argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-03-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): A characteristically articulate question, there. My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I am coming on to that point in my speech now Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 legislates for the part of the Leveson system that would provide access to justice for ordinary citizens, while offering protection to journalists and newspapers that signed up to any Leveson-compliant self-regulatory body. I want to take on one argument that I think is a complete red herring. Some elements of the media do not like IMPRESS —the only self-regulator that has so far been given royal charter recognition. They are, to coin a phrase, unimpressed with it. They would prefer not to be regulated by it, and they pretend that section 40 would force them to be members of it. But that is not accurate. There is absolutely nothing preventing those elements of the press that dislike IMPRESS from setting up an alternative self-regulator and seeking royal charter recognition for it. They could seek recognition for IPSO, but it continues to fall short of the criteria applied by the Press Recognition Panel. The fact that they choose not to do so suggests that IMPRESS is not really the problem. So we will seek to retain the amendment on section 40.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-03-05
Topic: Technology
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): I do not believe that Max Mosley now holds the views ascribed to him. This is what happens when people take on press barons and the billionaires who back them. That is what is going on here. The hon. Gentleman, the Minister and everyone in this House knows that the press barons do not want this regulation. Some years ago, probably before the hon. Gentleman was elected to this House, I remember that MPs were frightened of speaking out about media abuse lest they receive retribution, so I will not take any lessons when people who stand up for media reform see their characters traduced and destroyed in the press.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-03-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): I am not rising to that. I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I got the distinct impression from the Secretary of State’s presentation that Brian Leveson supported his proposals. That was something of an understatement. In fact, Sir Brian says that he disagrees "fundamentally" with the Government’s position, stating: "I have no doubt that there is still a legitimate expectation on behalf of the public and, in particular, the alleged victims of phone hacking and other unlawful conduct, that there will be a full public examination of the circumstances that allowed that behaviour to develop and clear reassurances that nothing of the same scale could occur again: that is what they were promised" Sir Brian is clear that this breaks a promise to the victims, and it does so by using a very clever sleight of hand. The Secretary of State told the House that 12% of direct respondents to the consultation were in favour of continuing the inquiry, with 66% against. How did the Government get to that landslide verdict? Scandalously, they disregarded the 200,000 people who signed an online petition in favour of continuing the inquiry, but they included thousands of pro forma newspaper coupons that various papers encouraged their readers to send in. Sir Brian said to the Government: "I would not personally count the responses in the way in which you have."
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-03-05
Topic: Government Operations
Tom Watson (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State is obviously living in the analogue age if he thinks that he can accept a coupon from The Sun but ignore 200,000 citizens expressing their concern about the inquiry I have only one question for the Secretary of State. Will the Government be able to detail what they will do if evidence of wrongdoing is revealed, in particular if editors misled or were partial in their evidence to the original inquiry? We still need Leveson 2, and Sir Brian agrees.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-03-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): That is neither here nor there, because the whole point of the Leveson inquiry was to establish what happened. Hundreds of individuals have had to go through the civil courts to try to establish what happened in their individual case. Many of them now know more than the country does about what happened at that time, but they are unable to say so because they have had to sign confidentiality agreements. The truth of the matter is that we still have never got to the bottom of what level of collusion there was between the Metropolitan police and the News of the World, and many newspapers have simply lied.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-03-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): The point is that the investigation is sort of happening now through the civil courts, except that it is individual members of the public who have to fork out £350,000 or £450,000 in legal fees to get to the truth. In Leveson 1, Brian Leveson was expressly not able to look at anything for which there might have been any criminal charges. The fact that the Daily Mirror has now admitted—in the civil courts, but not to Leveson—that it did engage in phone hacking is one of the matters that still has not come to the public.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-03-05
Topic: Foreign Trade
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Secretary of State, and I welcome that commitment on the part of the Prime Minister The problem is, however, that the International Trade Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have been saying different. That led to techUK, the industry body, writing to the International Trade Secretary last month to highlight the dangers. This was reported by that reliable publication, The Daily Telegraph, on 19 February, with the headline: "Tech industry warns Ministers not to drop EU security laws". The report began: "The British tech industry has issued a stark warning to leading Brexiteer ministers that diverging from EU data protection standards after Brexit will ‘undermine’ the UK’s status as Europe’s leading tech hub." The Secretary of State is absolutely right not to have gone down the same road as his right hon. Friends, and I very much welcome what the Prime Minister said about all this on Friday. However, there is clearly a problem in the Cabinet. I gather that after sending that letter, techUK received a reassuring response from the Department, and then a few days later a non-executive director at the Department for International Trade was quoted as saying, "Complying with EU standards on data is not the only solution." But the truth is that for a large part of the UK economy, it is the only solution. We need to be absolutely clear about this. I am delighted that the Secretary of State is clear about it. Of course, that is why he is bringing this Bill before us and why he has altered it in line with what a number of us said in October.
Data Protection Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-03-05
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): I am glad that the Secretary of State has been lobbied in support of his own position, but he needs to watch his back against Ministers who lack the clarity that he has expressed—particularly the International Trade Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, who continue to say that there is merit in divergence. There is no merit in divergence at all. Significant numbers of tech start-ups are already going to Berlin rather than basing themselves in the UK because of the uncertainty about this issue. The more uncertainty there is, fanned by some members of the Cabinet, the greater the economic damage to the UK. This is a very clear example of the situation we are going to find ourselves in more and more when we have left the European Union. It will be asserted that because of our economic interests, in this case, we should comply with rules drawn up by the European Union—in this case, the general data protection regulation—but we will no longer have a vote about what those rules should be. We will become a rule-taker. I welcome the commitment that the Prime Minister has made to a place for the UK’s Information Commissioner on the European data protection board. That will be helpful. It means that we will at least get a voice in these discussions when the rules are being drawn up—but we will not get a vote. We will be less influential in EU data protection laws than we have been as members of the European Union. We need to recognise that our influence, including over laws that we are going to have to implement ourselves, will be less in future than it has been up to now I would very much welcome the Minister telling us—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge made this point as well—how, in future, we are going to make adequacy determinations about other countries’ data protection laws. Are we going to adopt the EU list and say that those 12 countries are adequate and others are not, or are we going to have our own processes? How is it going to be done I echo the concerns expressed by a number of Members about the threats to our future data adequacy determination that come from the immigration exemption and the national security exemption. Those were not well defended by Ministers in the debates in the other place, and the justification for them is not clear. As others have said, they leave us open to criticisms of our data protection regulations that could threaten our future adequacy determinations. I am very keen to hear the Minister’s response to those concerns in particular.
DMB Solutions: Liquidation — House of Commons, 2018-03-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Lady is making a powerful point. To add to her catalogue of constituents, I can speak of those who have turned to me, such as Alison, who gave £30,000 to this company six days before it went bust. It knew it would not fulfil the order, yet it took £30,000 from somebody—in the full knowledge that it would not complete the work. Does the hon. Lady not think that in such cases the authorities should investigate fully to ensure that the full force of the law is on the side of people such as Alison, not of the directors, who were clearly ripping her off?
DMB Solutions: Liquidation — House of Commons, 2018-03-05
Topic: Government Operations
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): I am pleased to hear that the Minister reads the Brighton and Hove Argus. He has mentioned several of the agencies that people can turn to in these situations, but is it not the case that the landscape of regulation is very complicated? The constituents that we have been describing today simply do not think that any one agency has a grip on such situations.
Exit Negotiations — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Foreign Trade
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): The UK is party to around 40 trade agreements negotiated by the EU, but at least two of those countries have indicated that they will seek concessions from the United Kingdom in return for rolling over those agreements during the transition period. Will the Secretary of State assure UK exporters that they will be able to continue to trade with those countries on the same basis as now and with the exact same benefits, and that we will not end up in a situation where those countries will have preferential access to our market, while UK businesses lose the same access to their markets?
Support for Manufacturers — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Foreign Trade
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Centre-left): To ensure that trade is fair as well as free, there are over 40 defence instruments in place regarding steel at the European level. The behaviour of the US Administration at the moment may well mean that increases. Can the Minister give confidence to the steel industry that these trade defence instruments will remain in place at the point of moving out of the European Union?
Support for Manufacturers — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Foreign Trade
Graham Peter Jones (Labour, Centre-left): The chief executive of ADS— Mr Paul Everitt—which represents companies in the aerospace, defence, security and space sectors, has said: "A customs union with the EU is a practical solution that would put businesses in the best possible position to compete after Brexit." If the Government care about manufacturing, will they reconsider their position on the customs union?
Support for Manufacturers — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Foreign Trade
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): The EEF—the voice of UK manufacturing and engineering—as well as ADS Group Limited, the CBI, the Institute of Directors and trade unions welcome Labour’s call for the negotiation of a comprehensive new UK-EU customs union post Brexit. Can the Minister name any significant manufacturing organisation or association that is on record as stating that either of the Government’s two customs propositions, set out in their future partnership paper in August last year, is remotely credible or workable?
Manufacturing — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the manufacturing sector; and if he will make a statement.
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Why, every time there is a manufacturing question, does the Secretary of State hide behind his junior team? That is the fact of the matter: he does not want to confront manufacturing. Is it not the truth that there is a secret document in the Business Department that shows that, post Brexit, London will survive and thrive but the rest of the country—the north of England, manufacturing—will be in dire straits? That is the truth. Why does the Secretary of State not stand at the Dispatch Box and defend manufacturing?
Customs Union and Free Trade Agreements — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of remaining in the EU customs union on the ability of the UK to seek free trade agreements with non-EU countries.; What assessment he has made of the effect of remaining in the EU customs union on the ability of the UK to seek free trade agreements with non-EU countries.; What assessment he has made of the effect of remaining in the EU customs union on the ability of the UK to seek free trade agreements with non-EU countries.
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): At a recent meeting in this place, the director general of the CBI highlighted that Germany sells 4.7 times more to China than the UK does. Therefore, being in a customs union does not prevent countries from extending trade with global partners. Does the Minister agree with her?
Customs Union and Free Trade Agreements — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of remaining in the EU customs union on the ability of the UK to seek free trade agreements with non-EU countries.; What assessment he has made of the effect of remaining in the EU customs union on the ability of the UK to seek free trade agreements with non-EU countries.; What assessment he has made of the effect of remaining in the EU customs union on the ability of the UK to seek free trade agreements with non-EU countries.
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): I do not often cite the International Trade Secretary favourably, but he was right when he was in China with the Prime Minister in February and accepted that a customs union with the EU "self-evidently" does not prevent us from increasing bilateral trade with countries such as China. What assessment have the Government made of the comparative benefits for the UK of being in a customs union and not being in a customs union when it comes to trade with non-EU countries?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Foreign Trade
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): In January last year, the Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and assured the House: "What we have come up with…is the idea of a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have".——[Official Report, 24 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 169.] The Government stood by that assurance for 14 months, but then the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech downgraded the Government’s ambitions to reduced access to European markets. What does the Secretary of State have to say for himself now?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): We have had a lot of non-answers this morning, if I may say so, Mr Speaker. In addition to downgrading the ambition for the final deal, the Government are also delaying vital legislation in this House. We were expecting to consider the trade and customs Bill this week on Report and Third Reading but, apparently, they have been parked until May because the Government fear losing key votes. There is no sign of other vital legislation coming down the track. This should have been a busy period in Parliament. General debates on the EU are always interesting, but meaningful votes are better. What is going on?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: Does my right hon. Friend agree that remaining in a customs union after Brexit would prevent one of the major opportunities presented by leaving the EU: taking control of our trade?; Vital services for people suffering domestic violence, hate crime, discrimination and labour exploitation are funded by the EU rights, equality and citizenship programme. When the consultation on the UK prosperity fund eventually begins, will that programme be part of it?; Last weekend, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs released a joint statement with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, about the future of fisheries post Brexit. Does my hon. Friend agree with them that the UK must, on 29 March next year, leave the common fisheries policy and take back control of our waters, which means that the UK will decide annually who catches what, where and when in our exclusive economic zone?;     The Government document that the Exiting the European Union Committee released last week stated that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is“coordinating analysis of the impacts of a potential loss of 48 hour working week”.Why are the Government seeking to use Brexit as an excuse to steal workers’ rights?; Our leaving the common agricultural policy gives the farming industry a historic opportunity to take back control of our farming policies. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we protect the interests of family farmers, such as those in my constituency, by continuing the direct payment of subsidies?
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): While talking about Northern Ireland, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), made the significant statement that the report by Mr Lars Karlsson did not meet the Government’s test of there being no physical border infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State repeat that statement and say that, in his view, the report does not meet that test?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: Does my right hon. Friend agree that remaining in a customs union after Brexit would prevent one of the major opportunities presented by leaving the EU: taking control of our trade?; Vital services for people suffering domestic violence, hate crime, discrimination and labour exploitation are funded by the EU rights, equality and citizenship programme. When the consultation on the UK prosperity fund eventually begins, will that programme be part of it?; Last weekend, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs released a joint statement with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, about the future of fisheries post Brexit. Does my hon. Friend agree with them that the UK must, on 29 March next year, leave the common fisheries policy and take back control of our waters, which means that the UK will decide annually who catches what, where and when in our exclusive economic zone?;     The Government document that the Exiting the European Union Committee released last week stated that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is“coordinating analysis of the impacts of a potential loss of 48 hour working week”.Why are the Government seeking to use Brexit as an excuse to steal workers’ rights?; Our leaving the common agricultural policy gives the farming industry a historic opportunity to take back control of our farming policies. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we protect the interests of family farmers, such as those in my constituency, by continuing the direct payment of subsidies?
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): May I ask the Secretary of State directly whether he has seen the investigation from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that apparently shows the disastrous effect that Brexit will have on manufacturing all over the country, but particularly in the north and the regions? Has he seen it, and, if he has, is he colluding to keep it private?
Building Safety — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: Law and Crime
Rupa Asha Huq (Labour, Centre-left): As west London near neighbours, residents in the London borough of Ealing can see Grenfell—the charred coffin in the sky—from bits of my constituency. I passed by it yesterday. My constituent John Metcalfe attended the silent march last night and says that there were massive numbers and the sense of injustice was overwhelming. The Minister has repeatedly said that public safety is paramount. What is he doing to instil public confidence—I will not say "regain", because I do not think it was ever there—in the inquiry and the aftermath?
Burma — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Twigg (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement and echo his words in describing this as a "humanitarian catastrophe". I also reinforce what the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) said about the sheer scale of the camp—it is 10 times the size of the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan and double the size of the city of Liverpool. I welcome the fact that the Minister is meeting the Bangladeshi Foreign Minister this afternoon, but we really need to say to Bangladesh at the most senior level that more needs to be done to prepare for the rainy season, cyclones and the monsoon. I urge our Prime Minister to ask the Bangladeshi Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, to take a personal lead, because otherwise that humanitarian catastrophe will be multiplied in the weeks and months ahead.
Burma — House of Commons, 2018-03-15
Topic: International Affairs
Richard Haines Burden (Labour, Centre-left): May I emphasise the urgency of addressing at the highest level the imminent threat from the monsoon rains and the cyclone season? Anyone who has seen the camps in Cox’s Bazar, as the International Development Committee did last week, will know that the flimsy plastic and bamboo shacks that are built on loose earth on deforested land will be simply swept away, and thousands of people could die. When the Minister raises this issue with the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, may I urge him to stress that it is not simply the intention of bringing more land into play that is important? What is most important is action to achieve that end—and action within days or weeks, not months.