argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-11
Topic: Other
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): My message to the great British public, who have showed their support for Labour on this, is to get out and vote Labour. That is the message. The other point is that the Minister’s hon. Friends have been waving an iPad around. I suggest they get on their parliamentary iPads and do their work.
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-11
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Ruth Stephanie Nicole George (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is terrible that more than half of small businesses fail in the first five years, largely due to lack of capital investment, as he says? Does he agree that it is time for more radical ideas, as the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, and that Labour’s proposal for a business investment bank would help those companies?
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Dawn Petula Butler (Labour, Centre-left): Besides my being offended by the use of the term "miracle", which does not describe anything that the hon. Lady has described, I want to say that many businesses are not investing due to Brexit. Are zero-hours contracts included in her "miracle"?
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-11
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Peter Christopher Dowd (Labour, Centre-left): I referred earlier to "Freeing Britain to Compete", and I have the reference here on my iPad. It said that we claimed "that this regulation is all necessary. They seem to believe that without it banks could steal our money, bakers would put nails in our bread…and builders would construct houses that fell down when the wind blew." Does the hon. Lady agree that they might not have blown down but they burned down because of deregulation?
Shooting of Abdulkarim Boudiaf — House of Commons, 2017-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
Naseem Akhtar Shah (Labour, Centre-left): The Macpherson report will be 20 years old next year, and does my right hon. Friend share my concern that we still do not have the diversity in the workforce, particularly in the police, that we need so that communities are represented?
Leaving the EU: Devolution — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Other
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on devolving powers to Scotland as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU; What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on devolving powers to Scotland as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU; What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on devolving powers to Scotland as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU
Lesley Margaret Langan Laird (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome that clarification, but the question was really "Why could the Secretary of State not have presented those amendments the other night?" Throughout Monday’s debate his Scottish colleagues acknowledged that there were deficiencies in the Bill, but were unable to name one. Will the Secretary of State now do what they could not? Will he tell us first what deficiencies there are in the Bill, and secondly why they voted for the Bill to be passed unamended when they all knew that it was fundamentally flawed?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Other
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your remarks today have been extremely clear. For Members who are not on the Committee—I first put questions to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on 5 September—would you expect a letter from those Members in line with chapter 8 of "Erskine May", or do you believe that that is a matter solely for the Select Committee to conclude? I would be grateful for your judgment on that.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Other
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): My sincere apologies Does my hon. Friend agree that we were all affected by the troubles, and that this is an opportunity to remind the House that we cannot go back to those days? This debate is so important for that reason.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): Indeed. I might have taken some Ministers at their word in the past, but there are others who would love to take back powers or to act without reference either to this Chamber or to the Chambers of the devolved legislatures, as we have seen on a whole series of issues. Ultimately we would end up in the Supreme Court, wasting lots of taxpayers’ money and in dispute. That cannot be the way to keep stability in the constitutional settlement My amendments are in no way intended to wreck the Bill or to undermine the process that the Government have set out, but they are absolutely essential to maintaining a stable settlement with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The events of the past 36 hours have shown why the Government have simply not paid enough serious attention to the unintended consequences of their various grand rhetorical statements. I will therefore seek to press amendment 158 to a vote at the appropriate time.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): I am not going to woo the hon. Gentleman, but I thank him for giving way. Of course, Henry VIII and the Tudors originate from Wales—I am sure he knows about Tudor/Tudur and all the connections there. Given that we heard the Secretary of State for Scotland talking about amendments to clause 11, if we do not get the necessary changes to clause 10, would the hon. Gentleman welcome votes on amendments 158 and, possibly, 159, which I have tabled, to make sure that the Government cannot just amend the Scotland and Wales Acts willy-nilly?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Other
Jenny Chapman (Labour, Centre-left): I am just making it very clear to the Government and all other observers that this matter is not something on which the Labour party is prepared to compromise. That point may need to be made again as we proceed, but it absolutely ought to be made now too.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Other
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has told us that he is not going to accept new clause 70. Timing is important, too. Does he realise the signal that will be sent out if Ministers ask their party to vote against it at the end of this debate?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): In all honesty, no one in the House who has ever been a Minister or has had any responsibility at all understands what the Minister is talking about. Minister after Minister has accepted amendments with which they agreed, then asked their draftsmen to sort out any technical issues. Instead of doing the sensible thing and doing that, the Minister and Government Whips—if, as I hope, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) pushes the new clause to a vote—will ask their MPs to vote against the principles of the Good Friday agreement. That is how it will be seen by people who look at votes in the House.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jenny Chapman (Labour, Centre-left): I am slightly concerned that the Minister will sit down before he has had a chance to make any comment on amendment 338, in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which would prevent Ministers from legislating in any way incompatible with the Good Friday agreement. I am sorry to refer him back to that, but I am concerned that he has not yet said anything about this amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): The cross-party amendments would not have been tabled, or indeed recommended by the Welsh and Scottish Governments, if everything was hunky-dory and fine in the negotiations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. We got some movement from the Secretary of State for Scotland this morning. Will the Under-Secretary of State also move on amendment 158, which stands in my name, and perhaps on some of the other concerns that the Welsh and Scottish Governments have set out so clearly?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. Mr Paisley, you know the rules on using Members’ names, and you did promise me that this was your final point. I think "Finally" is now here. You have two seconds before I call the next speaker.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): We are under some time pressure, so I would rather continue The agreement is also important in what it says about identity, and I wish to stress this point. It gets to the heart of the old problem that dogged Northern Ireland politics, which was the view that if one community gained, the other had necessarily lost. The tyranny of identity politics can be that it forces people to choose between multiple and overlapping identities—are they one thing or the other? When it comes to identity, the genius of the Good Friday agreement is that it does not force people to choose. Instead, it talks of "the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both" Let us not forget the "or both", as it is very important. It gives everyone in Northern Ireland an equal status and a legitimate sense of belonging.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Immigration
Conor Patrick McGinn (Labour, Centre-left): I am an MP from Northern Ireland, but not a Northern Ireland MP, which makes speaking in debates such as this one rather peculiar, because everyone from Northern Ireland has a background or perceived affiliation. I find, when I say something that nationalists agree with, that they say, "Well, he hasn’t forgotten where he has come from." When I say something with which they disagree, they say, "He should be ashamed of himself, given where he has come from." Similarly with Unionists, when I say something with which they agree, they say, "Fair play to him, given where he is from." When I say something with which they disagree, they say, "Well, what would you expect?" I have a knack of annoying everyone, which I hope to continue in the two minutes available to me I want to make a couple of quick substantive points, then say something about the Good Friday agreement. First, the only people seeking to change the border, or who have proposed a fundamental change to the border, are those who propose that we leave the single market and the customs union. It was the UK Government who fundamentally altered the nature of the border when they suggested that, not the Irish Government. The principle of consent is firmly enshrined: Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom until the majority of the people there decide otherwise. Notwithstanding that, there is a unique position, because people born in Northern Ireland have a right to Irish citizenship by virtue of their birth there. My constituents in St Helens do not have a right to be Irish because they are born in St Helens, nor do people in Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow or Cardiff.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Matthew Toby Perkins (Labour, Centre-left): It is not surprising that the public were surprised. We may have accepted that much of what was promised during the referendum might fall apart subsequently, but even after the event the Government were telling us a very different tale. My hon. Friend will remember being with me on the International Trade Committee when the Secretary of State came along and said, "I don’t expect us to pay anything to leave." My constituents heard that said not just during the referendum, when they might expect to hear things that were somewhat fanciful, but many months later. The Government were saying, "We won’t be paying anything to leave." What we are hearing now is very different.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Other
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): Order. The right hon. Lady must make short interventions. If the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) wishes to give way, he can do so again, but the right hon. Lady must make short interventions.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): Yes, it is true that the benefits are not simply financial. There are social benefits as well as economic benefits, and environmental benefits, and general welfare benefits that we have had in terms of the stability of the continent for such a prolonged period of time. Those benefits should not just be idly swept away; they should certainly be assessed, and the Cabinet should certainly be discussing them.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Immigration
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): We rightly debate all the figures, including the infamous £350 million on the side of the bus, but do we not also need to look at the real impact on the ground? The fact is that we are now having to recruit new customs and border officials to deal with the potential consequences of Brexit instead of spending Home Office budgets on new police officers.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. and learned Gentleman, who considers these matters in great detail, will understand that this matter relates to clause 12, which details financial provisions. Clearly it would be impossible for the Government to bring forward such a motion that did not have the clarity that the House expects. In my generosity, I drafted the new clause so as to make it as broad and flexible as possible. Any information would be better than no information. I know that he is urging me to be firmer with the Government on the issue—a manuscript amendment is always possible, so I look forward to that. Let us give the Government a chance to accept the new clause, because it is perfectly reasonable.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): More or less, and that that relationship may never match, even partially, the arrangements that we have at present If my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will bear with me, we then have to imagine that we have just gone past exit day. We might have a heads of terms framework. We then, of course, enter a two-year transition period, if we are lucky. How much will we have to pay during that transition phase? The notion that our divorce bill is the end of the money is, of course, not right. I anticipate that, during the transition, if we are on the exact same terms as now, which is the impression we have from the Government, we will obviously have to continue paying into the club for those years of transition If we want to get any deal at all, especially one that is better than Canada’s comprehensive economic and trade agreement, we will also have to pay into the club for future years. If we are lucky enough to get the inferior arrangement that is the Norway deal, which is certainly better than absolutely nothing but is not as good as the single market and customs union membership we have right now, we will have to pay to be members of the club. The idea that the full benefits of Brexit are to come is a fallacy. The Norwegian people pay £140 per head each year for the Norway arrangement. We pay about £210 to £220 per head per year, so roughly two thirds of that cost will continue, for the inferior relationship. These are costs to our taxpayer that they need to know about, so that they can make assessments of the these things.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): Yes. All hon. Members, not just the Government—there are such hon. Members even on the Labour Benches—will want to commit public resources to all sorts of things, and they need to recognise that if the cost is £60 billion, that is not something to be sniffed at. In a couple of years’ time the deficit is projected to be about £30 billion a year, so we are talking about the equivalent of two years of deficit to be added, presumably, to the national debt at that point in time. That is all notwithstanding what happens to our wider economic circumstances. These things should not just be dismissed We should be putting the House of Commons at the centre of this process and not treating it as a peripheral part of the Brexit arrangements. That is why this new clause is so important. Brexit is a costly exercise and Parliament needs to have the chance to properly reflect on it. A potential divorce bill of £1,000 for every man, woman and child in this country certainly should not just be brushed aside. When we ask ourselves what we are getting for this arrangement, we see that we are getting the chance to rip up the finest free trade agreement—a frictionless, tariff-free agreement—of anywhere in the world, for the chance to have something inferior. The current path we are on is not about taking back control; this is about losing control. The idea that Parliament should simply step to one side and agree to have control taken away from it is not acceptable to me and to very many hon. Members. This new clause would at least drag Brexit back into the sunlight and let the public hold those responsible to account.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Wesley Paul William Streeting (Labour, Centre-left): I entirely agree with the points that the hon. Lady is making. It was interesting that this afternoon in the Treasury Committee, the Chancellor acknowledged that the cost to the UK of settling any outstanding debts with the European Union will be small beer compared with the costs if we do not get a good long-term trading relationship with the EU. There are two issues: the short-term cost and the impact on the scorecard, and the long-term cost to the economy and the damage that that will do if we cannot move on to phase 2 of these talks.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I had not considered that, and the right hon. Gentleman may well have a point. I would be interested to know whether that is indeed the case. That interesting point is certainly worth pursuing, and I would welcome it if he expanded on that later. Secondly, amendment 153 states that Ministers cannot bring forward regulations for the purpose of "increasing a fee or charge to an amount larger than an amount charged by an EU entity for the performance of the relevant function on exit day." Let me take the example my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) mentioned. The European Medicines Agency does very important work, and it charges the industry for that work. I am suggesting that the secondary legislation powers in schedule 4 should not be used to introduce a charge for the same function that is higher than the one currently charged by the European Medicines Agency. There may well be a loss of economies of scale in leaving the European Medicines Agency, and it may well be that undertaking that function purely for the UK will be a less efficient process than doing it EU-wide, as the European Medicines Agency does, but I do not think the secondary legislation powers in the schedule should be used to impose on industry or any charge payer a fee that is higher than the one currently charged by the EU entity I accept that there may well in due course need to be some higher fees or charges than those currently levied by EU entities, because the process may well be less efficient when carried out at a UK-only level, but I do not think the secondary legislation powers should be used for that purpose. If Ministers want to bring forward a proposal to impose a higher fee or charge, they should do so through the proper parliamentary process, with scrutiny by this House, not through secondary legislation powers.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): One of the points made to me by those in the industry is that if these fees and charges shoot up, that will have an impact on their competitiveness, which is the last thing we want. Does that not reinforce my right hon. Friend’s point?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Housing
Martin David Whitfield (Labour, Centre-left): I want to speak in support of the new clause. I have listened to several hon. Members compare the purchase of houses and cars with Brexit. I have also heard Members point to the necessity of knowing exactly what we are buying. With such a large transaction looming, a simple figure is the least one should expect. Beyond that, however, I think it perfectly reasonable to ask how the figure was calculated. When I receive my bill in a restaurant, I expect to be able to see how much each item cost. I look at the bill, and then—hopefully—I pay. Alternatively, I dispute the bill, and say, "I was not taken with the main course." Similarly, if I am looking at cars, I may say, "This car is not worth that." If a survey has shown that there are serious problems with a house, I say, "I am not prepared to pay that: I expect you, the owner, to put it right first."
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Graham Eric Stringer (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the logic of the Lib Dems’ position—which they certainly did not put forward on Second Reading of the Bill that introduced the provisions for the referendum—is that we should have three referendums? In that way, it could be the best of three, or they could carry on until they got the result they wanted.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Other
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): Order. I am happy to call both hon. Members—indeed, I have no discretion not to call the hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and for Ilford South (Mike Gapes)—but I must point out that they have not been present since the start of the debate. I have no discretion on this matter, so I call Graham Stringer.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): To clarify a point, the 2015 Labour manifesto opposed a referendum; Labour was led then by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). Two weeks after the general election, we were whipped to vote for the piece of legislation that enabled that, and the Labour party did so. Did my hon. Friend think that we were wrong because it was not in our manifesto? We opposed a referendum in the manifesto
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): In future it may be necessary to do all sorts of things, but surely the powers in this Bill should not be used to impose new charges on businesses that are not being paid at the moment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Other
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is quite a lot of hubble and bubble from Members who have not been in the debate. Members who have been here for the past three hours wish to listen to the Minister’s response.