argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Mental Health Support Teams — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: Labor
Questions: What the aims are of the new mental health support teams to be placed in schools and colleges; and what steps those teams will take to improve mental health for young people.
Jacqueline Doyle-Price (Conservative, Centre-right): I know that the hon. Lady is very passionate about all this, and I can say to her that, in rolling out this additional support, we do not want to crowd out anything that is there already. It should genuinely be working in partnership with the provision that has already been undertaken, but we recognise that we need to be rolling out further investment. We are introducing a new workforce that will have 300,000 people when it is fully rolled out, but we must ensure that we invest in the training in such a way that it will be effective.[Official Report, 16 January 2019, Vol. 652, c. 8MC.]
People with Autism and Learning Disabilities — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Caroline Julia Dinenage (Conservative, Centre-right): I congratulate my hon. Friend on his active involvement in the all-party parliamentary groups on learning disability and on autism. Over the next three years, we will be testing and implementing the most effective ways to reduce waiting times for specialist services. We are developing guidance to support commissioners to develop the necessary services to support all autistic people, and we have launched a review of our autism strategy.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: Before Christmas we had the brilliant news that £40 million of capital funding has been allocated for a new state-of-the-art A&E facility at Scarborough Hospital, which will transform emergency care for my constituents. Can the Minister update me on similar ambitious plans for Whitby Hospital?
Caroline Julia Dinenage (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Lady knows that we have given councils access to nearly £10 billion over a three-year period to address this very issue, but she is right to highlight the issues at the heart of social care. We will be publishing the Green Paper very shortly.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: Before Christmas we had the brilliant news that £40 million of capital funding has been allocated for a new state-of-the-art A&E facility at Scarborough Hospital, which will transform emergency care for my constituents. Can the Minister update me on similar ambitious plans for Whitby Hospital?; Perhaps the worst private finance initiative contract in the country was awarded in 2001 to Shaw Healthcare for the rehabilitation of elderly people coming out of hospital. Northamptonshire County Council has been paying Shaw for a service in which more than 50% of beds have been lying empty. What steps can the Department take to manage the problems that have arisen from this and other PFI contracts?; The closure of ward 6 at Bishop Auckland Hospital will mean the loss of 24 beds, which is why 14,000 people have signed a petition to keep it. Will the Minister now step in to ensure that we keep ward 6?; As we heard earlier, obesity is a major health problem in Britain. Nationally, 1,100 people per 100,000 are admitted to hospital because of obesity-related problems. This is a particular problem in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, where 1,700 people per 100,000 are affected. That is the highest rate in the whole of Kent and Medway. Does the Minister recognise the huge strain that such a statistic puts on the budget of the Swale clinical commissioning group, and, if so, what steps will he take to provide the funds needed to solve the problem?; A senior Bedford GP was told by the East of England Ambulance Service that a patient who required urgent admission would have to wait 10 hours for an ambulance. I am deeply concerned about this response time. Will the Minister urgently investigate why patients are being deliberately downgraded when an ambulance is called from a GP surgery?
Maria Colette Caulfield (Conservative, Centre-right): Children’s hospices provide vital support for children with life-limiting conditions and their families at the most difficult of times. I welcome the £25 million of extra investment in these services, but what more can be done to support children’s hospices across the UK?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: Before Christmas we had the brilliant news that £40 million of capital funding has been allocated for a new state-of-the-art A&E facility at Scarborough Hospital, which will transform emergency care for my constituents. Can the Minister update me on similar ambitious plans for Whitby Hospital?; Perhaps the worst private finance initiative contract in the country was awarded in 2001 to Shaw Healthcare for the rehabilitation of elderly people coming out of hospital. Northamptonshire County Council has been paying Shaw for a service in which more than 50% of beds have been lying empty. What steps can the Department take to manage the problems that have arisen from this and other PFI contracts?; The closure of ward 6 at Bishop Auckland Hospital will mean the loss of 24 beds, which is why 14,000 people have signed a petition to keep it. Will the Minister now step in to ensure that we keep ward 6?; As we heard earlier, obesity is a major health problem in Britain. Nationally, 1,100 people per 100,000 are admitted to hospital because of obesity-related problems. This is a particular problem in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, where 1,700 people per 100,000 are affected. That is the highest rate in the whole of Kent and Medway. Does the Minister recognise the huge strain that such a statistic puts on the budget of the Swale clinical commissioning group, and, if so, what steps will he take to provide the funds needed to solve the problem?; A senior Bedford GP was told by the East of England Ambulance Service that a patient who required urgent admission would have to wait 10 hours for an ambulance. I am deeply concerned about this response time. Will the Minister urgently investigate why patients are being deliberately downgraded when an ambulance is called from a GP surgery?; I have recently been contacted by constituents who have faced long waits in A&E at Wigan Infirmary. Figures show that one in four patients have waited longer than four hours. Can the Minister explain how removing waiting time targets will improve the situation?; As I have seen recently in my own constituency, access to mental health services is sometimes deplorable. Notwithstanding what the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), said earlier about all the plans, how long will people have to wait before those services actually get better?
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): Absolutely. I look forward to working on that with my hon. Friend and local commissioners, and also to working with my hon. Friend before the spending review, when the next round of the capital allocations will be set.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
James Stephen Heappey (Conservative, Centre-right): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday you said you would adhere to the advice of the late Lord Whitelaw and cross bridges only when we come to them. I think we would all agree with you on that, but in the interests of knowing what bridges might be crossed, you were asked yesterday to confirm that only a Minister of the Crown could move a motion to extend article 50, and I wonder if you have any update on what you described at the time as being a holding response.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): What I would say to the hon. Lady is that at the point I am ready to say something on important matters of procedure that require a statement, I hope she will trust that, on the strength of nine and a half years in the Chair, I do know when that point is. Much as I appreciate the diligence and commitment in the Chamber of the hon. Lady, and recognise that there is a desire on the part of many Members, often at short notice, and sometimes on a co-ordinated basis and sometimes not, to raise points of order with great enthusiasm, there is no need for it now. At the point at which a ruling is required, it will be proffered to the House by, if I may say so, an experienced Chair. I think it would be regarded as a courtesy by the House if we could proceed to the presentation of a Bill, for which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) has been patiently waiting Bill Presented European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Nick Boles, supported by Liz Kendall, Norman Lamb, Yvette Cooper, Nicky Morgan, Hilary Benn and Sir Oliver Letwin, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 314).
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): I will suggest the next office you could perhaps promote me to, Mr Speaker I am more than conscious that last time I had a prolonged outing in this House the verdict did not go well. [Laughter.] On this occasion, I intend, if I may, to adopt an approach that I hope will be more to the House’s taste. I want to listen to the House’s views, and I shall be as accommodating as possible to the interventions of Members of this House, knowing as I do that many of them have very strong views upon this subject I have listened with care to the speeches of Members of this House during the course of last week’s proceedings, and I have been struck by the heartfelt and eloquent expressions of principled opinion that hon. Members have made. I was particularly struck, though I do not think he is in his place this morning, by the speech late last night—I commend you, Mr Speaker, and those who remained here until after 1 o’clock in the morning to complete yesterday’s proceedings—by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). He waited, I think, until midnight or shortly thereafter to begin his speech, and made the most passionate appeal to Members of this House to understand the value of compromise. He told the House that the membership of this place confers on us not only the great privilege of participation in the Government but the responsibilities that go with it In the past, when this country has faced these kinds of grave obstacles and impediments to finding a way forward, Members of this place have found the resource within themselves to achieve a compromise and to subordinate their ideal preference—the solution that they would like to see—to that which commands a degree of consensus. It is precisely for that reason that I support the withdrawal agreement—not because I like every element of it but for wholly pragmatic reasons: it is the necessary means to secure our orderly departure and unlock our future outside the European Union Since 23 June 2016, we have been on a road that has led us ineluctably to this point. One after another, this House has taken the steps, often by overwhelming majorities, necessary to bring us to the brink of departure, and there are now but two steps to take. The first is this withdrawal agreement. It is the first of the two keys that will unlock our future outside the European Union. It is sometimes said in various circles, I understand, Mr Speaker, that if you are moving from one pressurised atmosphere or environment to another, it is necessary to have an airlock. This withdrawal agreement is the first key that will unlock the airlock and take us into the next stage, where the second key will be the permanent relationship treaty.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): Well, of course I would have been infinitely happier if the European Union had not laid down as one of its cardinal negotiating points and principles that there should be a backstop, but it has done that. On the basis of its own guidance to its own negotiating principles, it would have been a demand that it always sought, and we are faced with the position as it now is If we take this step of entering this withdrawal agreement, we will then enter a stage where we are to negotiate the second key to unlock our future outside the European Union. What I am commending to the House is that we take this key and we unlock the door to that first chamber—that airlock where we can then settle the permanent relationship that is set out in the political declaration.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): I intend to address the very point that the right hon. Gentleman raises, because it is important to distinguish between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration and the permanent treaties in which the long-term relationship between this country and the European Union will be settled. The political declaration sets the boundaries within which those permanent arrangements will be negotiated. The aims of the withdrawal agreement are to settle the outstanding issues that our departure creates. These are two separate and, importantly, distinguishable functions The withdrawal agreement commands across the House, I would submit, with the exception of two areas—the backstop and the political declaration—widespread consensus as to its necessity and its wisdom.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
Hugo Swire (Conservative, Centre-right): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the non-selection of the amendment in my name and the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, makes harder the Government’s challenge this afternoon to convince those of us who are still concerned about the implications of the backstop? What does he think can replace those two amendments?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
Mark Gino Francois (Conservative, Centre-right): Will the Attorney General confirm that, while the political declaration is aspirational in style, it is not legally binding in international law, but the withdrawal agreement, as a draft international treaty, would be fully binding in international law? Will he also confirm that he is offering the House an embarrassment of riches? After months of debating the backstop, we now have the airlock as well. Are the Government so desperate that they are now offering the House of Commons a buy-one-get-one-free?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend knows what I mean. The airlock metaphor is indicated to demonstrate the distinction that exists. The withdrawal agreement has been negotiated over thousands of hours and is, as he rightly says, the legally binding text and the only legally binding text. It was only ever empowered under article 50 to deal with historic issues and outstanding matters that otherwise would have catapulted citizens, businesses and Governments into legal uncertainty.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): I want to make a bit of progress, because it is important to look at what the withdrawal agreement does We should not underestimate the legal complexity of our disentanglement from 45 years of legal integration. It has taken two years and thousands of hours of detailed and arduous negotiation, some of it highly technical, to produce 585 pages of the most minute consideration of the possibilities that no deal would create in legal terms for the millions of people who depend upon the certainty of the legal system and rules to which we have hitherto been subject. It provides for the orderly, predictable and legally certain winding down of our obligations and involvement in the legal systems of the EU. If we do not legislate for that legal certainty, as a matter of law alone, thousands of contracts, transactions, administrative proceedings and judicial proceedings in the European Union and this country will be plunged into legal uncertainty It would be the height of irresponsibility for any legislator to contemplate with equanimity such a situation. A litigant in court who was dependent upon having concluded a contract on the basis of EU law and then found themselves suddenly having the rug pulled from under them, not knowing what their legal obligations were, would say to this House, "What are you playing at? What are you doing? You are not children in the playground. You are legislators, and this is your job."
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: Law and Crime
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): I will give way in a moment. I intend to take many interventions in the course of this speech We are playing with people’s lives. We are debating the effects of legal continuity. Forty-five years of legal integration have brought our two legal systems into a situation where they are organically linked. To appeal to those who have a medical background, it is the same as if we were to separate from a living organism, with all its arteries and veins, a living organ—a central part from this body politic. We cannot underestimate the complexity of what we are embarked upon doing.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman knows the affection that I hold for him. It is not "my way". I understand the heartfelt, passionate and sincere views held on both sides. I listened all last night to the speeches from Members on the Opposition and Government Benches. We must come together now, as mature legislators, to ask ourselves: what are the fundamental objections, if there are any, to this withdrawal agreement? Whether or not it can be done by 29 March does not affect the decision we have to take today, which is: do we opt for order, or do we choose chaos?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: Law and Crime
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): Let me say straightaway, as my letter says, that these assurances, in my view, make a difference to the political question that each of us has to take, but, as I said in the letter, they do not affect the legal equation.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): First, let me say to my right hon. Friend, the legal equation remains the same. The assurances are binding in the sense that, in international law, they would be a legally binding interpretative tool. What they do not do is alter the fundamental meaning of the provisions of the withdrawal agreement. In that respect, he is right I need to come to the first point that I want to make to the House. Let us examine the rest of the agreement. Do we have—
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): I will in a minute Do we have before us—the withdrawal agreement—a sensible settling of these critical historical obligations for continuing transactions to resolve, for millions of people, the legal uncertainty of taking ourselves away from the highly integrated legal system in which we were organically linked and, indeed, part of? The 585 pages—
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): I will in a moment The agreement settles the bills. It legally allows for the orderly completion of these thousands of continuing transactions—judicial proceedings, accounting procedures —that would otherwise be thrown into a legal void. It provides for a period of adjustment for people and for businesses of the next 21 months, extendable up to two years, to allow our businesses and our individual citizens to adjust to the new realities That is what I mean by the airlock. It is quite simple: an airlock enables the human body to adjust to the new pressure it will face when it exits the airlock. This period allows the transition and adjustment of this country to enter into the bright new world that we will enter when we leave the European Union. So I say to the House with all due diffidence and respect: we all of us would regard, would we not, these parts of the withdrawal agreement as essential to create the bridge for our departure from the European Union.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
Shailesh Lakhman Vara (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. and learned Friend speaks of the legal complexities of the withdrawal agreement, and he also speaks of a coming together. May I refer him to the advice that he gave to the Prime Minister on 13 November in his capacity as Attorney General? On page 2, paragraph 8, he said: "for regulatory purposes GB is essentially treated as a third country by NI for goods passing from GB into NI." How can he talk about coming together, while his own advice to the Prime Minister talks of anything but?
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): I understand the force of what my hon. Friend says, but precisely the same prevails in numerous EU countries. For the purposes of regulation, the Canary Islands are treated as a third country to Spain. It is not for the purposes of regulation alone—single market regulations alone. There are examples all around the world of where there are regulatory differences between individual parts of the jurisdiction of sovereign states.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act — House of Commons, 2019-01-15
Topic: International Affairs
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): I am immensely obliged to the hon. Lady because that is precisely what I want to move on to If we accept, and I urge this House to accept, that effectively 90% of this withdrawal agreement—some 450 of the 585 pages—in fact settles these crucial outstanding matters, which no sensible person could doubt require to be settled in order to effect our departure, that leaves the two grounds of objection that have been advanced—I listen with great care to speeches from Members on the Opposition side of the House—to this agreement and declaration, so may I come to those two grounds? Before I do, I simply say that there are some typical misconceptions about the withdrawal agreement. For example, it is said that the Court of Justice of the European Union retains jurisdiction over our courts once the time-limited obligations have wound down that the withdrawal agreement settles. It does not. It does not. It does not. It does not. How many times do I have to say it to my hon. Friends? [Hon. Members: "More."] It does not! The fact of the matter is that once—once—these obligations have wound down, the CJEU will have no jurisdiction over the resolution of disputes between individuals, citizens, businesses in our country. This is what our people voted for and we, by adopting this withdrawal agreement, can give it to them Secondly, it is said that we will be permanently bound by EU rules. But we will not. The fact of the matter is that the withdrawal agreement’s obligations are inherently time-limited. Once they have wound out, the EU rules will no longer have effect in this country.