argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-29
Topic: International Affairs
Lucy Maria Powell (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is failing to answer my point, which is that there is nothing in the Bill to protect against the very thing that the Prime Minister told us we needed an insurance policy to guard against When the Prime Minister was challenged—or, should I say, humiliated—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North on this point, the Prime Minister shrank into his seat. They then said that they would bring forward changes in the Finance Bill to protect against these imaginary blockades by EU warships in the Irish sea, but there is no Finance Bill now, is there? So what is their plan for dealing with this? Maybe the Minister could tell us In their final flourish to push the Bill through, the Government say it gives back powers to the nations, but the devolved Administrations strongly disagree. The Labour Welsh Counsel General has called the Bill "an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland." A Conservative Senedd Member, the former shadow Counsel General, resigned because he shared those concerns. As we have argued, if the Westminster Government decided to lower standards, there could be no voice for the devolved nations, because the Government have decided not to legislate for common frameworks, but are legislating for their own veto The Government must respect the devolution settlement and work collaboratively in good faith with the devolved Administrations to build a strong and thriving internal market. Our new clause 2 would facilitate just that. Not doing so would threaten our precious Union by putting rocket boosters under the campaign for independence in Scotland and elsewhere The Government have also said that this Bill will ensure more money for the nations and regions, as we heard again today, yet we still have no detail on how the shared prosperity fund will operate. They say they want to level up and invest in the regions and nations. "Trust us," they say on this point, "because we have the right motives." Yet last week, the mask slipped, didn’t it, with the breath-taking admission from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that his Government were going to funnel this cash into the new Conservative seats—pork barrel politics at its worst. Our new clause 3 would ensure that Ministers had a duty to report to Parliament and ensure oversight of the progress of this and other measures in the Bill.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-29
Topic: International Affairs
Karin Marguerite Smyth (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, particularly about the English regions. I am from the south-west as she well knows, and the south-west has consistently returned Conservative MPs and received a great deal of money from Europe, and is frankly getting little in return. Could not the Government elucidate on how they are going to meet their promises across the regions in England and across the various nations in the United Kingdom, and on how they will make sure that places such as Cornwall do not lose out further?
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-29
Topic: International Affairs
Lucy Maria Powell (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I am afraid that, as we heard last week, her constituency is unlikely to get more money because it is not one of the new Conservative seats that we heard were going to be prioritised for this reallocation of money The truth is that the Government have been making it up as they go along. The UK’s reputation and territorial integrity are collateral damage to a No. 10 fixated on public relations and posturing more than on making sure that its policy works and is in the national interest. We have had an unprecedented number of amendments from Ministers to their own Bill during its passage. We have further new clauses today, which, as we have heard, further undermine the rule of law. They are making it up as they go along—change after change underlying the haphazard incompetence of this Government We want a successful internal market. This Bill does not deliver that. We want a strong Union built on mutual respect. This Bill could fatally undermine it. We want the UK to play a global role for good. This Bill actively damages that. The Prime Minister says that measures in the Bill are just an "insurance policy", but you cannot get insurance for a house you have already torched I hope Conservative Members who still have reservations about the Bill will support our new clauses and join us in the Lobby.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-29
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Member is being generous in giving way. Does he accept that damage has already been done to the UK’s international reputation? He rightly wants to deal in facts and the reality of what is going on. I know from conversations that I have had with, for example, officials in UN institutions in Geneva, that the UK has been publicly questioned by other countries, in elections to bodies and negotiations on other matters beyond this matter, because of the very statements that the Government have made and the very clauses in the Bill. That, potentially, seriously undermines our abilities on the international stage on a series of issues: security, trade, climate change and well beyond.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-29
Topic: International Affairs
Mary Kelly Foy (Labour, Centre-left): As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and someone with family roots in Ireland, I have taken a key interest in the Government’s manoeuvrings over the Northern Ireland protocol and the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. I am concerned, not especially for the reputation of Her Majesty’s Government, but for people on both sides of the Irish border, many of whom are very worried about the potential return of a hard border, the erosion of the principles of the Good Friday agreement, and all that that might mean.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-29
Topic: International Affairs
William Roffen Esterson (Labour, Centre-left): The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster described the breaching of international law as a "safety net". That breaching of international law is set out clearly as being such in article 5 of the withdrawal agreement that this Government signed up to, put to the British people and passed in legislation. There is no shadow of a doubt that even bringing this legislation to the House means breaching international law, with all the consequences that flow from that To call this a safety net is entirely wrong. It is anything but that. There is nothing safe in the breach of international law whatsoever, as the Minister well knows. The breach of international law invites retaliation under the terms of the World Trade Organisation. It invites us being regarded as a pariah. It invites others to say that we are in no position to criticise those who routinely break international law. It undermines this country’s fine reputation, as set out by Margaret Thatcher—revered by all Conservative Members—who said that Britain is nothing if not a country that sets an example to other countries. It undermines the promised negotiations for deals around the world, including the fundamental negotiation right now with the European Union. We were promised by this Government—by their Prime Minister—that 80% of our trade would be covered by international trade agreements after Brexit had been concluded. What is the figure now? It is 8%—that is all they have managed, not the 80% they promised. The safety net has a great big hole in it; it is nothing of the kind. What of the Prime Minister, who described it as a safety net as well—as a means of preventing this fanciful blockade of Great Britain to Northern Ireland trade? If that were true, why is there nothing in the Bill that deals with this alleged shortcoming No safety net is needed, either, because the dispute resolution mechanisms set out in the withdrawal agreement and in the Northern Ireland protocol provide everything that we could possibly need. If those protections are followed step by step, we stay within international law, so why are the Government so keen to go beyond that? The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) set out what is already provided—I remember; I was here—when he stood at the Dispatch Box and described the process as providing a clear and lawful set of responses, and he was right to do so We should not be going down this road. The agreement was signed, it was promised to the British people, and the Prime Minister told us that it was in perfect conformity with the Northern Ireland protocol. This Bill is not needed in its current form. The Government should take out the illegal actions that they are proposing and they should be honest with the British people.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-29
Topic: International Affairs
Fleur Anderson (Labour, Centre-left): The Irish Foreign Minister said recently that this Bill undermines the EU withdrawal legislation, has damaged trust between the Irish and UK negotiating teams, and is damaging Britain’s reputation globally. Does that give the Secretary of State any cause for concern?
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-29
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): There is an important point here. To take the example of animal welfare or food safety, those powers remain devolved, but they are devolved in name only, because by imposing the minimum standard as the lowest standard for all legislatures, those powers are seriously undermined. I have to say to the Business Secretary that I fear that the Bill will only strengthen the hand of those who want to break up the UK On international law, nobody should be in any doubt about the damage already done by the Bill. I do not blame the Business Secretary, but this law-breaking Bill has been noticed around the world by not just the Irish Government, not just our EU negotiating partners, and not just Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, who the Government can dismiss. Even President Trump’s Northern Ireland envoy Mick Mulvaney visited the Republic of Ireland yesterday and said: "I think anyone who looks at the situation"— with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill— "understands there could be a series of events that could put the Good Friday Agreement at risk." When the Trump Administration start expressing concern about your adherence to international agreements and the rule of law, you know you are in trouble. That is how bad this Bill is.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-29
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): I am going to carry on It is important to hear the words of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in her coruscating and brilliant speech in Committee. Government Members are rolling their eyes about the former Prime Minister. She said that, "the Government are acting recklessly and irresponsibly, with no thought to the long-term impact on the United Kingdom’s standing in the world."—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 668.] That is what a former Prime Minister—the previous Prime Minister—of this country said.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-29
Topic: Law and Crime
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the Bill. It is a nonsense and a rogues’ charter, as I said in a previous debate, but would he also encourage Members of the House of Lords, who have historically played a role in defending the rule of law, to ensure that they do their best to improve this legislation if that is possible?
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-29
Topic: Education
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. All Members must be as accurate as possible when they speak in the House, and none more so than Cabinet Ministers. Today, in response to my questions following his statement, the Education Secretary twice made statements that were incorrect. First, he said that "we have made £100 million available for universities…to ensure that youngsters have digital access" That was not accurate. The £100 million funding is for devices for schools and some further education providers, not for universities. The Secretary of State was wrong in what he said. He also said that individual students could seek additional maintenance support from the Student Loans Company, and as far as I can tell that is not right either When I asked the Secretary of State about digital access this afternoon, he said that he was sorry I had missed the announcement. Well, I am sorry that he is apparently wrong about the detail of his portfolio. Have you had any indication, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he will return to the House to correct the record on these matters?
Flexible Rail Ticketing — House of Commons, 2020-09-29
Topic: Labor
Rosemary Clare Duffield (Labour, Centre-left): For years I have been hearing from constituents who are desperate for part-time season tickets. The right hon. Gentleman is making some brilliant points on this issue. I have been speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi)—our shadow Rail Minister—and he is in agreement with me. With the job market about to be reeling for years in a post-covid environment, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must do everything and anything they can, such as allowing part-time season tickets, or at least thinking about doing so, to allow businesses to create new jobs and accommodate flexible, part-time working?
Financial Support: Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2020-11-18
Topic: Labor
Nia Rhiannon Griffith (Labour, Centre-left): Sadly, this week we have seen the Prime Minister’s utter contempt for devolution, yet it is only because of the devolved powers that the Welsh Labour Government were able to heed the scientists’ advice and actually go into the firebreak at the time it could be most effective. As the Secretary of State knows, the Welsh Government called on the Chancellor to extend furlough to support businesses from day one of the firebreak, so why was it that the Secretary of State failed to secure that support for workers in Wales and why was it only made available after England belatedly followed Wales’s lead into lockdown?
Financial Support: Covid-19 — House of Commons, 2020-11-18
Topic: Labor
Nia Rhiannon Griffith (Labour, Centre-left): It is strange, and the question is about making such support available for Wales when it needed it. After this Conservative Government’s dither and delay led to a crisis-point lockdown in England, the Chancellor suddenly made the 80% furlough available, but it was not backdated to 23 October for Welsh businesses, whose closure at that point helped to turn the tide on covid numbers in Wales. That is of no help to workers who have been made redundant because of the Government’s refusal to extend furlough, up until the very last day. What will the Secretary of State do to get that furlough backdated and give Welsh businesses and workers the support they deserve?
Manufacturing Industry Support — House of Commons, 2020-11-18
Topic: Labor
Margaret Greenwood (Labour, Centre-left): Several of my constituents work at the Airbus plant in Broughton in north Wales. In July, it was announced that more than 1,400 jobs would be cut there and earlier this month we heard that there could be more than 400 compulsory redundancies. This is a time of immense uncertainty for the aerospace sector, so what action is the Secretary of State taking to work with the Welsh Government and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that my constituents’ jobs are secure?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-11-18
Topic: International Affairs
Anna Rhiannon McMorrin (Labour, Centre-left): This pandemic has shown how interconnected we are and how vulnerable we are to global challenges. When we are still grappling with covid, the climate emergency and growing hunger, why are this Government reported to be breaking their own manifesto commitment and cutting the aid budget, which saves lives and builds resilience? Will the Prime Minister stop this retreat from the global stage and take this opportunity to rule that out, here and now?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-11-18
Topic: Government Operations
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): May I start by sending my best wishes to the Prime Minister and all those across the country who are doing the right thing by following the rules and self-isolating Devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. Until now, whatever our disagreements, there has been a very broad consensus about devolution, so why did the Prime Minister tell his MPs this week that Scottish devolution is, in his words, "a disaster"?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-11-18
Topic: Government Operations
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): The single biggest threat to the future of the United Kingdom is the Prime Minister, every time he opens his mouth almost. When the Prime Minister said he wanted to take back control, nobody thought he meant from the Scottish people, but his quote is very clear. He said "devolution has been a disaster north of the border" This is not an isolated incident. Whether it is the internal market Bill or the way the Prime Minister has sidelined the devolved Parliaments over the covid response, he is seriously undermining the fabric of the United Kingdom. Instead of talking down devolution, does he agree that we need far greater devolution of powers and resources across the United Kingdom?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-11-18
Topic: Social Welfare
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am not going to take lectures on support—the lockdown measures were passed the other week with Labour votes. Thirty-two of the Prime Minister’s own MPs broke a three-line Whip, and I hear that about 50 of them have joined a WhatsApp group to work out how they are going to oppose him next time around. He should be thanking us for our support, not criticising As the Prime Minister well knows, so far as the £500 scheme is concerned, only one in eight workers qualify for that scheme. The Prime Minister always does this: he talks about the number of people he is helping but ignores the huge numbers falling through the gap Members here may be able to afford to self-isolate, but that is not the case for many people across the country who send us here. It is estimated that only about 11% of people self-isolate when they are asked to do so—11%. That is not because they do not want to; it is because many do not feel that they can afford to do so. For example, if someone is a self-employed plumber, a construction worker or a photographer and they do not qualify for social security benefits, or if they run a small business and cannot work from home, they are likely to see a significant cut to their income if they have to self-isolate. This is affecting many families across the country. Does the Prime Minister recognise that if we want to increase the number of people who isolate, we need to make it easier and affordable for people to do so?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-11-18
Topic: Government Operations
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister talks about hindsight; I say catch up. I called for a circuit breaker; the Prime Minister stood there at the Dispatch Box and said it would be a disaster and he was not going to do it. Then he caught up and did exactly that just a few weeks later. We now have a longer, harder lockdown as a result of his delay, so I will not take that from him Last week, the Prime Minister could not explain how his Government ended up paying £150 million on contracts that did not deliver a single piece of usable PPE; this week, he is effectively defending the paying of £21 million on a contract with no oversight. This morning, the independent National Audit Office concluded that the Government’s approach was, in its words, "diminished public transparency". It reported that more than half of all contracts relating to the pandemic, which, Mr Speaker, totalled £10.5 billion, were handed out without competitive tender and that suppliers with political connections were 10 times more likely to be awarded contracts We are eight months into this crisis and the Government are still making the same mistakes. Can the Prime Minister give a cast-iron assurance that from now on all Government contracts will be subject to proper process with full transparency and accountability?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-11-18
Topic: Labor
Katharine Helen Brooks-Osborne (Labour, Centre-left): Government plans to scrap the union learning fund mean that thousands of workers—about 200,000 a year, many of them low-paid—will miss out on training opportunities. With unemployment levels rising, will the Prime Minister today act on his commitment to offer a lifetime skills guarantee to help people to train and retrain at any stage in their lives, and reverse this decision to ensure that working people can access education, training and skills for the future?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-11-18
Topic: Macroeconomics
James Stewart Murray (Labour, Centre-left): In March, the Government’s chief scientific officer said that keeping covid deaths below 20,000 would be a good outcome but still an enormous number of deaths. We have now passed 50,000 deaths and suffered the deepest recession of any G7 country, with GDP dropping by 10% in the past year. Why does the Prime Minister think the UK has had the deepest recession in the G7 and the highest number of covid deaths in Europe?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-11-18
Topic: Social Welfare
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): Child poverty is evil—I know; I grew up with it. The North East Child Poverty Commission reports that our region suffered the country’s biggest increase in child poverty between 2015 and 2019, when half of children in Newcastle upon Tyne Central were growing up poor, and that was before covid. Yet 15,000 of the poorest households in my constituency stand to lose £1,000 a year because of planned cuts to universal credit in April. Instead of damaging last-minute U-turns, will the Prime Minister now commit to maintaining universal credit at least at the current rate?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-11-18
Topic: Social Welfare
Mohammad Yasin (Labour, Centre-left): Six out of 10 people who have died from covid-19 are disabled. Yet, during this pandemic, disabled people have seen their care cut back, have struggled to isolate without sufficient support, and have been excluded from the Government’s shambolic communications. As we start Disability History Month, will the Prime Minister tell the House why disabled people have been so let down by his Government?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-11-18
Topic: Social Welfare
Ian Robert Byrne (Labour, Centre-left): Professor Ian Sinha from Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, West Derby, recently stated that the environment a child develops in, even before being born, can affect its DNA detrimentally by 10%. This Government have been responsible for creating an environment that is pushing millions of families into food poverty, which will be shaping this terrifying outcome. To address this, will the Prime Minister—I ask him for the second time—work with me and other groups to put the right to food into law?