argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): I have some sympathy for the Minister, because he is doing his best to give the House assurances about what is likely to happen, but the fact is that he is appearing on behalf of a Prime Minister who has completely shredded her credibility by doing what she did yesterday. She was prepared to send out her Cabinet colleagues to make one assertion with confidence in the morning, while she was plotting to reverse it at the same time as she had them in front of the TV cameras. Despite the Minister’s personal integrity, why should we believe a single thing that he tells us today?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Elizabeth Louise Kendall (Labour, Centre-left): Why would anyone believe a word that the Government say about when the vote will take place when Ministers have spent weeks promising that the vote would be today, and when the Prime Minister’s only hope of survival is to delay the vote till the last possible minute to try to force MPs to change their minds?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Christopher Philip James Elmore (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has to understand that the reason why Members on both sides of the House have little faith in what he is saying is that he keeps answering by saying that with section 13 there will be a vote. The reality is that there was a business motion last week where it was agreed that there would be a vote today, and the Government have reneged on it, which is why we do not trust them. The language that he has been using in answering these questions is extremely important. He said that he hopes for a vote before 21 January, that he hopes for a vote shortly, and that 21 January would be the back end of when he would expect there to be a vote. He clearly knows something, so will he set out now when the vote will come?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Statutory Obligations on Ministers — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Clive Stanley Efford (Labour, Centre-left): The Government are relying on the House trusting them in bringing forward a meaningful vote in the future, but yesterday’s escapades suggest that they are not always dealing from the top of the pack. The Leader of the House came here yesterday and collapsed the business without making any reference to that at all, and it was moved by a Minister of the Government just shouting "Tomorrow". It would help to restore some of that trust—although that is a very difficult thing for the Government to do—if they were to promise never to do that again in this process and give this House the opportunity to vote on any future changes in the business motion.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I am absolutely full of admiration for the hon. Member’s ability to keep a straight face while she asked that question Parliament may not have had the chance to vote down the Prime Minister’s deal, but if she had put it before the House I think we all know it would have been defeated by a very significant margin indeed.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I thought that was a really valiant attempt to defend the indefensible. It is utterly ludicrous. Everyone knew the date the vote was going to be put. The whole world knew about it. We now hear that apparently the Prime Minister was trying to arrange some backroom deal ahead of it and then pulled the vote, but she did not bother to tell an awful lot of other people that she was doing so. I do admire the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s attempts at defending what is completely indefensible.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Immigration
Tulip Rizwana Siddiq (Labour, Centre-left): In addition to the farce that was facing the country yesterday, one of the biggest consequences will be the impact that this has on the 22,000 EU nationals living in my constituency. The settled scheme status is still being developed. The Home Office app for registration has been branded absolutely "useless" by academics. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the limbo facing this House will have great, distressing consequences for our EU nationals in our constituencies?
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Immigration
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and compliment her on the work that she does on behalf of her constituents. All of us represent EU nationals, some in greater numbers than others. We all know the horror and stress that they have been through over the past two and a half years—the stress where one partner comes from one part of Europe and the other from Britain, and the stress on those children is huge—which is why, straight after the referendum, on our behalf, Andy Burnham moved from this Dispatch Box a motion guaranteeing permanent rights of residence for all EU nationals. That was agreed on a non-binding motion. Two and a half years later, we still have not had the absolute legal certainty from this Government on the protection of those EU nationals. They deserve it, and we also need to recognise that they have made a massive contribution to our economy, to our way of life, to our health service and to all our public services. We should thank them for it and assure them that they have a permanent place in this country, whatever the outcome of these particular rounds of talks We will work across this House to prevent any further damage to our economy, to our international standing and to our democracy, so I say to the limited number of Government Back Benchers opposite: let Parliament have a say on this shabby deal. Let Parliament take back control of it, because this Government have lost the ability to lead, the ability to negotiate and the ability to speak for this House in those negotiations.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for giving way. As he knows, I have a lot of respect for him, and he has a tough gig today The reason for this postponement and delay is, of course, so that the Prime Minister can go away and negotiate some magic piece of paper. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether any member of the Cabinet had seen or discussed a draft of the addendum or codicil that the Prime Minister is seeking at any point in the last few weeks before she decided to postpone the debate?
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): I am slightly confused by what the deputy Prime Minister is saying. He seems to be suggesting that we will be restarting the old debate. Presumably that means that none of the Members who have already spoken will speak again and that all the elements of the business of the House motion that we have already carried will continue; but surely to God, we must do that before Christmas. We cannot let this roll on and on while businesses are wasting time, money and energy making plans for something that may not come to pass.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Emma Elizabeth Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): Why will the Government not rule out no deal, given the catastrophic impact that it would have on businesses, jobs and people’s livelihoods? If he will not rule it out, will he tell us how much more taxpayers’ money is going into planning for no deal because of the delay that has been caused by the Government and the lack of a vote today?
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman has been asked this question twice, but he has not answered it. I will give him a third chance. Is the Government’s proposition that when we return to this, the previous debate will continue—in other words, there will be two more days and then we will have a vote—or is there to be a fresh debate? Which is it going to be?
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whichever path we end up going down, the first stage should be to rule out no deal, which would be deeply damaging to manufacturing industries, to exports and to our police and security co-operation?
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Other
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has heard the view expressed by some Government Whips that if the Prime Minister has not really got anything out of this week, there would be no point in Parliament sitting next week at all, and that the Government would therefore announce on Thursday that we were not going to sit next week. He will of course be aware that we would have to have a vote on that.
Exiting the European Union: Meaningful Vote — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Immigration
Mary Theresa Glindon (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with my hon. Friend that people being called stupid was completely wrong. Does she agree that people in North Tyneside, although I did not agree with the way they voted, were right when they made a decision against unscrupulous work practices and foreign agencies bringing in European workers denied a proper rate of pay and denying local people jobs?
Ivory Bill — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mary Elizabeth Twist (Labour, Centre-left): I also welcome the move to put this legislation in place, and I welcome the Lords amendments, but for those of us who served on the Bill Committee there are still some questions, which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin). I want to ask about some of the things I was banging on about during the previous stages of the Bill First, we talked about the enforcement of the legislation, particularly in respect of online sales, which can be difficult. Secondly, I would like to know about the future funding of the National Wildlife Crime Unit after 2020. Can the Minister give us some clarity and assurances on that? Most importantly, as other Members have mentioned, there is the question of when the Government expect to launch the consultation on extending the scope of the Bill to animals such as hippos and narwhals. If we really want to end the trade in ivory it is imperative that there be no debate about what kind of ivory it is and whether it is covered by this Bill. I urge the Secretary of State to clarify that point.
Ivory Bill — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher James Evans (Labour, Centre-left): I also welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward, and our Front-Bench team as well, but I think everybody would say that it is just a step in the right direction and there is still a huge amount of work to do. We know about legal trophy hunting, and I would like the Government to clamp down on individuals who are still offering tours on safari to take out these wonderful beasts. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said: there is an imperative on our generation to stop this. We all know of American tourists who come over here—I had the misfortune once of meeting somebody who said, "My daughter’s into hunting, you should see what she’s taken down", and showed me sick photos of bloodied beautiful bears and lions that she had killed in the Serengeti and elsewhere in Africa. That has to stop, and I hope that the Government will look again at this issue I also hope that the Government will go beyond the ivory trade and look at other wonderful animals, including whales. I hope that they will ban items such as whales’ teeth, for example. I hope that they will create a real stigma around trophy hunters, so that when people show trophy hunting pictures others will find them sick and distressing. I am picking on Americans here, but I have seen elected officials with pictures on their walls of hunts that they have taken part in. That has to stop I hope the Government will also recognise that this trade is bringing about criminality and mafia practices. I hope that this is just the start of a wider debate, that the consultation will be short and that the Government will bring forward extra legislation very soon to ban trophy hunting and the companies that send people on hunting tours.
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Graham Eric Stringer (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Minister explain to the House why, as smart meters are rolled out in the north of England, we are not getting the most up-to-date and best smart meters, which people in Watford are getting? Why is the north being discriminated against?
Fuel Poverty — House of Commons, 2018-12-11
Topic: Housing
Gillian Furniss (Labour, Centre-left): In a speech on the same topic early in 2017, I said: "We are in a cold homes crisis".—[Official Report, 21 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 822.] Regrettably, that message remains. A large number of people in our society are living in fuel poverty, unable to live in a warm, dry home, tragically often resulting in excess winter deaths. Living in fuel poverty is miserable, for both the young and old. It increases anxieties and stresses and puts pressure on the already stretched NHS. According to the NHS, the current scale of the problems in England alone costs the health service approximately £3.6 million a day and results in 50,000 unnecessary deaths. The Government have a duty to ensure that everybody in the UK is living in a warm, dry home, and I am grateful for this opportunity to hold them to account on the progress—or lack of it—on tackling fuel poverty A year since the last debate, little progress has been made and the Government continue to miss the targets that they set. How did we get to the tragic point where, weeks before Christmas, millions of people will be vulnerable to having a cold, damp home? Under the Tories, we have seen a low-wage, low-productivity economy, with precarious working hours for millions of people, leaving them vulnerable. Coupled with that, we have seen a disastrous universal credit roll-out, forcing millions into food banks. Shamelessly, Tory Ministers have used opening a food bank as a photo opportunity recently, as though the increase in food banks were to be commended In my constituency, 41% of children are living in poverty, and the number of food bank parcels given out has increased exponentially. While many cannot rely on a decent pay packet, they are none the less met with increasing living costs. Under a Labour Government in 2007, we saw 2.5 million energy efficiency measures implemented in a single year. That number has fallen off a cliff. This Tory Government are failing those in fuel poverty, and they are failing the people of Britain.
Voter ID Pilots — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Civil Rights
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for that answer. Bishop Auckland has the lowest rate of passport ownership in the entire country. Does not the Minister understand that expensive forms of voter ID will exclude thousands of people from exercising their democratic right to vote?
Voter ID Pilots — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Civil Rights
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Is the Minister not aware that ID is linked to knowing where the children of our country are: are they in school; are they vulnerable? Those in her party stopped us having that identification. Many children are at risk because of their actions on ID.
Voter ID Pilots — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Civil Rights
Christian John Patrick Matheson (Labour, Centre-left): This year’s voter ID pilots cost the taxpayer £1.7 million and the only discernible effect was that several hundred people were prevented from voting. The Minister is refusing to publish details of the budget for next year’s voter ID pilots. Why is she keeping that information secret, and what has she got to hide?
Cyber-security — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What steps his Department is taking to help improve the cyber-security of public and private sector organisations; and if he will make a statement.
Christopher Philip James Elmore (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister will be aware that before the summer recess The Daily Telegraph reported that data breaches on gaining passes to Government buildings, including the Cabinet Office, were made available to the public because of the use of open shared drives that had been condemned six months previously. Can the Minister give a reassurance that that simply will not happen again?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Housing
Michael Lee Amesbury (Labour, Centre-left): I wish everyone here a merry Christmas: the Prime Minister, and all other Members The Prime Minister may recall that during the first Prime Minister’s Question Time of 2018, I asked her to do more to support the victims of the leasehold mis-selling scandal. May I use the last Question Time of the year to ask whether she has done anything about that, or whether she is going to kick it into the long grass as she did with the meaningful vote?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: As you will know, Mr Speaker, the issue of British nationals living in the EU and EU nationals living in the UK is of the utmost importance to every Member of the House. Given the Prime Minister’s welcome comments on her return from Salzburg about protecting the rights of EU nationals, at least those resident until 29 March, in the event of no deal, can she now confirm that in the event of no deal—and I hope that that will not be the case—she will reach a legally binding, multilateral agreement with the EU on the issue of citizens’ rights before 29 March?
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): The reality is that the Prime Minister is stalling for time. There is still no majority in this House for her shoddy deal. It is not stoical; it is cynical. As the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) said: "we have displacement activity designed to distract from last week’s failed renegotiation" The International Trade Secretary said: "I think it is very difficult to support the deal if we don’t get changes to the backstop…I’m not even sure if the cabinet will agree for it to be put to the House of Commons" So can the Prime Minister give us a cast-iron guarantee that the vote in this House will not be delayed yet again?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: As you will know, Mr Speaker, the issue of British nationals living in the EU and EU nationals living in the UK is of the utmost importance to every Member of the House. Given the Prime Minister’s welcome comments on her return from Salzburg about protecting the rights of EU nationals, at least those resident until 29 March, in the event of no deal, can she now confirm that in the event of no deal—and I hope that that will not be the case—she will reach a legally binding, multilateral agreement with the EU on the issue of citizens’ rights before 29 March?
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is recklessly running down the clock, all in a shameful attempt to make her own bad deal look like the lesser of two evils. With rising crime, 20,000 fewer police on our streets, 100,000 vacancies in our national health service, and the worst performance last month of any November on record, how can the Prime Minister justify wasting that money on no deal, which cannot and will not happen?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Other
Margaret Mary Beckett (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand the observations made by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and I hope I bow to no one in my wish to see the courtesies of this House observed, but do you believe that it is in order for what appears to be becoming almost an orchestrated riot to take place? [Interruption.]
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Other
Margaret Mary Beckett (Labour, Centre-left): Certainly, Mr Speaker, it does seem to me—and I have been in this House for some many years—that an attempt is presently being made to shout you down. There is much serious business before this House and I would be astonished if a single one of our constituents does not view these scenes with utter contempt.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Other
Stella Judith Creasy (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Calling anybody a "stupid woman" is not acceptable. Can I endorse the words of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson)—that also what is important, if we want to encourage a wide range of people to get involved in politics, is that we have cool heads, accessible processes and an honest way of proceeding? Right now, the most important thing for this House is to be able to go away and look at the evidence and get on with doing our job, so Mr Speaker, please can you tell us how we move on to the next bit of business?
Future Immigration — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Immigration
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): I will look very closely at what the Home Secretary has set out in the Immigration White Paper. We have heard many different stories about what it will include, but I am not sure we can entirely believe all of them, given the disputes we have seen between him and the Prime Minister I want to ask the Home Secretary a very specific question about immigration enforcement at our border in relation to no-deal planning. The permanent secretary of his Department told us on the Home Affairs Committee just a few weeks ago: "It is not part of our contingency planning to deploy the armed forces." I pressed him on this, and he said again: "It is not part of our no-deal planning that we would deploy the armed forces, for example, at the border." Was the permanent secretary misleading the Committee, or was it a surprise to the Department this morning when it was told that the Army could be deployed at the border for immigration enforcement and other purposes?
Future Immigration — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Other
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): The Home Secretary was right to pay tribute to his parents. His father, a bus driver, and my mother, who worked at Camden Town tube station, belong to a generation that took so little and gave so much. They were like today’s careworkers, security guards and fruit pickers. He knows that they did not earn anything like £30,000 in the prices of the ’70s and ’80s. How will he look his children in the eyes and say he slammed behind him the door of opportunity that enabled him and me to sit in our seats today?
Future Immigration — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Immigration
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): The Home Secretary mentioned a streamlined application process for visitors. Can he confirm that the millions of visitors who come to this country from the EU every year will in future have to apply for, and receive, a visa or a visa waiver? If so, how much will it cost them?
Future Immigration — House of Commons, 2018-12-19
Topic: Immigration
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): Immigration has benefited the UK, and the people who have come here, whether from Europe or from the rest of the world, have overwhelmingly come to work hard and make a positive contribution to this country. On the question of numbers, what is the Home Secretary’s estimate of the effect on immigration from the rest of the world of restricting immigration from the rest of Europe?