argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Burma — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): May I just give a little bit of advice to both Front Benchers? The speeches are meant to be 10 and five minutes. I think one was nearly 16 and the other was seven. I did not want to stop them, because this is a very important subject, but I would like us to keep to that in future.
Burma — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Immigration
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I echo the Minister’s tribute to the people and Government of Bangladesh for the generosity that has been shown to the Rohingya refugees. What realistic prospect does he see of any significant numbers of returns to Rakhine state in, say, the next 12 months? He was right to highlight the pernicious effects of the 1982 citizenship law. Does he see any realistic prospect of that being reformed, as he rightly proposed in his statement?
Burma — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Immigration
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the Minister’s statement. I especially commend his point that returns must be voluntary, but that, of course, means that they are very unlikely to happen. It is unrealistic to suggest that 700,000 traumatised people could be told, "Please go back to face the guns and the rapists that sent you away in the first place." There will be pressure—the Bangladeshi authorities, who I think have behaved admirably, will understandably want to see returns—but should it not be recognised that if there are to be returns, there must be security guarantees, and that those guarantees must be properly underwritten? They will not be for the short term; they will be for decades to come.
European Affairs — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Other
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): We could draw some interesting conclusions from the Conservative manifesto at the last election, but we all need to face facts and perhaps the Government need to change views in the cold light of those facts. I always find it interesting to take interventions from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he is still advising—
European Affairs — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Immigration
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification, but we are not seeking a customs union comparable with Turkey’s. We are seeking a comprehensive customs union which replicates the current arrangements that we enjoy with the EU Let us move on to another area. We need to be honest about the central issue on which many of those who campaigned to leave focused their campaign and which influenced the votes of many—immigration. Taking back control of our borders was a powerful promise, creating expectations that the Government really have no plan or intention to deliver. The Government have had control of non-EEA immigration for the past eight years and in every one of those years it was greater than EEA migration The Government know that things will not be changing significantly. Two weeks ago, that ardent Brexiteer, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, told the National Farmers Union that "agriculture needs access to foreign workers." He promised to maintain that access, for both seasonal and permanent workers. He was echoing the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, who said in Estonia last year that it will take "years and years" for British citizens to fill the employment gaps, and that in the meantime Estonians would be welcome to come to work in the UK. At Mansion House, the Prime Minister talked about a future labour mobility scheme with the EU The difficulties of squaring the expectations unleashed by the leave campaign with the interests of the economy are no doubt the reason why the Government have delayed the immigration White Paper, yet again, and do not look set to have a new system in place by the time we depart in March 2019.
European Affairs — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Immigration
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): We have always been clear—as indeed, have the Government—about the benefits of migration. That was not what the Leader of the Opposition said in Scotland. There is no evidence that migration drives down wages. There is an issue, which Labour would tackle—it has been in our manifesto for the past couple of elections—on the exploitation of European workers, and those from other countries, in the UK. We need tougher labour-market rules and enforcement to tackle those issues The Prime Minister was right to say in Munich and at Mansion House that she was ready to cross her red lines on the European Court of Justice in relation to security, because of the importance of security to this country. She is clearly right: security is vital. I think she was influenced by the fact that, as a former Home Secretary, she had an intimate understanding of the issues and recognised the consequences of failing to reach an accommodation. If security is vital to this country, as it is, is not the economy, too The Prime Minister was right to talk about hard truths, because the British people, whether they voted leave or remain, will not thank politicians who deliver a damaging Brexit on the basis of a false prospectus. The former Prime Minister John Major was right, too, when he said that it is right not only to speak truth to power, but to speak truth to the people. Let us face up to the hard facts: there will be no Brexit dividend for public services, as the Chancellor confirmed again on Tuesday; there will be no significant change to migration; there are no real red lines on the European Court of Justice; and there will be huge damage to the economy, according to the Government’s own analysis It does not have to be like that. If the Prime Minister had said, "This country voted to leave the European Union, but it was a close vote. It was a mandate to go, but not a mandate for a deep rupture", and if she had said, "We will leave, but stay close: in a customs union, as close as possible to the single market, a member of the agencies and partnerships that we have built together over 44 years", she would have had the overwhelming support of this House. Instead, she has let a tiny band of extreme Brexiteers in the European Research Group set the agenda. It is not too late: she could reach out to the majority of the House and the majority of the country to adopt a sensible approach—to adopt Labour’s approach—and I hope that she will.
European Affairs — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): There is a quote to place on the side of a big red bus, which I hope the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) will drive around the streets of Wokingham in the years to come—especially if we do end up with no deal, which he seems to be advocating is absolutely fine, and the UK crashes out of our long-standing alliance with our friends and nearest and greatest trading partners and we end up with, as the Treasury forecasts, a hit of 8% to our GDP by 2033.
European Affairs — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): It is very tempting to table a series of motions to keep extracting documents from the Government. For all the bluster of the Chancellor’s spring statement, I still regard the best documents published by the Treasury for quite some time, albeit reluctantly, to be the 30 PowerPoint slides that show, among other things, a £55 billion black hole in our public finances by 2033 if we opt for the middle scenario—the FTA-style scenario—and cuts to our public services that would result in the imposition of at least another decade or more of austerity. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) made an excellent speech and I say to him and my other Front-Bench colleagues that, having got the Labour party to support a customs union, the logic of all their arguments points to supporting retaining our participation in the single market, to avoid that austerity in years to come. I want to finish on the arguments relating to the single market. We need to remember that the UK is an 80% service sector economy. While being in the customs union is good for the 20% of the economy that is based on physical or manufactured goods, 80% of our economy is based on services. That is why the single market matters—because it applies particularly to trade in services. Many trades and services will not be tariffed, taxed or diminished—they may be banned altogether, particularly in the field of financial services, which the Financial Secretary mentioned in his opening remarks. Financial services alone represent 11% of our economy and contribute £66 billion in revenue to our Exchequer every single year. That £66 billion pays for the schools and hospitals in the constituencies of all hon. Members, but, again, the Government are scrabbling around and trying to find some sort of mutual agreement on financial services. Just getting it referenced in a flimsy, two-sided A4 document on the future trade relationship will definitely not suffice.
Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-11
Topic: Other
William Roffen Esterson (Labour, Centre-left): If the hon. Gentleman thinks that by doing so he can waste time and delay the debate on the next Bill, and that that is a reasonable way to proceed, he is entitled to his opinion. I will give him this: it is logical to do so for the reason he outlines, but I sense from Government Members that my suspicions have been confirmed. I understand there is a reason to have a discussion on some of the points raised in the amendments, but I think it is a shame if they are being used to delay or scupper the next Bill. It is very important that we get the notice period right and I am sure the Minister will pick up on that in his response.
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-11
Topic: Civil Rights
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. He will not be surprised to know that I intend to come back to the point that he makes in a few moments The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is not in his place, has been a solitary voice on this issue on the Conservative Benches, but he has been joined by a new generation of Members who are speaking out with real passion and commitment to delivering votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, in particular the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham)—who is in his place—and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). They have been a powerful voice for change on their Benches, and we should celebrate that across the House. It is no surprise that they represent Scottish constituencies, because Scotland is the perfect illustration of why the present settlement is simply not fit for purpose Some people ask why 16 and not 15? There are two reasons. First, I believe that education to GCSE level equips young people with all the knowledge and critical thinking that is needed. Secondly, we have the practical experience in other parts of the United Kingdom that shows that it simply works. A 16-year-old in Scotland can vote in referendums, in local elections, and for their preferred candidate standing for the Scottish Parliament, but they have no say in who gets sent to Westminster. I do not believe that there is a Member in this Chamber willing to make the argument that the capacity needed to pick a representative for this Parliament is in any way different to that needed for the Scottish Parliament or indeed a local authority.
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-11
Topic: Civil Rights
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, and reflects the sentiment that I have heard from teachers up and down the country since I launched this campaign Similarly, there is no evidence, and nobody making the argument that since 16 and 17-year-olds were enfranchised in Scotland, subsequent elections and the referendum were in any way negatively distorted as a result of their participation. Now that 16 and 17-year-olds are able to participate in Welsh elections and those in the Channel Islands, it leaves England and Northern Ireland as the democratic laggards of the United Kingdom. Britain has become a democratic postcode lottery and it needs fixing We should all pity the Tory candidate who has to speak at a hustings in a future English election. They will have to explain to a 17-year-old questioner why their party believes that English teenagers lack the intellect, experience and common sense of their Welsh and Scottish counterparts and cannot be trusted with the vote. It is politically unsustainable.
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-11
Topic: Other
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): I certainly agree. When I held a question and answer session with young people at Brighton Hove and Sussex sixth-form college recently, their questions were erudite, thoughtful and passionate, and rarely concerned their own lived experience in an educational establishment but addressed the big issues facing their community, our country and our planet.
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): I say to my hon. Friends that we have to engage with such points, and in fact I will come to them later in my speech. But I do not believe that we should link public health with voting. If we do, we need to do so in other areas too My Bill would not just enfranchise young people, it would embrace them. By auto-enrolling under-24s and placing polling stations in educational establishments, it would strive to get young people into the habit of voting. Evidence shows that it is a habit that lasts a lifetime.
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Tracy Lynn Brabin (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend agree with young people such as my constituents Hannah and Hawa, who have travelled to witness this debate and say that they have their own power and articulacy and should be listened to? They say that young people like them are ambitious about politics and want to express their views.
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-11
Topic: Civil Rights
Karen Elizabeth Lee (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am a new Member As is often the case, the turnout in the recent local elections was abysmally low. Does my hon. Friend agree that if younger people could vote, turnout might improve and the result might be more representative of what the general population thinks about issues?
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-11
Topic: Civil Rights
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes an important point, and if we had longer for this debate we would air such issues in more detail The Scottish experience in its referendum was that the proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds who voted was 20% greater than the turnout among 18, 19 and 20-year-olds. That shows that young people of 16 and 17 are enthusiastic, and when they get into the habit of voting and have the opportunity to do so, they grasp it with both hands.
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-11
Topic: Civil Rights
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): No, I am about to conclude These issues need to be ventilated, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) for putting them on the record. At the same time as Labour was raising the age limit on the activities she mentioned, it also said that it was open-minded on giving the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. I think we would find that this generation of 16 and 17-year-olds and this generation of young people are far more sensible about drink, drugs and gambling than previous generations, and I think their voice and experience should be heard as we make policies, not shut out We must think about what sort of democracy we want to be. Do we want to be a democracy that looks for reasons to exclude, or do we fundamentally want to be a democracy that looks to the future, and that judges citizens on their merits today rather than the prejudices of yesterday?
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Hugh Lawrence Gaffney (Labour, Centre-left): As a new MP visiting schools, I know that 16 to 18-year-olds are angry that they are not getting a vote. The election last year could mean no vote for five years, which has changed the age gap. These kids are upset, and I fully support the hon. Gentleman.
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-11
Topic: Other
Danielle Rowley (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way and for his support. As a fellow Scottish Member, does he agree that young people in our constituencies often feel more disconnected from their MP than from their councillors or MSP because they can vote for them?
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-11
Topic: Civil Rights
James McMahon (Labour, Centre-left): That is the point, is it not? If young people in Scotland already have the right to vote and if young people in Wales will soon have the right to vote, and if we believe in a United Kingdom, it is right that we have a united democracy in the United Kingdom, too.
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-11
Topic: Civil Rights
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that, as is evident, those people in our society who are most socially excluded would be more included if they could vote at the ages of 16 and 17?
Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement) Bill — House of Commons, 2018-05-11
Topic: Other
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When we tried to bring this matter to a vote with the last private Member’s Bill on the subject, you stated that you felt more time was need to debate this issue. Could you advise me on how much more time you think is needed to debate this issue before this House will get a vote on it?
Homelessness — House of Commons, 2018-03-12
Topic: Housing
Lucy Maria Powell (Labour, Centre-left): The rising level of homelessness in Manchester is the biggest issue that people raise with me on the doorstep and elsewhere. All the good work that we are doing to rehouse people does not matter when there are too many people coming through the system at the other end. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with other Departments, especially the Department for Work and Pensions, about stopping people becoming homeless in the first place? The situation is getting completely out of control.
Homelessness — House of Commons, 2018-03-12
Topic: Housing
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): Exeter has suffered a terrible increase in homelessness and rough sleeping since 2010, although strenuous efforts by its Labour council have led to a reduction in rough sleeping over the past two years. Will the Secretary of State and Government colleagues revisit the decisions to cut supported living and public health grants to local authorities, which fund alcohol and drug treatment programmes, because that is hampering local authorities’ attempts to tackle this problem?
Homeowners: Mortgage Costs — House of Commons, 2018-03-12
Topic: Housing
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): At the end of this month, the Government are taking away mortgage support from 110,000 people, and only 7,000 so far have applied for the loan that replaces that scheme. What do the Government think that the other 103,000 people are going to do on 2 April?
Help To Buy Scheme — House of Commons, 2018-03-12
Topic: Housing
Gareth Thomas (Labour, Centre-left): My constituents, some of whom have been on the wrong end of aggressive behaviour by Persimmon, are concerned to know that since Help to Buy was introduced, the biggest private house builders have increased house prices by up to 10%, with almost all of that banked as profit and much of it paid out in senior managers’ enormous bonus payments. Should not the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues be doing more to tame the aggressive behaviour of developers such as Persimmon, rather than subsidising them through Help to Buy?
Help To Buy Scheme — House of Commons, 2018-03-12
Topic: Housing
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister will know that some 10% of those on the Help to Buy scheme earn over £80,000 a year. Even in London, they are people who can afford to buy without this taxpayer subsidy. In the light of the Secretary of State’s earlier comments about responsibility to the taxpayer, will he contrast the poorest homeowners who will lose help with mortgage interest with these heavily subsidised, well-off people up and down the country?
Help To Buy Scheme — House of Commons, 2018-03-12
Topic: Housing
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Why does the Secretary of State not wake up? So many people in my constituency and throughout the country know that this Government have failed to deliver enough houses to buy and enough to rent. The fact is that there are so many nimbys sitting on the Government Benches—he is speaking to one of them—that Ministers do not have the courage to do anything about it.
New Homes — House of Commons, 2018-03-12
Topic: Housing
Questions: Figures for York show that no new social housing has been commissioned under the current council for the last three years, except for older people’s accommodation, where there has been a net loss. The right to buy has made things worse. When, under the Government’s new planning framework, will the council be forced to build social housing in York?; Bristol has the highest rate of office-to-residential accommodation conversions outside London, and the permitted development rights scheme means that that does not have to involve any affordable housing element. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that councils such as Bristol can insist that affordable housing is built in our city centre?
Helen Elizabeth Hayes (Labour, Centre-left): The previous Conservative Mayor of London set up the London housing bank, a loan scheme so restrictive that housing providers could not borrow from it. Will the Secretary of State explain why, instead of responding to requests from the current Mayor of London over the past 18 months to remove some of the restrictions on this scheme to enable much-needed affordable homes to be built, he has decided to withdraw the funding for affordable homes altogether? Will he also explain how it is that the first the Mayor’s office heard of this was via an article in The Huffington Post?
Local Authority Plans — House of Commons, 2018-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Mann (Labour, Centre-left): Yes, but let us look at this consultation from last week. According to the Government, neighbourhood plans can be overturned by local councils above them, and—above them—local council plans can be overturned by the Secretary of State and his faceless bureaucrats. What is wrong in this country with freedom and democracy, with local people making the decisions effectively, fairly and democratically? Is this Joe Stalin or English democracy that this Government are forcing upon us?