argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Philippa Whitford (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The understanding is that this arrangement would not apply to a private Member’s Bill. So I find it rather bizarre for the hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland, to single out me and that debate in that way. We have done our best to be constructive, and to bring our professionalism and our life experience to the activities here. It was very upsetting to be singled out in that fashion.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Kirsty Ann Blackman (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I urge the House not to take this step at all, but in the event that it does, Standing Orders are not the way to go. If the Government are going to take such a step, they need a proper process.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Civil Rights
Ian Blackford (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): We understand on the SNP Benches that there must be fairness for the people of England and we fully support it, but we are faced with a situation in which the English will exert a veto on us when we have come to this place with the support of the Scottish people to deliver home rule. That is what the people voted for, yet in the debate on the Scotland Bill the veto was used against us every time. Why is it right for the English Members of this Parliament to continue to have a veto against us?
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Patrick John Grady (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): We do not know whether the foxhunting Bill would have been certified even if it had come forward. We promised to be a progressive voice for our constituents, and my constituency inbox was full of people asking us to vote. Voters in Scotland will be watching, as they have done assiduously since May. They will see us sitting on our hands in this Chamber while other Members vote, with the creation of a second class of Members of Parliament in this House: ironically, a class of MP told during the referendum that they should be leading the UK, not leaving it. Perhaps the Government simply do not care; perhaps they actually want us to leave Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) likened the Leader of the House to the movie character, Dr Evil, whose theme song was written by the band, They Might Be Giants. The lyrics go like this: "When your name is Evil, that is good Or so you think But you’re so very wrong It’s Evil But being wrong is right So then you're good again Which is the evilest thing of all" If that sounds absurd, I mention it only because that absurdity applies equally to the EVEL that is being debated in the House today.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): In reality, the hon. Gentleman is talking about a grievance—an English grievance. They never finish in this place talking about Scots with a grievance, but the reality is that the grievance is an English grievance and they dress it up with the word "fairness". This is grievance, grievance, grievance on the English side.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Ronald Jack Cowan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Leader of the House said in July 2015 that EVEL would ensure that English MPs had their voice recognised within the Union. The perceived grievance that somehow MPs from outside England pose an insidious influence on English affairs is totally incorrect. If MPs in England want a particular piece of legislation, they have the numbers to ensure that it progresses. With 533 of the 650 Members, English votes already have the capability to win every single time House of Commons Library research shows that between 2010 and 2015, the majority votes of English MPs matched the majority votes of the UK as a whole in 99% of Divisions. Yet the UK Government are pressing ahead with a major constitutional change that will fundamentally change the relationship between this House, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland It is next to impossible to identify all the knock-on effects of EVEL on Scotland. One piece of legislation does not lead to one direct outcome: legislation is non-linear. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said it best when he gave evidence to the Procedure Committee last month. He told it that, in taking forward EVEL proposals, the Leader of the House was using "the most massive sledgehammer to crush the tiniest of nuts." The UK Government have indicated that EVEL is primarily an issue of fairness, and I fully concur that fairness should be a central principle in debating any constitutional change.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is making a fine speech and he is absolutely correct. What we are seeing here today from the Tory Benches is a grievance culture. They never hesitate to point at us and talk about a grievance culture. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is the grievance culture right in front of us?
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Mixed Topics
Thomas Sheppard (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The process Tories are engaged in—it is fair enough; it is a political party and I understand that—would be all well and good and just so much political banter were it not for the point that in doing so they are trying to corrupt and degenerate the procedures of this institution.
Standing Orders (Public Business) — House of Commons, 2015-10-22
Topic: Other
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This matter may be urgent because future business contains two pieces of legislation and matters for consideration that may be subject to the EVEL procedure. Will there be guidance for Members on how we approach the Divisions if certification is to be put in place? The House needs to know and be entirely clearly about how this will work.
Violence against Women — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the findings by the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women relating to the UK; and if she will make a statement.; What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the findings by the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women relating to the UK; and if she will make a statement.
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): UN Special Rapporteur Rashida Manjoo was prevented from accessing Yarl’s Wood during her visit last year, amid concerns about violence against women detained in that facility. In that light, we welcome last Thursday’s suspension of the detained fast track policy. Why has it taken the Government so long to realise the error of their ways?
Violence against Women — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Immigration
Questions: What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the findings by the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women relating to the UK; and if she will make a statement.; What assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the findings by the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women relating to the UK; and if she will make a statement.
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): In 2013, 4,286 asylum seekers were locked up under the scheme in Yarl’s Wood and elsewhere—a 73% increase on the 2012 figure. Given the concerns about violence against women highlighted by the UN special rapporteur, will the Government, instead of rushing to put in place a replacement for this scheme, work with outside agencies and experts to ensure that procedures are in place that safeguard vulnerable asylum seekers and make detention an absolute last resort?
Asylum Seekers (Syria) — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Immigration
Owen George Thompson (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Given that Lebanon is currently accommodating a Syrian refugee population of somewhere near a quarter of its entire population, does the Minister agree that the international community, including the UK, needs to provide far more places for resettlement, and other opportunities such as flexible family reunion places, to relieve Syria’s neighbours of some of the responsibility they are struggling to cope with?
Immigration Policies (International Students) — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Immigration
Questions: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on the potential effect of the Government’s immigration policies on the number of international students enrolling in UK universities.
Steven Alexander Paterson (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I am grateful for that answer. In the 2013-14 academic year, 1,685 non-EU students studied at Stirling University, but the UK Government’s decision in 2012 to abolish the post-study work visa means that at the end of their studies they cannot remain and contribute to the local economy or the national economy of Scotland. Given that reconsideration of these visas has been recommended under Smith commission proposals, will the Minister undertake to reintroduce them or at least devolve the powers to do so?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: Can the Security Minister reassure me that the police and the intelligence services will have new powers to stay ahead of extremist groups and individuals, not least in terms of technology?; Can the Home Secretary give reassurances that in respect of our plans to increase online surveillance powers for the police and security services, the public will not, as many fear, lose their right to their own privacy?; I have written to the Home Secretary about the risk of fraudulent use of internet wills. I have encountered one such case in my constituency. Fraud is a criminal matter, not a civil matter, but the police seem to be turning their back on that case. Will the Home Secretary look into the issue of internet wills and their use?; As we heard earlier, the new Prevent duties were introduced last week. Will the Security Minister update the House on how the legislation will be used to identify and eliminate extremism?; Many UK haulage firms are being caught up in the terrible events in Calais, including Kersey Freight, which is based in Hadleigh, in my constituency. Drivers have been intimidated, and they are now starting to suffer financially as a result of the crisis. May I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to do all that she can to support our haulage companies in these challenging times?
Natalie McGarry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): In June 2012, the United Kingdom Government signed up to the Istanbul convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Will the Minister tell us why, three years later, organisations such as Women’s Aid are criticising the Government for not taking further action?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Other
Kirsty Ann Blackman (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 13 June I submitted a written question to the Leader of the House about English votes on English laws, asking which Bills would affect England only and which would affect England and Wales only. Today I have received the response. Included in the list of England and Wales only Bills is the Scotland Bill. [Laughter.] Yes, that was much the response that I gave. I would appreciate it if the matter could be looked into and the correct response provided.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Other
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Absolutely, and when the right hon. Gentleman was in government and he was urged to do this, what did he do about it? Did his Government take the advice of the Comhairle nan Eilian Siar when he was in government?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I know what they wanted, but it is clear from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman did not take their advice. He had no influence on that Government, but he is now telling us to take their advice. He has a very different agenda. If he had accepted our amendment four years ago, we would already have had control, because the Scottish Government would have given it to us. In fact, he was a blocking force and an obstacle to progress for Scotland four years ago, as he still is. As for his colleagues who were here at the time, as a result of that very attitude, they are gone. Instead, I am one of 56 Scottish National party Members, rather than the mere five last time. I should thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for his intransigence four years ago, because it was that very intransigence that led to this raft of colleagues beside me, together debating the Scotland Bill The Crown Estate has tremendous control over areas of life in Scotland. It takes millions out of salmon farming each year, and we want more control over what we are doing there. We could stimulate growth and activity in different areas. If we control the taxes, we can do what we feel like. We could do something about revenues from marine renewable energy going south and ensure that they stay within Scotland. We could also ensure that no development is hampered because of the money demanded by the Crown Estate—rentiers’ money that it is lucky to be getting. Years ago, it got nothing from the seabed, but a lucky windfall has now come its way in the shape of offshore renewables What is required is for the powers to go to the Government in Edinburgh and for that Government to decide what happens with the community of the realm in Scotland. That is where power and sovereignty rests—with the community of the realm and the people of Scotland. It is for them to decide exactly what they want. Yes, the powers should be devolved. As the Secretary of State said four years ago, the idea of the SNP was to devolve at any cost. He did not listen then, but by goodness, he is listening now.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the phrase "the land belongs to the people". Surely that applies to the foreshore as well—except the bit that belongs to Caledonian MacBrayne, I suppose Does the hon. Gentleman regret jumping at the bait from the metropolitan press? I refer to the silly, foolish, extraordinary story that appeared three weeks ago suggesting that the Crown’s income would be damaged by the devolution of the Crown Estate. Does he regret jumping so quickly at that bait on a hook, and associating himself with such a scurrilous rumour?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has described giving way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar as a greater honour than giving way to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). I wanted to repeat that for the purpose of my own amusement. May I return to the hon. Gentleman to the quip that I made at the beginning of his speech? I said that he had contributed to this debate four years ago, on 15 March 2011. Times have changed since then, but it clear that, in another sense, times have not really changed, because the argument that he was advancing then—the argument that the Crown Estate was the property of the monarch—is the argument that he is advancing now. Indeed, in many respects it is an argument that has been advanced for hundreds of years. It is time to move on. It is time for the royal windfall to end, and for royalty to end its control of local people. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows—because we have been friends for a number of years—I say that as a staunch monarchist myself.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for having a word in my ear In Scotland, the people are sovereign, whereas here, as the hon. Gentleman will of course know, the Treasury already controls the vast majority of the revenues of the Crown Estate, and gives pocket money—albeit a tremendously large amount of pocket money—to the monarch.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Other
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is being very generous, as are you, Mr Crausby The hon. Gentleman speaks of the personality of the sovereign. He says that the sovereign cannot choose to whom to give the estate, and that it will go to the next sovereign. The important difference between England and Scotland is that in Scotland the people are sovereign. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his history books, there was Mary Queen of Scots and there was Elizabeth of England. There were the people, there was the country, and there were two different nations.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
George Kerevan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I am surprised that such an ardent and professional monarchist as the hon. Gentleman is unaware that the Crown Estate is divided by jurisdiction, and there are other jurisdictions within the Commonwealth in which Crown property is managed separately. For instance, there is a receiver general for the Crown properties in Jersey. If the Scottish people wished to continue with the monarchy, it would be perfectly sensible for the Crown Estate to be managed separately rather than property being divided, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Public Lands
Andrew Egan Henderson Hendry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Crown Estate is public land and its commissioners are a statutory corporation, and the Crown Estate revenues are paid directly to the UK Government Treasury. It has no direct role in paying for the Queen or the royal household. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that is contrary to the position he is trying to put forward?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): When I, as First Minister, negotiated a no compulsory redundancy agreement with the civil service unions in Scotland, should I have not done that because the Government down here were not prepared to do so? When I negotiated with the Fire Brigades Union to stop the embezzlement of part of their pensions, which was being pursued down here, should I have not done that because this Government refused to do it?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Owen George Thompson (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I have listened intently to the hon. Gentleman’s résumé of the actions he has taken, but for how long does he feel that it is appropriate for Members in Scotland to wait for a living wage economy to be introduced when we have such support for it from the Government and from local government across the nation? Should we be going at the pace of the slowest by waiting for the UK Government to take action?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the proposal as a "novelty". He might have missed the earlier intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who said that the administration of the Crown was given to the Irish Free State in 1923. What view does he take of that novel innovation?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Other
Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): That is indeed a mighty number of amendments. I am looking at the lack of support that the hon. Gentleman is carrying on his Benches. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) told us that he had organised the first strike in the House of Commons. From the look of the Labour and Tory Benches, that strike seems to be ongoing.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I was reading from the iPad because I was quoting from the Scottish Government document, "Empowering Scotland’s Island Communities", released last year, which says exactly what the Scottish Government intend to do with the revenue from the Crown Estate in relation to island and local communities. Having learned that, would the hon. Gentleman now care to withdraw his remark?
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): That is remarkable, because those matters are linked to countries’ constitutions. The limits are different in almost each and every European country. Why cannot they be different or the same across the UK—whatever the most democratic forums in each part of the UK choose? I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman’s negation of democracy.
Scotland Bill — House of Commons, 2015-07-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Has the hon. Gentleman completely forgotten that some of the biggest advances in progressive social legislation that England has seen in the past 15 years happened after, and only because, they were introduced by the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? This place would not have introduced the right to work in a smoke-free environment had it not happened in the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments. The right of responsible access to the countryside happened in the devolved Assemblies, otherwise it would never have happened here. Freedom of information would never have happened here if it had not happened first in the devolved Assemblies. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that we need to trust the people of Scotland to elect a Parliament that believes in a legally enforceable living wage? That is the quickest and surest way to make sure that workers across these islands can enjoy a living wage, rather than trusting a Conservative Government to introduce it.