuts over the past few years and will simply be unable to deal with the applications that will be made. Currently, there is a seven-month wait to get a certificate to remain. Does he believe that provision should have been made for that?
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Immigration
Keith Anthony Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman and the SNP should be commended for raising this issue on so many occasions. It is the practicalities that worry me. EU citizens are extremely worried and distressed about their current position, so they need their applications to be processed, but there is no provision in the Budget to allow for those applications to be processed efficiently. Millions of people will have to go through the system.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman was talking about pubs, and he will know that I am a keen pub goer. Indeed, I was in a pub in his constituency the other day, enjoying a pint with my cousins. What does he have to say to customers in pubs, who are going to face a 3% increase in the price of a pint?
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): I have not yet been to a pub in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but I recognise the benefits for pubs in my constituency. May I extend the question about customers in pubs, many of whom may be self-employed? Have they reflected with him on their concerns about the proposed rise in national insurance?
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Other
Graham Peter Jones (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday in regional newspapers, there was a malicious and false report that the Labour party had somehow entered into an arrangement with the British National party in the seat of Pendle. This matter was raised in business questions by the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson). Having just spoken to the leader of the council in Pendle, I am absolutely assured that no such deal has taken place. In fact, the leader of the council has never spoken to the BNP in eight years, and the Labour party does not speak to the BNP in Pendle unless it is absolutely necessary to do so in committee. These reports should be corrected and I wondered how best to go about doing that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend mentioned previous claims by the Conservatives. I have the advert that they put out during the last election, which made clear that any rise in national insurance would be "costing jobs and hitting hardworking taxpayers" What has changed?
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Steven Mark Ward Reed (Labour, Centre-left): That is absolutely shocking, but it reflects what we are seeing in our constituencies and what our constituents are telling us Once upon a time in this country, there was a covenant between people and Government. People gave their consent to the system in return for a fair reward for the work they put in. There was an understanding that if people worked hard, they would do well. They could expect a decent home, security for their family, and healthcare when they fell ill or grew old, and that if they could not work, they would be looked after with dignity and respect. But today that covenant is broken. The unfairness and inequality that this Government stoke has bred resentment that has catapulted us out of the European Union and over a cliff edge into uncertainty.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): I very much agree with my hon. Friend and recognise the points she makes about the family she grew up in Surely we want to encourage more people to become entrepreneurs—to strike out on their own and create the thriving businesses of the future. Some of our most successful entrepreneurs started out as self-employed, then set up small and medium-sized enterprises, and went on from there. I think that this short-sighted tax grab by the Chancellor will deter people from doing that.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Immigration
Michael John Gapes (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. He mentioned the former Chancellor’s remarks, and the Government’s position is clearly that immigration is the priority. The Government’s target of a reduction to 100,000 seems a bit strange, however, given that the forecasts in the Red Book are based on the assumption that 185,000 migrants will come into this country in 2021; that is the Office for Budget Responsibility statistic on which the forecasts are based. How can the Government reconcile the 100,000 and the 185,000 figures, and surely the economy will be in a worse position based on those facts?
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Immigration
Wesley Paul William Streeting (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with my hon. Friend. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard calls for a real debate on immigration, but a real debate requires an argument. There are undoubtedly real sensitivities and concerns about immigration in communities across the country, not least when people feel that their own wages have been depressed because employers are able to bring in cheaper labour from abroad to undercut the pay, terms and conditions of local workers. For me, that is an issue of social injustice that Governments need to tackle. However, we have an ageing population and a shrinking working-age population, and we can barely afford the pensions bill. We need a greater working-age population to come to this country, do their work and pay their taxes. Any politician who says that immigration is a price that this country cannot afford must also come to the House and tell us how they plan to pay for the public services on which every citizen in this country relies We must grasp the reality of the immigration debate. If we continue to fail to address the genuine and well-founded concerns about immigration while pandering to the myths about it, we will set this country on a course that will make us poorer, and that would be the worst possible response to the EU referendum. If people went to the ballot box and voted to leave the European Union because they felt left behind by globalisation in a world that was changing around them, imagine the betrayal they would feel if, having been sold the promise of a brighter future, they found that jobs were drying up, the economy had been left behind and the public services on which they relied were being decimated. That is the real risk of a botched Brexit In the context of a rapidly changing global economy in which jobs are changing, huge digitalisation is taking place and a new industrial revolution is sweeping the country at a pace and scale that we have never seen before, the purpose of the Labour party has never been more relevant or more urgently needed. More than 100 years ago, the party was founded to champion the interests of labour over the interests of capital. In a future of deregulation and a loss of jobs because they no longer exist in huge sectors of the economy, it is the job of the Labour party to protect the interests of labour. When we look at what this Budget does to the self-employed, the strivers and the people across the private sector who make up the backbone of the economy and at what it does to public services, and when we look at how the Government are botching Brexit, we can see that it is long past time for the Labour party to take this lot apart. People across the country are counting on us to be an effective Opposition and an alternative Government. That is the job that we must face up to, and we need to start doing it sooner rather than later.
Budget Resolutions — House of Commons, 2017-03-09
Topic: Other
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend said that the Government’s approach had been a mistake. Today, on Radio Cymru, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), said: "I believe we should apologise. I will apologise to every voter in Wales that read the Conservative manifesto in the 2015 election." Well, he was the Minister, but I am not sure whether he still is. Does my hon. Friend know?
Tourism — House of Commons, 2017-04-27
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: What recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of the tourism sector on the implications for that sector of the UK leaving the EU.; What recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of the tourism sector on the implications for that sector of the UK leaving the EU.
Daniel Stephen Zeichner (Labour, Centre-left): Tourism requires airports to be open to people, and the Association of British Travel Agents tells us that getting an early deal is of the utmost priority. The chief executive of Stansted airport recently told MPs from our region that no deal means no flights. What assessment has been made of the cost to the British tourism industry of no deal?
Trade and Customs Agreement — House of Commons, 2017-04-27
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Trade on securing a comprehensive trade and customs agreement which provides the exact same benefits which the UK receives as a member of the single market and customs union.
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Exiting the European Union Committee, he told me that the Government had not undertaken any economic assessment of the impact of Brexit since he had been in his post. Will the Minister update the House on whether there has been any progress, and when it comes to publishing the Government’s final deal, will he ensure that it includes an economic assessment of the impact of that deal and an economic assessment of the impact of no deal, so that my constituents and the country can make up their minds themselves about whether no deal is indeed better than a bad deal?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-04-27
Topic: Immigration
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): Let me pick up on that theme. As the Secretary of State knows, about 3 million EU nationals are very anxious about their status when we leave the EU. Labour would unilaterally guarantee their status from day one. Under this Government, all they can do is apply for consideration for permanent residency, but as the Brexit Select Committee warned in March: "The current process for consideration of permanent residency applications is not fit for purpose" The Secretary of State knows how important this is. Have things improved?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-04-27
Topic: Immigration
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): As the Financial Times reported yesterday, the Home Office is now saying, "Don’t apply". Is that the Government’s official position for EU nationals—"Don’t apply for permanent residency"? Is that how they will deal with that anxiety?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-04-27
Topic: Mixed Topics
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The threat of deportation hangs over the head of my constituent Mr Pride Mbi, who originates from the Anglophone minority in Cameroon. I have been in correspondence with the Home Office about the lack of published guidance for Cameroon given that Pride has been a long-standing champion of the rights of English-speaking Cameroonians, who face a very specific threat in that country. I am concerned that, as Parliament is to be dissolved and as the civil service is already in purdah, my options for raising this case are extremely limited. With the threat of deportation remaining, can you advise me on how I will be able to ensure that Pride’s position is properly considered?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-04-27
Topic: Other
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): I am actually very happy. On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In all my years in this House, I have never heard of a case of bullying in this House of one Member by another, but I have just heard of such a case. The House will not be sitting for some time now, but you will be here, and I am sure that you would not approve of one Member acting in a bullying way toward another in the environs of this House. This case is shameful. I am not going to name names, but it involves a male Government Member and an Opposition female Member. I do not want an inquiry on it, but I do want a set of rules that state that verbal or any other sort of bullying of one Member by another is not allowed in this House or anywhere in its environs.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-04-27
Topic: Other
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This was so serious that Whips on both sides of the House were involved, so I am sure you could make the inquiries to find out the facts of the matter.
Power-sharing Agreement — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Other
Questions: Having been a Member of Parliament for many years prior to devolution, I am acutely aware of the total inadequacy of direct rule. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is undertaking the negotiations with the utmost urgency and intensity to get a deal on devolved government?
Stephen Pelham Pound (Labour, Centre-left): Today is a rather sombre day in that it marks the Ides of March, but this Friday we will have the opportunity to hail glorious St Patrick. If you will allow me, Mr Speaker, I will wish you and the House the happiest St Patrick’s day in advance Like many Members, I cannot remember a more serious time since the Good Friday agreement was signed, and I say on behalf of my Opposition colleagues that normal hostilities are suspended. We will be offering unequivocal support to the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Government. The time for internecine dispute in this place is over; the time for constructive engagement and working together is here and now. In that tone, and with reference to the talks the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, has there been a roundtable plenary involving any or all of the parties?
Personal Independence Payments — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Other
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you very much for spotting me, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State seems to think—he has said it several times now—that just because we prayed against the statutory instrument, we are bound to have a one-and-a-half hour debate and a vote. That is completely untrue. The only person who can guarantee a debate and a vote is the Secretary of State. I promise not to tell anyone else, but if he could stand up now and be completely unambiguous in telling us that we will have a debate and a vote in this Chamber, we would be very grateful.
Visible Religious Symbols: European Court Ruling — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Sarah Deborah Champion (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for raising this important issue. The ruling is not as clearcut as press articles would have us believe, but it does raise real concerns about religious freedom in the workplace, including for Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab. When making their ruling, the judges relied on the concept of workplace policies that require neutrality. Neutrality has specific cultural significance in Belgium and other European countries, based on their particular meaning of secularism, which does not resonate in Britain. Does the Minister agree that this concept of neutrality is illogical, as a customer, patient or service user could not make a valid assumption as to the religious persuasion of a company, or perceive that a company is particularly favouring one religious group or another, by virtue of how its employees dress Women and men must be allowed to choose their expression of faith. Simply put, this judgment is not consistent with the British liberal and human rights tradition. Of real concern are the implications that this may now have for faith communities. Already, the far right across Europe is rallying on the judgment. I thank the Minister for making a clear statement today that people can express their faith, in a professional manner, in the workplace, but can she confirm that this Government believe that preventing women from wearing the hijab, as exampled in this case, is simply and unconditionally wrong What is the Government’s position on the concept of a dress code for staff that requires neutrality in the workplace? I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed that she will be working with the EHRC on updating the guidance to employers on this ruling. Will she confirm that it will reinforce the rights of employees in the UK to express their religious freedom G4S holds a number of Government contracts. Has the Minister reinforced with G4S, the employer in this situation, its employees’ rights to wear clothing necessary for their religious practice in the UK?
Visible Religious Symbols: European Court Ruling — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Rushanara Ali (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister will appreciate how distressing the ruling is, not only for British Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab but for many other faith communities. She will be aware that G4S, the British company involved, has form. It presided over a shambolic temporary jobs arrangement during the Olympics, when the British Army had to be brought in. First, will G4S’s Government contracts be reviewed, because what it has done is unacceptable and un-British? Secondly, once the Government have worked with the EHRC to reform the guidance, will the Minister report to Parliament to reassure us that, as Members on both sides of the House have stated, British values, which are distinct from the ruling, are upheld, and that the right of women to wear what they wish to wear in the workplace, within reason and with reasonable accommodation, is upheld?
Visible Religious Symbols: European Court Ruling — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): I do not like this word "tolerate." In this country, we do not tolerate people; we respect and embrace all cultures. Despite that, we know that Islamophobia is not only widespread but rampant. As a solicitor, for the best part of a decade I advised employees and employers on employment law. My worry is that those who read the reports on the CJEU decision will see it as a green light to engage in further discrimination in the workplace. What specifically will the Government do to ensure that employers do not take from the judgments the idea that they can carry on discriminating, particularly against Muslim women, who are more likely to be discriminated against in the workplace than many other groups?
Visible Religious Symbols: European Court Ruling — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Shabana Mahmood (Labour, Centre-left): This ruling sends an appalling message to faith communities in our countries, and many visibly religious people at work today will feel more scrutinised and more insecure as a result. The ruling also creates a lower threshold for religious freedom than we enjoy under UK legislation. Many thousands of people in my constituency are affected; they need a clear and continuing signal from the Government that they will support our national legal settlement. I am grateful for what the Minister has already said on that, but how will she and the Government monitor the ruling’s impact on employees currently in the workplace? What steps will she take to prevent any further marginalisation of visibly religious people in the workplace?
Visible Religious Symbols: European Court Ruling — House of Commons, 2017-03-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): A person’s ability to do 99.9% of jobs, including that of security guard, is not affected by whether they wear a skull cap, headscarf, turban, cross, mangalsutra or tilaka. Can this ECJ judgment be rejected in domestic law to prevent confusion among employers about its having any bearing on this country? As G4S receives public funding and is discriminating against people, can its contract be reviewed?