argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Patrick Bosco McFadden (Labour, Centre-left): This is the third time that we have considered this issue. The Government say that this is not meaningful vote 3 and they will not count it as meaningful vote 3 if they lose today, but they would certainly count it as meaningful vote 3 if they won today A number of right hon. and hon. Members have said that they have changed their minds between vote one, vote two and vote three. There will be many people in the country asking themselves why is it that MPs can vote three and maybe four times, and are entitled to change their minds, but it would be the greatest democratic calamity of all, according to the Prime Minister, to give the public one vote on this deal and give them the right to change their minds Two things are different about how we are doing this today. The first is the separation of the political declaration from the withdrawal agreement. The second is the starting gun being fired on a Tory leadership contest. The political declaration was already vague, but separating it out from the withdrawal agreement makes this the most blindfold Brexit. We are being asked to vote to leave with no idea at all of what the future relationship between the UK and the EU will be and no attempt to answer the fundamental question that Brexit poses: do we want a more distant economic relationship where, in all likelihood, Northern Ireland will have to be treated differently from the rest of the UK; or do we want a close economic relationship where we continue to obey the EU’s rules, yet give ourselves no say over them? That question must be answered Now, we are being asked to mortgage all this to the outcome of a Tory leadership contest, where the battle will be between candidates trying to prove that they are the truest believer of all. The question will be "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the most right-wing nationalist of them all?" That is what the candidates will be asking If the Prime Minister wins tonight, I contend that the battering ram approach to parliamentary democracy will still not bring the country together. This has not been good enough as a process. If she loses, she will have a decision to make. This House has made clear its opposition to no deal, so the Prime Minister will have to decide on the future, a longer extension and a recasting of the process, if this goes down tonight.
United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): On reflection, having sat here listening to the debate this morning and this afternoon, let me say what a catastrophic strategic failure of leadership we have seen from the Government that has led us to reach this position—a position where we remain divided as a Parliament and where we remain divided as a country I was extremely disappointed by the reaction to the indicative votes that took place the other day. The Government could have looked at them and responded, "Does that offer us a way forward, and is there a way of bringing some together in a way that would actually command a majority of this House and command a majority of the country?" Instead, we got the Government crowing from their Front Bench that no particular option had got a majority. That is no way to bring the country together or to bring the Parliament of this country together I say to the Government that, even at this late stage, they should be seeking to look at what would command a majority in this House and what would actually command a majority in the country. Instead of that, what do we get? We get a motion that this House is asked to pass today—I will be voting against it, with many of my colleagues—which sets aside section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. It sets aside the British law: it sets aside the law of this country that says the withdrawal agreement will be passed with the political declaration and will be passed with the consent of the House of Commons and the House of Lords Let me say this to the Minister and to the Government: I think the British public will be astonished—astonished—that in order to push through their withdrawal agreement, even though it has been defeated twice, they have come up with a ruse that allows them to say, "We will separate out the political declaration and, for our purposes, we will set aside the British law". They will not understand it and, frankly, neither do I Let me say this about the political declaration. If the withdrawal Act motion is passed today, the people of this country should know that there is no certainty about what that means for the political declaration. There is no certainty about the single market, a customs union or many of the other things that matter to the people of this country. As I said at the beginning, this is a catastrophic failure of leadership by the Government and a continuing failure by the Government to seek to bring Parliament together and this country together.
United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): Britain can leave the European Union in one of two ways. It can choose to reject EU regulation altogether, and the downside to that is severe damage to our economy, as highlighted by Honda’s closure of its Swindon plant, and the cancellation of Nissan models in Sunderland. Recent votes have showed that the House rightly recognises the danger of a no-deal scenario and is not willing to go down that road. The alternative is to protect the economy and stay close to Europe, but the problem with that is having to apply EU rules while no longer having any say over what they are. That is the Brexit choice: move away from the EU and take the economic hit, or stay close and reduce that economic hit, but have no say over the rules. One of the reasons why we have this problem today is because we do not know the Prime Minister’s choice. We do not know which of the two she favours. The political declaration was supposed to tell us, but it does not. Even if we knew the Prime Minister’s choice, she is stepping down, so someone else will have to make the choice I understand the Prime Minister’s unwillingness to choose. Both options have severe downsides, which is why many of us opposed leaving the EU in the first place, but how can we sign off the deal without having some idea of where we will end up? All we know is the Prime Minister’s choice for the initial transition period, which is to stay close. We will gain control of migration from the EU, but we will lose our influence on the rules we will have to adhere to on data privacy, financial services and product standards in a whole host of areas. Some who worry about migration from the EU may think that a reasonable exchange, but I cannot see that it is To illustrate the problem, we conscientiously implemented the general data protection regulation. The UK played a key role in drawing it up, and the Prime Minister rightly recognises that we will have to continue following those rules so we can carry on exchanging data easily with the EU. She announced that she wants to keep our place on the European Data Protection Board, which oversees GDPR, but she could not achieve that in her negotiation. Under the withdrawal agreement we will lose our place on the day we leave the EU, and we will no longer have any say on the rules, but we will still have to comply with them. Writ large, that is the position in which we will find ourselves across the board We need a longer extension. We need a consensus-building process, which will take time. I urge the House to reject the deal today.
United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): The Government have run down the clock in an attempt to blackmail MPs at every turn. The Government are in chaos, the country is in chaos, and the responsibility is the Government’s, and the Government’s alone. The Prime Minister pulled the meaningful vote in December because she knew it would fail. Since then, in more than three months, nothing has changed—not one single word in the 600 pages of the withdrawal agreement, not one single word in the 26 pages of the political declaration Today, the Government are trying to bounce the House into voting for a damaging deal that we have twice rejected, but, as ever, the Prime Minister refuses to listen. Today’s vote—third time lucky, she hopes—is an affront to democracy and this country. She has separated the withdrawal agreement from the future relationship, despite having told us that the two were indivisible. On 14 January, she told the House that "the link between them means that the commitments of one cannot be banked without the commitments of the other."——[Official Report, 14 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 826.] Today, she is asking us to take a punt on the withdrawal agreement and hope for the best for the political declaration. It is not good enough; the two are linked Nothing demonstrates that linkage better than the backstop. The political declaration is incredibly vague, containing as it does a spectrum of possible outcomes, and nothing is even close to being resolved. That makes it even more likely that the UK would fall into the backstop, which would create regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, as the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said. We also know that it endures indefinitely, thanks to this Parliament prizing the Attorney General’s legal advice out of a very reluctant Government. Labour will not vote for a blindfold Brexit, and passing the withdrawal agreement today without the political declaration would be just that The Prime Minister said at the end of November, when she signed off the deal, that "we won’t agree the leaving part, the withdrawal agreement, until we’ve got what we want in the future because these two go together". As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said, it would be like selling your house without knowing where you are moving to, although, unlike me, I am not sure he is old enough to have watched "Monty Python".
United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): In her heart of hearts, will the Prime Minister accept that this Brexit will make Britain poorer, weaker, more divided and more isolated? The door that she should not shut is the door of democracy. She should allow the people to have the final say on whether they want this shambles. The leavers in my area certainly do not.
United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Wesley Paul William Streeting (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. She is right to say that she has sacrificed her own position to try to get her deal through. Does she appreciate that in doing so she is asking us to place our trust in whoever follows her? Looking at the likely candidates, I have to say sincerely to her that she may have sacrificed her career to put the country first, but there are plenty of people who aim to follow her who have always put themselves first, above the country.
United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. She says that this is about the country, but with respect, that is not how it is seen. Brexit—the withdrawal agreement and the referendum—has always been about the Conservative party.
United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union — House of Commons, 2019-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is now the third time that the Prime Minister’s deal has been rejected. When it was defeated the first time, she said: "It is clear that the House does not support this deal".—[Official Report, 15 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 1125.] Does she now finally accept that the House does not support the deal? She seemed to indicate just now that she will return to this issue again On Monday this House has the chance and—I say to all Members—the responsibility to find a majority for a better deal for all the people of this country. The House has been clear: this deal now has to change. An alternative has to be found. If the Prime Minister cannot accept that, she must go—not at an indeterminate date in the future, but now—so that we can decide the future of this country through a general election.
Victims Law — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Minister agree that the tragic victims are those people who cannot speak because they have been killed by an accident or a violent crime? Will he meet me to discuss the case of a bereaved family whose little girl was killed 15 months ago as a driver crashed into a bus queue? The driver not only killed the little girl, an only child, but seriously injured another woman. They have not been prosecuted. Can we have a chat about that?
Victims Law — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Emma Louise Lewell-Buck (Labour, Centre-left): My constituent Kristian Thompson would have been 27 years old today had his life not been taken when he was 19 years old after he was the victim of a one-punch attack. His mam, Maxine, set up the charity One Punch UK. This week is One Punch Awareness Week when many people who have lost loved ones are pleading with the Government to follow Australia and Canada and create a one-punch law imposing a minimum sentence for perpetrators. Why are the Government continuing to resist doing so?
Victims Law — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Gloria De Piero (Labour, Centre-left): A vital feature of justice for victims is financial redress, so why have this Government presided over a near 60% fall in the number of victims of violent crime receiving payments from the criminal injuries compensation scheme?
Imprisonment for Public Protection — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Jeffrey Smith (Labour, Centre-left): My constituent Wayne Bell is currently in the 12th year of a sentence for which the original tariff was four years. Owing to his significant mental health issues, he is unable to engage with the parole process and the review process, and his mental health problems are exacerbated by the hopelessness of his situation. Does the Secretary of State realise that prisoners with mental health issues can get trapped in a vicious cycle where it becomes almost impossible to achieve parole, and will he look at interventions that could be considered to enable Wayne’s cases and others like it to be resolved?
Imprisonment for Public Protection — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Eleanor Claire Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): The latest figures show that there are still nearly 2,500 prisoners serving IPP sentences. These sentences often have punitive recall conditions, which means that people might be returned to prison for fairly minor breaches of their licence conditions, resulting in many prisoners serving well beyond their original tariffs. It was previously a target of the Parole Board to reduce IPP prisoner numbers to 15,000 by 2020, so what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that this happens?
Access to Criminal Justice — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Virendra Kumar Sharma (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for her response. The Law Society has highlighted the fact that low criminal legal aid fees are having an adverse impact on the number of new, younger lawyers. Criminal legal aid fees for solicitors have not been increased since the 1990s. Will the Government commit to raising fees for solicitors, at least in line with inflation?
Access to Criminal Justice — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Teresa Pearce (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for that reply, but there is a crisis in legal aid and in legal representation. The Law Society data says that within five to 10 years there will be insufficient criminal duty solicitors in many regions. She has mentioned the review and mentioned more money, but what specific steps will she take to make sure that people have their right to be represented while being interviewed by the police?
Access to Criminal Justice — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Janet Jessica Daby (Labour, Centre-left): It is really good to hear that the Law Society is having such an impact on the Government. However, the Law Society has also published research that shows that the criminal legal aid means test is preventing families living in poverty from accessing justice. Although the Government will eventually review this, the review will not conclude until 2020, and it will be even further down the line when any changes come into place. Will the Minister therefore commit to taking action now to ensure that vulnerable people are still able to access justice?
Violence in Prisons — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Alexander James Jorden Norris (Labour, Centre-left): As the Minister mentioned, on Sunday 14 April a prison officer at my local prison in Nottingham had his throat slashed with a razor by a prisoner in what his union calls a cowardly, unprovoked act. According to doctors, this young public servant—a brave man in his early 20s—came within millimetres of losing his life. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to this prison officer and to his thousands of colleagues facing this sort of violence every day, and does he agree with the union—the Prison Officers Association—that this ought to be treated as an attempted murder?
Violence in Prisons — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Imran Hussain (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Minister agree with his party’s former long-serving Secretary of State, Sir Malcolm Rifkind—a self-confessed true believer in privatisation—who wrote recently in the Financial Times: "The physical deprivation of a citizen’s liberty should not be the responsibility of a private company or of its employees." Does the Minister accept that the renationalisation of HMP Birmingham heralds the end of his Government’s failed prison privatisation agenda?
Welfare Benefits: Legal Advice — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Social Welfare
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for that answer, but she will know that the number of people receiving legal aid to challenge benefit decisions fell from more than 91,000 in 2012-13 to fewer than 500 five years later, which was clearly the Government’s plan. The Department’s own figures show that while 28% of unrepresented claimants are successful on appeal, that figure jumps to 90% for those who have legal representation, so literally tens of thousands of people have lost out on moneys to which they were entitled. Does she agree that the Government should consider restoring legal aid for social security appeals, so that claimants can get the support they need to win the money they deserve?
Welfare Benefits: Legal Advice — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Social Welfare
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): Government cuts to legal aid have left tens of thousands of welfare benefit claimants without the ability to appeal flawed DWP decisions. We continue to see harrowing stories of those who have suffered after such poor decisions. Those cuts left tens of thousands of tenants unable to take on lousy landlords, and left migrants unable to fight back against the Conservative party’s hostile environment. Can the Minister explain why these vulnerable people are far too easily cast aside, while the private companies failing in our prison, probation and courts systems are too readily bailed out? Does this not sum up in whose interests the Conservative party governs?
Welfare Benefits: Legal Advice — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Burgon (Labour, Centre-left): It is just not good enough because all too often the Government spin against legal aid, with talk of fat cat lawyers and unmeritorious claims, but the latest figures show that the number of not-for-profit providers, such as law centres, has fallen by nearly two thirds under this Government. Will the Minister follow Labour’s lead and commit to funding a new generation of social welfare lawyers that can empower communities to battle against injustice and a new generation of law centres that can empower people to fight back against cruel Government policies?
Youth Justice System — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): Feltham young offenders institution has had a difficult recent history and problems with sustainability of management. Following the recent attack on prison officers, I am grateful to the Minister for how quickly the management, the Prison Officers Association and the Department responded It is increasingly clear that the growing violence to which young inmates are subject, and which they experience prior to prison, is presenting new challenges. Will the Minister join me in welcoming new projects that use sport—such as Tough Cricket in Feltham, which works with faith communities—to support young offenders in more positive activity and help to develop an alternative set of values?
Housing Cases: Legal Advice — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Charalambos Charalambous (Labour, Centre-left): Labour has committed to restoring legal aid funding for early legal advice for housing, welfare benefits appeals and family law cases, helping hundreds of thousands of people. Why have the Government refused to do the same, despite evidence that to do so would actually save them money?
Leaving the EU: Legal System — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): In thousands of instances, we are not able to deliver justice in this country unless we have a proper extradition agreement with other countries in the European Union. As I understand it, even if the withdrawal agreement were to go forward at some point, we will still have to operate as a third party outside the European arrest warrant. Relying on the 1957 treaties will not be enough, so what plans does the Secretary of State have to ensure we are able to maintain a proper extradition arrangement with other countries in the European Union?
Access to Justice: Criminal Case Delays — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and I am aware of the work that is being done to improve disclosure processes, which both the Law Society and my local police tell me are still contributing to delayed and, in some cases, collapsed trials. What is her view of the Law Society’s suggestion that different disclosure rules should apply in the magistrates courts and Crown courts, where the nature of the cases and the amount of disclosed but unused material differ greatly?
Access to Justice: Criminal Case Delays — House of Commons, 2019-04-23
Topic: Law and Crime
Yasmin Qureshi (Labour, Centre-left): Since 2016, payments to consultancies by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service have shot up from £3 million to £20 million. The Government appear to think that expensive private consultants are the solution to all their problems, even in the face of spiralling costs. Does the Minister really believe that the way to increase access to justice is to hand over yet more public money to private consultants at a time when our courts are facing unprecedented cuts?