argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-07
Topic: International Affairs
George Edward Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on a speech that was fluent, forceful and, at the same time, generous to her predecessor. Her speech has also made me determined me to visit Canterbury, which sounds such a delightful place I have a few points: on why people voted to leave in the referendum; on where the Bill stands in relation to why people voted to leave; and on how all the other aspects of Brexit are going, and how they relate back to why people voted as they did. There may be other areas, but there are three that I think are most relevant. First, people voted to restore the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. However they define that sovereignty, the issue was certainly debated forcefully, and it was occasionally raised on the doorstep—I use the word "occasionally" advisedly Secondly, people voted to restore some kind of economic independence. People felt that we were spending too much money in Europe and that we would be better off outside, where we could negotiate better trade arrangements with the rest of the world—everything in the garden would be rosy. Thirdly, the issue most commonly raised with me on the doorstep was immigration I will briefly address those three points. On the first issue of sovereignty, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) can dance on the head of a pin all they want about what the Bill actually does but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) so forensically demonstrated, the Bill is a transfer of power from Parliament and towards the Executive. That certainly is not what the people in my constituency voted for Secondly, on economic independence, apart from the fact that it will potentially cost us £70 billion just to walk away, people did not vote for a worse trade deal and for worse economic relationships within the European community. Okay, I accept that the Prime Minister says, "You can’t leave and, at the same time, be a member of the single market. You cannot leave and, at the same time, be a member of the customs union." I am sure she is right, but let us be honest about what we know the Government are seeking to do.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-07
Topic: International Affairs
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): I do not want to repeat many of the excellent points made from the shadow Front Bench and elsewhere, but I do want to make one observation and two points—one legal and technical on clause 6, and one that is more substantial on clause 9 First, I want to make an observation. I am sorry, but I disagree with the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who has just spoken: what is proposed in this Bill is unprecedented, as we see from the reaction on both sides of the House There is an absurdity in this debate. I spent much of the time during the EU referendum debating against Conservative Members campaigning to leave. More often than not, the core of their argument was about a Brussels elite exercising power, yet I have sat in the Chamber for most of today and listened to them become arch-advocates of transferring power to another elite in this country It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) is no longer in the Chamber. He talked about his participation in the Maastricht debates of the 1990s, and the hon. Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and for Stone (Sir William Cash) were also involved. The Prime Minister of the time had a word to describe them all, which I will not repeat today. They were constantly invoking parliamentary sovereignty and the importance of this House determining the future of our nation. It is funny how silent they are on upholding that argument now, and have been over the last few hours of this debate Let us be honest about the reason for this and for the absurdity of their position in this debate: they promised Brexit in terms that simply cannot be delivered in the timeframe the Government envisage. That is why we see these unprecedented, extraordinary powers envisaged in this Bill for the Executive. It is entirely right for us to keep reminding people of what the promises were and whether they are being delivered My technical point on clause 6—
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-09-07
Topic: International Affairs
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): I will not give way, I am afraid, because of the time. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says he is not silent; he is certainly not silent The Secretary of State today said that the Government wish the transitional arrangements to be as close as possible to the existing arrangements. The EU27 are really only going to entertain membership of the single market and a form of customs union, if that is what the Secretary of State means, but they will also expect the rules on the transitional arrangements to be uniform and similar to those we have at present. The problem with clause 6 as drafted is that it does not give a clear enough instruction that after the exit date the judiciary should interpret UK law in a way that complies with EU law. The Institute for Government states that the ambiguity on this point risks leaving judges stranded on the frontline of a fierce political battle. I can say, as someone who practised as a lawyer for the best part of a decade before coming here, that that must be addressed The Bill cannot be allowed to come into force unless this House has approved the deal that is envisaged. The Bill does not state whether any withdrawal agreement will need the consent of both Houses before the powers can be used. The Government have said that we will get a vote on a final deal, but that does not appear to be within the Bill. Rather, it will take place by means of a motion, which would of course not be legally binding. So we have a promise of a vote, but it will have no teeth. That will deprive this House of its proper say not only on the withdrawal agreement but on a situation that the Prime Minister has described in which an affirmative decision could be made to walk away without any deal at all. We are somehow supposed to be passive spectators in that situation. It must be written on the face of the Bill that Parliament will have a part to play in all those scenarios, and that no powers in the Bill will be exercised until Parliament has had its say through a debate written in statute. We have been given many guarantees and assurances by those on the Government Front Bench, but these measures have to be put on the face of the Bill. We are asking for these assurances and scrutinising the Bill in the national interest, and we are entitled to do so without our motives being questioned.
Midlands Engine — House of Commons, 2017-02-27
Topic: Transportation
Robert Howard Marris (Labour, Centre-left): London gets shedloads of money for public transport and Manchester has far more miles of tram network than the urban west midlands. As a west midlands MP, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Secretary of State for Transport on extending the tram network massively in the urban west midlands?
Devolution: England — House of Commons, 2017-02-27
Topic: Government Operations
Tracy Lynn Brabin (Labour, Centre-left): As the Minister no doubt knows, two years ago West Yorkshire council agreed a devolution deal for the Leeds city region. Why has there been no progress? What plans does he have to give West Yorkshire the devolution deal it wants, and why the delay?
Devolution: England — House of Commons, 2017-02-27
Topic: Government Operations
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for his continued efforts to keep the Sheffield city region devolution deal moving forward. I understand that the mayoral election will be postponed until next year but that it might be possible in the meantime for local authorities to access the £30 million on offer if they agree to appoint an interim mayor. Will he confirm that that is the case? If so, what criteria will he want to see in place for it to happen?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-02-27
Topic: Government Operations
Questions: With significant housing growth taking place, what steps are Ministers taking to ensure that, when developers run into financial difficulties, the necessary infrastructure is provided and the developments are completed?; Some local authorities have tendering processes so complex that they appear to have been designed to deter small companies from bidding. For instance, I know of local authorities in Kent that require bidders to complete a wide-ranging pre-qualification form not just once but before every tender is submitted. That is okay for large companies that have dedicated contracts departments, but it is burdensome and onerous for small and medium-sized enterprises. What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage local authorities to make it easier for small companies to bid for work from them?; The Secretary of State will know the importance to Scotland of EU structural funds, in the form of £1.3 billion of investment that is vital for many of our local communities. The ability to administer those funds is a key component of city deals. Does he agree that the uncertainty about the future of those funds after leaving the EU will have a negative impact on the vital long-term planning that is needed, and that it risks damaging those deals?
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): Why is the Minister abolishing the requirement for Parliament to approve the local government finance settlement through the Local Government Finance Bill? Is it because the Government have inflicted so much damage to local government services through cuts that they want to hide that and not be accountable to Parliament?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-02-27
Topic: Environment
Questions: With significant housing growth taking place, what steps are Ministers taking to ensure that, when developers run into financial difficulties, the necessary infrastructure is provided and the developments are completed?; Some local authorities have tendering processes so complex that they appear to have been designed to deter small companies from bidding. For instance, I know of local authorities in Kent that require bidders to complete a wide-ranging pre-qualification form not just once but before every tender is submitted. That is okay for large companies that have dedicated contracts departments, but it is burdensome and onerous for small and medium-sized enterprises. What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage local authorities to make it easier for small companies to bid for work from them?; The Secretary of State will know the importance to Scotland of EU structural funds, in the form of £1.3 billion of investment that is vital for many of our local communities. The ability to administer those funds is a key component of city deals. Does he agree that the uncertainty about the future of those funds after leaving the EU will have a negative impact on the vital long-term planning that is needed, and that it risks damaging those deals?; What assessment has been made of the effect of cuts to the early intervention grant on the ability of local authorities to fund Sure Start children’s centres?
Fiona Margaret Mactaggart (Labour, Centre-left): Last week I met Lakeside Energy from Waste, a company that is enabling local authorities in my area to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. As the Secretary of State knows, the plant is due to be knocked down as a result of the creation of the third runway at Heathrow, yet Lakeside Energy from Waste is anxious because there is no reference to the plant’s future in the national policy statement. Will he or one of his colleagues meet me and Lakeside Energy from Waste to discuss how we can ensure that this important plant is re-provided?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-02-27
Topic: Agriculture
Anna Catherine Turley (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak. I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for advance sight of his comments There is never, ever any excuse for people to abuse Members of Parliament and the hon. Gentleman’s staff certainly should not have had to wade through such messages. Feelings around animal cruelty run very high. People are very passionate about it, but there is never any excuse for abuse I would like to make a point of clarification. First, I was very clear, in what I put out to the media, that it was the Tory Whips who ultimately blocked the Bill. Secondly, this is my first private Member’s Bill, and I had had positive conversations with colleagues on the Government Benches who were very encouraging of it and were, even up until that day, discussing the possibility of it going through. It is a matter of record that the hon. Gentleman spoke for over 90 minutes on the first Bill. Everyone in this House needs to be aware of the consequences of their actions on Bills further down the Order Paper, whether they agree with them or not.
Future Flood Prevention — House of Commons, 2017-02-27
Topic: Agriculture
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as we think about how we ought to spend our farming subsidies in the wake of Brexit, we should look to them to address the issue that he has mentioned? They could perhaps enable farmers to allow their fields to be flooded sometimes as a form of natural flood defence.
Future Flood Prevention — House of Commons, 2017-02-27
Topic: Environment
Robert Howard Marris (Labour, Centre-left): I hope my hon. Friend shares my disappointment at the slow rate of progress. The adaptation measures in the Climate Change Act 2008 are the direct result of a private Member’s Bill I introduced around 10 years ago. As she points out, we have made almost no progress.
Health and Social Care — House of Commons, 2017-02-27
Topic: Macroeconomics
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): I just want us to have a process that gets us to a similar position. Even if local authorities remain part of the funding solution, we cannot assume that the increase in business rates and council tax will keep pace with the level of demand I know that you have encouraged us to keep to a time limit, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Health and Social Care — House of Commons, 2017-02-27
Topic: Macroeconomics
Judith Mary Cummins (Labour, Centre-left): I am nearly at the end of my remarks, and the hon. Lady has had her turn to speak What is beyond doubt is that the Chancellor must act in the upcoming Budget. He faces his greatest test in this Parliament. I hope that he and his Government do not disappoint. Time will tell.
Health and Social Care — House of Commons, 2017-02-27
Topic: Social Welfare
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): I would rather not because of the speaking limit Cuts also mean pressure on the NHS. Durham has faced really big cuts to social care. Between 2011 and 2017, it has had to make £186 million of savings. Child and adult care services comprise 63% of the total budget in the area, and adult social care cuts have been £55 million. The much vaunted precept raises only £4 million, and we have another £40 million of cuts to come. Even taking into account the better care funding, cuts by 2019-20 will come to £170 million. That means that there will be no social care in whole villages in my constituency. We are told that the Chancellor is minded to do something about it. Will he make up the full £4.6 billion that was cut in the last Parliament We have discussed the long term, which we do need to think about. The discussion about social insurance is important and significant, but we should also think about which institutions we would be asking people to put their money and their savings into. A lot of private sector organisations are, frankly, ripping people off with fees of £600 and £900 per week, even in my constituency in the north, where costs are not the highest. With fees like that, we do not even see highly trained people with expertise in dementia, but the same workers on minimum wages with low levels of training. We need to look at a stronger mutual approach and cut exploitative private sector contractors out of adult social care.
Health and Social Care — House of Commons, 2017-02-27
Topic: Social Welfare
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): We get into this repeatedly. The Opposition have no plans to cut £5 billion from social care or to cut the budgets of local councils. That is the difference between us and the Government. Given that we have talked mainly about social care and cuts to social care, the Minister ought to take that into account.
ICL Boulby Potash Mine — House of Commons, 2017-02-27
Topic: Agriculture
Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister is correct that the industry is looking at polyhalite overtaking potash as the main product to sell to the market. Polyhalite is an incredibly hard material and is much more difficult than potash to mine. Extra help to market the product is therefore needed as the industry adapts to it. Has the Minister taken on board my comments about how polyhalite can be incorporated into the industrial strategy and marketed as an industrial product to the world’s agricultural producers?
ICL Boulby Potash Mine — House of Commons, 2017-02-27
Topic: Labor
Tom Blenkinsop (Labour, Centre-left): We cannot go into detail on the cases because they need to be taken through the official legal channels before we can speak about them in any way. My main concern is that, due to the pending legal action, the sick pay period ran out for the miners involved in these cases and they felt forced to go back to work in order to have an income. My worry is that some of those miners may have been in a state of post-traumatic stress, placing other workers in potential jeopardy, but had to go back to work because they are the breadwinner for their family. Will the Government review the legislation to ensure that, pending the legal action, workers in such workplaces can seek sick pay for an elongated period?
Public Sector Pay — House of Commons, 2017-07-05
Topic: Government Operations
Jon Hedley Trickett (Labour, Centre-left): While cutting the real-terms pay of nurses, the police, fire officers and others, the Prime Minister has broken her own £72,000 cap that she advocated for the salaries of political appointees. A third of all her special advisers earn more than that, and her two ill-fated chiefs of staff earned almost double that amount. How can the Minister justify pay restraint for nurses when there is no restraint in No. 10? Will he put an end to the pay cap in the public sector by changing the guidelines that the Government give to the pay review bodies? Finally, will he reject the former Prime Minister’s disgraceful slur that wanting to earn a decent income in the public sector is somehow selfish?
Electoral Fraud — House of Commons, 2017-07-05
Topic: Law and Crime
John Francis Spellar (Labour, Centre-left): Are we not supposed to have policy driven by evidence, and is it not significant that the Minister gave not one shred of evidence in his reply? Quite frankly, in every election there are one or two cases of people being convicted of fraud, out of tens of millions of voters. This is straight out of the Donald Trump disinformation playbook, because Ministers are again trying to suppress voter participation. The Minister cannot come up with any evidence—if anyone has such evidence, they should take it to the police—and he should be ashamed of himself.
Electoral Fraud — House of Commons, 2017-07-05
Topic: Law and Crime
Christopher Shaun Ruane (Labour, Centre-left): Electoral fraud, whenever it occurs, is a serious business. The fact that there were two successful prosecutions in 2016 shows the size of the problem. Does the Minister agree that the bigger crime is having 7 million people off the electoral register?
Democratic Engagement — House of Commons, 2017-07-05
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher Paul Farrelly (Labour, Centre-left): In terms of democratic engagement, we had unprecedented problems in Newcastle-under-Lyme during the general election with late and missing postal votes, and with people being turned away from polling stations over registration issues. I have written to the First Secretary of State and Minister for the Cabinet Office about that, an investigation is under way, and I will apply for an Adjournment debate. In the meantime, will the Minister urgently remind council chief executives and returning officers of their responsibility to resource electoral services sufficiently to carry out their legal responsibilities?
Cyber-security — House of Commons, 2017-07-05
Topic: Technology
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): The Cabinet Office rejected a Public Accounts Committee recommendation that it should set out a detailed plan for how the National Cyber Security Centre will enable those under attack to get help. We heard evidence from many people in large organisations who were very confused about where to go for that help. Will the Minister now reconsider the rejection of that requirement and look again?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-07-05
Topic: Government Operations
Catherine Jane Smith (Labour, Centre-left): The House will be aware that we are currently having the first parliamentary by-election of this Session. It is happening over in the other place; it is the hereditary peers by-election, with just 31 electors. Does the Minister agree that that is a farce in a modern-day democracy?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2017-07-05
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: In the last few days Iraqi security forces, assisted by coalition airstrikes, have made significant progress in eradicating ISIL fighters from Mosul. That is a significant step forward in the military conflict against ISIL in Iraq, but does the Prime Minister agree that the United Kingdom and the United States, in a broad international alliance, need to work with the Iraqi Government to ensure that there is reconstruction in places such as Mosul, and also to ensure that they are sufficiently strong to withstand the poisonous ideology of ISIL as we seek to defeat it?
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): We have had seven years of tax cuts for the richest and tax breaks for the biggest corporations. Last year, there was a net loss of 1,700 nurses and midwives to the NHS, and in the first two months of this year alone, 3,264 have left the profession altogether—not a great birthday present for the NHS, is it? Last week, the Chancellor said: "We all value our public services and the people who provide them to us."—[Official Report, 29 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 797.] He went on to laud his own economic record by saying that we had a "fundamentally robust economy". The Prime Minister found £1 billion to keep her own job; why cannot she find the same amount of money to keep nurses and teachers in their jobs? After all, they serve all of us.