argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-29
Topic: Law and Crime
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): I will ventilate my argument and then of course give way so that the right hon. Member does not encourage me to say something that I am already about to say—I fear that might be the case On Second Reading, I raised the warnings from experts that the Bill would allow immunity to be granted to rapists and other sexual offenders. During the debate, Ministers insisted that that was not the case. Since then, we have had months of Select Committee evidence hearings where multiple witnesses confirmed that the Bill would allow immunity to be granted to perpetrators of sexual offences committed as part of the troubles Daniel Holder from the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the model Bill team clearly stated: "Our interpretation of the Bill as it stands is that it does not exclude sexual offences. They are included in the potential amnesty/ immunities scheme, which, as you will know, is pretty much unheard of in international practice—torture as well. We are aware of the argument that has been made by another Member of Parliament that they are not Troubles-related offences and therefore they would not be included, but that, in itself, is problematic, to deny that sexual violence was part of the Troubles, as it very clearly was." I heard that—I was watching—and Ministers and officials would have been watching as well. That needed to be considered before the Bill got to this place Other witnesses from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Victims’ Commissioner echoed that exact view. I do not believe for a second that the Minister fails to take this issue incredibly seriously—I know that he does—and I am certain that he wants those who committed acts of sexual violence during the troubles brought to justice as much as I do I want to explain for colleagues’ benefit exactly what our amendment 115 would do. It is simple and straightforward. It reads: "Clause 18, page 17, line 7, at end insert— ‘(12A) But certain offences of sexual violence listed in Schedule (Exempt offences) must not be treated as within the scope of immunity from prosecution.’" The schedule of offences is based entirely on the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. As many Members will know, that Act went through exactly the same kind of debate that we are having now, with the Government refusing to include the amendment and then suddenly, at the last moment, realising there was a problem and tabling the amendment that they wanted themselves.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-29
Topic: Law and Crime
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): I agree; the clock is ticking. Let us get on with it. It feels like it has been 30 years since we started talking about this amendment As we consider the amendments, I want to echo the words of my friend, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer)—what a shame he is not in the Chamber to hear me heaping praise on his previous oration. He said on Second Reading that "we have to go further and over-compensate for a past that has failed victims…Families do not have confidence and we must commit to a level of transparency and openness."—[Official Report, 24 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 256.] If the Government are sincere in their desire to deliver reconciliation with the Bill, I hope that they will look at our amendments as a way to begin the process. Victims and their families deserve nothing less.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-29
Topic: Law and Crime
Jessica Rose Phillips (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for the speech he is making. I, too, have concerns, but even if that was ironed out—I stand here to speak for the 21 families of the victims of the Birmingham pub bombings, the biggest mass killing on our streets in this country for which no one has faced justice—does he think that that would be enough for the lives of Maxine Hambleton, Tommy Marsh and Paul Anthony Davies? Would anything we could do today allow the families of those people to feel that an amnesty was enough?
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-29
Topic: Law and Crime
Jessica Rose Phillips (Labour, Centre-left): I am absolutely not going to give the hon. Gentleman an extraordinarily hard time, and I thank him for taking the intervention. He may be right as a pragmatist—I am a pragmatist myself—to say that this is as good as it will get, but the families affected by terror incidents, including the incident I ran away from myself in Birmingham, do not think that his saying, "What you’ve got is as good as it’s going to get" is enough for 21 people lying dead with no justice. That is not good enough for them. On whether it takes them the rest of their lives, Julie Hambleton is in her fifties now. She has been doing it since she was 13—she is in for the long haul—and the reason she keeps going is that she believes in the British state.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-29
Topic: Law and Crime
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): Like the hon. Member, I believe that, had there been action in the past, we may not have needed to be here today. He said that the search for truth by the families of victims is valid, but he also said that little can be done now. We recently had the Ballymurphy inquest, which came to a definitive conclusion and gave some truth to the victims’ families. On that basis, will he at least accept that getting rid of inquests would fly in the face of the interests of victims’ families?
Business without Debate — House of Commons, 2022-06-29
Topic: Law and Crime
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Policing Minister for checking the records and the emails, as I requested him to do at the end of the statement earlier, and for correcting the record. Clearly, it was not a last-minute addition, as he had said, to put so many additional deliberate political attacks into the statement. Obviously, it should not have taken my asking such forensic questions to elicit this and to elicit this apology in the first place. Given that this is such an incredibly sensitive and serious subject—the future of the Metropolitan police—and that we have had repeated examples of this, could you use your offices to urge other Departments not to add in these political statements that are not included in the statements that are given to the House? In addition, will you urge Ministers to see this as a lesson to stop playing political games with something so important?
Research and Development Spending — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Energy
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): That was the very first mention of hydrogen this morning. Does the Minister agree that there is such potential in hydrogen energy? We can already buy heavy goods vehicles and trucks that are hydrogen driven, and a network of hydrogen filling stations is being opened at the moment across our country. If he does agree, why does he not put more research money into hydrogen for every kind of energy use?
Research and Development Spending — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Technology
Daniel Owen Jarvis (Labour, Centre-left): We need to increase investment in R&D; we also need to think carefully about where we spend it. In South Yorkshire we have some outstanding translational research institutions—the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre and the Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre—in two outstanding universities. I know that the Secretary of State is supportive, but will the Minister pledge to work carefully with the Mayor and partners in our region so that we can unlock the huge potential in South Yorkshire?
Research and Development Spending — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Technology
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): Despite being critical to our world-beating research and a Conservative manifesto commitment, Britain’s participation in the world’s biggest science funding programme, Horizon Europe, is in peril. Before resigning, the then science Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), took to Twitter to lobby the new Chancellor for funding for his plan B, but the Chancellor was busy trying to get the Prime Minister he had just accepted a job from to leave his job. Now, although the former science Minister has asked for his job back, the still in place, though disgraced, Prime Minister is too busy nobbling those going for his job to fill the science job. It is total chaos. Science deserves better, doesn’t it?
Energy Price Rises — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Energy
Rachel Louise Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): Citizens Advice Luton has seen a 119% increase in local people saying they cannot afford their energy bills after April’s price increase, even after cutting back on other essential spending. I heard the Secretary of State say that the issue is talked about constantly in Cabinet, but does the Minister recognise that the energy price cap increase later this year will push even more families into poverty and hardship?
Energy Price Rises — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Energy
Alan Patrick Vincent Whitehead (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister knows that, at present, all retail electricity supplies—whether they derive from more expensive gas or cheaper renewables—are charged as though they had all come from gas. He also knows how to decouple prices coming into the retail market, so that domestic and business customers can enjoy considerable reductions in their energy bills by getting the direct benefit of renewable prices. Why is he not legislating to do so?
Low-carbon Technologies — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Environment
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the Minister to her post. We all agree that supporting investment in new low-carbon technologies is an important part of reaching net zero—well, most of us do. In the past week, one of the candidates for Prime Minister has said that "we need to suspend the all-consuming desire to achieve net zero by 2050." Another claims that it was "wrong of us to set a target" for net zero. The frontrunner spent two years at the Treasury blocking additional climate spend. It is all well and good for the Minister to talk about the need for investment, but how can we, and more importantly the investors out there, have any confidence that it will continue?
Rare Earth Metals — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Energy
William Roffen Esterson (Labour, Centre-left): Rare earth minerals are essential to our economy, not least in low-carbon sectors and in defence. The Japanese Government developed their rare minerals plan as long ago as 2010, in response to a blockade by China. I know the UK Government say that they will publish a critical materials strategy in the autumn, but if other countries have been building resilience since 2010, what confidence can we have that this Government will develop an effective strategy for our economy and our national security when, as the Secretary of State has just admitted, they have only just woken up to the scale of the risks that we face?
Community-owned Energy Projects — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Energy
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister knows that community-owned local energy projects will be critical to delivering net zero and national security, and are often best delivered by co-operatives. However, he should also know that the minimum tariff paid by the big suppliers to the small suppliers is often too low to make many smaller suppliers viable. Will he look into that minimum tariff, and also work with the Co-operative party to support and fund the launch of new locally owned community energy projects?
Energy Price Rises — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Energy
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): The finance director of Thessco, a successful Sheffield alloy manufacturer, has told me that the company’s electricity bill has increased by more than 300% and its gas bill by more than 400%. It does not qualify for help under the energy intensive industries compensation scheme simply because its raw materials are precious metals. The previous Industry Minister acknowledged this in a letter to me but hoped that, despite not helping, the scheme did "demonstrate an intent to try to help". Extraordinary. Does the Minister agree that small and medium-sized enterprises such as Thessco do not need demonstrations of intent and that they need practical support to avoid being crushed by rising energy bills?
Business Supply Chains — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Macroeconomics
Mohammad Yasin (Labour, Centre-left): Whether it is shortages in medicines, shortages in building materials or empty spaces on supermarket shelves, my constituents are still finding stock shortages everywhere. Retailers say this is the worst supply chain crisis they can remember, with no sign of the problem easing soon. What is the Minister doing now to help businesses through this and to mitigate the impact of spiralling inflation?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Macroeconomics
Jonathan Neil Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): If the right hon. Gentleman wants to be the next Chancellor, he will have to do better than that Let us look at an area where he should have taken a lesson from us. Earlier in the year, we said it would be a mistake for this Government to increase national insurance. With inflation and energy bills rising for businesses, we said it was wrong for the Government to add to that burden in a way no other major economy was doing. It seems that Conservative contenders are now lining up to disown the tax rise they voted for just a few months ago. Does he agree with his colleagues that the Government got this badly wrong?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Labor
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice on how to get a satisfactory response from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions concerning new data from her Department, published last week, which shows that 140 deaths of vulnerable claimants have been investigated since 2019—and these are only the deaths that we know about. It is a scandal that the bereaved families are not made aware of or involved in these investigations, and that we are denied data on the true scale of the deaths. Can you suggest why the Secretary of State is refusing to hold a public inquiry, and what I can do to hold her to account and get one?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Labor
Imran Hussain (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In recent weeks, I have tabled numerous written parliamentary questions on a range of topics, including, the minimum wage for seafarers, a statutory code on fire and rehire, ethnicity pay gap reporting, umbrella companies, and the now vanished employment Bill only for Ministers to tell me that the Bills, drafts, consultations and responses that they have long promised will be published in "due course". Yet in "due course" never arrives and it appears to be nothing more than a phrase that Ministers use to kick plans into the long grass. May I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, on what actions are open to me to ensure that the Government provide a proper response on when publications will be made available, or do I assume that this Government will only care about fighting to protect and uphold the rights of working people in "due course"?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Environment
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, and I think you will be particularly interested in this one. You will know, because I informed you and others in the House, that, over the past few days, I have been wearing a very sophisticated air quality monitor. I have to say that the quality of the air in this Chamber is very polluted—well above World Health Organisation standards—but in other parts of the House, where our staff are working, it is twice as bad. It is a seriously polluted atmosphere that we are asking our employees on this estate to work in. We have the summer recess coming up, so may I ask you, Mr Speaker, to see whether something can be done—both in the short term and then in the longer term—to protect the people who work in this Parliament?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Social Welfare
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Department for Work and Pensions questions yesterday, the Secretary of State challenged the figures that I used about child poverty, asking that I advise where I got them from. That struck me as rather odd, because I got those statistics from her own Department. Today, we hear from the North East Child Poverty Commission that the north-east has overtaken London in terms of having the highest rate of child poverty in the UK, at 38%, up from 37% the previous year—that is 11 children in a classroom of 30 In 2020-21, the north-east continues to see a longer-term trend, with the region experiencing by far the steepest increases in child poverty in the UK in recent years. One third of the north-east’s parliamentary constituencies now have a child poverty rate of 40% or above I wonder whether you, Mr Speaker, have heard from the Secretary of State about whether she has since managed to read her own statistics, and if she plans a statement on the worsening of child poverty in my region?
Pets (Microchips) — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Technology
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Can I just say that Attlee is fully supportive of what you are trying to do Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That James Daly, Mark Eastwood, Jim Shannon, Saqib Bhatti, Sir Gavin Williamson, Anthony Mangnall, Mark Logan, Aaron Bell, Jake Berry, Damien Moore, Nickie Aiken and Paul Bristow present the Bill James Daly accordingly presented the Bill Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 139). Online Safety Bill: Programme (No. 2) Ordered, That the Order of 19 April 2022 in the last Session of Parliament (Online Safety Bill: Programme) be varied as follows: (1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted (2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order (3) Proceedings on Consideration— (a) shall be taken on each of those days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and (b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings First day New clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Part 1, Part 2 and Chapters 1 to 4, 6 and 7 of Part 3 (except amendments relating to the repeal of Part 4B of the Communications Act 2003) 4.30 pm on the first day New clauses and new Schedules relating to, and amendments to, Chapter 5 of Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, clauses 160 to 162 and Schedule 15, clauses 163 to 171, clauses 176 to 182, and Part 12 (except amendments relating to the repeal of Part 4B of the Communications Act 2003) 7.00 pm on the first day Second day New clauses, new Schedules and amendments relating to the repeal of Part 4B of the Communications Act 2003, and remaining proceedings on Consideration 6.00 pm on the second day (4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.—(Damian Collins.)
Online Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Technology
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the Minister to his position, and it is wonderful to have somebody else who—like the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—knows what he is talking about. On this issue, which is pretty key, I think it would work if minimum standards were set on the risk assessments that platforms have to make to judge what is legal but harmful content, but at the moment such minimum standards are not in the Bill. Could the Minister comment on that? Otherwise, there is a danger that platforms will set a risk assessment that allows really vile harmful but legal content to carry on appearing on their platform.
Online Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Technology
Alexandra Mary Davies-Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the former Minister for his intervention, and I am grateful for that clarification. We debated at length in Committee the importance of the regulator’s independence and the prevention of overarching Secretary of State powers, and of Parliament having a say and being reconvened if required. I welcome the fact that that limitation on the power will be tabled in the other place, but it should have been tabled as an amendment here so that we could have discussed it today. We should not have to wait for the Bill to go to the other place for us to have our say. Who knows what will happen to the Bill tomorrow, next week or further down the line with the Government in utter chaos? We need this to be done now. The Minister must recognise that this is an unparalleled level of power, and one with which the sector and Back Benchers in his own party disagree. Let us work together and make sure the Bill really is fit for purpose, and that Ofcom is truly independent and without interference and has the tools available to it to really create meaningful change and keep us all safe online once and for all.
Online Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexandra Mary Davies-Jones (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Minister for the offer to work on that further, but we have an opportunity now to make real and lasting change. We talk about how we tackle this issue going forward. How can we solve the problem of violence against women and girls in our community? Three women a week are murdered at the hands of men in this country—that is shocking. How can we truly begin to tackle a culture change? This is how it starts. We have had enough of words. We have had enough of Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box saying, "This is how we are going to tackle violence against women and girls; this is our new plan to do it." They have an opportunity to create a new law that makes it a priority harm, and that makes women and girls feel like they are being listened to, finally. I urge the Minister and Members in all parts of the House, who know that this is a chance for us finally to take that first step, to vote for new clause 3 today and make women and girls a priority by showing understanding that they receive a disproportionate level of abuse and harm online, and by making them a key component of the Bill.