argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Rail Electrification — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Transportation
Questions: Passenger numbers on the transpennine route are set to double over the next 20 years, but still it appears that the upgrade is being downgraded. Given that one third of transport spending in England is in London, will the Transport Secretary help to redress the imbalance by matching Labour’s commitment to Crossrail for the north?
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): As I was saying, it is a downgrade of a downgrade, so why will the Minister not listen to the advice of rail experts, which I know the Secretary of State has had, and fully electrify the route in control period 6?
Public Transport: Sporting Events — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Transportation
Rosena Chantelle Allin-Khan (Labour, Centre-left): Football fans in this country are often stung when fixtures are rescheduled for TV, meaning that they regularly miss out on the cheapest train tickets. The Premier League, the English Football League and the Rail Delivery Group are all in favour of a fans’ fare scheme, but the Department for Transport is dragging its feet. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss how we can address this important issue, which affects so many football fans in this country?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Transportation
Elizabeth Anne McInnes (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and share his sentiments about the terrible attacks on our trains recently On 2 January I was at Castleton station in my constituency, watching train cancellation after train cancellation as my constituents were trying to get back to work after the new year break. Does the Secretary of State think that it is fair to hit rail passengers with an above-inflation rise in fares, given the clear decline in punctuality and reliability, and worsening overcrowding on our trains?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Labor
Questions: The Minister will be aware that it is illegal for a taxi not to collect someone with a guide dog, yet 42% of taxis still refuse to do this. Will the Government please bring in strict new guidelines to raise awareness throughout the taxi and minicab industry?
Karl Turner (Labour, Centre-left): Owing to undercutting caused by the exclusion of seafarers from equality and minimum wage legislation, UK seafarers only account for about 15% of all seafarer ratings in the UK shipping industry. That is shocking. But now that the Secretary of State has spent £103 million of UK taxpayers’ money on these UK ferry contracts, will the Minister tell us whether any UK seafarers will be employed, and will the crews be protected by UK employment legislation? Yes or no?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Transportation
Questions: The Minister will be aware that it is illegal for a taxi not to collect someone with a guide dog, yet 42% of taxis still refuse to do this. Will the Government please bring in strict new guidelines to raise awareness throughout the taxi and minicab industry?; I was alarmed to see the traffic chaos as a result of yet another incident on the A5 at Mancetter island this week caused by an overturned lorry. I have raised this issue before, so it is not an isolated incident. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss this precarious junction and look at what more can be done to protect local residents who live alongside it, as well as motorists using it?; In my constit- uency, it has been suggested that our regional Mayor—the West of England Combined Authority Mayor—has the power to adopt an underused bit of highway from Highways England to construct an east of Bath park-and-ride, and the council has failed for a long time to find a suitable site. Is it the Minister’s understanding that the regional Mayor has these powers, and does he agree that such a use of existing land is an elegant solution?; The Financial Times reports that the EU has warned the owner of British Airways, IAG, that its plans to allow flights to continue in and around Europe in the event of no deal are not acceptable. When asked how BA plans to ensure that its plans are acceptable, its chief executive replied, “Magic”. Given the Cabinet Secretary’s repeated assurances that these negotiations are in hand, what more serious assessment can the Secretary of State give us that this will be resolved?; Following December’s fiasco at Gatwick airport, the Secretary of State displayed his characteristic Midas touch when he said on Monday: “The Government are taking action to ensure that passengers can have confidence that their journeys will not be disrupted in future”.—[Official Report, 7 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 101.]Twenty-four hours later, Heathrow passengers found themselves having their flights suspended following another drone sighting. When can passengers expect this promised action to have the desired effect?
Emma Dent Coad (Labour, Centre-left): Currently just one out of 10 tube stations in Kensington is step-free. That is unacceptable. The council and London’s deputy mayor for transport tell us we must rely on developer funding to pay for it, which will never be enough, and in some instances they suggest funding just one platform in one direction, which is insulting. Just 50 stations out of 270 are step-free in the capital— the worst record in Europe. Will the Minister review Government funding to address the severe lack of inclusivity across our capital’s transport system, which is a national disgrace?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Transportation
Questions: The Minister will be aware that it is illegal for a taxi not to collect someone with a guide dog, yet 42% of taxis still refuse to do this. Will the Government please bring in strict new guidelines to raise awareness throughout the taxi and minicab industry?; I was alarmed to see the traffic chaos as a result of yet another incident on the A5 at Mancetter island this week caused by an overturned lorry. I have raised this issue before, so it is not an isolated incident. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss this precarious junction and look at what more can be done to protect local residents who live alongside it, as well as motorists using it?; In my constit- uency, it has been suggested that our regional Mayor—the West of England Combined Authority Mayor—has the power to adopt an underused bit of highway from Highways England to construct an east of Bath park-and-ride, and the council has failed for a long time to find a suitable site. Is it the Minister’s understanding that the regional Mayor has these powers, and does he agree that such a use of existing land is an elegant solution?; The Financial Times reports that the EU has warned the owner of British Airways, IAG, that its plans to allow flights to continue in and around Europe in the event of no deal are not acceptable. When asked how BA plans to ensure that its plans are acceptable, its chief executive replied, “Magic”. Given the Cabinet Secretary’s repeated assurances that these negotiations are in hand, what more serious assessment can the Secretary of State give us that this will be resolved?; Following December’s fiasco at Gatwick airport, the Secretary of State displayed his characteristic Midas touch when he said on Monday: “The Government are taking action to ensure that passengers can have confidence that their journeys will not be disrupted in future”.—[Official Report, 7 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 101.]Twenty-four hours later, Heathrow passengers found themselves having their flights suspended following another drone sighting. When can passengers expect this promised action to have the desired effect?
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): It is not clear to me what the unforeseeable emergency was that allowed the Secretary of State to award the contract to Seaborne Freight outside the rules. Did he receive explicit legal advice about that, and if so, will he consider publishing it?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: International Affairs
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): Earlier, the Secretary of State said that the deal laid out by the Prime Minister was a good deal for everybody in the UK. Can he seriously stand at that Dispatch Box and say that our friends in Northern Ireland are getting a good deal out of this deal?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Macroeconomics
Emma Elizabeth Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): I find myself in agreement with the Secretary of State about the risks and dangers of a no-deal Brexit, but his claim that people will be better off flies in the face of the Government’s own economic analysis, which suggests that people will be poorer, the economy smaller and economic growth slower. How can he stand at the Dispatch Box and say something the Government have found to be otherwise?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Agriculture
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State has just mentioned state aid, particularly in agriculture. Is he not concerned that the deal allows the Commission oversight of state aid for four years post the transition period, and that with the Northern Ireland protocol, the Commission may have an overview of state aid in agriculture for ever? That would mean that if we wanted to diverge from the common agricultural policy, the Commission could prevent us from doing that. Is that not a reason to throw out this deal?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Agriculture
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): Well, it was vegan, but the Secretary of State had cheese There is definitely a consensus that no deal would be absolutely disastrous for the farming community. The Secretary of State is totally focusing on the risks of no deal, and to me that is something of a red herring. We could easily avoid no deal—it is entirely in the Prime Minister’s power to avoid no deal either by extending or revoking article 50 if we get to that cliff edge. Can the Secretary of State now talk about the deal that is being put before us for the meaningful vote and try to persuade us of the merits of that deal, rather than talking about no deal?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Foreign Trade
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State mentions that we will move out of the orbit of the ECJ. Instead, for trade deals, particularly on fracking, we will be in the orbit of international investment tribunals. He may know that in the case of Lone Pine Resources, the Canadian Government were fined hundreds of millions of dollars for their moratorium on fracking in Quebec. Is he not concerned that, if we leave the defence of the European Court of Justice and try to restrict fracking, we will be open to attack by frackers? That would not be good.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Foreign Trade
Angela Christine Smith (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for being so generous in giving way. He talked about the sovereignty of British waters and about taking back control, but will he guarantee that in any negotiation for a trade deal with the European Union there will be no retaliation, and that the interests of the processing side of the fishing industry will not be sacrificed in return for sovereignty over British waters? The processing side is much bigger than the catching side, and it must not be sacrificed.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: International Affairs
Emma Elizabeth Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State has been speaking for 50 minutes now and has just said he wants to talk to people to convince them to vote for the Government’s withdrawal agreement. Can we hear a little bit about that, please?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Agriculture
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): On that point about ensuring that there is no lowering of standards in any post-Brexit trade deals, will my hon. Friend be supporting my new clause 1 to the Agriculture Bill and a similar amendment that the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has tabled, to make absolutely sure that we do not see a lowering of standards for food coming into this country? As we saw at the Oxford farming conference last week, farmers certainly do not want that to happen either.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Agriculture
Sue Hayman (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. A number of amendments have been tabled to the Agriculture Bill and we are looking at them closely. Her new clause is important, and we are taking a close look at it. It would be useful to have a conversation with her about it at a later date.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: International Affairs
Sue Hayman (Labour, Centre-left): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that my party does not believe that the agreement on the table is good enough. If it is voted down next week, as many in this House believe it will be, we should go back to the country and have a general election, so that my party can actually look forward to working for a better deal.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Environment
Sue Hayman (Labour, Centre-left): I will make some progress, because many Members want to speak and the Secretary of State was generous with his time The Prime Minister said that the environment Bill will be world leading, so where is the duty and obligation within the agreement to reduce the UK’s global environmental footprint? Labour wants to see good-quality, affordable food available to all but that must not come at the expense of environmental and animal welfare standards, workers’ rights or societal protections.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: International Affairs
Sue Hayman (Labour, Centre-left): Labour does not want no deal. We understand the risks that that would bring, which is why we are saying that if the Prime Minister’s deal is voted down next week, we should go for a general election. However, we also think that the Prime Minister has had nearly two years to negotiate this deal. She could have had something much better. It is unacceptable that we have so little after two years.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Agriculture
Sue Hayman (Labour, Centre-left): I will make some progress because many people want to speak The Government have failed to put in place any measures in the Trade or Agriculture Bills to ensure that all food and agricultural products imported into the UK will be produced to standards equivalent to our domestic ones. We want British food production to go from strength to strength while protecting our precious natural environment, but that will not happen if Ministers insist on kowtowing to Donald Trump On our future relationship with the EU, what mechanisms do the Government intend to put in place to enable continued co-operation on all environmental issues, from biodiversity to collaboration on tackling climate change? Will we continue to participate in the European Environment Agency and the European Chemicals Agency?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: International Affairs
Sue Hayman (Labour, Centre-left): I think we have made it pretty clear why we are not supporting the withdrawal agreement. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) made that quite clear in the debate yesterday and I do not want to get into all those arguments again when they have already been clearly expressed on the Floor of the House.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): The point is that this is about not just the withdrawal agreement, but the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. The political declaration is so imprecise that it could mean absolutely anything to anybody. There is no security treaty, which is what the Prime Minister was demanding, and there is no surety as to what we will have on the European arrest warrant. That is why we cannot support what is frankly a pig in a poke.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: International Affairs
Caroline Louise Flint (Labour, Centre-left): Shame. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who should be a right hon. Friend, but we must not polarise this debate by saying either that the EU is all bad or that the UK does nothing without the EU’s permission Our minimum wage is twice that of Greece’s and more than Spain’s, and many EU member states do not have a minimum wage. Statutory maternity pay in the UK is paid for up to 39 weeks, compared with just 16 weeks in France, 16 weeks in Holland and 26 weeks in Ireland. Many people ascribe paid holidays to the EU, but the truth is that it was a Labour Government who signed up to the social chapter that led to that happening, and who added bank holidays on top. With regards to equality, same-sex marriage is legal in just 14 of the 28 member states, so the rights that our lesbian and gay citizens enjoy are in many respects rights derived from decisions of this Parliament, not the European Union In the coming weeks and during the transition, it is not too late to adopt a different approach—a less confrontational politics. I want the Government to begin a new dialogue across parties, as they should have done earlier. I want them to consult the Opposition on the negotiations around trade now, and to commit to doing so during the transition period. With 78 days until the UK leaves the European Union, it is too easy to talk about further delay. The task is only impossible if we in this House make it impossible. Extending article 50 would not solve anything, and neither would a second referendum. Our conduct in the coming weeks and months can either seek the best deal and heal divisions, or seek to prevent a deal and divide the country further I believe that our path has to be one that brings the nation together—a Brexit based on a reasonable deal that protects the standards and rights that we value and shows generosity of spirit to our European neighbours, but which gets on with the task of getting through this process and dealing with the many issues that we did not face up to during our 40 years in the EU.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Government Operations
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the debate, but this seems important. The media are reporting that No. 10 Downing Street is briefing that its interpretation of yesterday’s vote and the requirements of the legislation is that, if the Prime Minister’s motion is defeated next Tuesday, the debate on the plan B that the Government would be obliged to bring forward would be restricted to only 90 minutes, and they would allow only one amendment to be chosen and voted upon Is that your understanding? Can you confirm that the Government could in fact provide as much time as they wanted for a constitutional debate that is so contested and so crucial to the future of our country, and that they could provide for as many amendments to be considered as is needed? Given that the Prime Minister and the Government have been saying that they want to listen, reach out and build a consensus, how, if this is the case, can we believe anything that the Government say?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: International Affairs
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you confirm that it would be open to Members of the House to seek to remedy this potential problem by tabling an amendment to the withdrawal agreement motion for next week, because this matter would inevitably flow from a consequence of the withdrawal agreement not being carried by the House of Commons?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: International Affairs
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept, though, that if the House were to support the Government’s deal, along with the political declaration, it would be a sure fire way of ensuring that this uncertainty and political wrangling continue for years to come?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: International Affairs
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): I am sorry, I will not because we are short of time If the deal is voted down next week, as we expect it to be, and if there is no general election, the House must have the guts to go back to the country and ask again for people’s opinion on this deal. When people voted in 2016, in good faith, we did not have the details of this deal, and in order to make progress it is important to allow them to be considered.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: International Affairs
Gareth Craig Snell (Labour, Centre-left): I am afraid I will not. Everyone else has had their time, so I will carry on It is important to find a mechanism that protects those rights, and does not kick the can down the road with another referendum, or simply add procedure and stop talking about the people. Too much of this debate—we saw this yesterday on both sides of the House with tedious and continual points of order—has been about a point of process that does not progress the debate further, or resolve the fundamental issues that are important to my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent, and those of hon. Members across the House At some point in this Parliament we must decide what we are for—not what we are against, or what we wish to rehash or reargue, but what we are for. I wish that the conversations I was privileged to have this week with Government and Opposition Front-Bench speakers had taken place two years ago. I wish that the Government and those on the Labour Front-Bench had got together after the general election to try to hash out some sort of plan. Such a plan would not have pleased everybody or given them what they wanted, but we need a pragmatic approach to find a way of healing the country, bringing forward the things we know are important, and delivering a Brexit referendum outcome that does not do economic damage to our country. We must ensure that people who voted leave, and those who voted remain, feel that they have a stake in the future of our country My frustration with this process is, and continues to be, that we appear to be moving away from a pragmatic middle and towards two extremes. Those who do not support a second referendum are labelled as hard Brexiteers who wish to sell their country down the river, and those—like many of my colleagues—who hold the principled position that we should have a second referendum are an affront to democracy. Neither of those things is true, but at some point we must face facts and understand that the country voted to leave—albeit marginally—and our job as parliamentarians is to work out how we take that forward and bring everybody together. The amendment that I have tabled is one way of achieving that unity. It by no means solves everything, and it will not remove a number of the concerns that I still have about the vote on Tuesday, but if we can use it as a starting point after that vote, I hope we will have achieved something better.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-10
Topic: Labor
Caroline Louise Flint (Labour, Centre-left): Those of us who have put our names to amendment (p) realise that it is not perfect and that, like all other amendments, it is not legally binding. However, does my hon. Friend agree that whatever happens next Tuesday, if there is a willingness, we can open up discussion about how we can ensure, going forward, that we can, in law, see a way to enshrine the protection of these workers’ rights, and would she be willing to engage in such dialogue?