argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Education Funding — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Education
Andrew Theakstone Percy (Conservative, Centre-right): May I begin by congratulating Goole academy on going from being in special measures a few years ago to this year achieving the best results ever in the school’s history I know from my time in the classroom that no teacher likes to see a child excluded, but on some occasions it is appropriate, for the child and the wellbeing of other pupils, for children not to be in classroom. Will the Secretary of State therefore turn his attention to ensuring we have better and proper alternative provision for children who cannot be dealt with in mainstream school?
Education Funding — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Education
Gavin Alexander Williamson (Conservative, Centre-right): I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Goole college on the turnaround it has been able to achieve. I know my hon. Friend has a lot of experience in this field, having taught for many years himself, and I will take on board his point, because it is absolutely vital that we ensure that every child in school is able to get the type of education that we want them to get and not be disrupted by others, so ensuring we have the right provision for those children to go to is vital.
Education Funding — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Education
Neil John O'Brien (Conservative, Centre-right): I warmly welcome this huge investment and the decisive action to undo the historically unfair underfunding of areas such as Leicestershire, but if we are to have a hard formula will my right hon. Friend look closely at the position of small schools, on which I led a debate before the summer? Will he look at the lump sum so we that can have not just more funding for our schools but support for small schools too?
Education Funding — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Education
Gavin Alexander Williamson (Conservative, Centre-right): Having had the great opportunity to visit Beauchamp college and Saint George’s primary school in my hon. Friend’s constituency, I know that they have been delivering the very best education for the children in Leicestershire, but it is also important to recognise the challenge that small schools face, and we keep that constantly under review.
Education Funding — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Education
Gavin Alexander Williamson (Conservative, Centre-right): What we always take with great seriousness is how we can enhance and support all those with special educational needs. I am looking at this very closely, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch), the Minister for children, to ensure that children who have that need for support get it as swiftly as possible, and that is why we are delivering an extra £700 million in the next financial year.
Education Funding — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Education
Stephen Daniel Double (Conservative, Centre-right): As a member of the f40 campaign, may I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today, and particularly the extra funding for further education? In St Austell we are face particular challenges in maintaining A-level provision, so will the Secretary of State or the appropriate Minister meet me to see how this extra money can be used to secure A-level provision?
Education Funding — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Education
Gavin Alexander Williamson (Conservative, Centre-right): My hon. Friend has long campaigned for a better and fairer funding settlement for Cornwall, and it is a great pleasure to be able to deliver that. I would be delighted to meet him and his colleagues in Cornwall regarding how best we can improve A-level provision in Cornwall.
Education Funding — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Education
Gavin Alexander Williamson (Conservative, Centre-right): It is absolutely vital to ensure proper discipline in every single school, but it is also vitally important that those children who need the most support have that provided either within their school setting or, if they are excluded, by ensuring proper provision is provided for them outside.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can be brief; in the light of the Government’s decision to prorogue Parliament next week it has become an urgent matter for Parliament, and particularly this House, to discuss whether it can accept a no-deal exit. I therefore ask you to grant an urgent debate under Standing Order No. 24.
Clean Air — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Environment
Chris Ian Brian Mynott Philp (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about mitigating air pollution, including through the use of low emission zones; to prohibit vehicle idling; to restrict the approval and sale of vehicles with certain engine types; to require local authorities to undertake tree-planting and to take steps to promote the use of electric propulsion systems in buses and taxis; and for connected purposes The story of—[Interruption.]
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Foreign Trade
John Charles Baron (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Most of us in this place would prefer a good trade deal to no deal, but does he not understand that, in any negotiation, the chances of a bad deal materially increase if one signals to the other side that one is not prepared to walk away? Does he not see that?
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): These are difficult matters of judgment, and I respect the judgment that my hon. Friend makes, but it is different from mine. When we were negotiating the coalition between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, which gave rise to a rather good Government, we were sitting around wondering how to conduct those negotiations. We came to the conclusion that actually we should disobey the rules of negotiation that my hon. Friend is describing and offer a bold and imaginative offer to the other side, which was then accepted, and we formed a coalition on the terms on which we wished to form it by mutual accord. That is the way in which I believe these negotiations can proceed. To offer a threat which actually harms us many times more than those against whom the threat is supposedly levelled is not, as I say, a credible negotiating strategy. I accept that our judgments differ on that, but that is my judgment. It is a matter for the House to decide which of the two judgments is correct.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Crispin Jeremy Rupert Blunt (Conservative, Centre-right): If my right hon. Friend recalls, the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on no deal two weeks before we gave notice under article 50, which was unanimously agreed across a Committee wholly split on the merits of the issue, concluded that the damage that would be done by the failure to get an agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union would be greater for the European Union in material terms, but greater for the United Kingdom in proportionate terms. However, the absolute damage being represented on the other side is at stake, so his negotiation—
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): I agree with my hon. Friend that the proportions are different from the absolutes, but I fear that my hon. Friend’s Committee’s report was deficient, in my view, in an important respect. There is a counterbalancing point from the EU’s perspective, and that is that actually demonstrating that it causes great pain proportionately to the country that is doing it is regarded as a significant political, ideological and geopolitical advantage. We have no similar advantage, so the threat to our prosperity and the welfare of our people is the only issue that arises, whereas for the EU there is a positive advantage in a no-deal exit to be balanced against the absolute and proportionately much smaller effect on the member states’ economies. Again, my hon. Friend and I may differ in that judgment, but that is the judgment that we are asking the House to make, and I take the view that I have espoused In the light of the four facts—the slender chance of a deal being struck on the Government’s terms; the fact that this is Parliament’s last chance to block a no-deal exit on 31 October; the fact that without a parliamentary block the Government are willing to take us into a no deal; and the fact that prospect of such a disorderly and undemocratic no-deal exit is a threat to our prosperity and our Union, rather than an effective negotiating strategy with the EU—we are putting forward to the House today a motion, the sole purpose of which is to enable the House tomorrow to debate and vote on a Bill in the names of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). If the House votes for this motion tonight, it will give itself the ability to vote for that Bill tomorrow. That Bill will mandate the Prime Minister to seek an extension to 31 January unless he has either got a deal in place at the end of the European Council meeting in October and has got it agreed by Parliament or has got Parliament to agree to a no-deal exit by 19 October.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Caroline Elizabeth Johnson (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He said just now that he thinks there is only a very slender chance of a deal—I disagree with him on that point—and also that he wishes to block no deal. If he sees little or no chance of a deal and little or no chance of no deal, what is the point of an extension to 31 January just to do this again and again? Can he not see the damage that would be done to businesses by having this process repeated every three months ad infinitum?
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): Uncertainty does create difficulty for business. A no-deal exit will create a great deal more difficulty for business, in my judgment The purpose of the extension, which will no doubt be debated extensively if this motion is passed and there is a debate on the Bill tomorrow, is very clear. It is to provide the Government with the time to seek to solve this problem and to enable Parliament to help to resolve an issue that has proved very difficult.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): I am afraid that I will not give way again I do not say it is easy to do it by 31 January, but I am sure it will not be done by 31 October. We are between a rock and a hard place, and in this instance the hard place is better than the rock—it is as simple as that. It is decision time. If hon. Members across the House want to prevent a no-deal exit on 31 October, they will have the opportunity to do so if, but only if, they vote for this motion this evening. I hope they will do so.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Victoria Grace Ford (Conservative, Centre-right): The right hon. Gentleman says he wants to avoid a no deal, but he voted against the deal three times. Exactly what changes to the withdrawal agreement would he like to see if he were ever to vote for it?
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Macroeconomics
John Charles Baron (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but may I suggest that he should be careful with his selection of evidence? The Treasury, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of England all made predictions of doom and gloom if we voted to leave in 2016. They said there would be economic disaster by Christmas 2016, and they were all wrong. Since then there has been record low unemployment, record manufacturing output and record investment, in the full knowledge that no deal is better than a bad deal.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, brought to us by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), and to follow the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition The Prime Minister has said, including in his statement earlier, that this Government are absolutely committed to delivering Brexit on 31 October. We must deliver the largest democratic mandate in this nation’s history. Delivering the referendum result requires this House to respect the voice of the people as expressed in that historic vote—so far, the House has failed to do so. And now, instead of backing the Prime Minister and giving him the best possible chance of securing a deal before the UK leaves the European Union on 31 October, we find ourselves debating a proposition that seeks to confound the referendum result again. Mr Speaker, I wish to be clear: what is proposed today is constitutionally irregular.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Government Operations
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): The deal is dreadful, which is why the Prime Minister is getting a better one—if only the House would let him. However, this is irregular, both in terms of the approach to allowing SO 24s on substantive motions and in terms of the subversion of Parliament’s proper role in scrutinising and the Executive’s in initiating.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): Because I simply disagree with the hon. Lady—there would have to be a political desire to impose a hard border, and neither the United Kingdom nor the Government of the Republic of Ireland have such a desire.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
John Charles Baron (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend will be aware that the majority of Members—colleagues—who will vote against the Government tonight voted to trigger article 50, which said that we would leave the EU with or without a deal. It was very simple and very clear. Which bit does he think they now do not understand?
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Government Operations
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): They do not like losing referendums and never accepted the result I must come back to the constitutional issue, because this motion risks subverting Parliament’s proper role in scrutinising and the Executive’s in initiating. You in particular, Mr Speaker, have a grave responsibility, of which I know you are well aware, to uphold the norms and conventions that underpin our constitution, but we all have a role to play, and it does considerable damage when some of us choose to subvert rather than reinforce—to hinder rather than to polish—our constitution.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Government Operations
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): If people were carrying out discussions without candour, I would not know about them so would not be able to tell the hon. Gentleman whether they had happened. I carry out all my discussions with candour and—if anybody is interested—the Privy Council’s function is reported in the Court Circular.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Foreign Trade
Shailesh Lakhman Vara (Conservative, Centre-right): Were we to leave the EU on a no-deal basis, in effect that would mean that we would operate on World Trade Organisation rules. Given that the EU currently operates on WTO rules with a number of countries—including the US, China, Russia, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and many others—does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not be fearful of trading on WTO rules outside the EU? We already trade on WTO rules in the EU.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Foreign Trade
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): I must confess that I am surprised by my right hon. and learned Friend’s astonishment because I have been making the case for WTO rules for some time. It has been a sensible way to proceed and will allow us to carry on trading as we do with many other countries.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Government Operations
Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend says that the House’s role is one of scrutiny, and I agree, yet does he not see that there is an incompatibility between that scrutiny and in fact taking steps through Prorogation to deprive us of the effective opportunity to carry it out? When considering that, he may also agree with me that so much in this House depends on trust. How can we have trust when there have already been a number of examples of the Government’s making inaccurate statements, such as, first, that the papers prepared for its Yellowhammer briefing were the product of a previous Administration when they were not; and secondly, and perhaps most pertinently, when it appears that the facts as stated by the Government as to the reasons for Prorogation have turned out to be entirely inaccurate and are now causing the Government considerable difficulties over their duty of candour in litigation? When he aggregates all that together, perhaps my right hon. Friend might begin to understand why many of us have finally decided that this House must take action.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sorry to say that the most obvious understanding of the ordinary use of the English language, which normally the hon. and learned Lady is pretty good at, makes it quite clear that the two statements are entirely compatible. The Prorogation is the normal Prorogation to have a new Session; it is not to stop debate on matters related to the European Union.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Foreign Trade
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): On 16 August, I was at Lords watching a game of cricket, unless it was one of the days when it rained. On the WTO issue, our trade with the United States on WTO terms—I know that the hon. Gentleman is expert in these matters—has grown faster since the creation of the single market than our trade with European Union.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Oliver Letwin (Conservative, Centre-right): I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I understand his views and his concerns about the supposed constitutional irregularity of these proceedings, and no doubt in the future all these things can be debated. Will he accept that, as a nation, we stand at present at a moment that will have a profound effect on the welfare of our people, that the sovereign Parliament of this country clearly deserves an opportunity to be able to decide whether it will accept a policy of no-deal exit or not, and that that overwhelmingly matters more than whether the Standing Order No. 24B, which has "where" in it—misdrafted in all probability by the then Leader of the House—has a particular meaning or does not have a particular meaning?
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): There is, I am sorry to say, a stunning arrogance to that view. It fails to understand where sovereignty comes from. [Interruption.] I do indeed dare to say this, and I say it to my right hon. Friend.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: Government Operations
Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Conservative, Centre-right): I have given way so many times and to many distinguished Members, and it is now time to come on to this extraordinary and unprecedented motion Parliament is attempting to set aside Standing Order No. 14 to give precedence to the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill. This motion goes further and seeks to claim an unknown and unquantified number of subsequent days for consideration of Lords amendments and messages. It is a fundamental principle that Government are able to transact their business in this House—a principle that this House has long accepted in Standing Order No. 14. This motion also sets aside, in a new parliamentary Session, the Standing Orders that apply in relation to the presentation of private Members’ Bills. The motion would allow a designated Member—or a few of the Illuminati who are taking the powers to themselves—to give notice of the presentation of this Bill on the first day of a new Session and then provide time for debate on this Bill on the second day of the new Session, interrupting the Queen’s Speech There is an established process for the House debating the Queen’s Speech—a process that this Bill would undermine. Although the Outlawries Bill has its First Reading just before the start of the Queen’s Speech debate, this Bill is only read a First time as a formality and not debated. To interrupt the Queen’s Speech to debate a Back-Bench Bill, such as the one proposed in this motion, would be unprecedented. The Government have an obligation to bring forward their business, and the Queen’s Speech and the debate that follows is one of the great set pieces of the parliamentary calendar, where the Government are rightly scrutinised and held to account, and that is being interrupted.
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): The intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) can only be described as breathtaking. In support of the assertion by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that it was weighted with great arrogance, may I ask him to be good enough to confirm that in fact the European Union Referendum Bill, as enacted, was a sovereign Act of Parliament, which deliberately gave the right to the British people, and not to the British Parliament, to make the decision on the question of remain or leave?
European Union (Withdrawal) — House of Commons, 2019-09-03
Topic: International Affairs
Victoria Grace Ford (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Getting back to the bigger picture, the Prime Minister made it very clear in his speech last night and in his statement today that his preferred outcome is to leave with a deal. Can the Leader of the House confirm that that is also his preferred outcome, and that if a deal is agreed at the next European Council sufficient time will be made in this Chamber to ensure that we legislate for that deal?