argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Government Operations
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am heartened by the right hon. Gentleman’s optimism in that regard; I always think that achieving consensus in these matters is much easier to talk about than to get. Frankly, that is a debate that England now needs to have for herself. It is certainly not for us to intervene in it, any more than we would have welcomed the intervention of the English, Welsh or Northern Irish in the constitutional convention discussions of the 1990s. I wish the English every bit as much joy with it as we have had in Scotland with our constitutional debate over the years The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has tabled a new clause proposing a constitutional convention, and there is a great deal in it that I find worthy of support, particularly the requirement that it be convened within a month of the Bill becoming an Act, because I do not think that these matters become any easier by being left. I am also impressed by the fact that it has a reporting date, which I suggest would serve to concentrate minds Speaking as a Scottish Member, I think that the hon. Gentleman’s proposal has the further benefit of allowing a constitutional convention to go ahead; we would be saying today that it is something that is going to happen, but it would not in fact delay the passing of the Bill. In order to hold faith with the 55% of the people of Scotland who voted no last September, I think that we should proceed with the Bill with all due dispatch. I do not think that it would be acceptable for the passing of the Bill to be somehow contingent on constitutional arrangements being refined elsewhere in the United Kingdom I would have preferred—inevitably so—to see included in the remit of the proposed constitutional convention the question of electoral reform, for which I think there is now greater support in the Labour party, but I would not let that omission stand between me and supporting the Bill today.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I will take support anywhere I can find it, but I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman’s remarks are germane to the matter that is before the Committee Amendment 89, which was tabled by the Scottish National Party, will facilitate a debate on the concept of full fiscal autonomy. I shall listen with interest to the hon. Member for Moray and others in their exposition of that, and I shall reserve my remarks on it until the end of this string of amendments, when I know I will be able to catch your eye, Mr Hoyle.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am mindful of the fact that we have spent a considerable amount of time on this group of amendments, so I will not detain the Committee for long at this stage We have had a very good debate; in fact, two very good debates. On the first, there is among the three Opposition parties a broad measure of consensus that the Bill is capable of improvement. I will hold the Secretary of State to his word when he says that he will take that away and look at it. I remind him that while he might win a majority quite easily in this House, the Bill will also be scrutinised in the other place. I urge on him further consideration and suggest that the proposals brought forward by me and others tonight—I do not intend to press mine to a vote, but others who choose to do so will have my support—are reasonable I was very disappointed by the Secretary of State’s response on the constitutional convention. Ultimately, if we are to continue with this Union, a federal structure is inevitable. That will have to be grasped sooner or later, and the way in which that will be done is through the calling of a constitutional convention There has not been the same level of consensus on our other debate about the proposals for full fiscal autonomy. It has not been a particularly good debate: it has been characterised more by the heat it has generated than the light. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), I favour the idea of evidence-based policy. I am not without sympathy for those on the SNP Front Bench when they say that they could do things differently with the extra powers that would be given to them. However, to simply say that it could all be done by generating extra economic growth is not good enough.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Government Operations
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): No, I am just winding up They voted for a family of nations whereby we all put in and all take out at different times, with different measures and in different ways, with a single market, offering a single system of regulation and of business taxation. That is what my constituents voted for, both in this election and in last year’s referendum. For that reason, I will certainly not vote with the Scottish nationalists or, indeed, with the English nationalists on the Conservative Back Benches if they are minded to press their proposals to a vote. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: 58, in clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert— "(1A) The Scottish Parliament is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitution (1B) Subsection (1) or (1A) may be repealed only if— (a) the Scottish Parliament has consented to the proposed repeal, and (b) a referendum has been held in Scotland on the proposed repeal and a majority of those voting at the referendum have consented to it."—(Angus Robertson.) This amendment is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament can only be abolished with the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people after a referendum. Question put, That the amendment be made.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Secretary of State is making a compelling case for codification. On a number of occasions and in different ways, the House has limited its sovereignty, particularly in relation to the European Communities Act 1972. As I recall, there is judicial authority on that from the Factortame case. Surely he accepts that the mere act of putting a convention on a statutory footing is a change. For that reason, the adherence to the word "normally" is not appropriate.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-06-15
Topic: Government Operations
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I will not detain the Committee because time is pressing I tabled amendments 21 and 22, which were authored by the Law Society of Scotland. The two issues that they deal with are fairly short in their compass and I do not intend to press them to a Division. However, I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to them and to have it on the record Amendment 21 would include the parliamentary term of the Scottish Parliament within the provisions that can be altered only by way of a super-majority. Under amendment 22, the same would be true of boundaries. It is the wish of the Law Society of Scotland that it should not be possible to influence those matters by a simple majority merely for political advantage.
Compulsory Jobs Guarantee — House of Commons, 2015-02-11
Topic: Labor
Alan Reid (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that in my constituency unemployment rose by 385 under his Government, whereas it has fallen under this Government by 763. His Government failed, not this one.
Compulsory Jobs Guarantee — House of Commons, 2015-02-11
Topic: Labor
Steven John Webb (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman is very careful with his figures, so he will know the answer to this question. He points to the future jobs fund as evidence of how his new scheme would work, and he says he hopes those new jobs would be in the private sector. What percentage of future jobs fund jobs were in the private sector? What is the figure?
Compulsory Jobs Guarantee — House of Commons, 2015-02-11
Topic: Labor
Gordon Birtwistle (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): In Burnley in 2009 we were classed as a basket case—a town that was going nowhere, or going down. That was at the time that the future jobs fund was happening. Last year we were cited as the most enterprising town in the UK. We have doubled the number of apprenticeships to 4,300 and the number of young people out of work has gone down by 47%. Surely that is the right way to go, not to force people into work that they do not want to do.
Tax Avoidance — House of Commons, 2015-02-11
Topic: Macroeconomics
Ian Swales (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): This whole area of tax ranks as another mess that the Government are having to clear up. We inherited a situation in which the Labour party had put into action the philosophy of its former Business Secretary in being "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich".
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-11
Topic: Environment
Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) even when I do not quite agree with everything he said, although I do agree with much of it. The frustration here is that we are discussing the small details, the minor issues. It is a shame that we do not have the chance to discuss and vote on the principles. We were denied that chance last time. There was not an opportunity to vote on the duty to maximise extraction or on trespass. There was a chance to vote on a moratorium, but, unfortunately, the Opposition abstained in large numbers. It is frustrating that we do not get the chance again this time. The two amendments on trespass which I co-sponsored with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) were not selected, and it looks as though we will not get a chance to vote on very much today Let me be positive to the Government and start with Commons amendment 20. I am pleased that the Minister has delivered on the promise she made when she intervened on me in our last debate, which was to give a key role to the Committee on Climate Change. I am pleased that the Committee on Climate Change will have to make reports. I hope the Minister can assure me that "from time to time" means every few years rather than every few generations. I am pleased that the Minister has gone further and given what I think will be a crucial power, which is that if the Committee on Climate Change does say that fracking is increasing UK emissions, this new Lords amendment gives the power to a Secretary of State in the future to stop fracking. That will become quite an important measure, particularly when the balance changes as we become much better at energy efficiency—the issue that the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden did not want to think about. As we change that balance, where we get our fuel from will change substantially The proposal goes slightly further in that any Secretary of State who gets a report saying that fracking is increasing emissions and does not take steps to stop it will be required at least to report formally to Parliament to say why they are flying in the face of expert advice. I welcome that.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-11
Topic: Environment
Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Compared with what would otherwise be the case. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is keen on the figures, but he will find that the range of values—we do not know the exact emissions from fracking—overlaps with the range of values from imported LNG. We do not know whether they will be about the same or lower The hon. Gentleman is interested in reports, so I am sure he would be interested to see the Government’s own official report, led by my constituent, Professor David MacKay, which said: "In the absence of global climate policies, we believe it is credible that shale-gas use would increase both short-term and long-term emissions rates." That was published by the Department; we should give it some credibility.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-11
Topic: Environment
Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): No, lots of people would like to speak and the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to do so Let me move on to the long list of requirements in Lords amendment 21; I have concerns about both the versions we are likely to have a chance to consider. The version that left the House was deficient and the version that has come back from the other House is also not good enough. That is why I wanted to table other amendments on where fracking should be allowed—the within and under issue, which is covered in amendments (d) and (e) to the table in Lords amendment 21B. I am grateful to those Members who have given us support. Support has also been given by organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and many others I was struck by the fact that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), used a lot of words to say neither yes nor no to a simple question about whether he would want to ban fracking within or under all those protected areas. The whole House heard that he was not prepared to give a yes or no answer, whereas some of us believe we should take a firm position and be clear. I would take further steps on it. I therefore have a problem with both versions I also have a problem with issues to do with water. There are concerns about abstraction of water in some areas, and I think that a duty merely to consult, but not necessarily to do anything with the consultation, does not go far enough I am also interested in the issue of how to give notice. I accept what the Minister says in that it would be going too far to require every single person definitely to have been notified. I can see the problems with that, but I can also see the problems with a measure that means that a notice being put in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet could be considered notification. I was hoping the Minister would let us know what that balance should look like so that there will be reasonable notification I am frustrated that it seems we shall not have a chance to vote on much of this—
Infrastructure Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-02-11
Topic: Energy
Tessa Munt (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): One of the details I am particularly concerned about is coal bed methane, which is exploited at depths of 150 to 400 metres—unlike high-volume hydraulic fracturing, which is done below 1,000 metres—and which is not defined in the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a prohibition on all gas exploitation at depths of less than 1,000 metres?
Radio Broadcasting (Diversity) — House of Commons, 2015-02-11
Topic: Technology
Alan Beith (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important topic. There is, however, some confusion, because Ofcom sent me and other Members a message this afternoon, saying that "Digital One has been in conversation with Premier and has been offered a means of remaining on the national DAB platform until 2018" At that point, Premier Christian Radio did not know about it. I hope the offer is serious and will operate.
Small Farm Companies — House of Commons, 2015-02-12
Topic: Agriculture
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The House legislated to strengthen protection for small farmers and small businesses supplying supermarkets by establishing the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I recently secured Government agreement to enable the GCA to impose fines of up to 1% of turnover on supermarkets found guilty of mistreating suppliers. I was also pleased that the GCA last week launched a formal investigation into alleged breaches by Tesco of the groceries code, and I urge those with evidence to come forward.
Small Farm Companies — House of Commons, 2015-02-12
Topic: Government Operations
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am aware of the Select Committee report that suggested something very similar. Its main recommendation was that we introduce the power of fines, which we have now done, but there will be a review of the GCA within a year of the legislation, and no doubt in the next Parliament those powers can be taken.
Small Farm Companies — House of Commons, 2015-02-12
Topic: Agriculture
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The hon. Lady rightly touches on the key outstanding issue, and I certainly believe it would be appropriate to consider the indirect supply chains. I am happy to talk to my colleague the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about that particular issue, but I think she will find that there is a legislative obstacle.
Small Farm Companies — House of Commons, 2015-02-12
Topic: Agriculture
Robert Edward Russell (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Will my right hon. Friend look at the successful local sourcing policies promoted by the East of England Co-operative Society, with the support of Forward East, which are enabling small food and drink manufacturers to get their products into local stores? He and others might wish to know that on Tuesday 24 February, in the Inter-Parliamentary Union room at lunchtime, they will be able to witness that for themselves.
Small Farm Companies — House of Commons, 2015-02-12
Topic: Agriculture
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): It is always the case that genuinely voluntary efforts to promote local sourcing produce substantial benefits and that legislation is necessarily a blunt instrument. The method my hon. Friend describes is better where it can be applied.
Universal Service Obligation (Mail Deliveries) — House of Commons, 2015-02-12
Topic: Government Operations
Joanne Kate Swinson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The universal service obligation is not an optional extra—it is a fundamental duty enshrined in law and only Parliament could change that. In addition, it is the responsibility of the postal regulator, Ofcom, to ensure services are available throughout the UK at an affordable and uniform price, six days a week.
Universal Service Obligation (Mail Deliveries) — House of Commons, 2015-02-12
Topic: Government Operations
Joanne Kate Swinson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): This Government have already given that cast-iron guarantee by legislating for it in the Postal Services Act 2011. Parliament has set it very firmly in stone. Unless the hon. Gentleman thinks that any future Labour Government would be minded to change the position, I hope that Members on both sides of the House can feel confident that the universal service obligation is secure As I said earlier, Ofcom, the regulator, has significant powers to obtain information from other operators in the market. It monitors operators’ plans regularly, and looks at the information every month. Operators must also inform the regulator of their future plans. That will remain under review, and a formal review will take place later this year. I think that what I have said should reassure the House that the universal service obligation is here to stay.
Universal Service Obligation (Mail Deliveries) — House of Commons, 2015-02-12
Topic: Government Operations
Joanne Kate Swinson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): That is obviously a slightly different issue from the USO, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Royal Mail has reviewed the time of collections from post boxes in which fewer than 50 items of mail were being deposited each day, as part of an overall review of its service. In a positive move which I think Members should welcome, it has maintained all those collection points rather than decommissioning some of them, although collections will be less frequent. It has also ensured that there will be an alternative posting point within half a mile of post boxes from which there are fewer collections or an earlier final collection, from which mail will be collected later.
Government Procurement — House of Commons, 2015-02-12
Topic: Labor
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the last Government the numbers of apprenticeship starts was half the number that we have seen in the current Parliament, and that these are also significantly longer and higher-level apprenticeships. As for procurement, if companies can build in apprenticeships—which we encourage them to do—that is of course desirable, but it is a very crude mechanism which adds to the barriers facing small business and the cost to the Government. The experience of trying to build conditionality into section 106 agreements suggests that many companies regard the process as token, and do not invest in sustainable apprenticeships.
Government Procurement — House of Commons, 2015-02-12
Topic: Education
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I believe that congratulations are due to the hon. Lady, who has become engaged—perhaps this morning, but certainly recently As for procurement and Hinkley Point, the leading contractors have committed themselves to a substantial UK content, and we hope that that extends to apprenticeships. We are endeavouring to frame the pre-qualification questionnaires in such as way that apprenticeship training is encouraged in UK procurement.
Government Procurement — House of Commons, 2015-02-12
Topic: Transportation
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I gather that senior politicians, including me, have been queuing to go down into Crossrail to admire its progress. One of Crossrail’s key achievements is to substantially advance apprenticeships and, above all, UK content; there is a wide distribution throughout the UK. If we can replicate the experience of Crossrail with other big infrastructure projects, that would be an admirable step forward Student Loans
EU Membership — House of Commons, 2015-02-12
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The European single market gives British firms access to 500 million consumers and, as our largest trading partner, is responsible for almost half of this country’s exports. A wide range of economic studies demonstrate the benefits to the UK economy from EU membership.
EU Membership — House of Commons, 2015-02-12
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Prime Minister and I discuss this frequently, and we agree that there needs to be significant reforms and improvements in the European single market, particularly moving on to a digital single market. The hon. Lady is quite right to say that our exit would be massively disruptive, and a lot of actual and potential foreign investors in this country are making it absolutely clear that they are alarmed by that possibility, should there be a change of Government.
EU Membership — House of Commons, 2015-02-12
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I will do my best to answer the second, third and fourth of the hon. Gentleman’s six questions, which related to the trade deficit. Clearly, if we look at the trade deficit in terms of services as well as goods, and if we look at capital flows, including inward investment, the position is a very positive one. I do have to record—I am sure he is aware of this—the extreme alarm now being expressed in business circles about the possibility of a Conservative Government, creating a great deal of uncertainty in this area. There is uncertainty about a prolonged hiatus as the conditions which he is seeking have to be negotiated and uncertainty as to the different forms of exit, be it the Norwegian, Swiss or Turkish model. He will have to reflect with his colleagues on the damage now being done by that uncertainty.