argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: Labor
Questions:   Local authorities such as Suffolk County Council are facing major challenges in recruiting social care staff. That is cascading right through the health and social care system and causing major difficulties for hospitals in discharging patients, getting on top of the backlog of operations and getting ambulances quickly back on the road. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outline the discussions he has had with local government to remove this logjam?
Lisa Eva Nandy (Labour, Centre-left): We have had a week of travel chaos while the Transport Secretary has sat idly by, and there is another crisis on the horizon: the local government cleaners, social workers and refuse workers who cannot afford to feed their families on the wages they are paid. They need and deserve a pay rise. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities knows that workers and council leaders struggling with record Tory inflation cannot square the circle alone. Nobody wants rubbish piling up in the streets, nobody wants older people left in their homes, and nobody wants families left to break. Will he commit to making a better fist of this than his hopeless colleague at the Department for Transport? He should do as they ask and come to the table to protect our vital workers, who kept this country going during the pandemic, and the communities they serve so well.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions:   Local authorities such as Suffolk County Council are facing major challenges in recruiting social care staff. That is cascading right through the health and social care system and causing major difficulties for hospitals in discharging patients, getting on top of the backlog of operations and getting ambulances quickly back on the road. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outline the discussions he has had with local government to remove this logjam?
Lisa Eva Nandy (Labour, Centre-left): It would be laughable if the Government’s failure to do their job had not brought this country to a standstill and was not about to get much worse. The Secretary of State talks about Labour Members doing their jobs, but the last time we had strikes on this level was under the Thatcher Government in 1989, and he was on a picket line—I prefer his earlier approach. If he is serious about getting the economy moving, why does he not do his job My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) talked about the billions of pounds that the Government have poured down the drain on levelling up, because the Secretary of State does not have the first clue how to spend it. He knows that the only way out of this low growth, high tax spiral that his Government have created is to get the economy firing on all cylinders. Can he remind me again whose job that is? It is his. If he will not do it, why will he not get out of the way and give that money to local council leaders so that they can?
Draft Mental Health Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: Law and Crime
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): Clause 31 states that transfers from prison to hospital should take place within 28 days of a referral notice, "unless there are exceptional circumstances", and makes it very clear that those exceptional circumstances do not include a shortage of staff or beds. That is welcome, but at the moment about 50% of prisoners who are assessed as needing transfer to hospital are not transferred because the beds are not available. What can the Secretary of State do to make sure that that is not an issue by the time the Bill becomes law?
Draft Mental Health Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: Government Operations
Mary Elizabeth Twist (Labour, Centre-left): I, too, thank the Secretary of State for sharing his personal experience, which it is so important to do. Will he tell me how he will match up the welcome provisions in the Bill with the need to ensure that action is taken? How will the resources match the responsibilities in the Bill?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise: there are three parts to this On 23 May, I raised a point of order about the failure of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to respond to my correspondence on behalf of my constituent, Mr Brian Price of Treorchy, since I first wrote to the Government on 25 November 2020—not 2021. Eight letters, one parliamentary question and a point of order later, and a month after that, guess what? Still no reply. What can I do Likewise, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary making a formal subject access request to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on 8 March of this year. I was told that I would get a formal response within a calendar month. On 20 April, the FCDO wrote to give a new date to respond—20 June. Guess what, Madam Deputy Speaker? Last week, I received this reply: "We cannot at this stage give you a definitive date of when we will be able to issue our reply." But the law requires answers to subject access requests within a calendar month. What can I do So far, this month, we have had 42 passport cases in my constituency—and that is just this month—and 16 new passport cases today. My constituents ring and ring and ring, but they get no answer. When my staff ring on their behalf, they often get an answer on the phone, but, again, there is no substantive answer at the end of all of that. What can I do?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: Government Operations
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. Of course it is not for the Chair to fact-check comments made by Members or Ministers, but if the Minister feels there has been any inaccuracy, there are ways for the record to be corrected. The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, and I am sure that that will be fed back from the Treasury Bench Bill Presented House of Lords (Elected Senate) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Paul Maynard, supported by John Stevenson, presented a Bill to replace the House of Lords with an elected senate; and for connected purposes Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 119).
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: Government Operations
Karin Marguerite Smyth (Labour, Centre-left): Over the past six years, I have given several alternatives, including as a shadow Minister. The Secretary of State talks about the institutions. Can she give the House the details of the agreement she has secured from the political parties in Northern Ireland that they will return to Stormont on the completion of the Bill—or on the completion of Second Reading, at any point during the Committee stage, or on Third Reading? What in the Bill has secured that? What role is there for anybody in Northern Ireland, given that the powers go to the Minister of the Crown?
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): I have a very short question, which is simply this. The Foreign Secretary says the Bill is legal, but lots of people disagree with her, including lots of very eminent lawyers both in this country and elsewhere. Which body will arbitrate on the decision as to whether this Bill is legal?
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): I suspect that when the Foreign Secretary was campaigning for Britain to remain in the European Union, she never in a million years thought she would be standing here proposing a Bill of this sort. In light of the comment she just made about article 16, why are the Government not proposing to use the legal method to raise these questions with the European Union through the treaty they signed, rather than claiming necessity? The Foreign Secretary has yet to give me a single example where the British Government have claimed necessity for abrogating a treaty they have negotiated and signed.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): Less than three years ago, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box seeking to persuade the House to support the withdrawal agreement that he negotiated with the European Union. It was, he said, "a great deal for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 579.] He urged each of us "to show the same breadth of vision as our European neighbours" with whom he had struck the agreement. He reassured us that "Above all, we and our European friends have preserved the letter and the spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement."—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 571.] His deal, he argued, was "in perfect conformity with the Good Friday agreement."—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 583.] Today, 18 months after it came into force, the Government are taking a wrecking ball to their own agreement.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): What can I say to the hon. Gentleman? The Opposition think that there is a better way forward through negotiation, but at least the proposition that he suggests is legal. I will come on to that in a moment.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): I will not; I will make some progress The Government are bringing the Bill to the House because they object to the text that they negotiated, and the choices that they freely made. They are asking each Member of the House to vote for a Bill that flouts international law. That proposition should never be put to hon. Members. The Bill is damaging and counterproductive. The strategy behind it is flawed. The legal justification for it is feeble. The precedent that it sets is dangerous and the timing could hardly be worse. It divides the United Kingdom and the European Union at a time when we should be pulling together against Putin’s war on the continent, and it risks causing new trade barriers during a cost of living crisis.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): Negotiate—just as Labour did to get the Good Friday agreement. We negotiate. We do not break international law and alienate our partners and allies not just in Europe but across the world, and the right hon. Gentleman should know better As we debate the Bill, we should ask ourselves some simple questions. First, will it resolve the situation in Northern Ireland? Secondly, is it in the best interests of our great country? Thirdly, is it compatible with our commitment to the rule of law? Let me take each of those in turn.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): I will not at the moment Let us deal with Northern Ireland first as context. None of us in this House doubts that the situation in Northern Ireland is serious. Opposition Members need no reminder of the importance of the Good Friday agreement, which is one of the proudest achievements of a Labour Government, together with parties and communities across Northern Ireland and the Irish Government in Dublin. It was the result of hard work and compromise, graft and statesmanship, a relentless focus on the goal of peace. It was born six months after Bloody Sunday. For more than half my lifetime, Northern Ireland endured the pain and violence of conflict and division. More than 3,500 people were killed. Thousands more were injured. Cities and communities were riven by intolerance and division. I remember what that conflict brought to my city, from the Baltic Exchange attack to the Docklands bombing. Above the door over there and other doors into this Chamber are plaques to Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Sir Anthony Berry, Robert Bradford and, most recently, to Sir Henry Wilson. Nearly a quarter of a century has passed since that hopeful Easter in 1998. Since then, we have seen transformational progress. A generation has grown up in a new Northern Ireland, harvesting the fruits of a hard-won peace. That legacy demands that all of us act with the utmost responsibility and sensitivity. We need calm heads at this moment and responsible leadership We recognise that the operation of the protocol and the barriers and checks that were inherent in its design have created new tensions that need to be addressed. Unionists feel that their place in the UK is threatened, and we must listen to all concerns on all sides. We all want to see power sharing restored. The UK Government, the European Union and parties across Northern Ireland need to show willing and act in good faith. However, at its most fundamental level, the Bill will not achieve its objectives. The House cannot impose a unilateral solution when progress demands that both sides agree. This is not an act of good faith, nor is it a long-term solution Only an agreement that works for all sides and delivers for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland will have durability and provide the political stability that businesses crave and the public deserve. Instead, the Bill will make a resolution more difficult. By breaking their obligations, the Government dissolve the little trust that remains; by taking this aggressive action, we make it harder for those on the other side of the table to compromise. On that basis alone, the Bill should be rejected.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in these matters, and indeed when the protocol was being negotiated in the first place. May I say that I met EU ambassadors in London last week and made that very point? I point him to the speech that I made last week, in which I highlighted exactly what he has just said.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: Foreign Trade
Liam Dominic Byrne (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. Is he aware of comments by the US trade representative Ambassador Tai, from Speaker Pelosi and indeed from a host of our American allies in Congress? They have been very clear with us that there will be no US-UK trade deal unless there is a durable way forward on the Northern Ireland question. Not only does this reckless approach risk destroying relations with the EU, but it puts a deal with America at risk.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): I think that the right hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. Article 16 arises in relation to the defence that the Government suggest: the doctrine of necessity—that is, they have not used it and the point of using it is that, at the very least, it would be legal "Pacta sunt servanda". Agreements must be kept. This is the essence of international law: the solemn promise of states acting in good faith and upholding their commitments to treaties that they have agreed. How would we react if a country we had renegotiated with did the same thing and simply disregarded the commitments we had mutually agreed on? I do not doubt that, if an authoritarian state used necessity to justify its actions in breaking a treaty in the manner the Government are proposing to do through this Bill, the Foreign Secretary and many of us across this House would condemn it Since the right hon. Lady became Foreign Secretary, the Foreign Office has issued countless statements and press releases urging others to meet their international obligations. They include Iran under the joint comprehensive plan of action; China under the joint declaration of Hong Kong; and Russia under the Budapest memorandum. In just the last fortnight, the Foreign Office under her leadership has publicly called on Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Nicaragua, South Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia to meet their international obligations. Hypocrisy is corrosive to our foreign policy and I know that Members from across the House share these concerns.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): I take this point from my right hon. Friend’s mention of the Budapest accord: when the UK signs a document, it really needs to stand by it. We did not stand by the Budapest accord either. We did not make sure that the text was proper before we brought it to Parliament, and that is one of the reasons we have the problems we have today, is it not?
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we use the word "honourable" across this House, it means something. It is about the integrity of this place and about the pre-eminent position that this Parliament and this country find themselves in on matters of international affairs. That is why this is such a sombre moment.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): Yes, it needs to be improved, but the question is how. What is the best method to achieve that? Is breaking international law and placing ourselves in a situation in which our EU partners do not trust us the best way?
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): Let me just make some progress, because I have been on my feet for a long time and lots of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate Our country’s reputation is a matter beyond party. It is hard won and easily lost. When this Bill was first mooted, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) asked "what such a move would say about the United Kingdom and its willingness to abide by treaties that it has signed."—[Official Report, 10 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 38.] The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said in a thoughtful piece on this legislation last week that our country "benefits greatly from our reputation for keeping our word and upholding the rule of law...We should be very wary indeed of damaging that standing." The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said, "I don’t see how…any member of parliament can vote for a breach of international law." Lord Anderson and Lord Pannick, who are among the most distinguished lawyers in the country, have called this Bill a "clear breach" of international law that "shows a lack of commitment to the rule of law and to a rules-based international order that damages the reputation of the UK." And Sir Jonathan Jones QC, formerly the most senior lawyer in Government, has described the legal justification for the Bill as "hopeless." This is, of course, the same distinguished lawyer who resigned last time the Government proposed legislation in violation of their own treaty commitments. On that occasion, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had the temerity to tell the House the truth about the Government’s plan to break international law in a "limited and specific way." This Bill breaks the withdrawal agreement in a broad and extensive way while maintaining the pretence that it is somehow compliant. I am not sure what is worse—to be open about breaking the law or to dress up a treaty violation with this flimsy and transparent legal distortion.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman has, like me, been in this House for many years. This is too serious an issue for any shadow Minister or Minister not to have spent the whole weekend working hard on the Bill, as he knows. He also knows that we all come to this House hopeful of reaching agreement, but very conscious of the lawbreaking that is going forward, so of course I have read it Undermining international law runs counter to Britain’s interest, damages Britain’s moral authority and political credibility, and risks emboldening dictators and authoritarian states around the world. It serves the best interests of those who want to weaken the rule of law, and it is unbefitting of this great country This Bill not only contravenes international law but affords the Government extraordinary powers and denies proper respect to the role of this House. Fifteen of the 26 clauses confer powers on Ministers. The Hansard Society, not an organisation known for hyperbole, has called the powers given to Ministers "breathtaking." Professor Catherine Barnard of Cambridge University has called these powers "eye wateringly broad." Ministers may use these powers whenever they feel it appropriate. Clause 22 allows them to amend Acts of Parliament, and clause 15 gifts them the power to disapply other parts of the protocol, potentially including the article on democratic consent in Northern Ireland. Ministers could use secondary legislation to change not just primary law but an international treaty. This is a power grab so broad it would make Henry VIII blush Clause 19 allows Ministers to implement a new deal with the European Union without primary legislation. Do Conservative Back Benchers really want to give any Foreign Secretary that power? This is brazen Executive overreach. It is an act of disrespect to Parliament and all MPs should reject it.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: Government Operations
Karin Marguerite Smyth (Labour, Centre-left): As well as disrespecting Members and Parliament, the Bill is extraordinarily disrespectful to the representatives of people in Northern Ireland who will have no say on these provisions, as the Secretary of State is grabbing all the power.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
David Lindon Lammy (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Should this Bill reach Committee stage, I hope that proper scrutiny and consideration will be given to the powers that the Foreign Secretary is taking for herself and denying this Parliament and Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: Government Operations
Karin Marguerite Smyth (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said in this place many times, about aspects of the Joint Committee. This Bill that he is agreeing with, however, similarly gives absolutely no power to anybody in Northern Ireland—him, his party or anybody else— but gives it all to the Secretary of State. On that basis, how can he support it?
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
George Edward Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): I know that the right hon. Gentleman gives a lot of thought to these issues and does not arrive at opinions lightly. He is arguing that the Bill as it stands will give Northern Ireland the things it wants—I think that is his main point—but what will happen if he is wrong?