argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: Government Operations
Harriet Ruth Harman (Labour, Centre-left): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge frankly to this House that publishing this paper on the legal position on the withdrawal agreement and his statement to the House today does not represent compliance with the motion of this House that was passed unanimously on 13 November, and does that not represent the following fundamental point of constitutional principle? It would be serious for any Minister to resist a motion of the House, but it is more so for it to be the Attorney General, going along with Government defiance of the House, when his very office is about our constitution—when he is the person in government whose job it is to make sure the rest of them stay within the rules. How can he do that if he himself is acquiescing in breaking them? He has in his statement rightly acknowledged that he has a duty to this House as well as to the Government and that his duties involve giving legal advice to the House. It is in our Standing Orders that he is legal adviser to the Privileges Committee. So how can we have a situation where the Attorney General allows the Government to openly defy the will of the House? The Government have a choice: they can either comply with the motion of the House or seek to change it, but they cannot remain in defiance of it. It is the Attorney General’s responsibility to tell them that; will he?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: International Affairs
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is something to see here. If the Government can decide which votes of the House of Commons to respect and which to ignore—as you said when ruling on a point of order on 13 November, Mr Speaker, it was not the opinion of the House of Commons that it wanted the full legal advice to be released, but the will—what does democracy mean in this place Now, I have a question for the Attorney General on which I want his legal advice. As he will be aware, the withdrawal agreement is legally binding, but the political declaration is not. Can he draw to the House’s attention a single example in international law of when a failure to act in good faith has successfully compelled one party in a negotiation to reach an agreement as extensive as the one that the Government hope to achieve and that is set out in the political declaration covering trade in goods and services, security, foreign policy, broadcasting, data and co-operation on a wide range of matters? If there is such an example, I would very much like to hear about it.
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: International Affairs
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): I am trying to understand the Attorney General’s arguments in answer to earlier questions. He seems to be saying that the Northern Ireland protocol, including the close relationship with the single market and membership of the single customs territory, is such a good deal for UK businesses that EU member states would hate it and would be desperate to bring it to an end as soon as possible. Is that his view? Is that the Government’s view? If so, is he now arguing for us to stay in a single customs territory indefinitely and to keep a close relationship with the single market?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: International Affairs
Catharine Letitia Hoey (Labour, Centre-left): The Attorney General has been very honest about the downside of this backstop, and that is even without the legal advice, so we dread what we would actually see in the legal advice, if we could see it On Sunday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told Northern Ireland’s "Inside Politics" with Mark Davenport that even if the backstop kicks in, Great Britain will stick to the same rules as Northern Ireland. Will the Attorney General have a word with her? She is going around Northern Ireland on a tour and saying some things that are actually not accurate, giving the people of Northern Ireland a very wrong impression about what this agreement means.
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: Government Operations
Maria Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): In response to some questions from Members of this House today, the Attorney General has asserted that in his view it would not be in the public interest to meet the terms of an effective resolution that was passed unanimously by this House. Can the Attorney General really take that view? Was it not incumbent upon him and the Government to vote against that resolution if he thought that it would be against the public interest to publish his advice, as he has asserted today?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: Law and Crime
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): I am not a lawyer, so I would welcome the Attorney General’s advice. This House passed a unanimous motion. It was not opposed by him or his Government. It is binding on this House. Could he give me some legal advice as to what my rights are now?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: International Affairs
Catherine Elizabeth West (Labour, Centre-left): The Attorney General has made many references to his passion for Unionism. What legal assessment has he made for different parts of the UK—for example, the devolved Administrations or regions of England—if the Northern Ireland protocol comes into being?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Diana Ruth Johnson (Labour, Centre-left): I wonder whether the Attorney General can help me. He has said that in exceptional circumstances, legal advice can be disclosed. He has also talked this afternoon about the unique and extraordinary circumstances we are in. What is the difference? Why are we not in exceptional circumstances?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): The Attorney General may be familiar with the terms of the so-called Norway-plus option, in which the United Kingdom would join the European economic area via the EFTA pillar and combine that with a customs union. Can he confirm that that arrangement would supersede the backstop, and in that case, the backstop would in fact fall away? Can he also confirm that it is possible to unilaterally come out of the European economic area via article 127 of the EEA agreement, so it enables a unilateral withdrawal?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: Government Operations
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): There is another strong constitutional principle in this House—that if a motion is brought before the House that the Government disagree with, they use their majority to vote it down. In this case, they did not. It is not in the national interest; it is in the Government’s interest not to produce this legal advice. Will the Attorney General tell the House what legal advice he will give the Cabinet, the Government or, indeed, himself about the principle of not abiding by the will of this House?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher Williamson (Labour, Centre-left): Many commentators and hon. Members believe that the Attorney General is in contempt of Parliament. If that is indeed the conclusion of Parliament, I understand the penalty could include expulsion from this place. Is the Attorney General prepared to be expelled for standing by his refusal to provide the details of the advice he has given, which has been voted for by this House?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: Government Operations
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): This was not just any motion; as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, it was a motion for a return to release papers under parliamentary privilege. There are two reasons why he is wrong: first, he says of his advice, "There’s nothing to see here," yet he is trying to argue that by releasing it, he would somehow breach considerations of national and public interest. Secondly, under the ministerial code, he can voluntarily release advice in exceptional circumstances without breaching any considerations of national interests, or any of his deeply held principles. Why does he not follow that logic and do the right thing?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: International Affairs
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill empowers the Prime Minister to submit an application under article 50 based on an advisory referendum. If that referendum is found to be illegal, and based on lying and cheating, surely it follows that the advice from that referendum is flawed and that the Prime Minister should withdraw that application. The same would go for a general election result; such findings would require another election.
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: Agriculture
Martin David Whitfield (Labour, Centre-left): In paragraph 42 of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s notes, he confirms that "During any extended implementation period…the UK would not be part of the Common Agricultural Policy" This will, of course, have an effect on Scotland. Can he confirm what legal advice was given with regard to the devolved Government coming out of the common agricultural policy in an extended implementation period?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander James Jorden Norris (Labour, Centre-left): In attempting to prop up this failing deal, the Prime Minister has reached out to those of us on the Opposition Benches and asked for our support. Does the Attorney General not think that it is a bit rich to ask for our support, given that we will not even be given the courtesy of compliance with the will of this House?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Paul John Sweeney (Labour, Centre-left): The Attorney General has been vehement in his assertion that the release of this information would be detrimental to the public interest. Is it therefore not a matter of regret to him that his Government have not had the basic virtue of consistency in their approach to the Humble Address? Now that contempt proceedings have been initiated by submitting a letter against the Government, what is his legal advice to the Government going to be?
Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: Government Operations
James McMahon (Labour, Centre-left): I hoped today that we would have clarity of thought and calmness of expression, so that we would be all informed on the matter on which we are due to vote next week. I can say that we have not had that. We have had bluster; we have had posturing; and we have had a very clear contradiction. On the one hand we are told that there is nothing to see here, but on the other hand we are told that it would be against the public interest to release information. My question is this: if the House does not have confidence in the Attorney General to deliver the advice in the way that we think is needed, is there any route in the constitution, via the Leader of the House or elsewhere, for us to get alternative, independent legal advice straight to Parliament?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): Because you are a cerebral fellow, Mr Speaker, you will know that on 30 October, I asked the Foreign Secretary why the Magnitsky provisions of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 had not yet been implemented. He said in the Chamber that it was because we were members of the European Union and we cannot implement sanctions of our own until we have left. He repeated this the next day in the Foreign Affairs Committee, but a week later, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office said, "No, it’s nothing to do with that—it’s because we do not have any time to draft the statutory instruments." The Prime Minister today returned to the original advice that was provided by the Foreign Secretary. The legal advice that has been provided to the Committee by the Clerks of the House was that actually there is no reason why we cannot introduce our own sanctions, because we did so back in 2011. I just wonder where I could get definitive legal advice from and whether you think, considering that the Foreign Secretary said on 30 October that he would write to me, that sufficient time has passed for me to have had a reply.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: Energy
Barry Strachan Gardiner (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to raise a point of order regarding a response I received from the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth at the last Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy oral questions. I asked the Minister why a roundtable with all the key fracking companies that she held on 21 May had not been declared on the transparency register. In response, she claimed that her officials did not disclose the meeting of 21 May because "the ministerial code does not require Ministers to disclose meetings that they drop in on, as opposed to host in their office"—[Official Report, 20 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 715.] I have searched the ministerial code and can find no reference to a difference in disclosure requirements such as the Minister suggests It would also appear that the Minister’s involvement in the meeting may not have been as casual as she suggested. During a Westminster Hall Debate on 10 July 2018, the Minister in fact claimed: "I did hold a very effective shale industry roundtable"—[Official Report, 10 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 284WH.] A freedom of information request querying the nature of that roundtable received a letter in response where the Department stated that this was indeed "the Shale Roundtable that the Minister of State hosted on 21st May 2018" By the Department’s own admission, this was a meeting the Minister had hosted, rather than dropped in on. The agenda of the meeting was also released under the FOI request. It reveals the extent to which the Minister was present. The roundtable began at 1 pm and finished at 2.35 pm, lasting 95 minutes, and the Minister was present for at least 70 minutes. I contend that this would not, in any reasonable opinion, constitute dropping in on a meeting. I seek your advice, Mr Speaker. Has any request come from the Minister seeking an opportunity to come before the House to correct the record?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: International Affairs
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): Further to the point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), Mr Speaker. I today received a letter from a Foreign Office Minister saying that the statutory instrument will shortly be before the House. I am sure, if my hon. Friend so wishes, he could be on the Committee when we examine the instrument. We would all benefit from his wisdom on this matter.
Business without Debate — House of Commons, 2018-12-03
Topic: Government Operations
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): With the leave of the House, we will take motions 7 and 8 together Ordered, Public Accounts That Gillian Keegan be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Anne-Marie Trevelyan be added Treasury That Stephen Hammond be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr Steve Baker be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection).
Train Services in the North — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Macroeconomics
Mary Helen Creagh (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but he is showing a bit of a tin ear to the lived experience of my constituents. One of them took six hours to travel the 75 miles between Wakefield and Scarborough, which, with a good wind, I could have achieved on a bicycle in the same amount of time. Why has capital investment in the north fallen—as the Institute for Public Policy Research has shown—when the need for investment in our services has never been higher?
Train Services in the North — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Graham Eric Stringer (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State goes back to the timetable changes, but currently one in four Northern trains are delayed or cancelled and nearly one in three TransPennine trains are delayed or cancelled. Is not it time that he took control and took these franchises back, so that we can have a proper rail service in the north of England?
Train Services in the North — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): Since the announcement of the northern powerhouse agenda, transport spend per person has risen by twice as much in London as it has in the north. New analysis of Treasury figures published this week shows the gap widening, with an increase in spend of £326 per person in the capital, just £146 per person in the north, and the amount even falling in Yorkshire—more than in any other region—resulting in poor reliability and capacity. Why such under-investment?
Train Timetable Changes — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): In the last timetable changes, on the midland main line, Stagecoach was forced to lengthen the journey times of peak time trains from Sheffield to London to accommodate more Thameslink commuter trains. Is it true that the Department for Transport has told Stagecoach it cannot revisit that in the next timetable changes because of the shambles last time and the nervousness that has created in the Department?
Train Timetable Changes — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State can duck and dive but the fact is that there is a lack of strategic leadership in his Department. What we found in Huddersfield is that, overnight, they cancelled the link between Huddersfield and Wakefield Westgate, so people cannot get a main line train unless they go to Leeds—and nobody in Huddersfield would want to go to Leeds at any time. The fact of the matter is that we want good strategy and policies that stop people living in chaos and not being able to get to work or go on holiday.
Local Roads — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Mathew Richard Allen Rodda (Labour, Centre-left): This week is Road Safety Week, yet investment on minor roads has fallen by 40% since 2010 and the number of potholes is rapidly increasing, leaving 17% of local roads in England in poor condition, according to the Asphalt Industry Alliance. The Department’s own figures show that there have been 13 deaths and 192 cyclists seriously injured since 2010 on roads that have a defective road surface. In this week of all weeks, how can the Government defend their record on maintaining local roads?
Local Roads — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Mathew Richard Allen Rodda (Labour, Centre-left): Is the Minister in all sincerity denying the evidence of the Asphalt Industry Alliance, which carried out a detailed survey of local authorities, which showed that there is a backlog of a minimum of £9 billion of work on potholes?
Engineering: Girls and People from Ethnic Backgrounds — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on the success of the Year of Engineering in promoting engineering as a fantastic career for everyone, but engineering is not just for one year; it is forever. Will the Minister follow Labour’s example and produce a diversity charter for the transport sector, so that the numerous initiatives—which are all very good in their own way—can be brought together, and we can see concrete progress and, most importantly, measure it?
Southeastern — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): Given their experience in recent years, many of my constituents are looking to the next operator of the Southeastern franchise to significantly improve timetabling performance. With that end in mind, will the Minister—whom I warmly welcome to his post—confirm that the Department still expects to announce the winning bidder this month and reassure passengers that the start of the new franchise will not be delayed?
Southeastern — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Clive Stanley Efford (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate the Minister on taking up his post. My constituents could be forgiven for thinking that new Rail Ministers turn up more frequently than Southeastern trains. Public performance measures are currently below their 2010 level. They are running below their target and are not due to reach it until 2025. Does that not show that privatisation is not working for my constituents, and it is time that Southeastern was brought under public control and the Mayor of London?
East Coast Main Line Route Study — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Martin David Whitfield (Labour, Centre-left): As the Minister will be aware, the east coast main line goes through my constituency of East Lothian. Can he confirm that, following this review, the stations at East Linton and Reston in my neighbouring constituency are still on task to be reopened?
Cycling and Walking — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Emma Dent Coad (Labour, Centre-left): Some 5% of my constituents cycle to work, which is double the national average. However, CrashMap shows the number of accidents between my home and Parliament Square and that has frightened me off taking the plunge. In addition, today is our third day in a row of poor air quality alerts. Will the Minister please tell me, in road safety week, what we are doing to tackle the scourge of poor vision and behaviour of construction and delivery lorries and the problem of air quality, which are, literally, a deadly combination?
Air Travel: Disabled People — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Karl Turner (Labour, Centre-left): There have been many reports recently of disabled people suffering poor service when travelling by plane, yet we still await publication of the aviation strategy, which might offer some reassurance to disabled air passengers. Why has the strategy not been published? When will it be published?
Bus Journeys — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Mohammed Afzal Khan (Labour, Centre-left): Evidence shows that regulating buses improves services and bus patronage, so why are the Government siding with the bus companies rather than passengers by refusing to give councils such as Manchester’s powers to take back control of local buses?
Bus Journeys — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Daniel Stephen Zeichner (Labour, Centre-left): Late-running and cancelled buses cause just as much misery for people as late-running and cancelled trains. We talk a lot in this Chamber about the trains, but it is also happening on the buses at the moment. The Transport Committee has heard about the problems in Bristol, and there is misery on the buses in Cambridge. What assessment has the Minister made of bus punctuality, particularly the effect of bus driver shortages?
Bus Journeys — House of Commons, 2018-11-22
Topic: Transportation
Andrew Joseph McDonald (Labour, Centre-left): Since 2010, bus funding has been almost halved, fares have been increased by over 50% and thousands of routes have been cut, shrinking the network to its smallest size in decades. Does the Minister agree with the United Nations assessment of Tory transport policy: "Abandoning people to the private market in relation to a service that affects every dimension of their basic well-being is incompatible with human rights requirements."?