argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Civil Rights
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman makes light of the rights of each of us, of our constituents and, indeed, of EU nationals when he says that we are dancing on the head of a pin if we do not allow the legislation to go through tonight.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Immigration
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the point about the London economy and EU nationals. Does she agree that an increasing number of EU nationals are very concerned, not just about the cost of their citizenship but about the constant changing of the goalposts by the increasingly incompetent Home Office?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Immigration
Tulip Rizwana Siddiq (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. There are 17,000 EU nationals who live in my constituency, and they constantly come to my surgery because they are worried about the half-baked practice papers that are being put in front of them. In terms of the London economy, which my hon. Friend also mentioned, by 2020 a quarter of the GDP of the entire country will come from London alone. We have 800,000 private sector businesses. The Bill gives Ministers the power to modify retained EU law, and clause 11 stipulates that such powers should not be handed to the devolved authorities With the EU charter a thing of the past, London’s EU nationals will, as my hon. Friend suggests, have the right to question what their future holds and what rights will be guaranteed. An honest conversation is urgently needed on post-Brexit immigration arrangements and migrant protections for the huge population of non-EU citizens in London, and the Bill does not provide that. A lukewarm commitment to seek consent from devolved bodies will not do. Serious steps must be taken to mitigate the disproportionate impact that Brexit will have on the city where my constituency is based I will proudly vote against the Bill today with my Labour colleagues. The display put on by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) last Thursday revealed this Bill to be everything that campaigners warned it would be. It is a shoddy power grab that disrespects the democratic traditions of our country and throws hard-fought rights into total jeopardy, and the Government should be ashamed of themselves for introducing it.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Geoffrey Robinson (Labour, Centre-left): I would, very briefly, like to conclude. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The pause, if anything, has given me new breath and I shall seek to expend it I was saying that the Government have introduced the Bill with the words, "Trust us, we’ll put it right." Nowhere has the Bill been more eruditely or expertly criticised than on their own Benches by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who unfortunately is not here for these latter stages. He has exposed it as being a shoddy Bill that should never have been brought forward We say very clearly to the Government tonight that, as far as the negotiation goes, a transitional arrangement is vital. Soft terms are equally important for our manufacturers, traders and financial companies—everybody on whose livelihood the wellbeing of this country depends. If we go for the mess the Government are currently promising us, I regret to say that we will have a very hard Brexit and the citizens of the whole country will take a very hard economic knock to their wellbeing. I want to avoid that, so I say take the Bill away. Bring back a corrected Bill that is decently presented and does not try to wrench power away from Parliament for ends that we cannot yet even specify. Bring it back in a shape fit enough that we could be justified in voting for it.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that, and it simply reinforces the case we are making: that Tory Ministers simply cannot be trusted with powers of this nature We have also frequently heard the argument about the need for legal certainty, but the Bill as drafted does not provide that legal certainty. What guidance does it give to judges post-Brexit as to how they are supposed to interpret the law that originated from the European Union? Absolutely none. The idea of a preliminary reference to the European Court is of course no more, because of the red line on the ECJ. That is completely gone. The remedy that citizens once had to go to the European Court is also gone. So the idea that, post Brexit, the Bill will assist our constitutional arrangements and provide clarity is simply wrong.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Centre-left): No, I am not giving way again; I have given way three times, and many Members want to speak in this debate Let me summarise by saying this: the Bill is shoddy, and undermines the parliamentary democracy that it was meant to enhance. It is not worthy of support, and I urge colleagues not to support it tonight.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Ruth Stephanie Nicole George (Labour, Centre-left): I absolutely agree. The House of Commons Library, in its impartial comment, says: "Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill grant the Government new and unprecedented powers." Parliament is being asked to grant wide powers when there is little idea yet of how they might be exercised I have seen for myself how the process of secondary legislation can be abused, when working on behalf of low-paid shop workers, many of whom are subject to attacks and injury. Five years ago, I was appalled at the secondary legislation Committee that debated some of the most abhorrent cuts proposed by the last Government —cuts to compensation for over 90% of innocent victims of crime. To their credit, every single Conservative Member on the First Delegated Legislation Committee called on the Government to withdraw or amend their proposals, including the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who is not renowned for his opposition to spending cuts However, instead of listening to their own Members and to the whole Committee, and instead of reconsidering the legislation, the Government just changed the Committee. Six weeks later, the same proposed cuts came back to a second Committee with three Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the vice-chair of the Conservative party and the Conservative party chair’s parliamentary adviser. As the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) told us, the Conservatives on the new Committee said not one word during the two-hour debate on the proposals; instead, they simply voted them through It is wrong for the Government to use this Bill, which is fundamentally important to the process of Brexit, to seek such methods to undermine our powers in Parliament. This power grab is so significant that it undermines the primary purpose of the Bill—to transpose EU regulations into UK law We are expected to believe that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is listening to the comments made on both sides of the House about the flaws in this Bill, but he has not been seen in the Chamber for the last seven and a half hours of this debate, so I am not quite sure how much he is listening Such sweeping powers as the Government are seeking would cause lasting damage to the role and power of Parliament and do nothing to help deliver the Brexit deal we need—one that puts jobs and the economy first and maintains our rights and protections As the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) put it just a month ago: "It is about control. Do we make our laws according to our own democratic principles on the day we have left or not?" The Bill says that we do not. For that hon. Member and for all other hon. Members, this Bill is about upholding our democratic principles. By voting against it, I will uphold those principles.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Civil Rights
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour, Centre-left): Mr Speaker, "We will scrap the Conservatives’…White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on…the Single Market" and putting "the economy first". That was the manifesto on which Labour Members stood only a few months ago. We said that we would scrap this Bill and send it back. I beg Labour colleagues who are thinking about voting with the Government to consider that they stood, only a few months ago, on scrapping the White Paper, and I urge them to stand by the manifesto they stood for Some Conservative Members would, like ostriches, like to shove their heads into the sand—they want Brexit on any terms—but they are a minority. I believe that the majority of Conservative Members genuinely want a decent Bill that will aid the transition between our being in the European Union and being out of it I am a remainer. Just like most of my constituents, I would love to remain in the European Union—we will make that case—but I am also a democrat. However, being a democrat is not about just handing all powers to the Executive; it is about holding them to account each step of the way I have listened to lots of the arguments from Members on both sides of the House about how the Bill could be improved. There is a strategy—a legitimate strategy—of saying, "Let us pass it tonight and amend it in Committee." However, I think that that is incorrect, because the flaws in the Bill are so huge and fundamental that if we followed that strategy, we would be fiddling with the deckchairs on a sinking ship. Unfortunately, what we must do is to send this Bill back I will outline a few areas in which the Bill fundamentally fails to live up to decent democratic principles and restricts the rights of our people. It removes the charter of fundamental rights from UK law. Let us be very clear that that charter provides digital rights, asylum rights, pension rights for LGBT people and safeguards for maternity rights. At the moment, for example, it ensures that a gay couple who marry here in the UK have their marriage recognised elsewhere in Europe.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Civil Rights
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour, Centre-left): There is nothing wrong with our Supreme Court, but what better than to have an additional protection? I think that the hon. Gentleman makes a ridiculous argument My next point is about safeguards for the current statutory instruments. Much of EU law has been brought into UK law as statutory instruments. Those statutory instruments are underpinned by EU law, which includes an ability to fine Governments for overstepping that law. If EU oversight is removed but the statutory instruments continue to exist, they will be weak to amendment through the negative procedure. That puts people’s rights to things such as TUPE and the working time directive at risk. Clearly, therefore, those statutory instruments should have additional statutory underpinning such that they cannot be removed using the negative procedure.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour, Centre-left): I agree. The Bill also—[Laughter.] I wanted to move on quickly The Bill also fails completely to mention or touch on how some of the soft-law mechanisms will be brought into the UK framework, such as the open method of co-ordination. It does not even mention that area of EU co-ordination. We will clearly want to adopt significant parts of it, but the Bill is completely quiet about it Of course there is a need to give Ministers certain powers, but even the emergency powers provided during the second world war were not powers for Ministers to spend unfettered amounts. This Bill gives Ministers the power to spend such amounts and gives them unheard-of powers. It is not a democratic Bill, and it cannot be classed as bringing power back to this country or to this Parliament. Clearly what we need to do tonight is to vote against this Bill. We need to send it back and get the Government to give us a decent Bill that will preserve our democratic rights for our people and for our Parliament.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Other
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I invite the Secretary of State to respond to the criticism of his party colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who is surely absolutely right to describe this as an "appalling monstrosity" of a Bill, which the House, frankly, should throw out.
Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-03-24
Topic: Other
Teresa Pearce (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for introducing the Bill. As someone who has brought a private Member’s Bill to the House, I know the hard work that goes into it. Her Bill has got far further than my Bill did, and I wish her every success in taking it further.
Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-03-24
Topic: Civil Rights
Andrew Joseph McDonald (Labour, Centre-left): Let me begin by briefly addressing the amendment to clause 2 of the Bill made in Committee, which we supported there. It is right that the Bill should come into force immediately on receiving Royal Assent, rather than at the end of two months. The sooner this change to the law is made, the better. In that spirit, let me move straight to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). Labour appreciates that the amendment is well intentioned. We also acknowledge that it is, in principle, certainly right to seek redress for any members of the merchant navy who were dismissed on the ground of homosexual conduct between the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Equality Act 2010. None the less, retrospective legislation is set into law only in rare and exceptional circumstances, and we do not believe, on this occasion, that voting for this amendment to the Bill would be appropriate My hon. Friend the brilliant Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) pointed out in Committee that, as the provisions to be repealed are now legally null and void, this Bill is a simple, symbolic gesture that will tidy up existing legislation. Accordingly, the Bill does not aim to provide redress for those members of the merchant navy affected by the provisions to be repealed, so the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman does not fit with the purpose of the Bill. Labour will therefore not be supporting the amendment today.
Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-03-24
Topic: Civil Rights
Andrew Joseph McDonald (Labour, Centre-left): I will keep my comments brief, as the point I wish to make is straightforward and does not require a lengthy speech. Labour Members whole- heartedly support this Bill and what it represents, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on introducing it. By doing so, he has focused our attention on anachronistic and unfair provisions from the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which suggest that it would be lawful to dismiss a seafarer for a homosexual act. This Bill would remove ambiguities surrounding whether it is legal to dismiss a seafarer on the basis of such an act, but, as has been pointed out, the discriminatory provisions targeted by the Bill have been superseded by current equality legislation, primarily the 2010 Act The Bill is therefore, ultimately, symbolic, but importantly so, as we should not underestimate the importance and power of symbols. We believe that this Bill, which would amend legislation to better reflect the values of equal rights to which we now adhere, is a powerful symbol, and Labour Members are pleased to give it our support.
Business without Debate — House of Commons, 2017-03-24
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): We have come to the end of the time for opposed private Members’ Bills this Session. Four private Members’ Bills have already been passed this Session by the House of Commons, with another three today. It is not possible to debate any more of today’s Bills, which will make progress only if no Member objects to Questions on them being put without debate. There are no remaining sitting Fridays appointed for the consideration of private Members’ Bills. Following a recommendation from the Procedure Committee, there is a list on the parliamentary website of any private Members’ Bills put down formally for subsequent days. At present, Bills are set down for Friday 12 May, though the House is not expected to be sitting that day. In a moment, the Clerk will read over the titles of the rest of the Bills set down for today. If they are objected to, the Member in charge of the Bill may name Friday 12 May, or any other day of their choice Crown Tenancies Bill Consideration of Bill, not amended in Public Bill Committee
Leaving the EU: Creative Industries — House of Commons, 2017-02-09
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: The EU is a source of crucial funding for the creative sector—Scottish organisations have received more than £12 million from Creative Europe since 2014—but there has been absolutely no word from the Government about what will happen to that source of funding after the UK leaves the EU. Will the Secretary of State give a clear commitment that creative industries will not be worse off as a result of the UK leaving?
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): When I look at the stylish men and women on the Government Front Bench, I think that each and every one of them—except, perhaps, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson)—could be models on the catwalk at London fashion week. The fashion industry is concerned that, as the UK leaves the EU, we will lose the right to protect original designs, which would have serious knock-on effects for trade showcases, including fashion week. Will the Secretary of State tell us what the Government are doing to make sure that our designers’ intellectual property rights are protected post-Brexit?
S4C — House of Commons, 2017-02-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: The forthcoming independent review of S4C is welcome, although it remains something of a Scarlet Pimpernel. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the review’s remit will include the capacity to specify recommendations about present and future funding arrangements to ensure that the channel can achieve its public service obligations?
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): The current projection for S4C still means a 10% cut in its funding between now and 2021. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the review will strongly look at ensuring that there is a definitive base for S4C’s funding?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-02-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: Malton is widely recognised as the horse-racing capital of the north. The many racing stables and the hundreds of staff there very much welcome the introduction of the new horserace betting levy, which will bring up to £30 million a year into the industry. Will the Minister update us on the progress on its implementation?; Every gay player, coach and volunteer in every sport should be made welcome. Will the Minister join me in praising the leadership shown by rugby league in tackling homophobia in sport, on this the day that the Super League season kicks off?; English and Welsh wine is a great British quality success story and will be producing more than 12 million bottles by 2020. I know that the Secretary of State personally does her bit to boost wine consumption, but what is she doing to promote the use of English wine as standard in her Department and across Departments, and its tourist value in attracting visitors to our emerging wine regions?
Christina Elizabeth Rees (Labour, Centre-left): Manchester United should be applauded for its recent announcement on increasing the number of disabled supporters attending games by 300, but this is not a step that clubs at all levels can afford to take. What will the Minister do to support the smaller clubs that are looking to improve the experience of disabled supporters attending their matches?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-02-09
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: Malton is widely recognised as the horse-racing capital of the north. The many racing stables and the hundreds of staff there very much welcome the introduction of the new horserace betting levy, which will bring up to £30 million a year into the industry. Will the Minister update us on the progress on its implementation?; Every gay player, coach and volunteer in every sport should be made welcome. Will the Minister join me in praising the leadership shown by rugby league in tackling homophobia in sport, on this the day that the Super League season kicks off?; English and Welsh wine is a great British quality success story and will be producing more than 12 million bottles by 2020. I know that the Secretary of State personally does her bit to boost wine consumption, but what is she doing to promote the use of English wine as standard in her Department and across Departments, and its tourist value in attracting visitors to our emerging wine regions?; If a broadband service is advertised as fibre, should it not be full fibre, and should not the service speed advertised be accessible by at least half of all those paying for it?
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): In 2014-15, nearly £4 million was lost in fixed odds betting terminals in my constituency by those who can least afford it. I know that the Minister is aware of the concerns again highlighted last week in a report by the all-party parliamentary group on fixed odds betting terminals. May I urge her to respond positively? Let us have lower stakes for these machines.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-02-09
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: Malton is widely recognised as the horse-racing capital of the north. The many racing stables and the hundreds of staff there very much welcome the introduction of the new horserace betting levy, which will bring up to £30 million a year into the industry. Will the Minister update us on the progress on its implementation?; Every gay player, coach and volunteer in every sport should be made welcome. Will the Minister join me in praising the leadership shown by rugby league in tackling homophobia in sport, on this the day that the Super League season kicks off?; English and Welsh wine is a great British quality success story and will be producing more than 12 million bottles by 2020. I know that the Secretary of State personally does her bit to boost wine consumption, but what is she doing to promote the use of English wine as standard in her Department and across Departments, and its tourist value in attracting visitors to our emerging wine regions?; If a broadband service is advertised as fibre, should it not be full fibre, and should not the service speed advertised be accessible by at least half of all those paying for it?; Melksham Town football club in my constituency is part of the very fabric of the Melksham community. It has inspired generation after generation to participate in sports and stay healthy, and fostered a sense of town pride. Will the Minister therefore join me in welcoming the opening of Oakfields, the home of Melksham’s football and rugby teams, thanks to a £7 million investment?
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): The tech sector’s No. 1 Brexit concern is that, when we leave, it will become unlawful to send personal data from Europe to UK firms unless the European Commission has declared our data protection arrangements to be adequate. What steps are being taken to secure that declaration in time?