argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Housing
John Healey (Labour, Centre-left): In his autumn statement two years ago the Chancellor said that "we must confront this simple truth: if we want more people to own a home, we have to build more homes."—[Official Report, 5 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 1108.] Will the Secretary of State confirm that the number of new homes built in the best year of the previous Parliament’s five years was still lower than in the worst year out of 13 years of the last Labour Government?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Housing
John Healey (Labour, Centre-left): Never mind the bluster about starts—as the Chancellor said, new homes built are what count. Figures from the Secretary of State’s Department state that 124,980 homes were built in 2009 in the depths of the recession. Five years later in 2014—the Secretary of State’s best year—with a much-trumpeted growing economy, 117,720 houses were built. The answer to that failure was set out in his manifesto pledge, which mentioned 275,000 more affordable homes and 200,000 new starter homes in this Parliament. Will he guarantee that he will not double-count those numbers, and that new starter homes will be additional to affordable homes?
Police Funding Formula — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): Durham was last month ranked the highest-performing force in the country, so it is very worrying that there might be a £10 million cut. Does the delay mean that there will cuts in the autumn statement followed by further cuts in 18 months’ time?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christian John Patrick Matheson (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance and advice on an incident that took place last week in which I believe I, as a Member of Parliament, was prevented by the actions of public officials from undertaking my duties in supporting my constituents The incident took place at Manchester civil courts, where approximately 40 to 50 of my constituents were involved in a case. When I arrived at the security point I was told that I was not to be granted entry. I identified myself as a Member of Parliament. There was a stand-off for a while, and of course I assure you, Mr Speaker, that my manner was courteous, as always, and calm. After about five minutes, a manager came up, pointed his hand towards me and said, "You’re not coming in. I’m now telling you to leave, and the police have been called." Obviously I had no desire to cause any trouble for Greater Manchester police, but I did have a desire to join my constituents to support them in the court case. I identified myself to the police inspector and had a quick chat with him, and then left I believe that the officials of the court, knowing that I was a Member of Parliament, denied me the opportunity to support my constituents. I seek your guidance, Sir, as to the best way in which I might progress the matter further.
Scotland Bill (Programme) (No.2) — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Other
Ian Austin (Labour, Centre-left): I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to complain about how terribly Scotland has been treated, fuel grievances and wind up the Scots, but instead of whingeing about the process and wasting time, why does he not sit down and allow the debate to take place?
Scotland Bill (Programme) (No.2) — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Other
Ian Austin (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a disgrace for the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to accuse people of attacking Scotland, when all they are doing is commenting on his ludicrous tactics—him personally, not the people of Scotland.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Other
Graham William Allen (Labour, Centre-left): I will give way after I have answered the question from the colleague of the Members who are rising As I have said before, it is not just the property of people in the Scottish National party, or even—
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Other
Graham William Allen (Labour, Centre-left): I hope—[Interruption.] I hope that even those who are heckling and shouting would say that I always try to engage people from the SNP in debate on these issues. Sometimes things get a bit interesting and a bit heated, but that is because we all care passionately about these views. I am trying to put my point of view over now. Perhaps there are shades of opinion in what appears to be a robotic, monolithic Scottish National party. Perhaps some SNP Members acknowledge that others have a different view. It might be the case that that has some resonance, and that not all of them simply wait to be told what to do at their regular Monday meeting.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Other
David Anderson (Labour, Centre-left): May I just gently remind colleagues from Scotland that they were elected to this United Kingdom Parliament and that this is a United Kingdom Bill which will have an impact on my constituents as well as theirs? I would be delighted if my hon. Friend’s new clause would somehow enable measures similar to those in the Bill to be put into an English Bill, so that my council could help me to protect my constituents in the same way as Scottish MPs want to protect theirs. I welcome the fact that he has tabled his new clauses and the fact that they are not critical of the Bill.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Graham William Allen (Labour, Centre-left): I will certainly go a lot quicker if people allow me to. As always, not a person in this Chamber can say that I do not give way when people have a real point of debate to make, rather than just wanting to yell from a sedentary position. That will continue to be my policy and I will not move from that, whatever the provocation New clause 9 talks about subsidiarity, which was brought to us by the former Lady from Finchley, through the Maastricht treaty. In this Bill, it would enable us to define and keep a very clear perspective on what is local, what is regional, what is national and what is federal. That will help everybody, whichever country they are in within the Union, not just to win small victories here and there, but to sustain a change in our democratic structure that will make it harder for those who so wish to do away with any settlement when they feel it convenient Part of the Bill relates very much to the rest of the United Kingdom, and that relates to the possibility of having a citizens convention, modelled on the Scottish convention, whereby people throughout the whole UK can face some of these issues, which are of great importance to us. The debate about EVEL—English votes for English laws— was a diversion. It was an irrelevance and mere procedural issue, and it has very little to do with devolution and greater freedom for our peoples within the UK. I hope that we move on from where we are on Scottish devolution and on the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which is devolution in England, and that we take these issues forward together. All parties need to work together to ensure that there is a citizens convention on devolution, so that we can spread some of the excellent things that have been achieved by the Scottish people, by people such as Donald Dewar, by those in the Scottish citizens convention, by those who worked on the Scotland Act 2012 and by all those parties of the Union that worked together to create this Scotland Bill, which is, quite rightly, the first Bill before this Parliament. I hope that the first Bill in the 2020 Parliament is one that brings devolution to all the nations of the Union so that we all get the benefits that will rightly be enjoyed by the people in Scotland.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Other
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): Order. No shouting out, please. A Member is speaking and it is quite difficult to hear what he is saying. It is not appropriate to shout things out. If people want to speak they can intervene or stand up and take part in the debate. Let us have no shouting.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Ian Austin (Labour, Centre-left): I am afraid they are behaving like nationalist bullies the world over. They try to silence anybody who has a different view. They want to pretend that whether or not you are allowed to take part in a debate in this Chamber depends on where you represent and the accent you have. It is a complete and utter disgrace.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Wayne David (Labour, Centre-left): It was only about five minutes ago, but I thank the hon. and learned Lady very much indeed. I agree with her comments about the Human Rights Act, but would she accept that what she says about Scotland also applies to Wales and to Northern Ireland especially?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): I always enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman making his passionate speeches in this Chamber. I wonder, for the sake of clarity, whether he could read the second line of what the former Prime Minister said about federalism.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Wayne David (Labour, Centre-left): No. I have given way four times already Sometimes SNP Members have to be told, and I am telling them now. The situation is as I have described it. We are not prepared to have a referendum, and we are not prepared to allow a constitutional debate to be hijacked by the referendum issue in an attempt to manoeuvre the situation and bring about a break-up of the United Kingdom. That is not what devolution is all about, and it is not what the Smith commission was all about. The Smith commission was all about people working together.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Wayne David (Labour, Centre-left): I want to make a bit of progress now The fact is that these are not dry constitutional issues, but issues that have an impact on everyday life, as is shown clearly by what is happening in Scotland in connection with the Trade Union Bill. Under the Sewel convention, a legislative consent motion is necessary for Westminster legislation to secure the consent of the Scottish Parliament if it is to apply in Scotland in a devolved area. According to a strict legal interpretation, this Bill seeks to amend the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and therefore, it is argued, does not encroach on areas of devolved competence. In practical terms, however, it will encroach very much on areas of devolved competence by imposing requirements on local authorities in Scotland We believe it is wrong that the UK Government are able to legislate for devolved authorities in this way. That is why all Labour-led councils in Scotland—and one led by the SNP— have agreed to a stance of non-compliance. The Westminster Government have not sought a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament, but Labour will present such a motion in order to deny the Bill competence over Scotland’s devolved services I have mentioned local authorities. New clauses 7, 8 and 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), make the point that true supporters of devolution believe that power should reside at the most appropriate level, as close to the people as possible. They recognise that there is a very real issue in Scotland, namely that, in the view of many, the Scottish Government are more concerned about exercising power itself than about empowering people in their local communities. Members of the SNP claim to be good Europeans, but I am afraid they show little practical support for the adoption of the European principle of bringing power closer to the people. They have a chance to put that right tonight As was noted when we discussed it in a Committee of the whole House, part 2 of the Bill devolves significant new powers to Scotland in relation to income tax and other taxes. The Scottish Parliament will have control over income tax rates and thresholds, and complete freedom when it comes to the levels at which those rates and thresholds are set. That is significant, as the estimated devolved income tax liabilities in 2013-14 amounted to nearly £11 billion. The collection and deployment of such a considerable sum confers—rightly—a substantial degree of responsibility on the Scottish Parliament. If they wish, a Scottish Government, whatever their political complexion, can increase or decrease that liability.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Other
Wayne David (Labour, Centre-left): He did that for his own reasons, and for different reasons. What was obvious to me, and very telling, was the fact that the Tory right and the Scottish nationalists were at one. Representatives of English nationalism and Scottish nationalism went through the Lobby together in their hordes: the nationalists and the extreme right! That says it all, does it not?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Other
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Centre-left): I know that my hon. Friend, like me, is a student of history. He will know of the test set by that great socialist R. H. Tawney, who said of political institutions, "It is not about paragraphs in a constitution; it is about the practical effect that the institutions make." Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to know from SNP Members what, practically, they intend to do with their new powers?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Other
Wayne David (Labour, Centre-left): Yes, indeed. They are very strong on rhetoric, as we have heard this afternoon. They have had strong election results, but I suspect that that will not apply for much longer, because the Scottish people will rumble them when they dig beneath the rhetoric and find that there is very little substance there.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): On Remembrance Sunday there is no time when it is acceptable to project anything on to the House of Commons without permission, but to project a swastika on the visit of a state leader is totally unacceptable. The point has been made, and it will be taken on board and dealt with. I am absolutely convinced that the police will be looking into it as a matter of urgency.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Secretary of State for accepting a lot of the Labour amendments, and indeed some SNP amendments tabled in Committee. He said quite clearly in Committee back in July that he would not devolve abortion without a proper process and full consultation and discussion with Scottish women’s groups. What has made him change his mind?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State will know that it is not in the gift of any one Minister to make such a decision. He is actually proposing a very substantial change to the framework of abortion legislation. In fact, he has done no proper, substantial consultation. We will have just a few minutes in the House to discuss something that is so substantial and such a big change to the Abortion Act 1967. Does he really think that a few minutes’ discussion now, and the limited conversations between Scotland Office and Scottish Government officials, is the right way to do this?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Secretary of State not realise that he is setting up two different systems, one for Scotland and one for England and Wales, when we know from other parts of the world that that leads to women having to travel for abortions at a vulnerable time? That issue of principle—deciding whether it is right for people to have to travel—is important. I hope that many of our Scottish colleagues will agree with us about the importance of the 1967 Act. I know that there is strong agreement from the First Minister. However, there is an issue of principle in whether we think it is right to increase the likelihood of women having to travel at a vulnerable time. Does he think it is right to do that without proper consultation with women across not just Scotland, but England—
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Melanie Onn (Labour, Centre-left): The Smith commission did not say that abortion should be devolved now, but that a procedure should be put in place in order that it could be considered. Before we make this decision tonight, will the Secretary of State explain what procedure has been put in place and what consultation there has been?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): I want to comment briefly on the proposal to devolve abortion law to the Scottish Parliament Since 1967, a framework has allowed women to make personal decisions with their doctors. Those decisions are often very difficult, but they should rightly be made by women. I fear that new clause 15, which is being rushed through without proper consultation, will allow the existence of different frameworks in Scotland and in England and Wales. We know that when similar arrangements have operated in Ireland, and also in parts of the United States, many women who may be very vulnerable have often had to travel in order to gain access to the abortion services, advice or healthcare that they need. We do not think it right for women in those circumstances to have to travel far from home and family to secure the services and support that they need, but new clause 15 would allow that to happen The new clause also opens the door for deliberate campaigning against a fragmented system. In the United States, anti-abortion campaigners have deliberately targeted individual states and legislatures, and, having failed to change abortion law at federal level, have been able to do so at state level. In fact, they have introduced 200 changes and restrictions on women’s access to abortion over just three years.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): I think that, sadly, the hon. Lady is missing the point completely. The issue is whether there are to be different frameworks, and whether women will be expected to travel because the jurisdictions are different We know that there is a significant chance that the anti-abortion campaigners will campaign in this instance, because we know that they already want to do so.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): I have no time The new clause was not initially tabled by the SNP or the Scottish Secretary. It was initially tabled by Members of Parliament who, for a long time, have campaigned for much greater restrictions on abortion. I think the whole House should consider the fact that anti-abortion campaigners want the opportunity—
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. Members cannot just stand there waiting. I should say, in fairness to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), that she gave way earlier. If she wishes to give way again, I will call whoever wishes to intervene, but Members should not stand there waiting on the off chance that she may do so. I should also say that I am sure the right hon. Lady wishes to face the Chair.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): We have been given too little time for such an important debate, so I cannot give way, but I urge Members to bear it in mind that anti-abortion campaigners want this opportunity to fragment and divide us. All of us who support the 1967 Act ought to agree that we should stand together and not allow anti-abortion campaigners to divide us, pick us off one by one, and target us differently. I urge the House to reconsider. We should consult properly, we should take the interests of women and their families into consideration, and we should vote against the new clause tonight.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). Let me remind the House of our earlier considerations of this issue. When the original devolution legislation of 1997-98 was being put together, the decision not to devolve the legislative framework for abortion was not an accident or an afterthought. We examined the issue carefully at the time, and concluded that it did not make good legislative sense to allow for two different legislative frameworks in two different parts of the country.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Immigration
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): The House is very pressed for time We have had experience of what happens in those circumstances. We know that 10 women a day have travelled here from the Republic of Ireland because of the different legislative frameworks. I do not predict that that will happen in this instance, but the new clause allows for the possibility. The logic was right before. There is no logic in allowing for two legislative frameworks 18 years on.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State has said time and again when taking interventions that the Scottish Parliament has the capacity to legislate on abortion. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not of whether there is capacity, but of whether or not it is desirable to have two different legislative regimes for this in Scotland and England?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): Regardless of who legislates for it, we may end up with different legislative regimes on either side of the border. I am perfectly confident in the Scottish Parliament, and I take the First Minister’s word that she will not change the regulations, but that is not to say that the regulations down here might not change and we end up with abortion tourism. Nobody wants that across the United Kingdom, and my right hon. Friend, who took the Scotland Act through this place—
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend did not take it through this place but he was heavily involved in it, and he knows about the issues relating to abortion and the position taken. Amendment 26 makes it explicit that, among the exceptions to reserved matters on equal opportunities, the power to set gender quotas is being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Labour party takes this issue very seriously, and we thank Women 50:50 for helping us with these issues. I also commend amendment 225 We now have a welfare section in this Bill that is in line with the Smith agreement. Everyone in this Chamber should be incredibly proud of that achievement and now we must move on to the debate about how we use these powers.
Human Rights (Eritrea) — House of Commons, 2015-11-09
Topic: Civil Rights
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I share his concern about the persecution of particular minority groups, including religious groups, and of countless individuals, whose names many of us could mention. Many of the Eritreans to whom I have spoken could name friends, journalists and others from minorities who have been persecuted. Sadly, the repression has worked. Those who remain in Eritrea dare not speak up, for fear of reprisal, while diaspora communities are subtly infiltrated by agents of the state. Those who have fled abroad and who strive still to promote human rights are systematically intimidated.