argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Liberation of Mosul — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: International Affairs
Nia Rhiannon Griffith (Labour, Centre-left): The horror that Daesh has inflicted on the people of Mosul since it captured the city in June 2014 is unimaginable: women killed for not wearing full Islamic veils and gay men thrown from buildings. We fully support the operation to liberate the city, because Daesh, in its evil ideology, must be defeated wherever it emerges. I say that not only to protect the people of Iraq and Syria who have suffered such a great deal, but to protect our citizens here in the UK from the global threat posed by Daesh I appreciate the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). Although I fully accept that he cannot divulge the operational details on the Floor of the House, I ask him to set out in greater detail the full extent of the RAF’s involvement in the future, and how he intends to keep this House informed A number of forces are assisting with this important offensive, including militia groups and paramilitary figures, but there is concern about what would happen if some of these groups were to go into the city. What assurances has the Secretary of State had from the Iraqi authorities that, as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), indicated earlier, it is only the Iraqi army and Iraqi police who will enter Mosul? We expect this offensive to last weeks and possibly months, but, once it has been completed, there will be a need to secure and defend Mosul to ensure that Daesh is driven out for good and that the city does not descend into sectarian fighting. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what preparations are being made to protect the citizens and to rebuild the city, including the city’s infrastructure On the humanitarian situation, the United Nations has warned: "In a worst-case scenario, up to 1 million people could be displaced" as a result of this offensive. Will the Secretary of State set out in greater detail what humanitarian assistance the UK will be providing, not just in the immediate term, but in the longer term, to support any displaced people We stand in solidarity against Daesh and its wicked ideology, and with the brave armed service personnel who will be assisting vitally in this important campaign.
Liberation of Mosul — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: International Affairs
John Derek Twigg (Labour, Centre-left): First, on the Secretary of State’s point about driving ISIS out of Iraq, what assurances can he give the House that we will not see a repeat of the situation that followed the surge in 2006-07, which would allow ISIS to re-emerge from the deserts and move into Syria? What steps has he taken to stop that, working with the coalition partners? Secondly, when the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and I were in Iraq a couple of years ago, we were appalled by the dearth of intelligence. Is he satisfied that there have been significant improvements in intelligence on the ground?
Liberation of Mosul — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: International Affairs
Michael John Gapes (Labour, Centre-left): This conflict is taking place in a globalised world with social media. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to send out the very clear message that, although we have not seen the crimes and atrocities carried out inside Mosul by Daesh, terrible things will be portrayed from this conflict, which could take weeks or months, and many people will die, but that is a necessary part of saving the world and particularly of protecting Muslims around the world, who are dying as a result of the horrors carried out by this caliphate cult?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Government Operations
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Public Accounts Committee has summoned witnesses from the Department for Communities and Local Government to come before it tomorrow to explain reports that the troubled families programme has not been achieving its aims. Since 5 October, my Committee has been asking the Department to release six evaluation reports on the scheme. After much delay, they were finally published on the Department’s website at 6 o’clock yesterday evening. The reports amount to 800 pages of evidence. I am very concerned that, with the tardy release of that important information, the Government are trying to obfuscate proper parliamentary scrutiny of an important Government flagship programme and the money spent on it I seek your support and guidance, Mr Speaker, on how we can ensure that Ministers are reminded of the importance of providing proper information to this House so that we can carry out our task for citizens and taxpayers in scrutinising the Government’s business.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Kelvin Peter Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State has talked about providing appropriate funding for the BBC to make sure that it is funded well. At the same time, the Government have inappropriately imposed on the BBC the costs of free licences for the over-75s and of overseas monitoring for the security services and the Foreign Office. What does she have to say to that?
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State has just said that the new royal charter will maintain the BBC’s independence, but I draw her attention to paragraph 4 of the draft agreement that she laid before the House last month, which states: "By entering into this Agreement, the BBC has…assumed obligations which restrict, to some extent, its future freedom of action." How can that possibly be consistent with what she has just said about its independence?
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Maria Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Secretary of State not understand the difference between appointments to a unitary board that has overall editorial control over the BBC and appointments to a system of trustees or governors who do not have such editorial control?
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Government Operations
Maria Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Given the high number of extra roles and duties that Ofcom is taking on, will the Secretary of State undertake to the House today to ensure it is properly remunerated and given enough resource to do the extra job it will now have to do?
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Ian Colin Lucas (Labour, Centre-left): I would be very interested to know the right hon. Lady’s personal perspective on what "distinctive" means. Does it mean distinct from other channels or from international broadcasters? Will she clarify what it means in this context?
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Ian Colin Lucas (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State commends BBC Radio Stoke, and I know that local radio is hugely important. Is it not unfortunate, therefore, that we do not have BBC local radio in Wales? One station alone represents the whole of Wales—BBC Radio Wales, along with Radio Cymru. Is it not time that we had local radio services in Wales in the way we have them in England?
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I particularly draw Members’ attention to the fact that I have only recently stood down as vice-chair of the all-party group on the BBC May I say how much we are looking forward to working with the new Secretary of State and her team? She was generous and engaged in constructive dialogue when she was a Home Office Minister, and I hope that we can continue that relationship in our new posts. I also wish to thank my predecessors in this role, my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), who has shown that he has not lost his tenacity or his energy in this policy area, and for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who offered such robust scrutiny of the White Paper when it was discussed earlier in the year The Labour party welcomes the fact that the charter provides the BBC with the funding and security it needs as it prepares to enter its second century of broadcasting. The BBC embodies those enduring British values of hard work, creativity, innovation and co-operation. It helps to ensure that Britain’s voice is heard around the world, and it has informed and entertained countless millions of listeners, viewers and web users. It did so once again over the summer with its truly exceptional coverage of the Olympics in Rio, and I know that the whole House will agree that we should acknowledge that on the day we celebrate the achievements of our athletes by throwing a fantastic party in Trafalgar Square later While we welcome the charter, we have some misgivings, as the Secretary of State has seen, about the responsibilities that the BBC has been obliged to accept. In particular, we are extremely concerned about the Government’s decision to force the BBC to meet the cost of providing free TV licences to the over-75s. That was done without meaningful public consultation and little parliamentary debate, and it was part of a deal that was made behind closed doors.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Kelvin Peter Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as shadow Secretary of State; I am sure he will enjoy the job The imposition of the cost of licences for over-75s was carried out at the same time as the charter was being negotiated. Does that not imply that a degree of duress was involved in making the BBC accept that decision?
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): It is certainly not the most ideal of circumstances to face when negotiating for survival. We do not think that there was a meaningful public consultation and we had hoped that those days were behind us. We feel strongly that that situation cannot be allowed to happen again. This was the second time that the Government had approached their deliberations with the BBC by placing a gun to its head. In 2010, the coalition Government forced the BBC to take on the cost of paying for the World Service. The Government approached the negotiations in 2010 and 2015 with the subtlety of a ram raider approaching a jewellery shop. Their approach was described as a "smash and grab raid" We expect the Secretary of State to reassure us that the next licence fee settlement will be agreed in a transparent manner and according to a clear timetable. It must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and put out to public consultation, so that whoever is in power cannot railroad a settlement through again. Please will the Secretary of State give a guarantee to the House that such a system will be put in place? We will work with her to achieve that I am sure that some people believe that asking the BBC to pay £700 million a year for free licences was clever politics, but I think it was political irresponsibility, verging on negligence. The BBC is not an arm of the Government. It should not be asked to meet the cost of Government policies and it should not be asked to implement changes to the Government’s social security policy.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Social Welfare
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): It is certainly a settlement. The BBC has accepted it as a settlement, and that is why we will not oppose the motion, but it is not unreasonable for us to press the Secretary of State on why an instrument of social security policy is being passed to the BBC. We are considering carefully whether we can challenge the measure in the Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, because the extra cost imposed on the BBC is the equivalent of a 20% budget cut. I know the deal has been struck and different income streams have been negotiated within it, but the manner in which it has been done is distinctly unfair. The Government are passing responsibility for social security cuts that they should take on to a British institution.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Ian Colin Lucas (Labour, Centre-left): When my hon. Friend considers trying to amend the Digital Economy Bill, will he bear in mind that £630 million of public money was taken from the BBC to fund broadband in the previous Parliament? The Government have real form with raids on the BBC.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): I am being slightly diverted from the motion. I have only been in this role for 10 days, so I may not have my facts entirely right, but I think that the £630 million that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) described has also been underspent to the tune of £60 million. It would be very useful if the Government could give that money back to the BBC so that it could be put into diverse broadcasting such as children’s broadcasting, in which the right hon. Gentleman and I both have an interest.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): I hope that I have not given the hon. Gentleman the impression that I do not think viewers need value for money—they certainly do. The transparency measures agreed by both sides of the House have helped to ensure that the value-for-money case is made internally within the BBC.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Macroeconomics
Kelvin Peter Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): Hon. Members are eliding public spending, which is paid for by taxation, and licence fee spending, which might be seen as a relatively regressive form of taxation, but is not public funding in the same sense.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes a very good point We will always make the case for a strong, independent and well-funded BBC. That was what we did in government and it is what we intend to do in opposition. I hope that we can move on from the days when a small group of campaigners routinely questioned whether the BBC should exist at all. For a handful of people, the licence fee that has funded the BBC for nearly a century is an aberration. They believe that the only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit. Perhaps they believe that 40p a day is an outrageous price to pay for the BBC’s startling array of television and radio news coverage, current affairs programmes, natural history, drama, comedy and children’s programmes. Perhaps they would rather see the BBC smaller and a little duller. I do not believe that and the British public do not believe it either. That was why there were 192,000 responses to the Government’s consultation on the future of the BBC, and why the overwhelming majority were favourable and supportive I pay tribute to the campaigners whose tireless work helped to deliver a BBC charter that is likely to secure its future: the Great BBC campaign, founded by Lord Waheed-Alli and Charlie Parsons; the Save our BBC campaign; the 38 Degrees petition to protect our BBC, which now has over 390,000 signatures; and all the creative industry trade unions, including the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union, Equity, the Musicians’ Union, the National Union of Journalists and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. All came together in a coalition to defend the BBC. They raised awareness, generated support and helped to deliver those 192,000 responses to the Government’s consultation. On both sides of the House, we are indebted to them all.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): I am afraid that I am not quite sure of the specific allegation of scaremongering, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point and it is on the record We welcome the royal charter and the security it gives the BBC. In particular, I welcome the Government’s U-turn, as the consultation on the future of the BBC that they published in July 2015 was very different in tone and intention to the proposals before us now. We welcome the fact that the BBC’s funding settlement will now be decided every 11 years; it is particularly helpful to remove it from the five-year election cycle We welcome the settlement, but we know that an institution the size of the BBC can never be perfect. We believe the BBC has a responsibility to look and sound like Britain, both on screen and off. It should do far more to identify, employ and promote talent from every background and every walk of life. That means recruiting far more people from our black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. It means more women of every age in senior roles off screen and in leading roles on screen. It also means employing people from every social background.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Education
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Centre-left): Thinking about the pupils of Ashfield, I would like to make a practical suggestion. The BBC should go into schools in constituencies such as mine and tell pupils that work experience is open to them. Their parents pay the licence fee, so they should have the opportunity to work there.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Government Operations
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman is making a fair point. What it all goes to show is that more appointments of this kind should be made through independent processes, and that is precisely our criticism of the new board structure. The right hon. Gentleman has just given another example in which the independence comes into doubt.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Maria Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): The BBC may or may not have made a mistake in the way in which it appointed a particular individual—James Purnell, about whom the right hon. Gentleman has been talking—but it made that decision as an independent organisation. Is not the difficulty that we face, and the issue of political interference, caused by the fact that we in this place seek to control? When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, it was argued that the appointment of a majority of board members by the Government of the day was a matter of concern, because it was felt that there would be a route for political interference from this place and from the Government, rather than the BBC’s making its own mistakes—or not; as it may or may not do.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Government Operations
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, did he ever look into the disproportionate amount of money distributed to the regions in comparison with London? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that some of the regions are very concerned about that.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there may be a chance with that development of an onerous bureaucracy being created that may cost the licence payer more, and may mean that the expertise in commissioning content is diminished?
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): My memory is not great and I have only been reading into the brief for 10 days, but I think that the figure is about £60 million. Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that being an ongoing demand on the BBC, or will it be a one-off pot as a result of the underspend?
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about those negotiations. To be fair to the BBC, however, the blame lies with the Government, who took the BBC to the brink and then offered it a deal that it had no choice but to accept.
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Law and Crime
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman had a go at the director-general earlier, but Rona Fairhead should have been screaming blue murder when the Government were forcing their settlement on her. The whole point of her post is that she is meant to be independent and able to say to the Government, "No. You will not do this."
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something about the bit in his amendment about the Scottish Six? During the BBC charter statement last month, the Secretary of State said that "it is for the BBC, which has operational independence in this matter, to determine how exactly"—[Official Report, 15 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 1060.] the Scottish Six would happen. The hon. Gentleman tweeted shortly afterwards: "Good to hear Secretary of State confirm #ScottishSix is a matter for the BBC not government." Does the amendment not push the Government to make a decision about the Scottish Six, rather than leaving it in the hands of the editorial commissioning of the BBC, which he has been arguing for in the rest of his speech?
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): I want to press this matter, because the Scottish Six is an incredibly important issue in Scottish broadcasting. I am undecided on whether it is a good thing, because I want good-quality Scottish news rather than a forced programme that may not be of the quality that people would expect, but that is a funding issue and a different argument. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that whether BBC Scotland initiates a Scottish Six is an editorial judgment for the BBC or a policy judgment for charter renewal?
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. I have not been party political about the Scottish six o’clock news and have never thought about it in detail—I am the new kid—but I am trying to understand whether his position has changed. When I was doing my homework, I found a question from him to the Secretary of State in a recent debate in which he said: "Does the Secretary of State agree that the matter of a separate ‘Scottish Six’ is entirely the responsibility of the BBC"?—[Official Report, 15 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 1060.] The hon. Gentleman seems to contradict that in his speech this afternoon. Has his thinking changed?
Broadcasting — House of Commons, 2016-10-18
Topic: Technology
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): I am very grateful, as the hon. Gentleman has been incredibly generous with his time. We want to support your motion, so will you give clarity about what it actually says? Are you saying that a Scottish Six, in the BBC News Scotland context, is an editorial decision for the BBC in Scotland—I hope that is what the motion says—or that you are looking to make this a policy decision in the charter? The latter would not be desirable, and I think he is arguing the same.