argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: International Affairs
Sue-Ellen Cassiana Braverman (Conservative, Centre-right): Despite some of the benefits that the UK has derived from its membership of the EU, overall, and overwhelmingly, our membership has had a corrosive effect on democracy. For decades, the political class in the UK has lacked the ability and the confidence to be bold for Britain. It has been emasculated by EU primacy. Clause 1, which repeals the European Communities Act, and clause 5, which brings to an end the primacy of EU law, constitute a welcome first step towards restoring parliamentary democracy to the United Kingdom Since the ECJ case of Costa v. ENEL in 1964 and the Factortame cases in the 1990s, our politicians and our courts have been robbed of their sovereignty, and of the freedom and independence to challenge, amend or override EU law and judgments, leading to an inherent insecurity in British politics. This has been partly fuelled by a sacrosanct belief in experts, a disproportionate desire for media headlines and an emphasis—an unjustified emphasis—on political correctness and polls. Moreover, it has been driven by the ultimate power grab, which is the one by the unaccountable and illegitimate EU. Whether in trade, immigration, tax policy, or agriculture and fisheries, the power to determine the direction of this country has been stolen from our Parliament by the EU That sums up the EU: its inherent lack of legitimacy and accountability has diminished the potency of UK politics, leaving us with an exaggerated sense of powerlessness, and a dulling of politics through a spiral of technocratic and administrative decisions. Whether we talk about trade, immigration or our courts, the EU has killed off innovation in politics. Through this Brexit Bill, we have a chance to reignite the ability to inspire and enthral through politics, law and justice, and that is why I am delighted to speak in its support The Bill is an essential piece of legislation and an integral part of the machinery that will make Brexit a reality and ensure that this Parliament rightly and faithfully honours the democratic instruction sent us by the British people in last year’s referendum. The reason why it is a prerequisite of Brexit and fundamental for this historic chapter in our country’s history is that it will achieve the central objective of those who voted leave in the EU referendum and of those who, although they did not support it, have come to accept the vote for taking back control of our laws. The Bill’s objective is to transcribe EU law in UK law, so that this Parliament—a beacon of democracy emulated around the world—will regain its power over whether and how such laws should apply.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: International Affairs
Sue-Ellen Cassiana Braverman (Conservative, Centre-right): Through the Bill, our UK Parliament will regain authority over whether and how EU law will apply, and that is what honouring the result of the EU referendum is all about This Bill is necessary to ensure an orderly Brexit. The alternative does not bear thinking about. It is chaos, uncertainty and the abrupt evaporation of laws overnight, leaving us with nothing but a legal vacuum on the day after we have left the EU. That is what those who oppose the Bill are asking for, which is why I urge Labour Members to reconsider their position in opposition to the Bill and to vote for the pragmatism and necessity that it encapsulates A vote against the Bill is a vote in breach of voters’ trust and a vote for chaos for two reasons. First, the fact that the Bill has the effect of placing all current EU law into UK law is eminently sensible. Many of the laws will work in UK law without amendment, but some will need to be amended. There has been much criticism of the Henry VIII powers, but it is exaggerated and unjustified. The Hansard Society has calculated that of the 23 Government Bills in the 2015-16 parliamentary Session, 16 contained a total of 96 Henry VIII powers to amend or repeal primary legislation. Of those powers, 65 were included in Bills when they were introduced, and a further 31 were added to Bills during their progress through Parliament. There is therefore nothing alien or sinister about such powers, and to suggest otherwise is unjustified and disproportionate The Opposition have proposed no alternative. If there were individual votes to amend the EU laws, that would mean an individual vote on all 20,000 EU laws. If we conducted the process in that way, it would take over 200 days of parliamentary time, sitting 24 hours a day, seven days a week. An alternative would be to have a debate on every page of the law, but that would mean debates on over 600,000 pages of law. That leaves us with the only option of abandoning all EU law, which, as I have said, would mean legal chaos. Secondly, the Bill is important because it repeals the European Communities Act 1972, which gives force to judgments from the European Court of Justice and regulations without any further need for scrutiny by Parliament. That is the biggest power grab to which this country has been subject. Politics should be less about mechanistic procedure and more about the big vision; less about systematic management and more about creating on a grand scale with radical thinking, setting a blueprint for society. Brexit is a birth and a chance for a new beginning, not a death. Now there is a chance for those who campaigned to leave the EU and those who see the opportunity ahead, even if they did not campaign for it, to unite in painting that bold and bright vision of the future of our country and of the world. For those who cannot or will not see that, the politics of yesterday may be good enough for them, but not for me.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Charles Kerr (Conservative, Centre-right): I rise with enthusiasm to support the main principles of the Bill and its Second Reading. We have heard many excellent contributions and I would like to express my appreciation for the quality of this debate. To me, the debate comes down to something rather straightforward. When this House passed the Bill to hold an in/out referendum on the United Kingdom’s continued membership of the European Union, it entered a compact with the British people to act on their direct instruction. This Second Reading debate is about main principles. The first principle of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on the day we leave the European Union. A vote against that principle will be an attempt to set aside the result of the referendum and a base disrespect to the British people—it is as uncomplicated as that The second principle of the Bill is to convert EU law, taken as a whole, into UK law so that we can have a stable and functioning statute book on the day we leave the European Union. A vote against that principle would create the potential for instability and uncertainty, because we would have a broken statute book on the day we leave the European Union. It is no more complicated than that. This is a grand moment for British pragmatism Sincerely held concerns have been and are being raised about the Bill’s so-called Henry VIII powers. A number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have made positive suggestions that deserve the careful consideration of those on the Government Front Bench—[Interruption.] Thanks for the prompt. There is clearly a willingness on the part of the Government both to listen and to accommodate, and I fully expect them to be as good as their word. That said, I find it strange that some of those who object so strenuously to the so-called Henry VIII powers and the Bill seem not to have had many concerns over the past 44 years when Governments have been expected to enact a steady stream of EU laws and regulations that neither the Government nor Parliament have had the power to change or the capacity to scrutinise properly.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Charles Kerr (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend’s excellent point brings me neatly to the nationalists, who have called the Bill a power grab and a threat to the devolution settlement. It is no such thing. They cannot name one power that the UK Government intend to grab back from Holyrood.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Government Operations
Stephen Charles Kerr (Conservative, Centre-right): The answer to the first question is no. I remind the hon. and learned lady, however, that it was a Conservative Government who passed new powers to the Scottish Government, and there is no evidence, other than in the feverish imagination of SNP Members, that the UK Government intend to grab back any devolved powers To the contrary: I have lost count of the number of times Ministers have said in this House and elsewhere that they anticipate that the Scottish Parliament will have new enhanced powers because of Brexit. The irony is that the SNP, if it ever got its way, would hand those very powers back to Brussels. The SNP Government have spent the past 10 years power grabbing for themselves from local government and local communities, and their incessant centralising of power has undermined the very fabric of local democracy in Scotland. Just a few days ago, Scottish Ministers, against all advice, including from their own reporter, ran roughshod over local democracy in Stirling by foisting a huge commercial development on scenic greenbelt at Park of Keir. Many of my constituents—
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Law and Crime
Mark Gino Francois (Conservative, Centre-right): No, people will not be able to go to the ECJ—the hon. Gentleman is right about that—but they will be able to go to the British Supreme Court, just down the road from here, where decisions that affect them and their countrymen will be taken by British judges according to British law. What is wrong with that?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: International Affairs
Chris Ian Brian Mynott Philp (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady should know, then, that the Bill expressly prohibits these powers being used in any way to interfere with human rights law. She will have seen that the Bill expressly precludes her concerns The Scottish National party is going into paroxysms of apoplexy at the merest hint that London might exercise even a smidgen of the powers currently exercised in Brussels. I have not heard a single word of protest in the two years I have been a Member about those self-same powers being exercised in Brussels. Where were the SNP’s shouts of indignation then Everyone seems to agree that the Bill is necessary. No doubt there are points of detail that can and will be improved on, but anyone who is serious about implementing the British public’s decision should vote for Second Reading this evening.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: International Affairs
Mark Gino Francois (Conservative, Centre-right): Reference was made earlier to the Lisbon treaty and, like me, as he was in the House at the time, the hon. Gentleman will remember debating it night after night. There is a fundamental difference between that and the Bill, in that the Bill can be amended in Committee or on Report, whereas we could not change a single dot or comma of the Lisbon treaty.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: International Affairs
Kenneth Clarke (Conservative, Centre-right): Throughout the discussion on this Bill, it has been entirely uncontroversial for everybody to agree that a Bill is required to ensure continuity and certainty for existing EU legal arrangements, putting them into British law straight away for the future. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that when we move to the Committee stage in a few weeks, or probably about a month, the Government will produce substantial amendments to address what this whole debate has been about: the huge extension to the Government of discretionary powers that go far beyond the limited ambition my right hon. Friend is describing? I would prefer him and the Government to come back, address those issues and turn this Bill into one that resembles the reassuring descriptions of it that keep being given by the Secretary of State for Brexit and by him—two members of the Government whose word I would actually accept implicitly, but in the political world I have known Governments to go back on reassuring words quite frequently.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: International Affairs
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): I wonder whether what my right hon. Friend says can actually be correct. The feature of the Bill is that it removes the right of challenge for breach of the general principles of EU law. As a consequence, rights that currently exist and are exercised—indeed, were exercised by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union—will in future not be available. That is an important point that the Government will have to consider during the passage of the Bill.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: International Affairs
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): For the most part, those rights are used when they are given effect through specific items of European Union legislation, rather than in the abstract. My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point, and it is true that after exit it will not be possible for an individual to bring a free-standing claim, or for the courts to quash an administrative action or disapply legislation on the grounds that it breaks one or more of the general principles of European law, except as those principles have been preserved by the Bill—which will be the case if those principles have been given effect through a specific piece of legislation. That position flows logically from the decision by the electorate to leave the European Union, because that does involve separating the United Kingdom’s legal order from the European Union’s legal order The issue of devolution has been the subject of much debate among Scottish Members of Parliament—
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: International Affairs
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): It strikes me that there have been constructive comments and suggestions from a range of Members, including my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Rushcliffe and for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) and the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). Between Second Reading and Committee, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and his team intend to discuss those suggestions further with colleagues on both sides of the House We accept that we need to get the balance right—for example, between negative and affirmative procedure and between debates in Committee and debates on the Floor of the House—and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has already pledged, we wish to discuss further the issue first raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) about linking the timing of SIs under clause 9 to the date of debates on the withdrawal agreement, although we will have to bear in mind the possibility that that agreement might be concluded only very shortly before the date of exit.
Changes to the Number 23 bus route, Erewash — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Transportation
Margaret Ann Throup (Conservative, Centre-right): I rise on behalf of residents in my constituency, and in particular those living in Cotmanhay and Kirk Hallam, who have been adversely affected by recent changes to the No. 23 bus route operated by trentbarton. The petition has been signed by nearly 300 local residents, and I am delighted to present it to the House this evening for consideration The petition declares: The petition of residents of Erewash, Declares that the number 23 bus route operated by Trent Motor Traction Company Ltd and Barton Buses Ltd (known as trentbarton), and which currently serves the community of Cotmanhay including Church Street and Nelson Street, acts as a vital lifeline for many local residents as their only way of accessing Ilkeston town centre and Ilkeston Community Hospital; further the proposed amalgamation of the number 21 and 23 bus routes will mean that residents living on and around Church Street and Nelson Street will be negatively impacted as they will have to walk a considerable distance to Cotmanhay Road in order to access an alternative bus service; further the residents will no longer have access to a bus service that calls at Ilkeston Community Hospital; and further that these new arrangements will also negatively impact the residents of Kirk Hallam The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Chief Executive of trentbarton to reconsider the proposed changes and to reinstate the original number 23 bus route And the petitioners remain, etc [P002053]
Warwick Road, Carlisle — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Transportation
Andrew John Stevenson (Conservative, Centre-right): I would like to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Warwick Road, Carlisle. Only a few houses are directly affected, but more than 5,000 people have supported the petition on behalf of the residents at the top end of Warwick Road The petition states: The petition of residents of Warwick Road, Carlisle, Declares that they are against proposals from Cumbria County Council to construct a third lane along a section of Warwick Road, Carlisle The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Cumbria County Council to withdraw proposals to construct a third lane along a section of Warwick Road, Carlisle, as it will provide none of the stated benefits to the city and cause an unacceptable negative impact on the quality of life of Warwick Road residents And the petitioners remain, etc [P002054]
School Funding: North Northumberland — House of Commons, 2017-09-11
Topic: Education
Anne-Marie Belinda Trevelyan (Conservative, Centre-right): That is exactly the sort of vision that we hope to have in Northumberland. Given the enormous expanse of territory, the challenge for our children is the need to spend hours travelling in order to achieve the flexibility and the breadth of education to which those living in a city, or even in a less sparsely populated county, might have easier access If children are indeed to fulfil their dreams, we will need departmental leadership from the Minister to help Northumberland County Council host the new concept. I understand that education action zones used to exist, and I also understand that £77 million has recently been allocated to education output areas, but that will be directed towards the development of education in cities. Northumberland, our most sparsely populated English county, needs such investment too I have always been a believer in nudge politics. We humans always respond better to encouragement and carrots than to chastisement and sticks. However, if long-term outcomes for the children of Northumberland are to be as good as they can be, we need university voices to be heard in rural communities where aspiration to a top-quality education, whether it involves apprenticeships in engineering or university studies in the sciences—I speak as a mathematician, and I apologise for the bias—are still not always understood or valued. What is considered elitist and far beyond can become within reach: indeed, education for life can become a passion for all those children. The 21st century, in which they will live, demands that we accept our responsibility to give them the tools and the passion to learn, as well as all the standard basic skills. That should be taken more seriously than it has been in the most northern county of England for too long I want to see an educational leadership framework that gives each and every one of my schools the nudge that they need to rise to the educational challenges ahead by supporting them with a coherent educational framework of which everyone is a part. There would be no rivalries, no catchment area battles, no school partnership lines in the sand, but an overarching educational Northumberland nudge partnership. As the Minister himself said in a speech last week, "a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever does." The teachers and councillors of my beautiful, unique and most sparsely populated of English counties wish to do exactly that for the children in their care.
Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-03-24
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move amendment 2, page 1, line 5, leave out from "after" to the end of the subsection and insert— "any members of the public who are registered to vote in local elections in the United Kingdom" This amendment would further extend the public access to local audit documents under section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 in the interest of transparency and accountability.
Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-03-24
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher Robert Chope (Conservative, Centre-right): In moving amendment 2, we are mindful that this is a week in which there has been an attack on our parliamentary democracy, and we mourn Keith Palmer and the others who were the victims of that terrorist. This Bill and these amendments deal not with parliamentary democracy, but with local democracy, and their purpose is to strengthen further our local democracy in the United Kingdom I will also speak to amendments 3 and 4, which extend the range of individuals who are able to benefit from the powers under section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014—my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) is seeking to achieve that in her Bill. I shall also speak to amendments 5, 6, 7 and 9, which look in detail at what we mean by the expression "journalist" in clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has an amendment dealing with the definition of journalistic material, which I shall leave him to address Amendment 9 deals with the arrangements for exercising the right to inspect, and amendment 11 would extend the period within which such rights can be exercised beyond 30 days. Amendment 12 would enable documents, which are claimed to be commercially confidential, to be inspected but not copied. Amendment 13 would extend the right to inspect past contracts, and amendment 14 would leave the definition of commercial confidentiality unaltered in common law. Finally, amendment 10, which is arguably the most radical of these amendments, would extend the right of inspection beyond local government to the audit of accounts of any health service body as defined in the 2014 Act It will be obvious from that brief summary that all the amendments are faithful to the long title of the Bill, which is to extend public access to certain local audit documents under section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 My amendments are also inspired by recent experiences of how secrecy in local government is undermining the ability of members of the public properly to scrutinise what is happening and to hold councils to account. They also seek to address some of the issues raised on Second Reading on 25 November.