argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Sittings of the House (29 March) — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: International Affairs
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House will be asked to agree the withdrawal agreement on the presumption that it will subsequently agree the political declaration, yet it is clear that the House has not agreed the political declaration in the past, by 230 and 149 votes. How is it in order to ask us to agree the withdrawal agreement on that assumption?
Sittings of the House (29 March) — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: International Affairs
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Probably like many people following this—or trying to follow this—I am having great difficulty understanding how the motion, which says itself that it does not meet the requirements of the withdrawal Act, can actually lead to us approving the withdrawal Act. My understanding now is that it seems to be saying that, for the purposes of the European Union, we will have approved the withdrawal Act, but for the purposes of British law, we will not have approved the withdrawal Act. Can such a position have any basis in reality? Can it be orderly for it not to have any basis in reality?
Sittings of the House (29 March) — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: International Affairs
Wayne David (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the withdrawal agreement and political declaration are intrinsically linked, could we be getting into a situation where we could comply with European law, but not with our own legislation?
Sittings of the House (29 March) — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: International Affairs
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Having just read the motion, I wonder whether an opportunity might be given for the Government to clarify a really important point. If the EU agrees that, if the motion is passed tomorrow, the UK will be granted an extension until 22 May, at that point it will no longer be possible for the United Kingdom to apply for a further extension, because we would have failed to make the arrangements necessary to take part in the European elections. Therefore, to pass this motion will preclude the United Kingdom from asking for any further extension. It would be helpful to the House if a Minister could come to the Dispatch Box and clarify that point.
Sittings of the House (29 March) — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): Who would have thought that a debate on whether we should sit tomorrow would get everyone so wound up In one sense, this is very simple. We are simply deciding, at a moment of national crisis, whether or not we should sit tomorrow, notwithstanding the normal practice of the House, which is that we only sit on Fridays for private Members’ business. I do not think that a single Member of the House would resent the Government’s motion proposing that we should sit tomorrow, because we know that this is a very important moment for our country, and we need to get this right. However, as every good architect will tell you, form must always follow function. My anxiety is that when the Government announced that we were going to sit tomorrow, they should have told us what we were going to sit for. We should have had plenty of prior notice, not the negligible notice that we have had I understand, and take in good faith, the difficulties that the Government have had in trying to get to this moment, but I think that the motion that we will debate tomorrow is problematic in many ways, and I think that that gives us reason to ask whether we should really be sitting to consider this matter tomorrow. [Interruption.] No, this is not a point of order. I am taking part in the debate. This is a debate on a motion which is before the House I have a problem with the function that we are being asked to address tomorrow. First, the motion expressly does not meet the requirements of our own law, passed in this House, namely section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which clearly binds together the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. Indeed the Prime Minister herself had repeatedly said the two things could not be separated out, and for that matter senior members of other Governments elsewhere in Europe have also said the two things go together. Indeed the Prime Minister’s express point was that if they were separated out, we in the UK would be losing the benefits we gained. So I have an anxiety about that element.
Sittings of the House (29 March) — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): May I finish the point? The second problem I have is that the motion, to my mind and according to what the Leader of the House herself said earlier, is only there to appease the EU’s desires. Well isn’t that an irony; this isn’t exactly taking back—
Sittings of the House (29 March) — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): What the Leader of the House is proposing in this motion is that we should adopt a new precedent. There has been much talk of precedent in the last few days in terms of the way we proceed here, and I believe in precedent, which is why I believe we should very rarely set the precedent we are setting for tomorrow. I think for instance we should abide by the precedent that when a Government lose a major policy they fall, and that when a Government Minister proposes a motion they vote for it. All of these are precedents that have been abandoned I am happy for us to sit tomorrow, but I would just say that if it is absolutely clear, as has already been stated, that tomorrow’s motion is not a meaningful vote, it is then a meaningless vote and consequently there is little point to us sitting. And the one precedent that I am absolutely sure the House will always have abided by in the past and will probably abide by tomorrow is that when the Government come up with a policy—a change of mood, a change of style, a different way of doing business—that is too clever by half, they always lose.
Sittings of the House (29 March) — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: International Affairs
Martin David Whitfield (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the business of the House motion makes reference to complying with Acts and the European Union documents, yet the motion that we are debating tomorrow acknowledges that we are not going to follow UK legislation and that we will catch up at some point in the future?
Sittings of the House (29 March) — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: International Affairs
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about a blind Brexit. Does he agree that the way in which the motion has been tabled goes against the spirit of this House, where we have been trying to expand and understand where there is consensus, and that it instead contracts the debate by trying to separate the debate about the future? That is at the very core of the debate, and this is why we do not want to leave without knowing where we are going to. It is like moving house and leaving your home without knowing where you are going to be living.
Sittings of the House (29 March) — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: International Affairs
George Edward Howarth (Labour, Centre-left): In a point of order a few moments ago, Mr Speaker, I asked you whether there was any mechanism by way of an urgent question that we could get a response from the Attorney General to the point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). It is important that we get an answer before we conclude this evening’s proceedings, because how we vote tomorrow could, as my right hon. Friend said, have an effect on any further delay that the European Commission might consider. Can we ask the Attorney General to make a statement on that during the course of this debate?
Sittings of the House (29 March) — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: Government Operations
James McMahon (Labour, Centre-left): There are plenty of people in the Gallery today who will be here to see the magnificent historical features of this building. They should pay particular attention to the parts that are currently held up with scaffolding, which represent the places where MPs have been banging their heads against the walls for nearly three years in trying to make sense of the chaos that the Government have created. No MP resents coming into this place, because it is a pleasure and a privilege to be here to represent our constituents, but it is extremely disruptive when the Government are so chaotic and when they refuse to plan ahead and to communicate well in advance so that we can make proper arrangements. We saw that in the February half-term, when MPs with childcare responsibilities and other responsibilities were disrupted, and we are likely to see it in the Easter recess as well. Again, no MP has an issue with being here—it is a privilege to be here—but we have arrangements to make, so clarity would be appreciated When the Leader of the House returns to the Dispatch Box, it would be helpful if she could help me to understand something. Currently, the local government elections are due to take place on 2 May. If, for whatever reason, the business is not passed tomorrow, we might be heading towards a position in which we have to elect Members to the European Parliament. The European elections are currently scheduled for the end of May. Would the Government intend to reschedule the date of the local government elections to coincide with the European elections that take place 21 days later?
Sittings of the House (29 March) — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: International Affairs
Chinyelu Susan Onwurah (Labour, Centre-left): I shall not speak for long. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), I am very happy to sit tomorrow, even though it means a day not spent in the glorious city of Newcastle, but I am concerned that in effect the sitting tomorrow has been designed purely to circumvent British law—not to pass new laws, because the Leader of the House knows that she does not have the numbers to do that, but to circumvent laws that we have already passed. I hope she will address my final point. It seems to me that, for the House to sit in order to cede control of the process to the European Union goes against not only the spirit of the 17.4 million who voted for Brexit but the spirit and intention of the House.
Sittings of the House (29 March) — House of Commons, 2019-03-28
Topic: International Affairs
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way to emphasise a point you made earlier concerning tomorrow’s motion, where it says the House "resolves that it is content to proceed to the next steps of this process" Given that the next steps of the process very much depend on the EU withdrawal and implementation Bill, is there any way we can emphasise to the Government the importance of that Bill, which exists in draft form, being published so that, in resolving to move to the next steps, we can know what those steps are, particularly as some of us are of the view that we might see in that Bill the introduction of retrospective legislation to change certain parts of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018?
Great Western Main Line — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
Jessica Elizabeth Morden (Labour, Centre-left): I certainly welcome the electrification work in south Wales, although it should have gone through to Swansea, but what is the Department doing to ensure that Network Rail works closely with communities such as Magor in my constituency, which is right on the line, to ensure that where work does have a big impact on residents it listens, reacts to problems and compensates accordingly?
Great Western Main Line — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), my constituents, particularly those in Lawrence Hill, one of the most challenging parts of my constituency, had to endure months of inconvenience as the electrification work was carried out. To add insult to that injury, we are not even getting electrification to Bristol Temple Meads. They have to put up with the inconvenience without the electrification. What compensation, assistance or help can the Secretary of State or the Government give to my constituents in Lawrence Hill?
Skipton to Colne Rail Link — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
John Timothy Grogan (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Minister agree that restoring the line would have the advantage of providing an important new freight link across the Pennines, as well as a passenger link? Will he agree to publish the feasibility study, so that Network Rail’s £800 million cost estimate can be scrutinised and, probably, brought down considerably?
Seating-only Policies: Capacity and Ticket Prices — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential effect on (a) capacity and (b) ticket prices on the rail network at peak times in the event of the introduction of seating-only policies.
James Dolan Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): When do the Minister or his officials propose to have discussions with Virgin Trains? There is a great deal of concern that this could affect Virgin employees and, equally, pensioners’ freedom to travel, so I hope the Minister will discuss this with Virgin.
Midland Main Line Franchise — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
Questions: Where the trains for the new franchise for midland main line will be made; and what the timetable is for the delivery of those trains.
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): My question relates to fair and consistent treatment of bidders. Given that the Department has confirmed that all three bidders for the East Midlands franchise were non-compliant, why were only Stagecoach and Arriva disqualified from the competition?
Midland Main Line Franchise — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
Questions: Where the trains for the new franchise for midland main line will be made; and what the timetable is for the delivery of those trains.
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): Well, that is certainly not what the Secretary of State’s Department is saying. He withheld sensitive market information between 1 and 9 April when disqualifying Stagecoach from the South Eastern and West Coast Partnership competitions, thus demonstrating that his interference further discredits the franchising process. Have any of the bidders for the other rail franchise competitions submitted non-compliant bids, and have they been disqualified? If so, why has the information not been made public?
Leaving the EU: Port Delays — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): The Transport Minister in the Lords said yesterday that she did not rule out our having a no-deal scenario in October and therefore we could potentially be exactly where we are now later in the year. Can the Minister assure me that the ferry companies will not get double-bubble if that unfortunate situation occurs?
Rail Franchising System — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
Paul John Sweeney (Labour, Centre-left): Well, the chair of that review has just said that the franchising system is not fit for purpose. In the light of that, does the Secretary of State not agree with Opposition Members that privatisation has been a litany of failure, that the fragmentation of the network has meant the coherence of the passenger-led system has been destroyed, and that we need to have a reintegrated railway system under democratic control? Is that not the future for the railway system in this country?
Dartford Crossing: Revenue — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
Teresa Pearce (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for his response, but according to my reading of the legislation and the accounts, the income from the Dartford crossing is paid to the Department for Transport with no ring fence, so it can be spent anywhere on anything transport related. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Given the crossing’s adverse effect on Bexley and Dartford residents in terms of air pollution, congestion, extended journey times and often complete gridlock—the hospital is on one side of the Dartford bridge and residents are on the other—what percentage of the income has been and will be spent on improving transport for those residents?
Bus Journeys — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
Stephen Hepburn (Labour, Centre-left): Since 2010, public funding for bus services has been cut by 45%, leading to a 20% decrease in passenger journeys. At the same time, bus operators have pocketed £1.5 billion in profits. Does the Minister think that the country and commuters are getting a good deal?
Bus Journeys — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
Mathew Richard Allen Rodda (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) made an important point. Bus services are in deep crisis: funding has been slashed by £645 million a year in real terms since 2010; over 3,000 routes have been cut; and fares have soared by 2.5 times the increase in wages. It is therefore hardly surprising that passenger numbers have fallen by 10% since 2010. Will the Minister now apologise to the millions of pensioners, young people and commuters who rely on our buses?
Bus Journeys — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
Mathew Richard Allen Rodda (Labour, Centre-left): It seems that the Minister, sadly, may not fully acknowledge the depth of the crisis affecting our buses. For many people, buses are the only means of public transport. The crisis in our bus services is damaging our communities, particularly the young, the old and people with disabilities. Our councils stand ready to help where this Government have failed. Indeed, the Minister references the work done by some excellent Labour councils across the country. On local election day, can she tell the House why the Government will not allow all local authorities the powers to regulate bus services and, indeed, to set up new council-run bus companies? Both measures have led to much-improved services across the country.
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Environment
Andrew Joseph McDonald (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State is in charge of the worst-performing Department when it comes to emissions. Transport emissions have risen since 2010. The Committee on Climate Change said that "the fact is that we’re off track to meet our own emissions targets in the 2020s and 2030s." Is the Secretary of State content with this failure, or will he commit to honouring the UK’s own legal and international climate change commitments?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Environment
Andrew Joseph McDonald (Labour, Centre-left): The Government contributed to the UN’s special report on 1.5°C, yet failed to take into account its contents when designating the Airports National Policy Statement. Similarly, the Secretary of State admitted that the Paris agreement, ratified years ago by the UK and by almost every country in the world, was not considered when designating the ANPS. Given that the UK Government have now accepted that we are in a climate emergency, will he review the ANPS in light of Paris, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and the Committee on Climate Change advice—if yes, when?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
Questions: The new east midlands train franchise is likely to increase capacity southwards from Kettering, but will it improve connectivity north on the midland main line? The previous Labour Government cut our half-hourly service northwards and it is about time that we had it back.; Train commuters faced 35,000 cancellations last year owing to driver shortages. That is purely because train operators are running the service on the cheap. What will the Government do about that?
Jessica Elizabeth Morden (Labour, Centre-left): Constituents have contacted me again this week to highlight the eye-watering increases in the cost of commuting by rail to Bristol, and how that is forcing them into their cars. After yesterday’s climate emergency debate, is it not time for Ministers to act on extortionate rail fares?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
Questions: The new east midlands train franchise is likely to increase capacity southwards from Kettering, but will it improve connectivity north on the midland main line? The previous Labour Government cut our half-hourly service northwards and it is about time that we had it back.; Train commuters faced 35,000 cancellations last year owing to driver shortages. That is purely because train operators are running the service on the cheap. What will the Government do about that?
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Is the ministerial team aware that an all-party group of Members of Parliament came together to secure the seatbelt legislation many years ago? After 13 failed attempts, we actually got it through on the 14th, and the number of lives saved and serious injuries prevented has been substantial. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which I chair and which is still a vigorous cross-party group, is concerned by the report today that seatbelt wearing is declining. A quarter of the people killed on the roads last year were not wearing their seatbelts. Could we make it an enforceable offence with three penalty points? Can we take action on this?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Transportation
Questions: The new east midlands train franchise is likely to increase capacity southwards from Kettering, but will it improve connectivity north on the midland main line? The previous Labour Government cut our half-hourly service northwards and it is about time that we had it back.; Train commuters faced 35,000 cancellations last year owing to driver shortages. That is purely because train operators are running the service on the cheap. What will the Government do about that?
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): Now that this House has taken the lead in supporting Labour’s climate change emergency motion yesterday, does the Department for Transport not agree that it is time that we made sure that there can be no new roads without cycle lanes, unless there is a damned good reason why not, and no new housing without cycle locks and electric car charging points?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2019-05-02
Topic: Environment
Questions: The new east midlands train franchise is likely to increase capacity southwards from Kettering, but will it improve connectivity north on the midland main line? The previous Labour Government cut our half-hourly service northwards and it is about time that we had it back.; Train commuters faced 35,000 cancellations last year owing to driver shortages. That is purely because train operators are running the service on the cheap. What will the Government do about that?
Rupa Asha Huq (Labour, Centre-left): Yesterday’s judicial review on Heathrow was concerned only with the legality of the decision, not the merits of airport expansion. Given that this House has overwhelmingly affirmed that we face a climate emergency, surely a swift and easy way of meeting our obligations would be to cancel the third runway at Heathrow. Not only will it pollute my constituents’ lungs, but it is costing us the earth—literally.