argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
National Security Council Leak — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): What we are talking about is a leak inquiry, carried out on the instruction of the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, by another appropriate official, into the unauthorised disclosure of the proceedings of the National Security Council. It is an internal Government matter, just as any such disclosure and any leak inquiry would be considered a matter for the Government concerned—Labour, Conservative or coalition. I really do not think that it would be right to be in a position where the House collectively tried to establish itself as an investigating authority into internal matters relating to the conduct of Ministers as members of the Government, or the conduct of officials as members of the Government. Those are matters that it is quite proper for the Government to determine, and it is then for Ministers, as I am doing this morning, to come to explain the Government’s decision and be held to account by the House.
National Security Council Leak — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Other
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire has not been accused of any criminal offence but, sadly, he has lost the confidence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and she has therefore acted in accordance with the principles set out in the ministerial code.
National Security Council Leak — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Other
Desmond Angus Swayne (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you, Mr Speaker Outside this House, a right hon. Member is being called a liar, and inside this House, a number of Members have implied as much. Natural justice demands that the evidence be produced so that his reputation can be salvaged or utterly destroyed, doesn’t it?
National Security Council Leak — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peter William Bone (Conservative, Centre-right): It is regrettable that the Deputy Prime Minister did not offer to make a statement to the House and instead had to respond to an urgent question, and that he is not giving away the information that Members are requesting. The former Secretary of State has sworn on the lives of his children that he did not leak the information. This seems to have been a kangaroo court reaching a decision in secret without any evidence to base that decision on. Mr Speaker, you will remember what happened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). There was a rush to judgment and he was forced to resign, but it was then proved that what he was saying was true. Is the Deputy Prime Minister absolutely sure, without any reasonable doubt, that the former Secretary of State is guilty, or could it just be possible that the kangaroo court has made a mistake?
National Security Council Leak — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mark Andrew Pritchard (Conservative, Centre-right): Notwithstanding the particulars of this case, is it not time for the Government finally to bring forward the espionage Bill, which would include the long overdue root and branch reform of the Official Secrets Act? Despite the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments today, is it also not the case that Cabinet leaks will continue as long as Cabinet papers retain their current classification? Is it not time for a review of how Cabinet papers are classified, and should they not all be classified as secret or above?
National Security Council Leak — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Other
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): Whether my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire wants to apply to you, Mr Speaker, to make a personal statement is a matter for him, but there has been a public exchange of letters between him and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister came to her decision for the reasons that she gave, and I have tried to set those out this morning. Her sense that the decision was necessary was accompanied by a sense of real sadness, because this is not a decision that any Prime Minister would take lightly and it would not be made without considerable regret.
National Security Council Leak — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): Clearly, the Cabinet Secretary made a careful assessment of those matters in coming to his judgment, but that judgment is that this is not something that the Government should refer to the police, and the Prime Minister considers the matter closed. Again, I repeat, it is the fact that this was a disclosure from the National Security Council that is at the heart of the seriousness with which the matter has been taken.
National Security Council Leak — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Other
David Roy Lidington (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend invites me to engage in a bit of hypothetical speculation. If there were to be any such clear evidence, I think the Prime Minister would want it reported to her immediately and given to her in full. It would clearly need to be the provision of information that provided some other credible explanation for the leak that has taken place.
National Security Council Leak — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I will take the points of order, on the assumption, which I would like to think is safe, that neither Member would seek to continue the debate we have just had. I feel sure that these are matters of order and that the Front-Bench Members will focus with a laser-like intensity on that.
National Security Council Leak — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman has, as I think he knows, found his own salvation: by means of the attempted point of order he has registered his point. He has placed on the record information that may have been known to some Members but, for example, was certainly not known to me, because I have not been consulting electronic devices but have been merely attending to my duties in the Chair. If the Minister wishes to respond, he is free to do so, but there is, at this point, no sign of him uncoiling. However, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) is a dogged terrier, and I feel sure he and others will pursue these matters if they feel so inclined in the days ahead.
National Security Council Leak — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I would if he did, but he doesn’t, so I won’t. But I rather fancy that these matters will be explored further in the days ahead. Realistically, it does not seem to me that there is obvious scope for the scrutiny of this matter further in the Chamber today, but who knows what subsequent days might bring. Let us leave it there for now.
No-Deal Brexit: Cross-channel Freight — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robert John Blackman (Conservative, Centre-right): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the reality is that cancellation fees are a standard aspect of contracts that exist between Government and private sector suppliers to cover the costs that are legitimately created when a contract occurs? In the event that cancellation takes place, it is perfectly reasonable for those costs to be covered; otherwise people would not contract with the Government.
No-Deal Brexit: Cross-channel Freight — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Christopher Stephen Grayling (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It underlines one of the things that makes the business community much more concerned by a Corbyn Government than by Brexit, because Labour Members not only do not understand business—they hate business and do not believe that Government should work with business. We hear time and again how dismissive they are of business, and this is just another example.
No-Deal Brexit: Cross-channel Freight — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you. We come now to the business question, which is not as heavily subscribed as is often the case. Therefore, I think I can say with complete conviction that this session should finish no later than 1 o’clock and preferably long before then.
World Immunisation Week — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It will be no surprise to him or to the House to hear me say that, of course, what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box is not the responsibility of the occupant of the Chair. From the Chair, I cannot answer the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. What I will say is that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office is most assiduous in carrying out his duties in this House and is never shy about coming to the Chamber when there is a matter that he has to address. I have every confidence that if the hon. Gentleman uses the usual methods of taking forward the point that he has raised, and if there are matters to be discussed further by the Minister in question, I have no doubt that that Minister will assiduously as ever carry out his duties and come here to this House and answer those questions.
World Immunisation Week — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): The House has had the opportunity during this week to congratulate many hon. Members who took part in the London marathon last week. I do not think there has yet been an opportunity for the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) to be congratulated on her particularly courageous performance and on raising so much money for great causes, so she also has the congratulations of the House.
Victims Giving Evidence — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): I mentioned the hon. Lady’s work campaigning for victims, and she is particularly active in campaigning for the rights of those who have suffered child sexual abuse. She makes an interesting point, and I would be happy, as always, to meet her to go into it in more detail.
Victims Giving Evidence — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Other
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the shadow Minister for once again highlighting an important and distressing situation. I am reassured that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State continues to look carefully at the matter. I appreciate that the shadow Minister will want rapid progress, but it is important that we get this right, so my hon. and learned Friend is examining the issue and will report back in due course.
PAVA Pepper Spray — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Roderick James Nugent Stewart (Conservative, Centre-right): The answer is that recruitment has gone quite well. We now have 4,700 additional officers; we have more than we have had at any time since March 2012, so we are at the highest level for seven years.
European Convention on Human Rights — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future status of the UK as a signatory to the European convention on human rights.; What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future status of the UK as a signatory to the European convention on human rights.
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): This country has a long tradition, which long predates the ECHR or the EU, of championing and setting the highest standards on human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 reflects that and gives further effect to the ECHR in our domestic law, and we are not considering amending or repealing it.
European Convention on Human Rights — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future status of the UK as a signatory to the European convention on human rights.; What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future status of the UK as a signatory to the European convention on human rights.
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): I do not accept that our position on the ECHR is ambiguous. Both the political declaration and the White Paper make it clear that our future relationship with the EU should be underpinned by our shared values of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and this includes our ongoing commitment to the ECHR. As I have just made clear, the HRA gives further effect to the ECHR in our domestic law, and we are not considering amending or repealing it.
European Convention on Human Rights — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Other
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future status of the UK as a signatory to the European convention on human rights.; What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future status of the UK as a signatory to the European convention on human rights.
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady, as ever, for her question. We work closely with the Scottish Government. I am always willing to listen and speak to them, and I will continue to do so.
European Convention on Human Rights — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future status of the UK as a signatory to the European convention on human rights.; What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the future status of the UK as a signatory to the European convention on human rights.
Edward John Comport Argar (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. and learned Lady will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Professor Miller chairs that advisory group. We debated this issue in Westminster Hall some weeks ago and I read his report with interest. We note with interest the measures being considered by the Scottish Government to enhance human rights in Scotland, and the principles and seven recommendations set out in that report. Of course, Scotland’s legal system is separate and distinct from that of England and Wales, but I am considering that report, and others, with great care.
Female Genital Mutilation: Prosecution — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Helen Olivia Bicknell Whately (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for her support for the FGM Bill that was passed last night and for her work in this policy area. As she knows, as many as 137,000 women and girls in the UK have suffered from FGM. I urge her to take further action to make sure that we end FGM in the UK.
Female Genital Mutilation: Prosecution — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Civil Rights
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend is not only a constituency MP in Faversham and Kent but the Conservative party vice-chair for women. She makes a really important point about the number of women who have suffered from this crime in the UK, pointing out that 137,000 women living in the UK right now are suffering the consequences of FGM. Some of those women had the crime inflicted on them here, while others had it inflicted on them in other countries, so our response needs to be two-pronged. First, we need to ensure that we support other countries, which the Department for International Development is doing—it recently made the largest single donation of £50 million to help countries overseas. Secondly, we need to tackle it in this country. We are taking a cross-governmental view, with many Departments taking action, from the Department for Education to the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Care, and of course my Department is enacting legislation.
Leaving the EU: Departmental Priorities — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): In terms of the European arrest warrant, we have to accept that as a consequence of Brexit the current arrangements will no longer be available, but we will continue to work very closely with EU member states to ensure that we can address this matter as effectively as we can.
Access to Justice — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): I am fully aware of the issues that these women face. I am very pleased to have held a number of roundtables, as part of our understanding for the review, with a number of vulnerable parties, including women. Women’s Aid was part of those roundtables, where we had an opportunity to hear from it directly. That is one of the reasons why we have specifically mentioned victims of domestic violence, and we will look at the thresholds in the legal aid review that we are conducting.
Children Conceived through Rape — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Other
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): I am aware of the case the hon. Lady refers to, and I am pleased to have met Sammy Woodhouse some time ago, along with other Members of Parliament, to discuss the issue. We are continuing to look at this issue, at the principles that underlie it and, as I mentioned, specifically at the practice directions and procedures around these cases.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Civil Rights
David Michael Gauke (Conservative, Centre-right): Yesterday, the Government were pleased to give their support and time to the Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill, sponsored in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). The Bill, which seeks to make a small yet important change to the Children Act 1989, offers both a sensible simplification of the court process and a useful extension to the family courts’ powers to protect girls at risk of female genital mutilation. It will add to the measures that the Government have brought forward to tackle FGM issues.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: Will the Minister confirm that he is working with his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on introducing the necessary legislation to increase the maximum penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ imprisonment to five years?; Means- tested criminal legal aid can be granted only where there is a realistic prospect of custody. Consequently, has a detailed impact assessment been undertaken to show how many people will no longer qualify for legal aid in the event of the reduction or abolition of prison sentences of six months or less?; Some of my constituents have told me that they have waited over a year for a court date to appeal a welfare decision. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he is taking steps to improve access to justice for benefit claimants?; Both the prisons Minister and the Secretary of State have heaped praise on the Durham Tees Valley community rehabilitation company when I have asked about the not-for-profit organisation’s future, but will the Minister tell me whether it will survive the next round of reforms or be swallowed up and privatised with the rest of them?; Given the Minister’s opposition to short prison sentences, it must follow that he is equally opposed to fixed-term recalls of 28 days when criminals reoffend when out of prison on licence or when they break their licence conditions. Will he therefore pledge to scrap these fixed-term recalls and ensure that any such offenders are returned to prison for the remainder of their original prison sentence, as was the case in the past?; What discussions is the Minister having with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about the appalling tribunal backlog they are creating with poor assessment and decision making, particularly on personal independence payments, universal credit and employment and support allowance?
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): I have had a number of meetings with my counterpart in the DWP, and my officials discuss this issue with the DWP regularly. I and my counterpart in the DWP will undertake a joint meeting at an assessment centre to further consider these important issues and ensure that we get decisions right first time.
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Steven John Baker (Conservative, Centre-right): Paragraph 23 of the political declaration makes it clear that we would "build and improve on the single customs territory provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement" We know what the EU understands that to mean. In good faith and with best endeavours, it understands it to mean a customs union, as Dan Hannan MEP reminded us earlier. So is it not the case that if we negotiate under this agreement, we will either find ourselves trapped indefinitely in the backstop, because the EU is acting "in good faith", or have to agree a customs union, contrary to our manifesto?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Other
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): And so it was under that particular Prime Minister! I was telling the hon. Gentleman the complete truth, as I am telling him it now. I have forgotten what the other question was—that was a betrayal of robing room talk. I am so taken aback by that question that I think I had better sit down.
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Immigration
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that much of what is being said is political as well as legal. Will he therefore set out for the House what penalties might fall upon this country if a future Parliament, which obviously cannot be bound, were to decide to resile from the commitments under the backstop?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): No, no, no. We have not been attempting to secure alternative arrangements now. We have been putting forward the fact that, in the future, all those alternative arrangements are likely to exist, so the European Union has responded by saying, "We will set up a new, special negotiating track, we will negotiate with an increased urgency and to a new timetable and we will implement these"—they have defined them—"customs procedures and technologies and so on." So it is not right to say that the same situation arises now. These systems will be developed over time and that is the purpose of the working group that the Union has agreed to set up with this country.
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Immigration
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): I will try to obey the hon. Lady’s strictures about comments that I have made before. May I say to her that that is not quite right? I have said that the legal risk is reduced. The legal risk of being held in the backstop by bad faith or by want of best endeavours has reduced. It has reduced because of significant improvements which, as I have said, set the context and benchmark for the enforceability of those important duties. But it is absolutely true, as she rightly says, that the risk of remaining in the backstop absent any fundamental change of circumstance, if no bad faith or if no want of best endeavours is present, remains the same.
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Opinion — House of Commons, 2019-03-12
Topic: Other
Charles Geoffrey Cox (Conservative, Centre-right): I am not convinced that I fully understood the question, perhaps because I did it too much justice and thought it might be a sensible one. The truth is that I doubt I agree with it.