argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Intelligence and Security Committee — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I must just warn the right hon. Gentleman not to be too persuasive in his oration, because if he is, the House might vote against the motion, forcing him to remain a member of the Committee that he has declared his desire to leave. I say that by way of a cautionary note and gentle encouragement.
Intelligence and Security Committee — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Julian Murray Lewis (Conservative, Centre-right): I assure you, Mr Speaker, that I am on my ultimate—not even penultimate—point The report continued: "and suggested that they believed that terrorist attacks were a price worth paying for individual privacy. The report reprinted edited transcripts of evidence sessions with Big Brother Watch, Liberty, Justice and Rights Watch UK. Renate Samson, the chief executive of Big Brother Watch, asked the committee for an ‘immediate correction’ to its published report and said that the representation of the evidence session was ‘improper and false’. She said that the ISC’s portrayal of the evidence was ‘an attempt to undermine, discredit and damage our organisation’s reputation’. Isabella Sankey, director of policy for Liberty, said: ‘Instead of attempting to put words into the mouths of privacy campaigners, the ISC should have put its efforts into scrutinising the agencies.’" People interested in the matter can judge for themselves. If they go to the ISC’s website, at http://isc.independent. gov.uk/public-evidence/15october2014, they will find the full transcript, and I suggest that they examine questions 19 and 20, put by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears); questions 28 and 29, put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind); and questions 32 and 33, put by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). In there, they will find the following exchange. The Chairman asked: "If evidence emerged through bulk interception that even you acknowledged had led to terrorists being arrested or prevented from carrying out their objectives, are you saying that, as a matter of principle, you believe so strongly that bulk interception is unacceptable in a free society that you would say that that was a price we should be willing to pay, rather than allowing intelligence agencies to use bulk interception methods?" Isabella Sankey, of Liberty, replied: "Yes." Dr Metcalfe, of Justice, replied: "Yes. Just as you would solve a lot more crimes if you had CCTV in everyone’s houses, and if you opened everyone’s mail and e-mail and read it on a daily basis. Yes, you would solve a lot more crimes and a lot more terrorists would be in jail; that would be a good thing, but it would be bad for our society as a whole." The Chair then asked: "And that is the view of your colleagues as well?" The director of Big Brother Watch replied with one word: "Yes." It has been a pleasure serving on this Committee. When it was put to me that it would assist my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) to get his feet under the table, even for the last few days of this Parliament, I was only too happy to accommodate him. He will be a splendid successor, and perhaps he will not try the patience of the House as long as I have today.
Intelligence and Security Committee — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): In thanking the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for his comments, let me congratulate the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) on his appointment to the Committee. We look forward to his contribution based on the experience and wisdom in these matters that he possesses.
Counter-Terrorism (Statutory Instruments) — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Civil Rights
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): Our action reflected the recommendations of the commissioner himself. They were our lead and our guide. My hon. Friend will note, however, that the code of practice contains additional protections covering the consideration and assessment that must be undertaken by those who seek to make a request for communications data in respect of certain protected groups. An enhanced status has been conferred, in a number of ways.
Counter-Terrorism (Statutory Instruments) — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Civil Rights
Mark Christopher Field (Conservative, Centre-right): I appreciate that we have the commissioner’s report, that the independent reviewer’s report is imminent and that there is a time limit of December 2016. However, given the grave concern that exists about, in particular, the powers and constraints affecting journalists, will the Minister assure us that he will keep the matter under general review, and that, if a problem arose, even with these orders, by the end of the year—or, indeed, within a matter of months—he would be willing to come back to the House and look at it afresh?
Counter-Terrorism (Statutory Instruments) — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I blame myself; I was immersed in conversation. It was a case of mistaken identity. The hon. Gentleman is wearing a delightful white shirt, not a checked one. He is not Mr Cairns; he is indeed Mr Stephen McPartland. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, and indeed to the other hon. Gentleman.
Counter-Terrorism (Statutory Instruments) — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): All I can say is that the consultation responses were published. I note the hon. Lady’s challenge and I will certainly point her in the right direction. On 4 February the interception of communications commissioner reported on the issue of journalists’ material. We are introducing the codes as quickly as possible to give as full effect as we can to the commissioner’s recommendations. Frankly, we do not believe it would be appropriate to wait. The hon. Lady asked why we are doing it now and in this way. It is being done in this way to ensure that the codes and safeguards are put in place as quickly as possible. I judged that it was right to do the initial consultation and get feedback even though we knew that the commissioner was due to report, because if we had waited for the commissioner’s response and then done a full consultation on the full code, we would not be in the position we are in today. I think that was the right approach The hon. Lady also asked technical questions about social media. The provisions apply to relevant communications data generated or processed in the UK by communications service providers. The codes of practice give some examples of the data to be retained and the way in which the CSPs build their systems. The communications data generated differ among CSPs and the services they provide. It is important that the Government can work with providers to ensure that appropriate data are retained. The code provides that the Home Office may give further guidance to those implementing the requirements. In other words, there can be further drill-down to give further specificity. The Home Office works closely with providers to ensure that it is aware of future technological changes that may lead to a review of a data retention notice. I will reflect further on the points made by the hon. Lady and place any additional information in the Library Finally, the £50,000 maximum penalty for failing to comply with the requirement under the authority to carry scheme reflects the seriousness attached to a carrier bringing someone into the UK or taking someone out of the UK when refused the authority to do so. I certainly hear the point made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East when he asked why we should have a penalty if compliance is already enforced. Now that we are extending the scheme to both inbound and outbound carrying, having looked at different aspects of it under the code and reflected on the issues raised, it is appropriate to have a penalty or sanction to encourage and promote the positive behaviour that right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and I want. We have brought in the penalty in that spirit.
Counter-Terrorism (Statutory Instruments) — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Immigration
James Peter Brokenshire (Conservative, Centre-right): I would tell the right hon. Gentleman that in respect of that particular provision—[Interruption.] I will come to his point. In respect of that provision, we clearly do not want there to be any unpaid penalties; we want compliance and therefore for penalties not to be levied in the first place. We are putting the penalty in place in that spirit of good compliance I normally try my best to meet the right hon. Gentleman’s requests for information as soon as possible, but I am afraid that I will have to disappoint him on this occasion. I note his request for the details of the various civil penalties levied under the civil penalties scheme, and I will certainly take it away and see what further information I can give him to assuage his clear desire for it With those comments, and given the broad welcome that the House has given to the measures, I hope that the House will be minded to support them Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data: Code of Practice) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 4 March, be approved Investigatory Powers Resolved, That the draft Retention of Communications Data (Code of Practice) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.) Immigration Resolved, That the draft Authority to Carry Scheme (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 2 March, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Robert John Blackman (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to intervene at this point. The sponsors of the Bill have been through the various amendments, and I have been taking advice today. The sponsors reject every single one of the new clauses and amendments.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman says that a number of people have not woken up to the consequences. Would that include the right hon. Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) and for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who all aspire to be Mayor of London?
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Housing
Robert John Blackman (Conservative, Centre-right): The reality is that the Greater London authority and assembly exist to scrutinise the work of the Mayor and Transport for London. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that they are not doing their job, he should condemn the members of that assembly. We should be placing power in the hands of Transport for London to carry out the functions we want, and to open up capacity for housing that is desperately required by Londoners. We must then ensure that that work is subject to scrutiny by the GLA and assembly members.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Robert John Blackman (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is a shame that the details he cites were not reflected in the amendments that were finally tabled only a few days ago—if that—so that the sponsors of the Bill and Members that support it could analyse them.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robert John Blackman (Conservative, Centre-right): Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker On new clause 2, the issue of securing consent for the disposal of land owned by TfL is well established in section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It includes a statutory regime for the disposal of former operational land, including requirements for the Secretary of State’s consent. The sponsors of the Bill therefore consider that further consent would be unnecessary and undesirable.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Robert Goodwill (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. This is private business. A number of amendments have been tabled that, in my judgment, have very little support, even on the Labour Benches and among London Members whom the Bill affects directly. I will make the Government’s position clear when we reach Third Reading.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Housing
Robert John Blackman (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for expressing that anxiety Hon. Members have mentioned TfL’s failure to engage with the objectors, but having gone through the Opposed Private Bill Committee and listened to the various proposals, my understanding is that they have been reflected. TfL has sought to meet the objectors and hon. Members to ascertain exactly the details of their objections, and it will have heard what has been said tonight. Clearly, we will not reach agreement on all the amendments, but TfL will no doubt reflect on them My concern on reading new clause 1 is that all such properties would have to be banded by value. In my judgment, that would lead to more speculation, rather than less. If TfL is disposing of assets, it should seek to maximise the value that it gets, but banding by value would play into the hands of property speculators. At the moment, the assets are all listed on a searchable website that can be seen by any member of the public, so we know what TfL owns. I therefore reject new clause 1 New clause 2 would set in train a whole series of consultations and place heavy restrictions on the disposal of land. In my view and in that of the promoters, that would place an unnecessary encumbrance on TfL. There is already a statutory regime, set out in section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. TfL cannot avoid that; nor does it wish to do so.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robert John Blackman (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for the reasoned way in which he has made his points. The reality is, however, that there is already a clear procedure for the disposal of former operational land. There is no need to go into the kind of detail set out in new clause 2. For that reason, I oppose new clauses 1 and 2 and all the other amendments in the group Question put, That the clause be read a Second time The House proceeded to a Division.
Transport for London Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-03-16
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. The hon. Gentleman is correct. I am sure he will not be going down the line of considering the constitutional position in very, very great detail, although I am sure that he can make a brief reply to the intervention. But he was doing very well in keeping in order.
Members Sworn — House of Commons, 2015-05-21
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I remind the House that I will be in the Chair today until about 11.30 am, or for as long as there are Members wishing to swear in. There will be a further opportunity for Members to swear in at 2.30 pm on Tuesday. Will Members wishing to take their seats please come to the Table The following Members took and subscribed the Oath, or made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law: Carolyn Harris, for Swansea East Christina Elizabeth Rees, Neath Right honourable Liam Dominic Byrne, Birmingham, Hodge Hill Tania Wyn Mathias, Twickenham Mary Josephine Robinson, Cheadle Right honourable Owen William Paterson, North Shropshire Frank Zacharias Robin Goldsmith, Richmond Park Alex Chalk, Cheltenham Ruth Lauren Smeeth, Stoke-on-Trent North Wesley Paul William Streeting, Ilford North Peter John Kyle, Hove Rob Marris, Wolverhampton South West Rishi Sunak, Richmond (Yorks) Calum Robert Kerr, Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Kelly Jane Tolhurst, Rochester and Strood Craig Mackinlay, South Thanet Stephen Nathan Kinnock, Aberavon Martin John Docherty, West Dunbartonshire Jeremy Mark Quin, Horsham Robert Ben Lobban Wallace, Wyre and Preston North Matthew James Offord, Hendon Charles Geoffrey Cox, Torridge and West Devon Caroline Ansell, Eastbourne Andrew William Murrison, South West Wiltshire Neil Coyle, Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Members Sworn — House of Commons, 2015-05-21
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): There will be a further opportunity for Members to swear in at 2.30 pm on Tuesday, but, in the meantime, will Members wishing to take their seats come to the Table The following Members took and subscribed the Oath, or made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law: Karl Turner, for Kingston upon Hull East Yasmin Qureshi, Bolton South East Right honourable Justine Greening, Putney Right honourable Grant Shapps, Welwyn Hatfield William Peter Wragg, Hazel Grove James Michael Davies , Vale of Clwyd Jason Alexander McCartney, Colne Valley Peter Grant, Glenrothes Helen Grant, Maidstone and the Weald Rushanara Ali, Bethnal Green and Bow Heidi Suzanne Allen, South Cambridgeshire Ivan Lewis, Bury South Henry Campbell Bellingham, North West Norfolk Michelle Emma May Elizabeth Donelan, Chippenham Adjournment Resolved, That this House do now adjourn until Tuesday 26 May at half-past Two o’clock.—(Simon Kirby.)
EU Referendum — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen Crabb (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Lady makes an extremely useful and important point. We want the people of the UK to make an evidence-led decision. It is not for the Wales Office to commission such a report, but I suspect that many other independent organisations will be looking at such evidence, and we look forward to seeing the results.
Welsh Government Funding — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Welsh Government should be held more financially accountable to the Welsh taxpayer for the money they spend? Will he consider including in the anticipated Wales Bill the devolution of income tax without the unnecessary block of a referendum?
Stephen Crabb (Conservative, Centre-right): I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the need for the Welsh Government to assume greater responsibility for raising money, as well as just spending it. I hear his argument about the referendum, and other people are making similar arguments. However, if the Welsh Government are not up for the challenge of greater financial responsibility, any discussion about whether there should be a referendum is academic.
Welsh Government Funding — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Welsh Government should be held more financially accountable to the Welsh taxpayer for the money they spend? Will he consider including in the anticipated Wales Bill the devolution of income tax without the unnecessary block of a referendum?
Stephen Crabb (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. One of my first conversations after being reappointed as Secretary of State was to meet Gerry Holtham to talk about his analysis of Welsh funding. He agrees with me that we do not need to commission any independent new evidence. The work has been done and we need to crack on with introducing the fair funding floor. We are committed to doing that.
Air Police: Dyfed Powys — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I understand the House is in a state of high excitement and anticipation of Prime Minister’s questions, but I am sure that the people of Wales would expect us to treat their concerns seriously. Let us have a bit of order for Mr Hywel Williams.
Health Policy — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen Crabb (Conservative, Centre-right): As ever, the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee speaks truth and wisdom. It is not healthy for Wales or the Welsh Labour party for the latter always to assume it will be in power in Cardiff Bay. A non-Labour alternative to running the Assembly would do the Welsh health service the world of good.
Engineering Careers — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Alun Hugh Cairns (Conservative, Centre-right): Engineers have highly adaptable skills that are valuable across the whole economy. Thanks to the priority that the Government have given to nationally significant infrastructure, there has never been a better time to work or train as an engineer in Wales, or, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom.
Great Western Cities Devolution — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen Crabb (Conservative, Centre-right): Last week I brought together council leaders from across the Cardiff capital region to hear their views on an emerging vision for an ambitious city deal for Cardiff that will create new economic opportunities for the wider area, including the great western cities region.
Great Western Cities Devolution — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen Crabb (Conservative, Centre-right): I am clear that my priority is Cardiff and not Bristol, but having a strong Cardiff capital region supported by an ambitious city deal will provide opportunities for both cities. That represents good news for Wales and for the hon. Lady’s constituency.
Great Western Cities Devolution — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen Crabb (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to him for the leadership that he has shown in driving forward a Cardiff city deal proposal. I am clear in my mind that a Cardiff city deal will work only with the Welsh Government, the UK Government, local partners and, crucially, the business community all working together.
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Other
George Gideon Oliver Osborne (Conservative, Centre-right): The Prime Minister is in Italy and I have been asked to reply. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Engagements — House of Commons, 2015-06-17
Topic: Housing
George Gideon Oliver Osborne (Conservative, Centre-right): Of course we are aware that there is an acute housing shortage in London, which is why we need to build more homes, but I can tell the hon. Lady that we built more council housing in the last five years than was built in the entire 13 years of the last Labour Government. I am very happy to come to Lewisham, where we will talk about the fact that today the claimant count is down by 25% over the year and long-term youth unemployment is down 45% in the last year. The economic plan in Lewisham is working.