argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Engagements — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: Education
Questions: Pupils and parents deserve good schools and real choice in education, including schools that are focused unashamedly on academic rigour. Will my right hon. Friend tell us when the Government will open applications for the new wave of free schools, and will she confirm that they will be genuinely free to be run as they wish, serving the local community and creating schools that work for everyone?; The Royal Air Force is preparing to fly Typhoons from RAF Coningsby in my constituency to Romania to support our NATO allies on the border with Russia. That is happening as President Putin is locking up his political opponents and crushing calls for democracy. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as we leave the European Union, the United Kingdom will continue to lead NATO in defending that vital border, and will she pay tribute to the members of the armed forces who safeguard our democracy at home and abroad?; Improving vocational and technical education is vital in closing our productivity gap, so can the Prime Minister assure me that vocational education will enjoy equal status with academic education, so that as we leave the EU our young people can be equipped to build the high-skilled economy of the future?; The Treasury Committee says that for many small companies, having to fill in a tax return every three months will mean facing disaster, and the Federation of Small Businesses says that the extra annual cost is likely to be at least £2,700 a year—yet another burden on business from this Government. The Prime Minister got it wrong on national insurance; is she going to backtrack on tax returns as well?; I welcome the additional money that the Government have given for adult social care, but it is important that we also look at long-term solutions. As part of the long-term review, will the Prime Minister look at some of the cases in my constituency, and at the issues with how the system works for Northamptonshire County Council and Northampton general hospital?
Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (Labour, Centre-left): The daily experience of many parents who have children in school is that they receive letters asking for money. One parent, Elizabeth, wrote to me to say that she has received a letter from her daughter’s school asking for a monthly donation to top up the reduced funds that it is receiving. This Government’s cuts to schools are betraying a generation of our children. If the Prime Minister is right, the parents are wrong, the teachers are wrong, the Institute for Fiscal Studies is wrong, the National Audit Office is wrong, and the Education Policy Institute is wrong. Now the Public Accounts Committee, which includes eight Conservative Members, is also wrong. Which organisation does back the Prime Minister’s view on education spending in our schools?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Edward Samuel Miliband (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister is right to say in her statement that the eventual deal must work for the 48% as well as the 52%, because whether we were remainers or leavers, we will live in the same country together after Brexit. May I emphasise to her that national unity must be earned and not just asserted, and it must be shown in deeds and not just in words? We are a long, long way away from it, as I think she will agree. As she reflects on the last eight months, can she say what she thinks she needs to do differently in the next 24 months to achieve that national unity, which, frankly, eludes us at the moment?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Margaret Mary Beckett (Labour, Centre-left): There are many across this House who will be very aware of the sheer scale and complexity of the negotiations that will face our team, and very conscious of the importance of getting those right. It has never been more true that the devil will be in the detail. As the detail emerges, will the Prime Minister ensure that everyone in her team stops the practice that has been so prevalent of claiming that every awkward question is evidence of a desire to overturn the will of the British people, because nothing will more surely destroy the unity of purpose that she seeks?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: Foreign Trade
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister will no doubt recall the referendum speech she made last April, in which she said that "the big question is whether, in the event of Brexit, we would be able to negotiate a new free trade agreement with the EU and on what terms." Given that the European Union appears to want to start the negotiations by talking only about money and that there are about 18 months to go, how will the Prime Minister ensure there is sufficient time to reach the agreement to provide tariff and barrier-free trade and access to the European market for our services that she has promised Britain’s businesses she will bring back from the negotiations?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Yvette Cooper (Labour, Centre-left): The last Prime Minister did not want this day to come, although it followed from many of the decisions he took over many years, and he will be remembered as the Prime Minister who unintentionally led Britain out of Europe. I know this Prime Minister does not want to see the break-up of the United Kingdom, but she will also know that holding us together requires more than just the rhetoric of unity. Will she therefore say what she will do in both the content and the style of her negotiations not to fuel further division and not to play into the hands of others, but to ensure voices from all over the country are genuinely heard in this debate so that she does not become the Prime Minister who unintentionally leads the break-up of Britain?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Caroline Louise Flint (Labour, Centre-left): Regardless of how people voted in the referendum, I suspect there is an even bigger majority today for all of us to get on with trying to get the best deal we possibly can. Many businesses are worried. With the triggering of article 50, they feel the clock is ticking and that everything might need to be resolved within two years. Can the Prime Minister reassure businesses? At the end of the two years, what we have will be pretty much the headlines. There will have to be transitional arrangements to ensure that we explore the devil in the detail. This House must be able to discuss it, but more importantly we must get it right for businesses and the rest of Britain.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Benjamin Peter James Bradshaw (Labour, Centre-left): In her letter and again in her statement today, the Prime Minister has made it clear that she believes it will be necessary to agree the terms of the divorce alongside the details of our future relationship with the European Union. If the other 27 come back in their reply and say that they want to agree the terms of the divorce first, including the issues of citizenship rights, our liabilities and borders, particularly with Northern Ireland, how will she respond?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
David Julian Winnick (Labour, Centre-left): Given the reference of some Members to the British people, is it not important to recognise that a large majority of this country’s people are not fanatically for or against the UK being in the European Union? If we want to bring the people together, as the Prime Minister says she does, that should very much be borne in mind. If, during the negotiations undertaken by her predecessor, we had seen some flexibility from the European Union over the free movement of labour, is it not quite likely that we would not be debating this issue now?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: Foreign Trade
Kelvin Peter Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the triggering of article 50, because it will make possible the democratic socialist future that I and many others have struggled for all their lives. The Prime Minister will be aware that we have a trade deficit with the EU of over £60 billion a year and another deficit of about £20 billion a year on investments, income and remittances, and that we are paying more than £10 billion a year in our contribution to the EU budget. That is total of £90 billion—a huge sum that amounts roughly to about £6,000 a year for a family of four. Does that not put Britain in a very strong position in the negotiations, specifically about trade?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): In her letter to Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister says: "If…we leave the European Union without an agreement…we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened." Is she really saying that the security of our country will be traded like a bargaining chip in these negotiations?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Ann Clwyd (Labour, Centre-left): I am proud to have been a Member of the European Parliament—I was one of the first to be elected, in 1979, along with Boris’s father, who I do not think shares Boris’s views any longer. The Prime Minister has reflected today on the role of the European Parliament. I am sure she will agree that while it is one of three important institutions with which negotiations will take place, at the end of the day it has the power of veto, and that is a very important power. If the European Parliament were to invite her—as it does invite Heads of State and Prime Ministers—to appear before it, give her views and answer some questions, would she agree to do so?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): May I remind the Prime Minister that, at one stage, both she and I were remainers? I remain very much a remainer; I am a passionate European, and I believe that she should take careful note of the fact that a large number of people in this country value European citizenship because it has delivered over many years peace, prosperity and security. Will she assure this House that those priorities will be maintained in all the negotiations going forward?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): I also want to put on record how proud I am of what we have achieved as members of the EU, not just for our security and the economy, but also as regards peace between our nations, which twice in the last century have been at war. We know that there is more than one way to Brexit, and over the next two years there will clearly be a big debate about the trade-offs we will need to make. We also know that the Prime Minister wishes to ensure the future prosperity of Britain. So far, however, there has been no economic assessment of the Government’s plans. Will the Prime Minister confirm that an economic assessment will be published with the final deal, and that it will compare the expected outcome both to what we have now, and to the prospect if there is no deal?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Centre-left): In her letter to Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister refers to the treaty on European Union and the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community. She makes no reference, however, to the European economic area agreement, which underpins our membership of the single market. When and how does the Prime Minister intend to withdraw us from the EEA?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: Law and Crime
Keith Anthony Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate the Prime Minister on her stamina, as she has been at the Dispatch Box for two and a half hours and we are only halfway through. At the Home Affairs Committee, we at least gave her a chair to sit on throughout our sessions I congratulate the Prime Minister on her appointment of Mark Sedwill as the new national security adviser. He will be a loss to the Home Office, but an asset to her. May I press her on policing and security? We have seen the headlines in the letter to Donald Tusk, but will we remain a full member of Europol throughout the negotiations? Will we have full access to the criminal databases of the EU, and is one of her ambitions that we retain that access when we leave the EU?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Jonathan Neil Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Prime Minister confirm her understanding of what will need to happen on the European side to ratify the new deal with the UK, which we all want to see? Will this be a decision, as part of the exit negotiations, by the Council of Ministers and by the Commission, or will this require ratification by every remaining EU member state national Parliament and, in some cases, regional Parliament? Clearly, it could cause a lot of uncertainty if just one member state opposes the terms we have negotiated for our exit.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): Young people are very distressed and sad that we are leaving the European Union. Many of them did not vote for it and many did not even get a say in this decision, but they are the generation most greatly affected by it. What will the Prime Minister do to ensure that she listens to and engages with the next generation?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk states: "In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened." Given that, will she clarify whether she is still threatening to walk away with no deal if she does not get the economic deal she wants?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: Foreign Trade
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): On 23 June, my constituents were not asked whether they wanted to leave the single market or the customs unions. If we do not reach a tariff-free trade agreement with the EU, does the Prime Minister agree that membership of the single market and the customs union is better than no deal or a bad deal?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: Foreign Trade
Daniel Stephen Zeichner (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister expresses confidence that a free trade agreement with the European Union will be secured, but she will know that any trade agreement requires a mechanism to resolve disputes. She does not like the European Court of Justice, so what does she want to put in its place, how much will it cost and who will pay for it?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: International Affairs
Christian John Patrick Matheson (Labour, Centre-left): Like the Prime Minister, I supported the remain campaign in the referendum. Unlike the Prime Minister, I have been consistent in my view about how damaging Brexit will be, while she careers towards the hardest of Brexits, presumably a prisoner of the right-wing ideological Brexiteers on her own Benches. May I ask her about the executive agencies that will need to be established to replace, for example, the European Aviation Safety Agency, Euratom, or Medicines Control? Has she identified how many of those agencies we will need to have up and running in the next 18 months, how much they will cost and whether we have the capacity to staff them?
Personal Independence Payment: Regulations — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: Social Welfare
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move, That this House has considered changes to Personal Independence Payment Regulations Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this vital debate on the new personal independence payment regulations. Although I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue, it is highly regrettable that the Government have had to be dragged to the House to be held to account for this nasty piece of secondary legislation As the House will know, the Government have ignored two urgent questions on this matter, an early-day motion signed by 179 Members calling for these punitive regulations to be annulled, and a 38 Degrees petition, signed by more than 185,000 people, asking them not to make the changes. When pushed at business questions on Thursday, the Leader of the House said there would be a debate, but could not say when. Only late last night did it become clear that the debate has now been hastily scheduled for 19 April. What particular kind of arrogance or disregard for democracy are the Government revealing? This does not bode well for their accountability to this place in the future negotiations For the record, we should note that today’s debate does not allow for a substantive vote on the regulations. As the Government have failed to allow a debate before the EDM praying-against period comes to an end on 3 April, the regulations will not be automatically revoked, should the House vote against them on 19 April. I would be grateful to the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work if she explained why, given that we have risen early twice this week, the Government have been incapable of finding time for such a debate before the Easter recess. The Government are hoping that because they have delayed the debate, the objection to the regulations will be kicked into the long grass, but it will not be.
Personal Independence Payment: Regulations — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: Macroeconomics
Matthew Toby Perkins (Labour, Centre-left): On behalf of many of my constituents, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does she agree that the very least we owe to people who find themselves, through no fault of their own, in the most difficult of circumstances is to tell them whether we have voted for decisions made in Parliament that are having an appalling impact on their incomes?
Personal Independence Payment: Regulations — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: Social Welfare
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is what we have been trying to do since the emergency regulations were laid before Parliament Let us remind ourselves how the emergency regulations were introduced and what they have changed. The regulations, which were laid before the House on 23 February and came into force two weeks ago, amended the legislation under which disabled people or people with a chronic condition are assessed for eligibility for personal independence payments. The new regulations followed two upper tribunal rulings. The first judgment on 28 November 2016 held that needing support to take medication and monitor a health condition should be scored in the same way as needing support to manage therapy, such as dialysis, undertaken at home. The second, also on 28 November, ruled that people who find it difficult to leave their house because of severe psychological distress should receive the enhanced rate of support under the mobility component of PIP In a letter to me last week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that he became aware of the rulings on 8 December. Two and a half months later, the Government laid their emergency legislation before Parliament. I am sure that the irony of something taking two and a half months in an "emergency" has not been lost on you, Mr Speaker. During those two and a half months, not only were the Government unable to bring the regulations before the House, but they also bypassed their own Social Security Advisory Committee. They have ignored SSAC’s recommendations on wider engagement, testing or piloting changes, and the analysis of impacts.
Personal Independence Payment: Regulations — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: Social Welfare
Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Centre-left): It is clear to me, from the huge number of cases that I have dealt with, that the entire PIP system is fundamentally flawed. It results in the most appalling decisions and causes distress to thousands of disabled people and their families. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be an independent review of how PIP assessments are carried out, given the obvious failings in the system?
Personal Independence Payment: Regulations — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: Social Welfare
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are long-term issues with the PIP assessment process as a whole. I will address that later. It is interesting that the Government let out yesterday that they will make an announcement, following a recent review, tomorrow, just as we rise for recess On Monday, the other place debated and passed a regret motion tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock, asking the Government to reconsider the regulations urgently, but the elected House of Commons has been denied that opportunity during the vital praying-against period. As I have said, that is very worrying behaviour by the Government. The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work claims that the changes restore PIP to its original policy intentions, but that does not hold water. During the PIP consultation in 2012, Ministers were quoted on numerous occasions saying that mental health conditions would be given parity with physical health conditions as part of the PIP assessment. For example, Esther McVey said that the PIP "assessment is being designed to consider…physical, sensory, mental, intellectual and cognitive impairments."—[Official Report, 26 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 147W.]
Personal Independence Payment: Regulations — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: Social Welfare
Deborah Angela Elspeth Marie Abrahams (Labour, Centre-left): I will make some progress, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman The Government’s response to the PIP consultation reiterated that psychological distress would be included in the PIP assessment, as did the Government’s argument in the 2015 upper tribunal case of HL v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Ministers have also said that people with mental health disorders who suffer psychological distress would not lose out on PIP. However, the new guidelines for PIP assessors, issued on 16 March, state: "Descriptors c, d and f under new mobility activity 1 are amended", and the "effects of psychological distress are not relevant" The assessment cannot take into account the psychological distress that someone experiences. They cannot score the 12 points needed to get the enhanced PIP mobility rate, so instead of £57 a week, they will be able to get only £22 a week.
Personal Independence Payment: Regulations — House of Commons, 2017-03-29
Topic: Social Welfare
Stephen Nathan Kinnock (Labour, Centre-left): In recent months, I have had 44 PIP cases in my constituency, with dozens going to appeal. Eight have already gone to appeal, and in every single one of those cases, the decision has been overturned. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a massive and inexcusable waste of time, money and resources?