argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Engagements — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): Well, it is very strange that the chief executive of NHS Providers says: "We are in the middle of the longest and deepest financial squeeze in…history." I have a pretty good idea that they know what they are talking about. Let me give the Prime Minister another statistic. The number of people waiting more than four hours in A&E has gone up by 557% since 2010. Two weeks ago, the opposition to us—the Tories over there—were very noisy when I mentioned—[Interruption.] You are the Government, we are the Opposition: you are in opposition to us. It is not complicated Two weeks ago, I raised the question of cuts in school budgets—teachers and parents telling MPs what the reality of it was about. The Prime Minister was in denial; every Tory MP was in denial. This week, 5,000 headteachers from 25 counties wrote to the Chancellor, saying: "we are simply asking for the money that is being taken out of the system to be returned" Will the Prime Minister listen to headteachers and give a commitment that the Budget next week will return the money to school budgets so that our schools are properly funded?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was reported in the media this morning, but not to this House, that the Government are to cut the controversial and damaging six-week wait for universal credit payments, as we have repeatedly called for. Given the clearly expressed will of the House to pause universal credit—the vote was carried by 299 votes to nil—and the subsequent emergency debate on the Government’s failure to respond to that decision, I seek your guidance on whether you have received any indication that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions plans to make a statement in the House on this extremely important issue. Is it not an affront to both sides of the House and to the people we represent that these important policy issues are being announced in the media, not in a statement to the House?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Christopher Michael Leslie (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who has left the Chamber, reminded me of a very important point of order. I think it is two weeks since the House passed a motion to instruct the Government to publish the 58 Brexit sectoral impact assessments. Two weeks later, I am certainly not aware of when they will be forthcoming. I wonder whether you have any further information about a date on which we can expect them. As you will recall, there are serious issues, perhaps relating to contempt of the House, if that motion is not adhered to.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): I will certainly bring that to the attention of the Public Bill Office and see what we can do to help New Clause 2 Retaining Enhanced Protection "Regulations provided for by Acts of Parliament other than this Act may not be used by Ministers of the Crown to amend or modify retained EU law in the following areas— (a) employment entitlement, rights and protections; (b) equality entitlements, rights and protections; (c) health and safety entitlement, rights and protections; (d) fundamental rights as defined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights."—(Matthew Pennycook.) This new clause would prevent delegated powers from other Acts being used to alter workplace protections, equality provisions, health and safety regulations or fundamental rights. Brought up, and read the First time.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is making some very important points. I, too, support new clause 58 and the provisions in new clauses 55 and 25. New clause 58 makes a clear point about the protection of equality rights. In the light of the wonderful news that came overnight from Australia about marriage equality, does he agree that it is crucial that we send out a signal to the LGBT+ community in the United Kingdom that we respect their rights and will retain them?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): I could not agree more. That is exactly what new clause 58 would do; it would provide enhanced protection for equality, rights and protections after we have left the EU Taken at face value, clauses 2 to 4 appear relatively straightforward. But, as many hon. Members who spoke in yesterday’s debate made clear, the Bill as drafted creates a considerable degree of ambiguity and uncertainty as to the status of retained EU law. Currently the status of rights, protections and standards underpinned by EU law is distinct Treaty provisions and regulations that take effect through section 2(1) of the ECA are neither primary nor secondary legislation. The principle of the supremacy of EU law and the ECA means that, in practice, they have a particular constitutional status that enables them to take priority over primary legislation enacted by Parliament. Similarly, secondary legislation made under section 2(2) of the ECA is distinct from other secondary legislation in that it could take priority over primary legislation because of the fact that it is giving effect to an EU law obligation. Primary legislation that gives effect to an EU law obligation could be amended by Parliament, but any removal of an underlying EU law could be challenged in the courts Post-exit, it is unclear what status—primary, secondary or something else entirely—retained EU law will have. From schedule 1, one might draw the inference that retained EU law has the characteristics of secondary, rather than primary, legislation. Yet paragraph 19 of schedule 8 provides that, for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, direct EU legislation "is to be treated as primary legislation", although this schedule does not cover those rights recognised and made available in domestic law after exit by means of clause 4 Clauses 5 and 6 provide guidance as to how the courts should interpret retained EU law in the event of a conflict with an enactment passed after exit day, but it is not yet clear—as we debated at length yesterday—whether the courts will treat particular retained EU laws as constitutional legislation that is not susceptible to implied repeal The uncertainty that surrounds the status and interpretation of retained EU law is a real weakness of the legislation and it is crucial that it is clarified and addressed on the face of the Bill. But, irrespective of what status particular retained EU laws are eventually accorded, this new category of law—detached from the enhanced protection enjoyed as a result of being underwritten by our membership of the EU—will be vulnerable to amendment not just from the delegated powers contained in this Bill, but from subordinate legislation contained in other Acts of Parliament.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Lady makes a good point. Of course we will need to do that, and businesses will have to comply with those standards. That is why we need to ensure that the EU and EU-derived rights we have are underpinned by an enhanced status. We will then need to move on to the conversation—which we will have to have—about how to stay in some form of regulatory alignment, if we want the type of deep and comprehensive deal that I think both sides envisage.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with that, and I agree—I think this was also my hon. Friend’s point—that the public will expect these rights to continue to have the protection they have enjoyed while being underpinned by EU law. These rights should not have a reduced level of protection in the future.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Other
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): Obviously I would not comment on the order of selection on the Floor of the House, but the Leader of the House is here and I am sure that she will have heard the hon. Lady’s comments.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Frank Field (Labour, Centre-left): I hope that this will be my last intervention. The purpose of the measure is to make sure that we all know that the task will be massive. I thought the idea preposterous that most of us would be prepared to give up all our other interests to participate in that mega review, which the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said might go on for 20 years, and I thought we could hand back quite a bit of it to the Government, providing we could keep hold of the reins.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): I accept that there is no intention that the Bill takes away the rights and protections enshrined in EU law and that the Bill does not imply that they will be taken away. The problem is that the Bill enables future Governments to do so, and there is therefore a need to protect those fundamental rights and protections by providing that they can be amended only through primary legislation. They need to be separated from the great mass of technical stuff that can be sifted by the European Scrutiny Committee or other such turbo-charged Select Committees, which could look at the minutiae.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. We have a lot of speakers and, as Members are well aware, there is no knife today. I will not be setting a time limit, so in order to get to the second debate I suggest that Members use up to eight minutes, including interventions.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): On an important point of clarification, my hon. Friend has made an incredibly strong speech. Citizens have only to go through the border and see EU and EEA as separate things on border signs to know the importance of the argument that she is making. Like me, would she like to see this measure put to the House at the appropriate time in the Bill, depending on the argument that we hear from the Government and others?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): I rise to speak to my new clause 25, which has cross-party support. The Minister has already praised me from the Dispatch Box for the clarity with which I have spoken to it, but I can reassure him that now this really is me doing so. I also support new clauses 55 and 58. All these new clauses relate to retaining enhanced protections after exit day. As will be evident from other measures I have tabled, including new clause 28, which is in today’s second group, my main concern is retaining the valuable environmental protections that flow from our EU membership. However, of course, employment rights, equalities, and health and safety standards, as set out in new clause 58, which was tabled by Labour Front Benchers, are also vital, and the same arguments apply to them.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Margaret Greenwood (Labour, Centre-left): A recent TUC study found that many low-paid workers can be disciplined for taking time off for childcare. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the right under the parental leave directive to take time off work to take a sick child to the doctor or arrange care for an elderly relative is an important protection for British workers?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): I will speak about the new clauses tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, particularly those on employment law, and about the new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander). First, I notice that the right hon. Members for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), the right hon. and learned Members for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and others are here. They have been accused of not doing right by the people simply because they have been seeking to do their job in Committee. They have been accused in different quarters of being mutineers and trying to sabotage a process, when all they have sought is to do right by this country, this House and—most importantly of all—their constituents We do not live in a police state. This is a not a dictatorship where the freedom of speech of individuals, both outside and in Parliament, is curtailed. The House needs to send a strong message to those outside that this democracy will not tolerate Members of Parliament being threatened in the way that was outlined by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe in her point of order earlier, because that is not in keeping with British values and how we do things in this country. There are Members who whip this up, suggesting that we are somehow running against the people when we try to do our job on this Bill. Those Members are grossly irresponsible and should think about what they are doing more carefully in the future, because we have seen the results in the national newspapers today.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): Absolutely. I could not agree more. I referred to the Beecroft review, and one of its recommendations was to do away with equal pay audits, which only underlines the point I have been seeking to make.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Chuka Harrison Umunna (Labour, Centre-left): I am going to be quick, so I will not take any more interventions We have talked a lot about parliamentary sovereignty, which is why it is vital that we see changes made to the Bill, but the biggest threat to national sovereignty for many countries, particularly in the advanced world, is the power of multinational corporations in an era of globalisation. I am not opposed to those organisations per se, but they do need to be properly regulated and marshalled for the common good. However, they operate across borders, and, ultimately, if we want to regulate them properly and make them work particularly for lower and middle-income families in the advanced world—of course, people’s discontent with globalisation was primarily the thing that drove them to leave the European Union—we have to do that across borders Being in the EEA—being part of that framework—enables us to get the system to work better for people. If there is one thing we learned from the referendum we had in 2016, it is that they want us to change the system and better marshal it to their interests. Being in the EEA and EFTA helps to enable us to do that. That is why we should be focusing on it and why we need to pass the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Catharine Letitia Hoey (Labour, Centre-left): I would not like the public who are listening or watching to take the right hon. Lady to mean that the abuse, nasty remarks and things that are going on are only against people who were remainers. Some of us on the other side of the argument have received a huge amount of abuse, but we sometimes think it is probably easier and better simply to ignore it.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Lady and I have had our differences during my time in Parliament since 2015, particularly when she was a Business Minister. We had some vigorous debates and disagreements when I, as a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, challenged her about the steel industry and the industrial strategy, but I felt that she was always very respectful of my view and the strength with which I held it. Why were we able to have such vigorous but respectful debate over such policy issues, but Brexit seems to bring out the very worst in public discourse in this place and beyond?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Other
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): Does the right hon. Lady agree that the debates that we are having could be helpful to the Government? The Government are much more likely to be able to "do it", as she puts it, if they reflect the consensus view of opinion across the House.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): I would like to speak in favour of new clause 2 and new clause 58, which have been tabled by those on the Labour Front Bench There is an idea that we should be giving the Government the benefit of the doubt on these issues. There have, however, been so many statements and acts from those on the Government Benches to undermine employment rights, from the Trade Union Act 2016 to many other measures, that we need to ensure we anchor the rights of our workforce in the Bill The Exiting the European Union Committee met Mr Barnier in Brussels last week. One point he made very clearly is that as we move towards a future relationship, the so-called deep and comprehensive free trade agreement will need to be ratified by the Parliaments of the member states, plus a number of regional Parliaments. They will not accept anything that he described as "social dumping"—they will not accept undercutting and they will not accept unfair regulatory practice—so if the Government are serious about getting a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU they will have to recognise that regulatory equivalence will have to be a critical part of it. This is about not only securing rights in this country, but the economic interests of the country if we are serious about having that future relationship.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): That point is very well made. I expect that other hon. Members will touch on that in more detail when they speak to amendments 93 to 95 We support amendments 148 to 150 and new clause 34—the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston to remedy deficiencies in the Bill with respect to the rights of children. Her amendments are designed to preserve in domestic law any rights or obligations arising from the UN convention on the rights of the child, to ensure that Ministers act in such a way as to comply with that convention, and to protect from the delegated powers in the Bill the rights and obligations that flow from the convention.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Mixed Topics
Mary Helen Creagh (Labour, Centre-left): I am thrilled the Minister has come back to chemicals, because we spent about three months of our lives looking into the issue. The point is not whether these things exist in our law; the point is that the body that enacts the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals will not exist on exit day, and the registrations that British companies will have paid a quarter of a billion pounds for will fall. That is one of the big problems.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is quite right. It is about the removal of the cap on costs as well, and the fact that local people bringing these cases might find themselves liable to a huge financial burden if they are not successful Amendment 93 removes clause 4(1)(b), which restricts rights in clause 4 to those which are "enforced, allowed and followed accordingly" Amendment 94 removes clause 4(2)(b), which excludes rights arising under EU directives that have not been adjudicated by the courts before exit day. There is no explanation as to why only rights that have been litigated on or enforced are carried over. The Minister may dispute this, but my interpretation is that the result will be that contentious aspects of law will be retained, but those that have never been litigated, perhaps because they are really obvious and incontrovertible and no one has seen the need to challenge them—the ones that everyone accepts—will be the ones at risk, which seems a little bizarre.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Civil Rights
Preet Kaur Gill (Labour, Centre-left): The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is intended to bring existing EU legislation into UK law. As we do so, we must ensure that the fundamental rights of children are not diluted With our exit from the EU, the UK plans no longer to be party to the EU charter of fundamental rights, so it will not automatically benefit from the protections of children’s rights that exist within the EU legal framework. The treaty of Lisbon introduced an objective for the EU to promote the protection of the rights of children, and the charter of fundamental rights guarantees the protection of the rights of the child by EU institutions, as well as by EU countries when they implement EU law The best way to ensure that those rights are maintained after Brexit is to enshrine the UN convention on the rights of the child in UK law. Although the UK is a signatory to that convention, it is not enshrined in domestic law. The Bill removes from UK law the European charter of fundamental rights, proposing that fundamental rights and principles are considered in place of that charter when implementing case law or legislation that refers to it directly after exit day. The Children’s Society has rightly raised its concerns that there is no further information on what these fundamental rights would be, or any clarity about whether the development of children’s rights envisaged in EU law would be considered to be fundamental rights and principles. That is why, in the absence of any clear definition, further integration of the UN convention on the rights of the child in UK law would provide the framework for these fundamental rights for children.
District Councils — House of Commons, 2017-11-15
Topic: Housing
David Drew (Labour, Centre-left): As a supporter of district councils, I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Does he agree that one of the ways in which this could be helped is by freeing up some of the housing activities that district councils perform, whereby they could be part of the solution to the housing crisis?