argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Immigration
Mark Peter Fletcher (Conservative, Centre-right): The UK has a very proud history of accepting people who are in great need. I think of the Ugandan Asian community, who I know very well. This scheme shows that we do have legal and safe routes to come and live in this country. Does that not reinforce the need to crack down on illegal routes, particularly the small boats? Does the Minister agree that the legislation that is currently in the House of Lords is vital in that fight?
Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Other
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): I am pleased to say that I do agree most wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, who has articulated very well the issues facing this House and the country as a whole. What a shame it is that the Opposition only oppose and never come up with proper answers to these very difficult issues.
Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Immigration
Victoria Atkins (Conservative, Centre-right): I assume that the hon. Lady is talking about constituents here in the United Kingdom, because she is meeting them. If they are in bridging accommodation, they will be considered as part of either ARAP or ACRS, unless they are British nationals. In relation to people who are in Afghanistan, I refer the hon. Lady to my previous answers.
Russia’s Grand Strategy — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): I hope we can manage this afternoon’s business without a formal time limit. If everyone speaks for between eight and nine minutes, we will do so. If people speak for significantly more than eight minutes, I will have to impose a time limit.
Russia’s Grand Strategy — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Bernard Christison Jenkin (Conservative, Centre-right): I want very briefly to relay two conversations that I have had about strategic thinking in Government. One was with a person who is now the former Prime Minister, who said, "Oh, Bernard thinks we should have a strategy, but I think we should remain flexible," completely misunderstanding what strategy is. The second was with a Minister who is now serving in a very senior capacity in this Government, and who said, "What is our strategy? We think we have to work with NATO." In this country, we are so far behind understanding what strategy is that we have a very great task in front of us.
Russia’s Grand Strategy — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Robert William Henry Seely (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Member is, as always, making an excellent speech. He is talking about all the corrupt and corrupting facilitators in our society. Is he as concerned as I am by the use by Putin allies of very high-end libel lawyers to try to silence former Members of this House and people such as Catherine Belton who are trying to expose what Putin allies are doing in the west?
Russia’s Grand Strategy — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Tobias Martin Ellwood (Conservative, Centre-right): I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this important debate on strategy, which we do not do as well as we should. At the moment, we are tactically responsive and react to events rather than shaping them and looking over the horizon Strategy is all about having an objective to maintain or alter the status quo using available means and, indeed, willing alliances. The plan is about how to achieve that outcome with energy policy, weapons treaties, cyber resilience and capabilities, the use of sanctions, our defence posture, what we want to spend on our military might, and the friendships that we then wish to stretch out and advance, such as with Ukraine When it comes to strategy, having worked in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence, it is clear that we can and must do better, given what is coming over the horizon. Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric, once wrote that "when the rate of change inside an institution becomes slower than the rate of change outside, the end is in sight. The only question is when." To transfer that to the world’s activities today, our world is moving very fast and we in the UK, and in the west more widely, are not keeping up. I would argue that that change is happening 10 times faster than in the industrial revolution of the late 18th and 19th centuries, at 100 times the scale and with 1,000 times the impact This timely debate on strategically understanding and responding to the security threat from Russia centres on the three core themes that I have progressively promoted in this Chamber for some time: first, the increased disunity and timidity of the west; secondly, the rising influence of authoritarian states exploiting that timidity to ruthlessly pursue their agendas; and thirdly, the increasingly technological digital world and our ability to continuously adapt and harness the changing character of conflict.
Antisemitism: Bristol University — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Andrew Theakstone Percy (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my hon. Friend for raising the case of antisemitic racist Professor Miller, because that is what he is and what many of his supporters are. We should never shy away from calling him out as what he is, which is an antisemitic racist It is not just students who have problems, as my hon. Friend will be aware. I am one of the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, of which he is a vice-chair. More than 100 parliamentarians from seven parties have written to Bristol University. The APPG has written numerous times, and although we have had responses, they have been lacking in detail and in the information that we have asked for. Most recently, we asked the university to share with us the details of the training that it says it is offering on antisemitism. It is not good enough. The students should never have been put in such a position, but when 100 parliamentarians from seven parties are also ignored, that really tells us that Bristol is not putting the emphasis it should put on this important issue. It is frankly a disgrace.
Antisemitism: Bristol University — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Christian Wakeford (Conservative, Centre-right): I find it hard to disagree with a single word that my hon. Friend says. It is an absolute disgrace that for more than two years, such antisemitic racist views were allowed to continue. What is more abhorrent is that even when she came in front of the Select Committee on Education, a representative of the university tried to hide behind the fact of having had a conversation and a dialogue with the Bristol Jewish Society—JSoc—as if that were the solution to all the problems. Again, that is not the case It is appalling that students felt that they had to choose whether to complain against an academic teaching racist conspiracy theory because they would inevitably face a backlash. The University of Bristol Jewish Society submitted its own complaint. In responding, the academic charged with reviewing the matter wrote in June 2019 that the internationally agreed definition of antisemitism, which the university later adopted, "is a somewhat controversial definition, with some believing that it is imprecise and can be used to conflate criticism of the policies of the Israeli government and of Zionism with antisemitism" Instead, he decided to use "a simpler and, I hope, less controversial definition of antisemitism as hostility towards Jews as Jews" He then ruled, regarding Professor Miller’s lecture, that "I cannot find any evidence in the material before me that these views are underlain by hostility to Jews as Jews…I am unable, therefore, to find grounds upon which Professor Miller should be subjected to disciplinary action" That is completely contrary to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. It subsequently transpired that the person charged with investigating the matter was a close colleague who was notorious for holding similar political views to Professor Miller’s In 2019, the then Member for Bassetlaw, now Lord Mann, wrote to the university on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, asking it to review its disciplinary processes and consult antisemitism experts, but the institution refused. Following Bristol’s adoption of the IHRA’s definition in December 2019, a further complaint was made by CST, following further appalling, untrue and potentially dangerous allegations about the organisations, but this too was treated with utter disdain. The complaint followed Miller’s comments in an online meeting in which he described CST as "people who must only be faced and defeated" CST is an organisation that looks after children going to school and people going about their daily worship and their daily Jewish life. To describe it as an organisation that must be defeated is absolutely abhorrent.
Antisemitism: Bristol University — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christian Wakeford (Conservative, Centre-right): I completely agree. I have had the fortunate privilege of working very closely with CST since my election. For those who look after the safety of the community to be treated with utter disdain is absolutely appalling When challenged on his comments by Jewish News, Professor Miller said that CST "is an organisation that exists to run point for a hostile foreign government in the UK...This is a straightforward story of influence-peddling by a foreign state."
Antisemitism: Bristol University — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Christian Wakeford (Conservative, Centre-right): Again, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the PowerPoint document in which not only the Board of Deputies but the Jewish representative councils, the Jewish Leadership Council and so many different community organisations were all highlighted as being part of a Zionist conspiracy, which is a blatant falsehood That comment alone from Professor Miller is blatantly antisemitic. Once again, the response from the university was underwhelming, emphasising that CST was an external organisation. It paid no regard to the fact CST was clearly not a third party and was in fact the injured party, given that the comments made were directly addressed to the organisation.
Antisemitism: Bristol University — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Andrew Theakstone Percy (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sorry to labour the point, but it is such an important point because that argument is an antisemitic trope that is used against anybody who dares to call this issue out or question it. It has been used against the APPG. We have been accused of being in the pay of Zionists, and videos have been produced accusing the group’s members of being on the take from the Israeli Government or paid for by Zionists. That is a regular occurrence and something that these people use time and time again against anybody who dares to question them: to accuse them of being in the pay of a foreign Government or some other shady characters in the background. It is pure and simple antisemitism. This has to stop, and I hope that the Minister will listen and contact Bristol University himself to demand that it shares with him the training materials that it is providing on this issue.
Antisemitism: Bristol University — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Andrew Theakstone Percy (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sorry to intervene again, but it is important to state that one of the defences used by the university was free speech. We are all cognisant of and protectors of free speech in this place, but free speech does not extend to racist language or the peddling of racist myths. It is shameful that the university used that as a defence. I hope that it will, in listening to this debate, reflect on that. Freedom of speech does not give us the ability and freedom to make racist comments or make Jewish students—or any student of any minority group—feel unsafe on campus. It was shameful that it used that as a defence.
Antisemitism: Bristol University — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Christian Wakeford (Conservative, Centre-right): I completely agree. Freedom of speech is something we all treasure and hold dearly. However, freedom of speech should never include incitement to racial hatred, which is what was the case. I have two substantive questions for the Minister. First, any improvement at Bristol University will involve training. Will he undertake to write to the university to find out what training is being undertaken, who has provided it and what quality assurance has been applied? Secondly, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, as the Antisemitism Policy Trust pointed out, risks failing the Miller test by giving academics recourse to the courts when expressing themselves within their area of expertise—and we know how Miller describes that. Will he meet again with me the trust, the CST, the UJS and others on how the Bill can be amended to prevent that from happening I hope now that at the very least any institution planning to employ Professor Miller cannot say that it was not aware of his racism, and that Jewish students across the country will hear this debate and know that we will always stand with them and by them in the fight against anti-Jewish racism. That is what he is guilty of.
Antisemitism: Bristol University — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Robin Caspar Walker (Conservative, Centre-right): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) on securing this debate on antisemitism at the University of Bristol. I echo his comment that it is profoundly troubling that we should have to have this debate at all. It feels especially poignant given that Holocaust Memorial Day is just a few weeks away. I should point out that I am responding to the debate on behalf of the Minister for Higher and Further Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), who is isolating pending the outcome of a PCR test. I wish her well with that I would like to begin by stating that there is no place for antisemitism in our society. The Government are clear that racism and religious hatred of any kind should not be tolerated. Universities and other higher education providers should be at the forefront of tackling antisemitism, and must make sure that higher education is a genuinely fulfilling and welcoming experience for everyone. Colleagues may be aware that in November, within just a few weeks of his appointment, the Secretary of State for Education visited Auschwitz, which demonstrated his resolve to learn the terrible lessons of the holocaust and to eradicate antisemitism from our education system. During his visit, he warned that if universities failed to consider the views of Jewish students, the risk was "obvious", adding that antisemitism is not simply a historic debate; it is a present danger and a scourge that exists, sadly, on our campuses. We must do more to stamp out antisemitism and ensure that Jewish students and staff feel welcome on all our campuses Eliminating antisemitism from our society, including our world-leading university sector, is one of our key priorities. We have been clear that we expect providers to take a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism in all its forms. The Government have taken decisive and long-standing action to tackle antisemitism in higher education. The working definition of antisemitism developed by the IHRA is one important tool for identifying and tackling antisemitism. Adopting it sends a strong signal that higher education providers take the issue seriously.
Antisemitism: Bristol University — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christian Wakeford (Conservative, Centre-right): Getting from where we were a couple of years ago to where we are now with regard to the number of institutions that have adopted IHRA is something we should be proud of. However, adopting IHRA is clearly just a badge. What can the Minister and the Department do to make sure that adoption is only part of the journey and that the definition is truly enforced as well?
Antisemitism: Bristol University — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Matthew James Offord (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful that the Minister raised the CST and the figures that it published, which I have in front of me. He will be aware that of the about 8,500 Jewish students at UK universities, about one in five suffers antisemitic abuse.
Antisemitism: Bristol University — House of Commons, 2022-01-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Christian Wakeford (Conservative, Centre-right): I appreciate the offer of a meeting. Obviously, I will raise this in the meeting, but I will also raise it during this debate. Cultural change can only happen with open dialogue, training and transparency, so will the Minister commit to writing to the university to request details of the provider and what is actually being covered, as well as the assurance that this is meaningful training about how to tackle antisemitism?
Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-01-28
Topic: Public Lands
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert "in relation to an object that is in— (a) the United Kingdom for the purpose of public display in a temporary exhibition at a museum or gallery in England or Scotland, or (b) England or Scotland for any of the purposes listed in subsection (7)(b) to (e)." This amendment provides for the extension of the maximum protection period to apply only in relation to objects that are in the United Kingdom for the purpose of an exhibition in England or Scotland, or otherwise in England or Scotland for certain purposes.
Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-01-28
Topic: Public Lands
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): Perhaps I should begin with a brief declaration of interest, Mr Speaker, in that as a hobby, I am a qualified Blue Badge guide—qualified to guide in such wonderful places as the British Museum, Westminster Abbey and others. I pay tribute to all those Blue Badge guides who work so hard to promote our country and our culture. Amendment 1 provides for the extension of the maximum protection period to apply in relation only to objects that are in the United Kingdom for the purpose of an exhibition in England or Scotland or otherwise in England or Scotland for certain purposes. That follows a decision by the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland not to prioritise the legislative consent motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which would have allowed the powers to apply to Northern Ireland. Similarly, and following discussions between the UK and Welsh Governments, it has not been possible to reach agreement on how the power to extend the current 12-month period of protection will apply across the two nations. The Welsh Government have therefore declined to table a legislative consent motion for the Bill as it stands Amendment 1 and the other amendments, which are consequential on it, will ensure that the Bill addresses that situation while introducing the Bill’s important measures for application in England and Scotland Amendment 1 agreed to. Amendments made: 2, page 1, line 14, leave out paragraph (b) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1. Amendment 3, page 1, line 26, leave out paragraph (d) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1. Amendment 4, page 2, line 10, leave out "two or more" and insert "both" This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1. Amendment 5, page 2, line 21, at end insert— "(4E) In relation to an object the maximum protection period for which is the period mentioned in subsection (4D)(c), references to the United Kingdom in subsections (4)(a), (5) and (8) are to be read as references to England or Scotland." This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1. Amendment 6, page 2, line 23, at end insert— "(4) In section 137 (interpretation), in subsection (10)— (a) For "‘United Kingdom’" substitute "A reference to the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom"; (b) after "adjacent to the United Kingdom" insert "or that part of the United Kingdom".—(Mel Stride.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1. Third Reading
Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-01-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Robert Lamont (Conservative, Centre-right): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Bill. Does he agree that the relatively minor change in it will give great reassurance to overseas lenders about their capacity and confidence to lend assets to the United Kingdom? In the Scottish Borders, across Scotland and across the UK, all our constituents will now benefit from being able to enjoy those assets, and the lenders will have the comfort of knowing that they are safe here.
Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-01-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
Melvyn John Stride (Conservative, Centre-right): The Bill has widely been received very positively. There have been very positive discussions with the devolved Governments, as I outlined in the debate on amendment 1 and my other amendments. There have been some changes in relation to Wales and Scotland, but the Bill has received support across the House; it went through Committee without Division, and my amendments on Report have been agreed to without Division. It is an important and widely supported set of measures The only exception in which the 12-month period can be extended is where an object suffers damage and repair work is needed. The legislation has been effective over the years and has enabled many exhibitions to be enriched by loans that the public might not otherwise have been able to see. There are now 38 institutions across the United Kingdom that have been approved for immunity from seizure and where objects have benefited from protection. Those 38 institutions are in England and Scotland; there are currently no approved museums in Wales and Northern Ireland.
Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-01-28
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Anthony Howe Browne (Conservative, Centre-right): I commend my right hon. Friend for getting the Bill before the House. It is clearly an important measure and it is important to support the tourism industry, which generates so many jobs. In what sort of circumstances might an institution want to apply for the extension? Have those circumstances happened in the past or is this just a precaution to deal with situations that might arise in the future?
Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-01-28
Topic: Mixed Topics
Anthony Howe Browne (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my right hon. Friend for his detailed exposition of the legislation, which I strongly support. He mentioned in his introduction the various circumstances in which it is deemed necessary for there to be protection against action taken overseas—in Switzerland, France and so on; is he aware of any UK cases of the court-ordered seizure of artworks that have come here for exhibitions? In what sort of circumstances might that happen in future? Would it be when law enforcement authorities are worried about, for example, the breaking of anti-money-laundering rules, which we have talked about? Or would it be families trying to get back goods that they think belong to them rather than to foreign galleries?