argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Confidence and Supply Arrangement — House of Commons, 2017-06-27
Topic: Macroeconomics
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I rise to propose that the House debates a specific and important matter for urgent consideration—namely, the Government’s confidence and supply deal with the Democratic Unionist party and the associated funding arrangements Yesterday morning, the Government confirmed a confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist party to secure a working majority in this Parliament. The central part of the deal involved a funding arrangement that would see Northern Ireland benefit from more than £1 billion of extra investment, while the other nations of the United Kingdom would secure next to nothing. The full details of the deal must be fully debated and all the issues properly scrutinised as quickly as possible, certainly ahead of Thursday’s votes on the Humble Address. Yesterday there was an hour-long statement, with little notice, from the First Secretary of State, who took questions from hon. Members. That cannot be considered satisfactory, given the significance and importance of the deal. Members must be given a chance to debate all the issues fully The normal arrangements for the funding of the nations of the United Kingdom have been turned on their head with the disregard of the Barnett formula. Had the Barnett formula been applied, Scotland would have been entitled to nearly £2.9 billion of additional funding and Wales would have got an extra £1.7 billion. The First Secretary yesterday claimed that the deal was to be compared to allocations made under city deals. That is not the case and that assertion must be tested. City deals in Scotland are match-funded by the Scottish Government and local authority partners; and Northern Ireland is not a city. There are also questions about the role of the Scotland Office in all this. On Sunday, the Secretary of State for Scotland noted he would not support any funding that, "is deliberately sought to subvert the Barnett rules" This deal clearly does—it fails that test. We and all the new Scottish Members of Parliament need to know whether the Scotland Office made representations to the Prime Minister in advance of this deal being announced, and whether it did anything at all to protect Scotland’s vital funding interests in this deal While we welcome the increased funding for Northern Ireland, we believe there are serious questions regarding the relevance of the Barnett formula in the light of this new deal. If this represents a relaxation of ideological austerity, all regions and nations of the UK should benefit. This matter requires more attention from the House, and I humbly request an emergency debate to get the answers that this House and this country need.
Education and Local Services — House of Commons, 2017-06-27
Topic: Education
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Does the right hon. Lady feel that education and local services in England would be helped in any way by the large part of £30 billion that would be the Barnett consequential of money for England as a result of the deal in Northern Ireland, given what the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) just said about the North Shore Academy in his constituency?
Education and Local Services — House of Commons, 2017-06-27
Topic: Education
Carol Frances Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Maybe the hon. Gentleman missed what I have literally just said. When we consider alternative routes into higher education through further education colleges, in Scotland more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds access higher education than anywhere else in the UK It is interesting that the Secretary of State referred to a £2 billion black hole in the Labour party’s costings for higher education, but I can point to a £1.5 billion fund that appeared to become available only yesterday. Brexit is now a serious threat to our higher education, our research and our science community. We now need to take major steps to ensure that they are protected in all the negotiations.
Great Repeal Bill — House of Commons, 2017-03-16
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on the requirement for legislative consent motions for the proposed great repeal Bill.
Marion Fellows (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Last month, the Secretary of State for Scotland confirmed that a legislative consent motion would be required from the Scottish Parliament for the great repeal Bill, but in his answer just now the Attorney General stopped well short of that. If the UK Government’s position is the same as the Secretary of State for Scotland’s, will a legislative consent motion be required?
Great Repeal Bill — House of Commons, 2017-03-16
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on the requirement for legislative consent motions for the proposed great repeal Bill.
Richard Arkless (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I must admit to being confused by the Attorney General’s answers. Clearly, the great repeal Bill, as indicated by the Supreme Court, will affect devolved competences. The Secretary of State for Scotland has said an LCM is required. Why are the Government hesitant? Can the Attorney General not be clear? Will an LCM be required for the great repeal Bill, because it affects devolved competences?
Sky/21st Century Fox: Merger — House of Commons, 2017-03-16
Topic: Technology
John MacKenzie Nicolson (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I am pleased that she will intervene in the proposed merger of Sky and Fox, and that she will ask Ofcom to investigate the deal. Scottish National party Members have consistently voiced our support for media plurality and our commitment to broadcasting standards. There are valid concerns about the merger, which will increase the influence of Rupert Murdoch and his family in the UK’s media. There are concerns regarding a number of breaches of broadcasting standards by Fox, as well as News Corporation’s past behaviour and corporate governance failures Many people highlight the fact that part 2 of the Leveson inquiry has yet to be commenced, and they question whether such a significant deal can go ahead before that happens. This is not the first time that there has been an attempt to take over Sky, and we should be mindful of why the previous bid courted such controversy and failed At the same time, it should be acknowledged that television is adapting to changes in viewing habits and competition throughout the world. Some will argue that investment in Sky might allow the UK to thrive in the international arena and continue to compete with competitors such as Netflix and Amazon Prime. We welcome the fact that Ofcom will report on the public interest grounds of media plurality and commitment to broadcasting standards, as well as conducting a fit and proper assessment. I trust and believe that that will provide the Secretary of State with the necessary recommendations on how to proceed, and I look forward to Ofcom’s conclusions.
Sky/21st Century Fox: Merger — House of Commons, 2017-03-16
Topic: Technology
Margaret Ferrier (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I welcome today’s statement, as will many of my constituents who have been in contact with me regarding this matter. I am sure that they will all be happy that the bid is being referred to the regulators. Given that Britain has one of the most concentrated media environments in the world, with three companies controlling 71% of national newspaper circulation and five companies in command of 81% of local newspapers titles, does the Secretary of State agree that now is the ideal time to review properly the media landscape in Britain?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-03-16
Topic: Government Operations
Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been informed by sources in the media that the Prime Minister is going to make a significant statement on the Scottish constitution this afternoon. Have you had any notification of a prime ministerial statement? Most of us were here at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, when she was asked many questions about the Scottish constitution and gave incredibly inadequate answers. It would be surprising, would it not, if there had subsequently been a development in her thinking and that she would want to put out a statement without the effective parliamentary scrutiny that such an important announcement—as it is being advertised—would demand. The Leader of the House is in his place. I know that he cannot be held responsible for every sin of this Government—that would be too much for any human being—but perhaps he can tell us if it is indeed the case that the Prime Minister intends to make such a statement and, if so, why she is not coming to the Dispatch Box for effective questioning by Members of Parliament.
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee — House of Commons, 2017-03-16
Topic: Government Operations
Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I congratulate the Select Committee, although I am surprised to hear the Chairman say that the jury is still out on the Iraq war. In terms of public opinion, the jury is in, the verdict has been delivered, and the former Prime Minister has been indicted and rightfully so, although I would have preferred more formal proceedings to those which he faced The crucial subject matter in the report boils down to two things. First, I congratulate the Committee on the invention of the letter of direction, which is similar to the financial direction that is part of Government accountability. Perhaps the Chairman could say a bit more about that and about why he thinks it would be effective in avoiding the total and absolute breakdown of collective responsibility that was identified in the Chilcot report Secondly, the Committee has not been able to make as much progress on the question of parliamentary accountability. If someone, such as the former Prime Minister, says one thing to the American President, and then says something else or does not say anything to the House of Commons, that is prima facie a misleading of the House of Commons. To avoid that accountability, either one sets up a series of inquiries with limited remits that are unable to adjudicate on that which was done, or one spins things out for so long that by the time there is an inquiry with a big enough remit everybody says, "Why are we raking over the past?" If we allow that to stand, there is no effective parliamentary accountability. Can the Chairman see that the timeous nature of parliamentary accountability and our responsibility can be effected in his report and a mechanism produced so that we have the obligation to take forward what our constituents demand, which is to hold any Prime Minister who behaves in the same way as the former Prime Minister to account in a proper and timeous fashion?
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee — House of Commons, 2017-03-16
Topic: International Affairs
Ronald Jack Cowan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): As a member of the Select Committee, I point out that the Chilcot inquiry was about identifying mistakes that led to loss of life, military and civilian. With that in mind, it is unacceptable that the inquiry took seven years to reach a conclusion. Those mistakes could have been repeated in that timescale. However, the Committee points out: "The Iraq Inquiry reported that the Blair Government did not expose key policy decisions to rigorous review." Backing that up, paragraph 63 says: "Cabinet was…being asked to confirm the decision that the diplomatic process was at an end and that the House of Commons should be asked to endorse the use of military action to enforce Iraq’s compliance. Given the gravity of this decision, Cabinet should have been made aware of the legal uncertainties." I put it to the Chairman that the evidence provided to the Cabinet appears to have been designed to produce the result that the then Prime Minister was looking for.
Energy Prices — House of Commons, 2017-03-16
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is further to a point of order I raised a couple of hours ago with Mr Speaker about a prime ministerial statement on the Scottish constitution that he pointed out was hypothetical at that time. He said that if such a statement were made, he would entertain a statement from the Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister. That statement has now been made by the Prime Minister, and it has been interpreted as an attempt to bounce the Scottish Parliament’s vote next Tuesday on a Scottish referendum. She seems to be dictating the timing of any such referendum. These points were put to her at Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday, and she had a full and fair opportunity to give her answer and to be questioned Madam Deputy Speaker, you will understand that parliamentary accountability means that if somebody such as the Prime Minister makes a statement about a change of policy, Members of Parliament are prepared to ask questions about it—questions such as, "What happens if the Scottish Parliament is not bounced and votes for a referendum next week? Why does the Prime Minister believe that the timing is not right when this House is going to be asked in 18 months’ time to take or leave a deal with Europe?" Fundamentally, there is arrogance in saying to people in Scotland that they shall not have the right to an act of self-determination or saying to this Parliament that we do not have the right to examination Madam Deputy Speaker, have you had a request from the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and go for parliamentary accountability, or does she feel that Scotland is some sort of county as opposed to the country that it actually is?
Energy Prices — House of Commons, 2017-03-16
Topic: Energy
Lisa Cameron (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I would like to thank every single hon. Member for their contribution today. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for bringing the issue of energy prices and the treatment of consumers to the House, via the Backbench Business Committee The big six have a lot to answer for. Rewarding long-term and loyal customers with the highest tariffs is simply appalling. Many of these individuals are elderly, vulnerable or disabled, have learning disabilities or mental health problems and can least afford them. When my own grandmother was transferred to hospital in her 90s, we examined the tariff she was paying for. It was about two times higher than what we were paying. Pensioners have a tight budget and may be frail and very elderly. They rely on heating to prevent pneumonia. How can these companies sleep at night There has been a great deal of talk about switching, and why we do not do it more. I hope I am not the only person who has been bamboozled by energy tariffs. I have a doctorate, but I find the system absolutely incomprehensible and the tariffs incomparable. I have tried on a number of occasions to compare day rates, night rates and standard daily charges, but without a PhD in mathematics, it is all but impossible. On two occasions I switched rates to save money, and then found that my bill had increased. I cannot help thinking that the system has been made over-complex for people on purpose The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has suggested a relative energy cap to help those who are currently being mercilessly ripped off. That proposal is apparently supported by a number of competitor brands, and I urge the Minister to consider it. It may be an interim solution, as has been said, but it will save customers—our constituents—money. Our focus should, indeed must, be on them. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) mentioned the exorbitant price differential if consumers make the wrong decision, pointing out that the big six often do not act in the interests of customers.
Infrastructure: Government Investment — House of Commons, 2017-07-18
Topic: Government Operations
Kirsty Ann Blackman (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Last month, the Institute for Government produced a report on infrastructure spending that said that decision makers do not know whether projects deliver value for money. It also believes that Parliament and the public are misinformed. What action are the Chancellor and his Department taking to ensure that future infrastructure spend delivers value for money and that costs do not spiral out of control like they have for Hinkley Point C?
Free Childcare — House of Commons, 2017-07-18
Topic: Social Welfare
Neil Charles Gray (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on securing this urgent question, and given that this is largely a devolved matter, I will be brief Ensuring affordable, flexible and secure childcare is one of the best ways to narrow the gender pay gap, by helping parents back to work when it suits them, and also to prepare children best for school. In Scotland, the Scottish Government are trialling childcare funding following the child by investing £1 million to make sure that, when we expand free childcare to 1,140 hours, parents have the choice to decide what is best for them and for their children. We are also going further than the UK Government by helping the most vulnerable two-year-olds in Scotland, to ensure that all children can have the best start in life. That is quite a contrast to the issues being faced by parents south of the border. If disadvantaged parents are not able to apply for childcare by the deadline due to the Minister’s website problems, how will they will be supported thereafter?
Scotland’s Contribution to the UK — House of Commons, 2017-04-19
Topic: Macroeconomics
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): In the last few years, Iceland and Ireland have leapfrogged the UK in terms of growth and deficit reduction, and they have always had a higher GDP per capita over the last 10 years. Norway’s oil fund is now $920 billion, having grown by $105 billion from $815 billion. The equivalent figures for the UK are zero, zero and zero. Does the Secretary of State not agree that Scotland could be as good as tiny Iceland, as good as Ireland and even as good as Norway with our independence? What is he scared of for Scotland?
Joint Ministerial Committee — House of Commons, 2017-04-19
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Joint Ministerial Committee in ensuring that the needs of all regions and nations of the UK are taken into account in negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Prime Minister told the Scottish Parliament that "now is not the time" when it wanted to let Scotland decide its own future and relationship with Europe, but now is the time for a screeching U-turn and this opportunistic general election. Does the Secretary of State therefore also believe that it is time for the Scottish people to reject the UK Government’s austerity obsession, their assault on the poor, the obnoxious rape clause, and their desire to drive Scotland over the cliff edge of their hard Brexit?
Joint Ministerial Committee — House of Commons, 2017-04-19
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Joint Ministerial Committee in ensuring that the needs of all regions and nations of the UK are taken into account in negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.
Deidre Leanne Brock (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Scotland voted to remain in the EU and the single market, but the Scottish Government’s paper that would have kept Scotland in the single market and the UK was roundly ignored by a Tory UK Government intent on pursuing a reckless hard Brexit. Will the Secretary of State tell us what personal action he took to convince the Prime Minister to take account of the views of the people of Scotland, and can he provide an explanation for why he failed?
Tax — House of Commons, 2017-04-19
Topic: Macroeconomics
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The average band D council tax bill in Scotland is almost £400 lower than it is in England. Will the Secretary of State’s discussions consider how local authorities in England can learn from Scotland’s successes in providing local and national services while maintaining the lowest council tax rate in the UK?
Leaving the EU: Private Sector — House of Commons, 2017-04-19
Topic: International Affairs
Carol Frances Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Secretary of State has said previously that he supports the European single market and that being part of the single market is clearly the best possible deal for Scotland. Will he tell his constituents whether he will now stand on a manifesto to take Scotland out of that single market?
UK Single Market — House of Commons, 2017-04-19
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: Seventy-five per cent. of Canada’s exports go to the US, whereas only 63% of Scotland’s exports go to the rest of the UK. Canada is a successful, independent country. Does the Secretary of State agree that neighbouring countries can have close trading relations while still maintaining their sovereignty?; The value of Scottish exports of food and drink has doubled in the past 10 years, to £5.5 billion in 2016. This week, the chief executive of Scotland Food and Drink, James Withers, said that he was afraid that the consequences of leaving the European Union without a trade deal would result in tariffs. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the Scottish food and drink sector will not have to deal with such a situation?
Kirsten Frances Oswald (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Does the Secretary of State stand by his comments last year, when he said: "My role is to ensure Scotland gets the best possible deal and that deal involves clearly being part of the single market" Will he be honest with his constituents in a few weeks’ time? Will they be voting for an MP who supports being in the single market, or for one who wants to go along with a damaging hard Brexit, whatever the cost to families and businesses in his constituency?