argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — House of Commons, 2015-01-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is completely right. There are people who say there is no risk from ISDS, but there is a lot of evidence and a track record of multinationals using the powers at their disposal to extract money where laws are passed undermining future profit flows. Philip Morris is the obvious example: it is suing Uruguay and Australia for something like $100 million. Lone Pine is suing the Canadian Government for about $250 million, because Quebec wants a moratorium on fracking. Achmea, the Dutch insurer, is suing the Slovakian Government who tried to reverse some of their health privatisations. Argentina has paid more than $1 billion to US and EU energy giants, because it froze energy and water prices. If these powers are available, they will be used to fleece the taxpayer. In my view, they are unnecessary. I accept that some protection may be needed between developed economies and democracies and rogue states, but rogue states are certainly not the United States. Mature democracies and economies, namely the EU and the US, do not need anything more than contract law to protect investors.
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — House of Commons, 2015-01-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): If an incoming Government decided to terminate a contract in the NHS or in the public social care sector under which that company claimed that a very large investment had been made in building a care home or something similar, would the company not be able to use TTIP to prosecute the Government for the potential loss of investment?
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — House of Commons, 2015-01-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Elizabeth Anne McInnes (Labour, Centre-left): In my previous employment as an NHS scientist, I was extremely concerned about the implications of TTIP for our NHS, and for all our public services, and I remain so. In my new job, I have been contacted by many constituents expressing their concern about TTIP, which is a subject on which the public appear to be very well informed.
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — House of Commons, 2015-01-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Members of Parliament are not putting pressure on their constituents, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) claimed; rather, constituents are saying that they are concerned. They are concerned, for example, that small businesses are being disadvantaged in comparison with large businesses, that monopolies are being encouraged among pharmaceutical companies, and that the NHS is in danger of privatisation. We have a duty to give them an explanation. There is huge disquiet out there among the public, and we ought to address it. There is terrible complacency among Government Members about this.
Political and Constitutional Reform — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Christopher Shaun Ruane (Labour, Centre-left): The Political and Constitutional Committee has just issued a report on voter registration. Some 56% of young people in Birmingham are not on the electoral register, and only 44% actually vote. What more can the Deputy Prime Minister do to get those young people on the register in Birmingham and voting?
Electoral Roll — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Graeme Morrice (Labour, Centre-left): Can the Minister tell the House how many fewer voters there were on the electoral register for England and Wales in December 2014, compared with the previous year, and whether he is alarmed at the reduction
Electoral Roll — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Sadiq Aman Khan (Labour, Centre-left): Even before the move to individual electoral registration, 7.5 million eligible voters were not on the register. As a result of the move, there is a risk of a further 5 million people falling off the register. Many accuse the Electoral Commission of being ineffective. Remarkably, the Electoral Commission has said that as long as the electoral register does not deteriorate further, this is a measure of success. Does the Minister agree that the Electoral Commission has not been ambitious enough?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): The Deputy Prime Minister says that he supports the Prime Minister on a full range of Government policy; I should think that as the Deputy Prime Minister he supports the Prime Minister on the whole range of Government policy. The Government have been incredibly complacent about the role of individual voter registration. I have over 10,000 students in my constituency, many thousands of whom are not registered. What is the Deputy Prime Minister going to do about that? How is he going to spend the £10 million emergency fund? Is it not a recognition that this is a huge problem across the country and should be dealt with?
Social Media — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Keith Anthony Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Attorney-General share my concern about the increase in Islamophobia and racism on sites such as Facebook and Twitter, and the inability of site owners to take the postings down? Will he have a meeting with the companies concerned to urge them to take down these postings, rather than face prosecution?
Service Prosecution Authority (Sex Offences) — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with the Service Prosecution Authority on its effectiveness in prosecuting rape and other sexual offences in the armed forces which took place (a) in the UK and (b) overseas.
Philip Wilson (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Minister agree that decisions to prosecute allegations of rape and sexual assault in the military should be subject to an independent review, given that only five cases of alleged rape were prosecuted in 2013?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Other
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope this is a point of order. We discussed the Magna Carta this morning. Surely the House should take the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta seriously. How much opportunity will we have to discuss the Magna Carta and the need for a new Magna Carta, and to celebrate something that has been the basis of so many democracies throughout the world?
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Immigration
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s speech in support of his own amendments in due course. These are difficult questions, and we might be straying into the area of deprivation of citizenship, which we discussed when considering other legislation last year. The Bill and our proposals would provide judicial oversight of decisions to exclude made by the Secretary of State. The issues of right of abode and citizenship are difficult, because if an individual retains British citizenship but is undertaking the type of activity the hon. Gentleman is alluding to, mechanisms are in place in the Bill and other legislation to take effective action to ensure that that is addressed in a legal framework. It is difficult to say that an individual cannot have a right of abode, because that makes them, in effect, stateless, and therefore the problem remains one for the UK passport holder, but it is not a problem within the UK. We need to reflect on that extremely carefully.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Civil Rights
David Julian Winnick (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman and I are never likely to reach agreement on these issues. There are honest disagreements that arose in the previous Parliament, where we had sharp differences of opinion. I respect his point of view; I hope he respects mine. Judicial review is not the right way of trying to avoid the courts’ involvement. To cite David Anderson again in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, what good is it to someone in Turkey to try to bring judicial review? It is a sorry argument I am not saying that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is putting forward a sorry argument, but rather that the Government are doing so when they say, "There’s no need for the courts to be involved. There’s always judicial review." In practice, it would be extremely difficult for such a process to take place. If the amendments were defeated and the Government’s measure went through, and if I were asked whether it would be better for judicial review to stay in, of course I would say yes, but it is no substitute for what we are trying to achieve Earlier today there was a point of order about Magna Carta, and in June we will celebrate 800 years since its inception. I have some comments and some reservations which I hope to express when Magna Carta is debated. I remind the House of article 39, which states: "No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or deprived of his freehold or outlawed or banished or in any way ruined, nor will we take or order action against him, except by the lawful judgment of his equals and according to the law of the land." That has some relevance, as does article 40, which states: "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice." Those are good points, despite my reservations about the barons at the time. I do not think my ancestors were around then There is not the slightest doubt that if the Liberal Democrats were in opposition, they would not only support, but would have proposed, the sort of amendments that we have tabled. When the Division is called, hundreds of Members will come in to vote without hearing the debate and, unfortunately, the inevitable will happen unless Liberal Democrats follow what, given his interventions, I take to be the position of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). He knows that we have the utmost respect for him. I hope the right decision will be taken. If not, at least there is the other place.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Other
George Edward Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s contributions throughout the passage of this Bill. While he is on the subject of the Labour party, will he tell us whether he is likely to support the amendments tabled in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and others?
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. We need to get to the new clauses and amendments. I understand that you want to try to make this into a political broadcast, but I am not into that at the moment. I am into hearing your views on the new clauses and amendments, not on the history of the Labour party for the past 15 years.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Other
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister must recognise that our amendments are exactly the same as those we tabled in Committee three weeks ago. He has had three weeks to consider these matters, yet today he still asks this House to accept that he is not able to endorse the proposals.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Immigration
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): As ever, we are picking arguments and discussion on a range of issues. We could table an amendment applying to the Bill as a whole, but the power relating to passports is new. We are revisiting amendments that we tabled previously to try to strengthen the Bill. We are testing the Minister’s view on a sunset clause in relation to passports. I am happy to consider a sunset clause on other aspects of the Bill.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Other
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Logicality is a matter of judgment. We have chosen on this occasion to table an amendment introducing a sunset clause, as we did in Committee. We voted on it in Committee and we have chosen to revisit the issue because we think it is worth revisiting, particularly because, as we shall discuss in a later group of amendments, there is no appeal mechanism in place—[Interruption.] The Minister says there is. Our view is that there is not, but we will discuss that on the next group of amendments We believe that there should be a sunset provision in place. The Minister has the opportunity again to discuss that, having previously rejected the principle. Were the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on the Opposition Benches and were I on the Government Benches, I suspect that he would be arguing for such a proposal, though perhaps not just on clause 1. We will be happy to consider extending it in due course, if that is what the Minister wants. For today, we believe that a sunset clause should be in place. It is a fairly straightforward issue and should not detain the House for long. I commend the amendment to the House.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Other
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister issued a consultation document on 18 December, which was either the last day or the second-to-last day the House was sitting, and expected Members to know that at the time. He did not have the courtesy to inform me, although we had a debate on these matters. He needs to reflect on that fact. A consultation over Christmas? Perhaps he could do it in a better way.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Other
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): I have heard what the Minister has said, but the Opposition still wish to examine the issue in detail and it would be useful for the other place to know that we believe that consideration should be given to a sunset clause. Perhaps it could also take on board the concerns of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). I therefore wish to push the amendment to a vote Question put, That the amendment be made.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move amendment 10, page 30, line 14, schedule 1, at end insert— "(c) the individual subject whose travel document has been removed may appeal against this decision in the courts over the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this Schedule were met, (b) the Secretary of State must by regulations make provisions about— (i) the relevant court; (ii) a time limit by which an appeal must have been heard; (c) the power to make regulations under this section— (i) is exercisable by statutory instrument; (ii) includes power to make transitional, transitory or saving provision; (d) a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament." This amendment would create the right for an appeal in court following a temporary seizure of a passport, and requires the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a relevant court and time limit by which an appeal must have been heard.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): The power to seize a passport is set out in clause 1 and schedule 1. For the sake of clarity, I reiterate that we support the general principle of seizure, provided there is sufficient evidence to warrant such action being taken by the officials listed in schedule 1. The question today, which we discussed in Committee, relates to proportionality and to the opportunity for individuals to make representations to officials on the reasons why the temporary seizure has been made. The decision to seize a passport is taken on evidence and on intelligence In Committee, we discussed—I hope we can revisit the discussion speedily today—the range of intelligence that could be linked to third party intelligence on the movement of an individual, or to intelligence secured by the agencies. There are a whole range of reasons for such intelligence to be gathered, but that does not necessarily mean that it is correct. There may be a range of reasons for mistakes or for concerns about intelligence. As we discussed in Committee, people may have legitimate reasons—weddings, business, tourism and so on—to travel abroad to areas with difficult challenges. I accept that it would be the exception and that if the Government or a qualifying officer seized a passport, it would be based on strong intelligence, but the purpose of the amendments is to provide a couple of options to put in place stronger oversight and appeal mechanisms for individuals who feel aggrieved. Amendment 10 would ensure a "right for an appeal in court following a temporary seizure of a passport, and requires the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a relevant court and time limit by which an appeal must have been heard." Amendment 11 would do pretty much the same by creating "the right for an appeal in court following a temporary seizure of a passport and require the appeal to have been heard within seven days." It is not only the Opposition who are concerned. In an article on 3 September, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) wrote in support: "Allowing police to confiscate passports at the UK border to prevent an aspiring young jihadi from leaving for Syria via Istanbul may be justifiable on good intelligence and a sensible extension of the home secretary’s powers. But unless there is some rapid means of review there must be the likelihood that mistakes will occur as the use of this administrative power increases and perfectly innocent young people will find their travel plans wrecked. We would be wise to insist on oversight, rapid review processes and compensation where justified."
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Immigration
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): The standard excuses are, first, speed and, secondly, the fact that we do not have a Home Office behind us. However, it is the principle of the amendments that I wish to discuss. I might disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because I will consider dividing the House, depending on the outcome of our discussions with the Minister. I am also working through a heavy cold, so I am sure this will be a marvellous day to consider the amendments, given his sympathetic eye for our dilemmas This is important. I still think we need a mechanism allowing an individual whose passport has been seized to appeal, if they so wish. I expect, as I have said, that the Minister’s grounds would be solid and that this particular power would not be undertaken lightly, but the appeal remains important.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has tried to reassure the House that the clause and schedule provide sufficient safeguards. I still worry about the safeguards that are in place for those people who are aggrieved and feel they have a case that they wish to draw to the attention of the authorities Under amendments 10 and 11, an individual may have their appeal heard in court within seven days of an application. In most cases where the passport is seized, that right would not be exercised by the individual because I suspect that the Government would have taken sufficient steps to ensure that there were good grounds to seize the passport in the first place. However, I still think it is right and proper that individuals have the right to make representations effectively. Even if there are amendments that we can look at in due course, it is worth while the House sending a signal to the other place that this is an issue of principle for us and that we wish the issue to be revisited by the Government or by the other place in due course Question put, That the amendment be made.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Other
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Minister for going through this very technical part of the Bill. I think it is helpful to have heard that explanation on the Floor of the House. I do not wish to press the amendment any further at this stage, although I think that it might be returned to in the other place, and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Bill to be further considered tomorrow.
Delegated Legislation — House of Commons, 2015-01-06
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 5 and 6 together Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Companies That the Company, Limited Liability Partnership and Business Names (Sensitive Words and Expressions) Regulations 2014 (S.I., 2014, No. 3140), dated 26 November 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 November, be approved That the draft Company, Limited Liability Partnership and Business (Names and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 27 November, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.) Question agreed to.
Shale Gas — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Sheila Gilmore (Labour, Centre-left): I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to that part of the Smith agreement, to which my party is also committed, not least because it will put an end to the attempts by some people to suggest that without the devolution of licensing, the Scottish Government are powerless to stop fracking if they want to. They already have powers over planning and regulation, but I hope that this change will close that argument down, to everybody’s benefit.
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Civil Rights
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): Let me associate myself with what the Prime Minister said, and particularly what he said about anti-Semitism and prejudice wherever we find it. On the point about British citizens who travel to Syria to participate in the conflict, does he agree that, with more than half of them having returned, we need to do more? In particular, does he agree that we need a much more rigorous approach, including compulsory engagement with de-radicalisation programmes to turn people away from violent extremism?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Other
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): I am glad that we can work across parties on that issue, and we will endeavour to continue to do so. Let me now turn to an issue on which there is less agreement. In May 2010, speaking about the television debates, a party leader said: "it would have been feeble to find some excuse to back out so I thought we’ve got to stick at this, we’ve got to do it." Will the Prime Minister remind us of who said that?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Other
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): There is only one person who is running scared of these debates, and that is this Prime Minister. When he says that he does not want to take part because of the Greens, no one, but no one, believes him—not the people behind him, not the person next to him, not the country. However he dresses it up, everyone knows that he is running scared. These debates do not belong to me, and they do not belong to him. They belong to the British people. What does he think gives him the right to run away from these debates?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-01-14
Topic: Other
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): I will debate with anyone whom the broadcasters invite to debate. I think the Prime Minister doth protest too much. He has run out of excuses, he is running scared of these debates, and, in the words of his heroine Lady Thatcher, he is frit.