argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Kashmir — House of Commons, 2019-03-07
Topic: International Affairs
Imran Hussain (Labour, Centre-left): I join other Members in our unanimous condemnation of terrorism in all its forms. I welcome the Minister’s efforts to de-escalate this very dangerous situation. I also welcome the efforts of all people on all sides who continue to voice with reason the message of de-escalation, peace and stability in the region. In particular, I note the Pakistani Government and Imran Khan’s real gesture of peace in the release of the captured Indian pilot At the heart of this issue continue to be the sons and daughters of Kashmir. Tragically, I did not hear anywhere in the Minister’s statement the outright condemnation of the continued human rights violations. Just this morning, constituents have given me reports of ceasefire violations in the Bhimber, Kotli and Samahni districts that have left people injured and many others running and fleeing. I urge the Minister to demand an urgent end to the violations of the ceasefire and to urge the Indian Government, as Pakistan has done, to allow the international community to come together and act as mediators to allow an end to the human rights violations, and to allow self-determination.
Kashmir — House of Commons, 2019-03-07
Topic: International Affairs
Jessica Rose Phillips (Labour, Centre-left): I, too, welcome the tone of these exchanges on what can be a tense subject matter and what has been a very tense situation. One problem that causes terrorism all around the world, and certainly in this area, is information and misinformation. Many Members have called for monitoring by an honest broker, the UN, in Kashmir. It could not only help to find out what human rights violations are going on and seek to offer aid, support and condemnation, but help with some of the efforts to stop terrorism through misinformation and propaganda. Should not the UK Government constantly be pushing for UN investigators and monitors in Kashmir to protect Kashmiri people?
Windrush Generation and the Home Office — House of Commons, 2019-03-07
Topic: Government Operations
Diane Julie Abbott (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate the Public Accounts Committee on this important report. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important sentences in the report is the one that says that "while the Department has reviewed 11,800 Caribbean cases, around 160,000 non-Caribbean Commonwealth cases remain unreviewed" What does she advise the Government to do? These people cannot simply be ignored.
New Ferry Regeneration — House of Commons, 2019-03-07
Topic: Macroeconomics
Alison McGovern (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister describes the city region funding as "Government money". In some sense, we can describe anything that comes from the Treasury as Government money, but if New Ferry is not helped directly by the Government, that city region development money that was there for the purposes of rebalancing our economy is effectively doing the work that the Government should be doing in this shocking and terrible event. It is simply not acceptable to the people of New Ferry that they should have to bid to a fund that is there for general economic development.
Security Agreements: European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): Title V of the draft withdrawal agreement describes the ongoing police and judicial co-operation between the UK and the EU on criminal matters. Given that it has taken 30 months to agree the 13-page section on security and that the section covers only the transition period, why should we have any confidence in this Government completing negotiations to ensure this country’s future safety and security by the end of next year?
Security Agreements: European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): The last time the Home Secretary appeared before the Home Affairs Committee, he told us that, in the event of no deal, "we will be as safe—if we are talking about the SIS II system, for example, as we were just now", and said that Schengen Information System II is merely a "nice to have"—those were the words he used. Since then, the Met Commissioner has said that losing access to SIS II "will be more costly undoubtedly, slower undoubtedly, and potentially, yes, put the public at risk." The National Crime Agency has also said that there is "a risk that this country will be less safe as a result." What is the Home Secretary’s assessment of the risk to the country, particularly in policing and security terms, from no deal, and why is his assessment different from that of the police?
Unsolved Crime — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Tracy Lynn Brabin (Labour, Centre-left): Charge rates in West Yorkshire have fallen for some key crimes, with charges for sexual offences as low as 4%—among the lowest in the country. The chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council has said that this is because of fewer officers and staff. The Government’s decision to raise money through an increase in council tax means that West Yorkshire will be able to raise almost the same as Surrey, despite having double the population. Will that really meet local need?
Unsolved Crime — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Stephen James Morgan (Labour, Centre-left): In Hampshire, just 4% of sexual offences and just 14% of robberies now result in a charge. Can the Minister honestly tell the people of Portsmouth that after losing 1,000 police officers and a staggering £70 million in central Government funding, my city’s streets are safer?
Economic Crime — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Centre-left): A year ago, the Government introduced unexplained wealth orders to tackle the laundromat of dirty money in this country. It is reported that the National Crime Agency has identified 140 cases in which such an order would be appropriate, but only one order has been imposed in the past year. Why are the Government afraid of using the tools available to them?
Vandalism — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Stephanie Louise Peacock (Labour, Centre-left): Residents and businesses in Hoyland have recently been subjected to a distressing wave of serious crime, including vandalism, break-ins and theft. That reflects the fact that there are nearly 600 fewer South Yorkshire police officers on our streets as a result of this Government’s cuts. Can the Minister confirm that Barnsley will not get a penny from the Government in this year’s funding settlement to recruit more frontline officers? Will she think again?
Violent Crime — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Eleanor Claire Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): The Home Office-funded Violence and Vulnerability Unit report of 2018 noted that a reduction in services that offer positive activities to young people, such as youth services and school clubs, has left a vacuum that gangs are moving into. Does the Minister agree that supporting vulnerable young people and protecting them from county lines requires a cross-departmental approach with funding to back it? That has all too often been missing under the austerity agenda.
Violent Crime — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the £664,000 allocated to Essex from the Home Office early intervention youth fund? Will the Secretary of State keep the situation under review while ensuring that Essex police have the resources required to continue to tackle this issue?
Rosena Chantelle Allin-Khan (Labour, Centre-left): After a worrying upward trend in violent crime in Tooting, I held a crime summit that brought together the police, local authorities and community groups. That kind of joined-up, multi-sector working is essential in tackling violent crime. Will the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to ensure that we work with local groups at the heart of the community to stamp out violent crime?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Tracy Lynn Brabin (Labour, Centre-left): Like me and many others in north Kirklees, the Home Secretary will have been shocked and concerned to hear last week about the 55 local arrests in relation to child sex abuse. This vital investigation will put extra strain on the police and the local authority, whose resources are already stretched to breaking point. Will the Home Secretary give my constituents a cast-iron guarantee that the police will have the resources they need to protect victims in the long and short term? Will he also ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice, with which I am sure the House would agree?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: Will the Home Secretary join me in welcoming the High Court judgment in the Kotey-Elsheikh case—they are also known as the ISIS Beatles? Does he believe that the judgment vindicates the position he took in the face of fierce criticism in the House and further afield?
Carolyn Harris (Labour, Centre-left): I am pleased that the Government have finally announced that they have introduced the draft domestic abuse Bill. Cross-examination of survivors by perpetrators will now be outlawed, but more scrutiny of the family courts is needed. Will the Minister commit to including in the Bill an independent inquiry into the culture, practice and outcomes of the family courts in connection with child contact cases, and to listening to the children?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Prime Minister for giving me an advance copy of her statement. I join her in condemning the car bomb attack in Londonderry at the weekend, and I commend the emergency services and local community for their response. The huge achievement of the Good Friday agreement in reducing violence in Northern Ireland must never be taken for granted. It was an historic step forward, and we cannot take it for granted The Government still appear not to have come to terms with the scale of the defeat in this House last week. The Prime Minister seems to be going through the motions of accepting the result, but in reality she is in deep denial. The logic of that decisive defeat is that the Prime Minister must change her red lines, because her current deal is undeliverable, so can she be clear and explicit with the House—which of her red lines is she prepared to move on The Prime Minister’s invitation to talks has been exposed as a PR sham. Every Opposition party politician came out of those meetings with the same response. Contrary to what the Prime Minister has just said, there was no flexibility and there were no negotiations—nothing has changed. [Interruption.]
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister seems to be talking as if she lost by 30 votes, not 230. She says that she wants to give Parliament a say on the political declaration and the future partnership but, to be honest, we have heard all that before. If she is serious, why not give Parliament a say before we finish the article 50 negotiations, not after? Why not put to Parliament some votes on her red lines, including on a customs union; otherwise, how can any of us believe a word she says?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister said to the House that she would reach out to try to find a way forward on the crisis facing our country, but having listened to her statement, I am sorry to say that while her door may have been open, her mind has remained closed. She has rejected stopping us leaving the EU with no deal, even though she knows that no deal would be disastrous, and she has rejected remaining in a customs union, even though she knows it is an essential contribution to keeping an open border and maintaining friction-free trade. Last Wednesday, the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union published a report identifying a number of alternative ways forward, and recommended that they be put to the House in a series of indicative votes. Given that the Prime Minister has twice asked this afternoon, "Well, what will secure the support of the House?", will she put those proposals to the vote?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister could reach out by relaxing her own self-imposed red lines, including thinking about other solutions such as staying in the customs union, which would deal with the backstop situation, but she seems intent on trying to get her dead deal through the House by playing chicken with her own Brexiteers and what she calls her confidence and supply partners. Will she, first, tell us that she really does want to reach out? Secondly, will she tell the House this: if we do amend the motion next Tuesday, will she respect that decision and put it into effect?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Lucy Maria Powell (Labour, Centre-left): The only thing we know for certain that people voted for in the referendum was to leave the EU—any other speculation is simply that. I repeat the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) put earlier. Amazingly, the Prime Minister did not even mention the words "customs union" in her statement, but if this House voted either to remain in a customs union or to remain in EFTA or the EEA—all issues that were raised with her by her own MPs when she met them last week—will she adhere to that?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Catharine Letitia Hoey (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the Prime Minister ruling out a second referendum, ruling out revoking article 50 and leaving on the table a WTO deal, whether managed or not. However, this is a remain Parliament—the majority of Members of this Parliament voted to remain. Does she agree that one way to show we are honouring what the people said is to speed up the progress of statutory instruments and legislation that need to get through this Parliament, so that we can get out on 29 March?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Wesley Paul William Streeting (Labour, Centre-left): It is now clear that the Prime Minister is counting on the House of Commons to rule out her red lines because she lacks the political authority to do so. Whether it is her dead deal, no deal, Norway or no Brexit, all the options that lie ahead are substantially different from what people were promised before the referendum. Given that, does she accept that there is not only a practical desire for a new referendum, to break the parliamentary deadlock, but a moral imperative, to ensure that it is the people who agree this country’s future for generations to come?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister says that there are only two ways to rule out a no-deal scenario. Why does she keep leaving out the option of a people’s vote? It is true that that would involve seeking to extend article 50, but that would be for the very specific reason of the democratic consent of the British people rather than for no specific reason. On this issue, for both her and Labour party Front Benchers, is this not now a time for leadership and decision making, not prevarication and delay?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Rachel Jane Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister says that she wants to find a way forward but without allowing Parliament to vote on the different options, it is unclear how we can discover where consensus lies. Is it not the truth that any alternative to the Prime Minister’s deal—whether a Norway-type model, a Canada-type model, a customs union or a people’s vote—requires more time to negotiate or to go back to the country The Prime Minister says that extending article 50 is just putting off the decision, but the truth is that, by failing to build a consensus, the only way we can leave without a deal—now that her deal has been so roundly rejected by the House—is to extend article 50. Even at this late stage, will the Prime Minister now agree to do that?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Is the Prime Minister aware that this is supposed to be blue Monday, the most miserable day of the year in the United Kingdom? But, on this day, may I offer her warmth and cheer? After last week’s resounding vote, she has showed her resilience and has been listening and talking to people. I urge her to carry that process on. In this Westminster village, things do not happen overnight, so will she persist? Otherwise, she will have misread the feeling of the House. We will be demanding a vote on the customs union; we will be demanding a vote on lengthening the process; and we will be demanding a vote on the people’s vote. If she listens more, we can come to a conclusion in the House that will be good for the country and not a miserable one.
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): On the Union, may I suggest that seeking public consent for a Brexit that looks very different from the one sold to the public in 2016 would do far less damage than tearing Scotland and Northern Ireland out of the Union in a botched Brexit against their will? So may I ask the Prime Minister, is her first loyalty to her party or to the country?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Louise Joyce Ellman (Labour, Centre-left): Last week, the Prime Minister suffered a major defeat. Today, she has not come to the House with any answers. She claims she wants to have extensive discussions on a variety of issues both inside and outside this House, yet meaningful discussions need time, so why is she refusing to call for an extension of article 50?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Foreign Trade
Emma Elizabeth Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): The words "customs union" were not on the ballot paper in the EU referendum. Can the Prime Minister name a UK manufacturer who has said that the benefits of free trade agreements around the world, even if they were agreed quickly, would outweigh the costs of our leaving the European customs union?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister has set out today, and on many occasions in recent weeks, her implacable opposition to any kind of public vote to establish public consent to the terms on which we leave the European Union through a referendum. Is she as implacably opposed to a general election?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Government Operations
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): If the House votes to take time to consider options other than those that the Prime Minister has been presenting to us, will she accept that that is not an attack, but a sign of the strength of our parliamentary democracy?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Law and Crime
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): Another week gone, and still no plan B. There will be no plan B next week, and probably none the week after. The clock is ticking away. Last week, the Attorney General said: "If we do not legislate for that legal certainty, as a matter of law alone, thousands of contracts, transactions, administrative proceedings and judicial proceedings in the European Union and this country will be plunged into legal uncertainty."—[Official Report, 15 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 1024.] Even if the Prime Minister’s deal had been agreed last week, at the rate we are going she stands no chance of getting all of that legislated for and providing legal certainty by 29 March. Please, please, please just own up: you are going to have to delay 29 March.
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Clive Stanley Efford (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister has said that there is no majority in this House for a second referendum. She may be right, but there is clearly a majority against leaving with no deal. Is she saying to the House that, rather than provide extra time in order to secure a deal that can pass through this House, she will crash us out with no deal on 29 March?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): With the clock ticking, and for us all to come together to agree a deal that delivers on the promises made in the 2016 referendum campaign and that rules out the disaster of no deal, why exactly will not the Prime Minister hold indicative votes in this House to establish actually what is the will of the House?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Foreign Trade
Wayne David (Labour, Centre-left): In a radio interview yesterday, the Solicitor General said that he thought that agreement on a customs union would provide a way to unify this House. What is the Prime Minister’s response to her Solicitor General?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Anna Rhiannon McMorrin (Labour, Centre-left): Brexit is a fantasy based on lies. Nothing about Brexit will make our constituents’ lives any better. When will the Prime Minister start standing up for what is right and stop running down the clock? When will she rule out no deal and put this decision back to the people?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: Macroeconomics
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I do not doubt that the Prime Minister has tried her level best to secure an acceptable agreement, but she has clearly failed—the scale of her defeat last week was monumental—largely because she has been constrained by the national economic interest. Following that failure, surely it would now be right to offer the people a vote.
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Paul John Sweeney (Labour, Centre-left): Time marches mercilessly on towards 29 March. Given the current trajectory, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that we will end up in a situation on 28 March when the Prime Minister will have failed to agree a deal, but also failed to negotiate an extension to article 50. She will then be faced with two options: to see the United Kingdom crash out with no deal; or to revoke article 50. Only one of those in that situation would be in the national interest, so which choice will she take?
Leaving the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-01-21
Topic: International Affairs
Rupa Asha Huq (Labour, Centre-left): Let us not forget that the fact that the Prime Minister is here at all before us today to explain her plan B, which looks suspiciously like plan A, and the fact that we had a meaningful vote at all are only because she was compelled to do so by Back-Bench action, not because of her own good will. I feel that good will, as well as time, is now slipping away. May I suggest to her that to prevent the old "strong and stable" becoming "scared of scrutiny", and to win back good will from Members on both sides of the House, including many of her own Ministers, she should just rule out no deal now? Where there is a will, there is a way.