argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Is the Minister aware that the chief financial officer of Aston Martin has said that it would be a semi-catastrophe if the UK went for no deal? Also, why will the Minister not allow the option for article 50 to be extended, to ensure that there was a deal if we were very close to reaching one on the date he has set?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Has the hon. Gentleman not shown a deep misunderstanding of how the European Union works through consensus and participatory democracy? Rather than one country dictating to another, that is the whole spirit of the European Union. No one country is sovereign, but decisions are taken in the round.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am very pleased to start by saying that, irrespective of what might or might not be in this Bill, I would, of course, not want us to leave the EU. I must say that there have been some rational speeches from the Conservative Benches, in particular those of the right hon. and learned Members for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I also saw a significant and rational nodding of heads on the Government Benches during their speeches; I hope that as this debate develops many more of those rational Conservatives will be willing to speak out. I think that, like me, they believed before the EU referendum that leaving the EU would cause us significant damage and that they continue to do so to this day. As they have seen the Brexit negotiations proceeding, I suspect their view has been reinforced. I hope we will hear many more outspoken speeches from Conservatives The debate has inevitably been peppered from the Government Benches—the fourth row, referred to frequently—with the usual clichés from the usual suspects about the impact of the European Union: comments about EU bureaucrats plundering our fish and the secrecy that applies. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is no longer in his place; I do not know whether he has ever participated in a Cabinet committee meeting, but if he is worried about secrecy, he could, perhaps, do so—he will then see how clear that decision-making process is There have also been many references to the importance of the sovereignty of this Parliament, which is of course important, and unfavourable comparisons have been drawn with the EU, along with a complete disregard of how that body conducts itself through the Council of Ministers and the role of Members of the European Parliament. The only thing that has been missing from the debate has been a reference to the EU stopping children from blowing up balloons. No doubt if the Foreign Secretary had been here, he would have been able to add to that list of clichés about the impact of the EU, and it is a shame that he is not here to reheat that particular canard I make no apologies for seeking to amend the Bill and supporting a large number of amendments tabled by Members on both sides of the House, although I do not have much confidence that the Bill can be knocked into shape.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am perplexed: I was not suggesting that anyone had been pulling his strings. I was simply wondering whether it was his own political inspiration that had led him to table the new clause. However, both the new clause and the Government amendment are damaging and irresponsible. They are also pointless, in that the Government could, of their own volition, choose to change the end date. I have to wonder whether they would not in fact seek to do that if they were close to a deal just days or hours away from the deadline.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Indeed, although the hon. Member for Stone thinks that our democracy is very much set in stone on this issue. Interestingly, when the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) was asked what would happen if, 12 months from now, 90% of the population felt that a mistake had been made on 23 June 2016, he seemed to say that we would proceed regardless and completely overlook any change in public opinion The Liberal Democrats will clearly oppose new clause 49, but one thing I learned during the debate is that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead is apparently not an ardent Brexiteer. I was surprised to learn that, but I welcome the fact that things are evenly balanced for him. However, I was a bit worried to hear him say that we did not need more facts; it is actually quite important to have facts and not necessarily always to act on one’s gut feelings.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The hon. Gentleman has answered a hypothetical question with another hypothetical, so I think I had better leave it there I will not be supporting new clause 49, as tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. The difficulty with his new clause and with the Government amendment is that our negotiating position would be made much worse by having a fixed deadline and not leaving scope to allow the article 50 process to be extended if the negotiations were close to a conclusion but not there. That would constrain us unnecessarily As for the Government’s position, their amendments have been comprehensively demolished by others during the debate. My concern is that the Government still seem to be arguing that there being no deal is something that they will happily pursue or are considering as an option notwithstanding the huge level of concern expressed by all sectors—certainly by all the businesses that I have met—about the impact of no deal If Members have not already been, I recommend that they go to the port of Dover to watch the process of trucks arriving at the port and getting on a ferry, the ferry leaving, another ferry arriving from the other direction, trucks getting off and then trucks leaving the port. It is a seamless process that does not stop. The lorries barely slow down as they approach Dover, get on to the ferry and then leave. Anything that gets in the way of that process, even if it means an extra minute’s processing time, will lock the port down. Members who think that no deal is a happy, easy option need to talk to people at the port to hear what the impact would be I am happy to support Plaid Cymru’s amendment 79 about ensuring that the devolved Assemblies have some say in the process, which has been significantly denied so far If we have a vote on clause 1 stand part, I will certainly be ensuring—
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think we may have the opportunity to put that to the test shortly In conclusion, the debate has unfortunately again revealed the obsession that Europe holds in the hearts of some Government Members. When it comes to Europe and our membership of the European Union, I am afraid that they have left their rationality at the door of the Chamber. If we do leave the European Union, they will be leading the country down a path that will, in my view and in the views of many Cabinet members, many Conservative Members and many Opposition Members, do long-lasting damage to our country.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I asked a couple of days ago about this idea of an arbitration court. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is here, will he clarify how it would be different for ordinary people in the street in comparison with what the ECJ is currently doing?
Corporate Governance — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Macroeconomics
Joanne Kate Swinson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): A myopic focus on short-term profit and share price in many British boardrooms damages the UK economy, leading to chronically low rates of business investment and the treatment of workers as units of production rather than human beings. Some respondents to the Green Paper suggested that long-term investors should be rewarded with stronger shareholder voting rights. Can the Secretary of State explain why the Government rejected that interesting proposal?
Hurricane Irma: Government Response — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: International Affairs
Joanne Kate Swinson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): This has clearly been a terrifying experience for all those caught up in the awesome power of Hurricane Irma and our thoughts are with them. We must also praise the efforts of our brave service personnel. The Minister’s statement contained a lot about inputs but even more important are the outcomes, so will he tell us how many of the 2,000 or so consular cases he mentioned have requested assistance to be airlifted out, how many of those have been evacuated already and how many are due to depart on the flights later today that he mentioned?
Sky/Fox Merger — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Government Operations
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I add my welcome and appreciation to the Secretary of State for her referrals. I suggest that if she were to revisit Leveson 2—a judge-led inquiry—that would add to the evidence base for Ofcom’s investigation, if it happened quickly.
Sky/Fox Merger — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Technology
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I congratulate the Secretary of State on her statement that she is minded to refer the matter on the grounds of governance, but does she not recognise that a commitment to Leveson 2 would go some way towards reassuring the public that the individuals who own the media in this country will be subject to full scrutiny?
Nomination of Members to Committees — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Government Operations
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Leader of the House keeps referring to having a working majority. For the purposes of this Parliament, the Government have a working majority only for matters of confidence and supply. Matters of confidence and supply are not committed to Public Bill Committees; they are dealt with on the Floor of the House. In Committees, the Government should not have—because they do not have in this House—a working majority.
Nomination of Members to Committees — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Government Operations
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): That is indeed the case. My party was not party to the discussions that resulted in the convention and have not felt themselves to be bound by it. But it remains the fact that it is something on which the majority within their lordships’ House have proceeded until this time, and which continues to be the case to this day It is a fundamental principle of this House that the composition of Committees should reflect the composition of the House. That means that if the Government have a majority in the House, they will have a majority in Committees. It goes beyond that. On matters where we decide things by way of a free vote and the matter then goes upstairs to a Public Bill Committee, the composition of that Committee reflects the vote of the House here. That is the most fundamental principle that we have, and I use these terms advisedly. It is not a convenience, nor something that is just here to be discarded when it becomes difficult or messy. It is absolutely fundamental to the way in which we do and have always done our business The Prime Minister went to the country. She asked for a bigger majority. She was denied it. She was returned as the largest party and that offered her a number of different options: she could have sought to govern as a minority; she could have entered into a coalition and got a majority that way; or she could have entered into a confidence and supply arrangement. She chose to take the latter approach. As a consequence, she has a majority on the Floor of the House for matters of confidence and supply. Matters of confidence and supply do not go upstairs to Public Bill Committees. They are dealt with on the Floor of this House. So it is simply wrong for the Leader of the House to assert—as she has done tonight along with others on the Treasury Bench and Government Benches—that the Government have a working majority. Beyond confidence and supply matters, they do not.
Nomination of Members to Committees — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that constitutional matters such as the question of the future of our membership of the European Union are also dealt with on the Floor of the House, so although the agreement may go slightly further than that which is normally understood by the terms of confidence and supply, it is not a comprehensive deal that gives the Government a majority on the Floor of the House. If it were, the Democratic Unionists would not be on the Bench behind me; they would be on the other side of the House on the Government Benches There is no direct precedent for this. There has been talk in this debate about the position that pertained relating to the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979. The clear distinction—this is an important point, of which the House should not be ignorant—is that, on that occasion, when the country was asked to choose a Government, it chose a Labour Government by a very narrow majority. That Government started with a majority—something the present Government simply do not have. I do not like what the Harrison motion did. My party opposed it then, as we oppose this measure tonight, but let us not pretend that it is somehow the same thing That takes me back to my quarrel with the right hon. Member for West Dorset. Surely, in advancing a change as profound as this, there has to be something more substantial by way of argument to support it than, "They did it when they were in government."
Nomination of Members to Committees — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Government Operations
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Of course it is reasonable for a Government to seek to govern the country smoothly, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that what happens in Committee is just some administrative inconvenience. It is not; it is much more fundamental than that. It is the job of this House—not just the Opposition—to hold the Government to account. That is why I say to right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side, many of whom I hold in high regard, and many of whom I regard as personal friends, that they know that what they are doing tonight is wrong. They also know that if it was being done to them, they would oppose it root and branch We know why the Treasury Bench—the payroll—will support this measure, but those on the Back Benches have a duty that is higher than their duty to their party: it is their duty to their constituents and to this House —their duty to democracy. I ask them to consider that duty before they go into the Lobby this evening.
Nomination of Members to Committees — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Government Operations
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The effect of my amendment would be perfectly simple. It would allow the Government to have their majority on the Selection Committee but thereafter to use the rules that we have always used. Why does the hon. Gentleman think he should be allowed to change the rules simply because they do not suit him?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-12-11
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: The Secretary of State is absolutely right to shout about the fact that 1.9 million more children are now in good or outstanding schools, including in Corby and east Northamptonshire. That equates to 87% of children in such schools now, compared with 66% in 2010. Does the Minister agree that that is real progress and not, as some have suggested, the result of an increase in the school-age population?; Many teachers in my constituency tell me that they spend a lot of time on their pastoral care responsibilities, particularly relating to mental health. What are the Government doing to help those schools where children’s mental health is a particularly acute issue?; The House of Commons nursery is an award-winning nursery, and its manager was recently named nursery manager of the year for looking after the children during the Westminster terror attack. Will the Minister join me in commending the staff for their work, and will he also acknowledge the pressure they and other nursery providers are put under by the inadequate funding for the 30 hours of free childcare?; The Minister has already spoken about proposals for revised guidance on home-schooling. Warwickshire County Council tells me that there is no requirement for parents to register with the local authority, which can make it difficult for home-schooled children to get the education they deserve. Would such a change be part of the revised guidance?; The parents of a child who has Asperger’s contacted me recently and explained in depth how their son’s school failed to consider his needs, and the great stress that that caused them as a family. As a signatory to the Ambitious about Autism pledge in the last Parliament, may I ask the Secretary of State what action her Department is taking to ensure that school staff are properly trained and have adequate resources?; What impact has the £659 million of cuts to Sure Start and early years investment had on the educational attainment of Britain’s poorest children?; A maintained primary school in my constituency has received over 20 pupils in year from a local academy because of their permanent exclusion, or because they have been pushed out due to the risk of a permanent exclusion. What more can the Department and local authorities do to disincentivise academies from excluding pupils and pushing them on to maintained primaries?; The Prime Minister’s refusal to remove foreign students from immigration figures is damaging our universities. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Home Secretary about the financial contribution of overseas students and staff, and their classification in Government immigration statistics?
Edward Jonathon Davey (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Secretary of State might not be aware of this yet, but on 4 December I wrote to her to ask for an urgent meeting to discuss the funding of high needs in Kingston. Kingston’s high needs budget is set to be overspent this year by £6.5 million, or 35%—the worst in London. Will she meet me as soon as possible to discuss this?
Brexit Negotiations — House of Commons, 2017-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): In order to strengthen the Prime Minister’s leverage in the next stage of negotiations, may I suggest that she suspend tribal politics and invite the Leader of the Opposition and his Front-Bench colleagues to join her negotiating team? Whatever their tactical differences, they agree with her on the fundamentals of Brexit and on withdrawal from the single market and the customs union—disastrous though that may be.
Oman, UAE and Iran — House of Commons, 2017-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Jonathon Davey (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Foreign Secretary is right to say how shocking the war in Yemen is: the humanitarian catastrophe there is on a biblical scale. Will he tell the House what discussions he had with Sultan Qaboos bin Said about how to end the conflict in Yemen? What role does he see Oman playing in bringing about peace?
Oman, UAE and Iran — House of Commons, 2017-12-11
Topic: International Affairs
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): When I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament, a group of visiting Iranian MPs suggested the establishment of a formal academic link between the University of Qom in Iran and either the University of Edinburgh or my alma mater, St Andrews. I was advised very strongly not to dream of making that suggestion to the Foreign Office, but today things are different. Would the Foreign Secretary be willing to look into that type of academic arrangement and, indeed, consider taking the idea forward?
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-11
Topic: Education
Stephen Anthony Christopher Lloyd (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I want to enhance exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree it was absolutely appalling that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government completely ignored the 5,000 headteachers who said their schools are desperate for more money? The Tories have ignored them.
Industrial Strategy — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Energy
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): First, may I associate myself and my Liberal Democrat colleagues with the Secretary of State’s comments about the late Jimmy Hood? Every inch of his not insubstantial frame was Labour, but he was always capable of moments of humour and kindness across the party divide, and I am sure that he will be fondly remembered in the House and beyond. If the industrial strategy is to reach all parts of the United Kingdom, it should be an opportunity for Scotland to develop its potential for wave and tidal power. That will require a dedicated funding stream. What is the Secretary of State doing in collaboration with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that we get that dedicated funding stream?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am worried that the Government might, repeatedly and inadvertently, have misled the House on the sectoral reports and their nature. We heard from the then Brexit Minister, Lord Bridges, in October last year that they were being produced "so that we can analyse what Brexit might mean" for different sectors. The right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), who was then a Brexit Minister, said in March this year "There is…a lot of work going on to address all sorts of eventualities." A number of Members of Parliament have put in freedom of information requests to access those reports, but they have been rejected on the basis that information released would prejudice the interests of the United Kingdom. Having reviewed the sectoral reports, there is absolutely nothing in them that could not have been obtained by a very detailed Library information briefing—
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Government Operations
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but in relation to a point made earlier, why would anyone in this House ever give powers to or take back powers from the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly without the proper scrutiny of this Chamber?