argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2020-11-23
Topic: Education
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Our teachers and school staff are doing a fantastic job right now; they are very much on the frontline during the covid pandemic. Could I therefore ask the Secretary of State whether they could be treated as a priority when it comes to vaccination; and if he is in agreement with that suggestion, will he share his methodology and the way he will approach my suggestions with the Scottish Government, because the issue is exactly the same north of the border?
Covid-19: Winter Plan — House of Commons, 2020-11-23
Topic: Education
Wendy Anne Chamberlain (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I welcome the plans in place to test students, enabling them to travel home for Christmas, and I commend the work of the University of St Andrews, in my constituency, which has stepped in to facilitate that, but a gap remains in terms of the new year. We need to ensure that where students must return to university they can do so safely, as well as give reassurance to the communities in which they are situated. I understand from the covid winter plan that guidance will follow suit, but will the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, advise me as to what engagement is being had with devolved nations about the return and testing of students in January, including discussions on default online teaching?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2020-10-19
Topic: Social Welfare
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I, too, am greatly concerned about the ability of the Child Maintenance Service to deliver results. I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough to meet me to discuss a constituent who has been unable to collect an unbelievable amount of arrears over the past decade, estimated at £30,000.
EU Exit: Negotiations and the Joint Committee — House of Commons, 2020-10-19
Topic: International Affairs
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I have been listening patiently for the past hour and I am still not certain whether we are heading for a no-deal Brexit or for a deal Brexit. Business always says that it wants certainty. What certainty can the right hon. Gentleman offer business at this very late stage now for 1 January 2021?
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-10-15
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I beg to move amendment 20, page 1, line 18, at end insert— "(3A) In section 27 (Lawful surveillance etc.), in subsection (1)— (a) after ‘applies’ insert ‘(other than conduct authorised under section 29B)’; and (b) after ‘Part’ insert ‘(other than conduct authorised under section 29B)’." This amendment will ensure that victims of crimes authorised under this Bill can seek civil redress.
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-10-15
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Indeed, and the guidance is important. It is helpful to have that published, but of course, guidance is guidance, and it can be changed much more easily than an Act of Parliament. The concern that I and many Members have is that there is little by way of meaningful limits and protections in the Bill, which is where they really require to be I will now address the amendments that I have tabled, and I shall seek to do so as swiftly as possible, because I realise that we are under a degree of time pressure. Amendments 20 and 21 cover the question of civil redress. The Government’s proposition is that, essentially, this is a statutory embodiment of existing practice and guidelines. In fact, the truth of the matter is that the Bill goes much further than the MI5’s current guidelines. The guidelines from 2011 state that "An authorisation of the use of a participating agent has no legal effect and does not confer on either the agent or those involved in the authorisation process any immunity from prosecution", and that authorisation "may form the basis of representations by the Service to the prosecuting authorities that prosecution is not in the public interest." The Bill goes much further than that. It states, in effect, that authorised crimes are lawful for all purposes, which means not only that an agent would be exempt from prosecution but that victims would be barred from seeking redress in the civil courts. Cases where civil claims have arisen from the use of covert activities in relation to the animal rights movement, for example, would not have any legal redress in the courts under the Bill. Essentially, the thinking behind amendments 20, 21 and others is that the independent oversight in the Bill simply is not there. We all know—it is human nature, as much as anything else—that if people are left to mark their own homework, they will always give themselves an A*. Frankly, for matters as important as this, we need something a bit more substantial The test for authorising criminal conduct in clause 1 is currently that the person authorising the conduct must believe that it is "necessary" and "proportionate" to do so. Amendment 14 is a very modest amendment that would mean it should be not just believed but "reasonably" believed that it is necessary and proportionate. That is not the most significant bar that will have to be crossed, but the fact that it is not there illustrates just how widely the Bill is drawn.
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-10-15
Topic: Government Operations
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; it is not perhaps germane to the legislation, but it is important. As we saw on Second Reading, there is a wide understanding across the House of the very difficult, complex and nuanced nature of the decisions that are taken and then the activities that are undertaken as a consequence of these authorisations. This absolutely should be properly resourced and staffed; that should go without saying. The payback for that resourcing is that these people should also be accountable, with some measure of independent oversight of their activities.
Aviation Sector Jobs — House of Commons, 2020-09-17
Topic: Labor
Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): As has already been noted, while it is welcome that British Airways has potentially dropped some of its bully-boy tactics of threatening to fire and rehire its workforce on much worse conditions, it comes too late for many employees who had taken the difficult decision to take voluntary redundancy, such as the single father in my constituency who could not afford to feed his family on 40% of pay. What steps is the Minister’s Department taking to support such individuals, because his Department’s response to the Transport Committee report said that it was the Government’s ambition to support these individuals where possible?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2020-09-17
Topic: Transportation
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Before the summer recess, the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Transport about his plans to introduce hydrogen bus towns and hydrogen hubs. That is an excellent opportunity for my city of Bath, where having electric buses is a real challenge because of our steep hills. Will he update us on those plans, and especially on how cities such as Bath can profit from that, and quickly please?
Covid-19 Pandemic: Government Response — House of Commons, 2020-09-17
Topic: Government Operations
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for updating the House on these issues. I welcome much of the report, but I cannot agree that a judge-led inquiry would not be the best way to achieve the desired transparency. Although I agree it is vital that each of the devolved nations has its own inquiry, should we not also be encouraging a broad UK approach in those areas that are reserved, so that we get a national picture, not a disjointed one?
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme — House of Commons, 2020-09-17
Topic: Macroeconomics
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): As the hon. Gentleman possibly knows, the Liberal Democrats agree that the scheme should be kept going. We have specifically looked at June next year as a minimum, which would cost £10 billion. That is not much more than withdrawing the scheme would cost, as the Chancellor is proposing at the moment, and is a drop in the ocean compared with the eventual cost if we do not support the economy.
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme — House of Commons, 2020-09-17
Topic: Labor
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on achieving this debate. It must surely be evident to the Government from the number and variety of occasions when this subject is raised by Members in this place that there is a general feeling across the House and in the country that we need to continue the support that the job retention scheme has offered I will not subject right hon. and hon. Members to a repeat of my contribution to last week’s debate, other than to say that we are in a crisis in this country that poses the greatest threat to our health, our economy and the wellbeing of individual households across the UK of any in our lifetimes. It is only because of the strength of the job retention scheme so far that we have been able to protect about 10 million jobs. Seven million people are currently supported by the furlough scheme, and to withdraw it at the end of October seems rash and too soon A Government Member said a little while ago that the scheme got us through the worst of the crisis and there is no longer any need for it. Surely we all saw the news today that the north-east of England has gone back into lockdown, posing an immediate threat to jobs, retail and wholesale in that part of the country. If we were in any doubt, surely that is evidence that we need to continue to support all industrial sectors through the crisis As I mentioned earlier, it is estimated that continuing the scheme until June 2021 would cost the country about £10 billion. That might seem like a large amount of money, but it will be dwarfed into insignificance by the long-term cost to our economy, our wellbeing and each sector if we pull the rug from underneath them at the moment. There should, instead, be a bridge to transition us from where we are now to whatever our economy will look like afterwards. This is an opportunity to support families, to invest in a transition to green jobs and to ensure that this country has a future that is economically stable Millions of people in this country who are currently on the furlough scheme look to us for support and reassurance about their future, and to hear that they will not face the financial hardship that many of them fear. It is incumbent on us to ensure that we do not let them down by removing that support too soon.
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-09-16
Topic: Social Welfare
Edward Jonathon Davey (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Research by the Disabled Children’s Partnership shows that three quarters of families with disabled children had their care support stopped during lockdown. The Coronavirus Act 2020 is partly to blame, as it relaxed the duties to assess and meet the needs of disabled people. As the father of a disabled child and a patron of the Disability Law Service, I have seen legal advice that suggests that the Prime Minister’s Government broke international law when the Coronavirus Act reduced the rights of disabled people. So before the House is asked to renew the Coronavirus Act, will he meet me to discuss how we can protect the right to care of disabled people and act lawfully?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2020-09-16
Topic: Foreign Trade
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Last week the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the UK Internal Market Bill would breach our obligations under international law. Yesterday the Advocate General for Scotland said that the Secretary of State was wrong to say that. Today the Secretary of State says that the Advocate General was wrong to say that he was wrong. It is of course possible that they are both right in saying that the other is wrong, but surely an important matter such as this requires clarity. For that reason, will the Prime Minister now undertake to publish the advice he has had from all his Law Officers so that the House can make an informed decision on the question of legality, come Monday?
Sentencing White Paper — House of Commons, 2020-09-16
Topic: Law and Crime
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Lord Chancellor has already partly answered this question, but can he expand on it, as currently one of the biggest problems is overcrowding in prisons and failing to rehabilitate enough people? Can he also address how we are dealing with adverse childhood experiences and trauma that people have suffered, which lead exactly to that spiral of crime? How will his Department respond to that?
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-16
Topic: Transportation
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The hon. Gentleman has just given us a list of projects that he is putting great big flags on the side of and claiming credit for, when actually the Aberdeen bypass was signed off by the previous Administration. It had been planned for a very long time.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-16
Topic: Transportation
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Yes, I agree that there should be collaboration—that is where the Bill does not respect the devolution settlement—but the curious thing about the hon. Lady’s comment is that I seem to remember it was an SNP Government who did away with the body that allowed councils in Scotland to apply for transport infrastructure funding. If councils were also to be denied the ability to apply to the UK Government for transport infrastructure funding without going through the Scottish Government, what guarantee is there that they would get it? We need in Scotland the ability for the UK Government to spend money on projects—to use the coffers of the UK Government.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill — House of Commons, 2020-09-16
Topic: Government Operations
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): No, I will not, if the hon. Lady does not mind We need that option, rather than just having the list given by the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) of projects with great big saltires on them and proclaiming that they were done by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government are not the only funding body in Scotland Let me return to the point. In many ways the Bill does not respect the devolution settlement, and that is a great disappointment to many of us. I appeal to the Government, in going forward with this Bill, to look seriously at whether they can take on board amendments that would improve the collaboration, involve Ministers of the devolved nations, involve the elected representatives of parts of the country and ensure that we respect the devolution settlement, and, moreover, that we protect it and perhaps enhance it. That might prevent us from having to have this debate again and again and again in this place.
International Travel — House of Commons, 2020-09-07
Topic: Transportation
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I appreciate what the Minister has said about the need for people to have holidays, and in my constituency, we appreciate the value of the aviation industry. Edinburgh airport has already confirmed that around a third of its staff are to be made redundant, so can the Minister assure us that the Government will take every opportunity to balance the need to shorten quarantine to support the aviation industry with following the medical evidence about what is best?
Local Government Boundary Commission for England — House of Commons, 2020-09-07
Topic: Government Operations
Timothy James Farron (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I, too, wish to support and endorse the appointment of Professor Colin Mellors. I also wish to spare him vast amounts of unnecessary work I wonder whether the Government might consider that, in the midst of the biggest crisis this country has faced since the second world war, it is the wisest thing to ask Professor Mellors, or indeed other parts of the state, to spend the next few years engaging with a top-down restructuring of local government, therefore focusing local authorities’ efforts not on tackling the virus or on providing schooling or care or looking after our local communities, but on looking inwardly—navel contemplating; reorganising the deckchairs on the Titanic—when instead they should be focusing on serving their communities I wonder whether the Minister agrees that top-down reorganisation and restructuring is always dangerous because we always find that people take their eye off the main ball and the main focus. In the midst of the biggest crisis since 1945, is it wise—and indeed in touch with public opinion and what is going on in this country— to publish a White Paper that Professor Mellors will now have to get to grips with, as he sets new boundaries in much bigger councils, and sets new electoral limits, and tell him, and indeed, the whole of the local government community, "Spend the next two years navel contemplating, talking to yourselves and rewriting the headed paper, instead of providing support for public health and fighting back against the virus and the economic consequences"?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2020-11-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The female offender strategy rightly recommends women’s centres over custodial sentences, but the funding committed as part of the strategy ran out in March. The Minister earlier actually referred to more funding for women’s services, but I am talking about women’s centres, and I have been unsuccessfully trying to set up one in Bath. Will the Government commit to providing a significant amount of core funding for women’s centres?
Lockdown: Economic Support — House of Commons, 2020-11-03
Topic: Labor
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Businesses across my constituency and across the country made irreversible decisions last week based on advice from the Government that furlough was going to end on Saturday. They now find themselves in a situation where furlough has been extended, but only for a month, and there is a complete lack of clarity still today about the devolved nations. Will the Chief Secretary please urge the Chancellor to extend furlough through to the spring—covid-19 is not going away at the end of this month—and can he give us a simple, one-word answer? Is furlough going to be available to the devolved nations, or is he going to continue this uncertainty, which is damaging the Union?
Restoration of Hammersmith Bridge — House of Commons, 2020-11-03
Topic: Transportation
Sarah Jane Olney (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I present this petition, on behalf of the residents of the constituency of Richmond Park, for the restoration of Hammersmith Bridge. This has been discussed on a number of occasions in this House already, so many Members will be aware that it has been closed to motor traffic since last April, and entirely to cyclists and walkers from August this year. I present the petition, on behalf of my residents, that every effort should be made to urgently get the bridge back up and running as soon as possible Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Richmond Park, Declares that Hammersmith Bridge is an essential transport route for South West London and its closure to walkers, cyclists and boats since 13 August has caused major problems for residents; notes that its closure has caused journeys for school children that used to be a 10 minute walk, now take 90 minutes across unsafe tow paths; further declares that elderly and disabled residents are now having to pay upwards of £40 in taxi fares to access vital services in Hammersmith; further declares that there has been a damaging effect on business owners who relied on footfall across the bridge; further declares that redirected transport has created traffic jams and increased pollution; further declares that people are now cut off from hospitals, schools and work; and further declares that the Transport Minister said he would fund repairs to the bridge before the election however the cracks in the bridge have only worsened. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and support the Council to build a temporary walking and cycling bridge so people can cross the river; and take action to restore the Hammersmith Bridge with urgency. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P002620]
BBC — House of Commons, 2020-07-21
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on changes to the licence fee exemptions, programming and job losses at the BBC.
Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The BBC licence fee exists to give the BBC protection from political interference. The BBC should not be making decisions on welfare. That is the role of the Government. Last year, the BBC chairman said that "the licence fee is at the heart of what we do. It establishes a direct relationship between us and the public and makes absolutely clear that our job is to serve them"— and yet here we are From 1 August, the BBC will fund free licences only for people over 75 who receive pension credit, but two-fifths of people who are entitled to the benefit—about 1.2 million pensioners—are not receiving it. Some do not know how to claim, many struggle to apply and others feel embarrassed about requiring help. Is the BBC really to become a de facto arm of the Department for Work and Pensions Let us be absolutely clear about how we have ended up here. It was the Conservative Government who took the decision in 2015 to stop funding for free licences, and it was the Conservative Government who forced responsibility on to the BBC board to make the decision on the future of the concession. The Government should never have asked the BBC to take that on, and the BBC should never have accepted it. Continuing with the licence fee scheme for the over-75s would have cost £745 million—a fifth of the BBC’s budget. To meet that cost without Government funding, the BBC would have had to close all of the following: BBC 2, BBC 4, the BBC News channel, BBC Scotland, Radio 5 live and local radio stations, as well as many other cuts and reductions. As it happens, the means-tested scheme will still cost the BBC about £250 million, and to help meet that cost it has recently announced hundreds of job losses and programming cuts The BBC has proved invaluable to the British public during the covid lockdown through its trusted news, entertainment and home schooling resources. Does the Minister agree? Age UK says that it firmly believes it is the Government’s responsibility to look after vulnerable older people, not the BBC’s. Age UK also thinks the Government should take back responsibility for a benefit that was introduced to tackle pensioner poverty. Will he do that? The Conservative Government have been responsible for these secret deals with the BBC that have significantly diminished its ability to serve the British public, so when the licence fee negotiations start in earnest next year, will he commit to a wholly transparent process involving Ofcom?