argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Pension Transition Arrangements — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Immigration
Stephen Anthony Christopher Lloyd (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): As the Minister will be aware, it was clear in last week’s debate that a number of colleagues behind him on the Government Benches supported the call from a lot of colleagues on the Opposition side of the House for the Government to look at transitional arrangements for WASPI women. I therefore ask the Minister, as I did last week, why not call a binding vote so that the House can advise him to do the right thing for WASPI women?
Grenfell Tower and Building Safety — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Housing
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Right across the country, people now live in tower blocks from which cladding has been removed. They will not only worry about their safety, but face much higher heating costs, because the cladding also served as insulation. The Secretary of State has already partly answered my question, but nevertheless when will he tell landlords what cladding is safe for use so that safe reinstallation can take place as soon as possible? He will appreciate that there is some urgency to the matter.
Harassment in Public Life — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): On behalf of my party, I warmly—I repeat, warmly—welcome what the Home Secretary has said to us today. May I suggest that one way to help to tackle this problem would be to redouble our efforts in teaching about democracy, and teaching about debate and the courtesy of debate, in our schools the length and breadth of the United Kingdom?
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-18
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Stephen Anthony Christopher Lloyd (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): A constituent who came to my community surgery on Saturday made a simple suggestion that I thought might well work. Banks face structural challenges, and many are closing, especially in rural areas. Why do the Government not encourage three or four banks to work together to establish a single branch in an area where there are currently no branches? Such a collegiate approach would solve the banking problems of rural areas in particular.
AEA Technology Pension Scheme — House of Commons, 2017-11-13
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Layla Michelle Moran (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): In 1996, the Government Actuary’s Department, in a note sent to AEA Technology staff, failed to clearly outline the risks of transferring their pensions to the new private sector scheme. We regulate financial advice in this country, yet when it is the Government giving the advice not even the parliamentary ombudsman can review it. Surely this is grossly unjust? Why does the Minister not pursue this mis-selling scandal, as the Financial Conduct Authority did with the payment protection insurance one? Is it because the Government would be to blame this time?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Other
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I will give way later, perhaps to people who have not had an opportunity to intervene. I want to make a bit more progress I do not know whether the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) was politically inspired, but it is clear that the amendment tabled by the Secretary of State, which we have heard a lot about over the past 72 hours, was very much a political initiative.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Mixed Topics
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): We do not often play games of hokey-cokey in this Chamber, and I certainly would not want us to do so today We are debating what is without a doubt the most serious issue that the United Kingdom has faced in the past 50 years, but I am afraid that the Government are not conducting themselves terribly efficiently. The Prime Minister’s amendment secured one or two newspaper headlines, but I was pleased that it did not succeed in stemming the Tory resistance. I would like to encourage the use of the word "resistance". I do not know whether many Members have read Matthew Parris’s article, in which he suggests that we should use the term "resistance" in relation to ourselves when some Conservative Members prefer to describe us as remoaners—or, indeed, traitors.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Civil Rights
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am sure that what I am about to say to the hon. Gentleman will reassure him that I am a democrat. He will be aware of the Liberal Democrats’ view that the only way that the vote on 23 June last year can be undone is by means of a referendum of everyone in the country, some of whom might have changed their minds. Perhaps he would like to explain why the people have the right to express their will on this particular issue only once and never again. We, as democrats, are arguing that there should be another opportunity—
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-11-14
Topic: Civil Rights
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Does my right hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding about democracy? Democracy is not fixed in stone; a decision that has been made once does not have to last for ever and a day. Indeed, our parliamentary democracy is based on people being able to vote every four or five years and perhaps vote for something else. The referendum should not be seen as forever fixed in stone.
Manufacturing Capacity — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Given the importance of the aerospace sector in manufacturing capacity and the rather non-committal reply to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), will the Government commit themselves to standing very firmly, alongside the Canadian Government, behind Bombardier and its workers in resisting bullying from Boeing and its friends in the United States Administration?
Nomination of Members to Committees — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Other
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): May I presume from what the Chairman of the Procedure Committee says that he will join us in the Lobby to support my amendment? If it were passed, the Government would of course still have a majority on the Selection Committee, but would just have to use it in accordance with the procedures of the House as they have always been accepted. Why is that objectionable?
Nomination of Members to Committees — House of Commons, 2017-09-12
Topic: Other
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the case that is being made on this side of the House. We are not saying that this side of the House has a majority; we are saying that his side of the House does not.
Grenfell Recovery Taskforce — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Housing
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I, too, thank the Secretary of State for his update and for making the report of the taskforce available, and I thank the taskforce for its work. I accept that the recovery work is very sensitive, but clearly pace is an issue. Although the emotional recovery of people who are affected by the tragedy takes as long as it takes, there is some urgency about the physical recovery, if I may call it that. Do we not need a timescale for the phased rehousing of all who have lost their homes, so that we do not find ourselves sitting here this time next year and talking about the people who have still not been rehoused? Some urgency about the timetable and a phased process to bring some focus to the rehousing of those affected would be very welcome.
European Economic Area: UK Membership — House of Commons, 2017-11-06
Topic: Other
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Is it not true that this House is here to debate, and is it not proper that, as we debate, we come to new conclusions and new ways of looking at things? It is perfectly legitimate for people to start thinking about different outcomes from the ones they were thinking about at the beginning, because more things are coming to light.
Social Mobility — House of Commons, 2017-12-11
Topic: Mixed Topics
John Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Since the Secretary of State was the only member of the Cabinet to get a pass mark from the Social Mobility Commission, will she now cement her reputation by intervening to stop the catastrophic decline in apprenticeship starts?
Finance (No. 2) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-11
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The mention of banks gets me going because all the Financial Secretary’s good words sit ill with the fact that the Royal Bank of Scotland is going through a huge series of closures, particularly in my constituency. We bailed the bank out, so there is great unhappiness—indeed, anger—that it is acting in such a way all over Scotland.
Capital Project Funding — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Housing
Christine Anne Jardine (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Does the Secretary of State agree that while the sum is much less than might have been hoped for, the Barnett consequentials for housing should be ring-fenced by the Scottish Government for that purpose alone, and not for another high-profile, faulty bridge?
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Other
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am a new Member here, and most of the people around the House do not have a clue who I am, but as a new Member, I think I might bring a slightly fresher approach to the debate. Nobody in their right mind would sign a blank cheque for this amount of money, but if I tried to explain to my constituents why I am not going to be consulted about the final sum, I could not do it. It’s nuts!
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Civil Rights
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I do not know whether the hon. Lady is one of a number of MPs, including me, who put in a freedom of information request to access these reports. The response we got was that they could not be released because the information contained therein would damage the UK’s negotiating position. I do not know whether she has been to see the reports, but frankly there is nothing in them that could not be obtained by googling different sectors. I am not quite sure why that was used as an excuse for not releasing them to Members of Parliament.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Other
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Does my right hon. Friend not agree that we should call this process a confirmation of the first decision? Then we could keep things very neutral: people could confirm that this really was what they voted for. What should any of us who are democrats be afraid of? If there is confirmation of the original decision, fine, but let us wait and see whether people want to confirm their original decision.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Immigration
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I certainly agree with the intent behind what my hon. Friend says, although I would hesitate to call the vote confirmation of the original vote; this vote would be different in nature, given the facts now available to us—given that the initial settlement will be £45 billion or £50 billion; that huge problems have been created at the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland; and that 16 or 17 months on, the issue of EU citizens here is still not resolved.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Mixed Topics
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Absolutely; that is probably the only safe solution to the question of Ireland and Northern Ireland—and it is one that, unfortunately, our Government ruled out at the outset. They probably rue the consequences of that decision I have strayed slightly from new clause 17, but I certainly do not think that the new clause is otiose. When the right hon. Member for West Dorset called it that, it reminded me of his term in the Cabinet Office. I am absolutely convinced that as a senior Minister with an overview of the activities of all Government Departments, he would never have accepted the Government’s going forward with an economic project on the scale of Brexit without insisting that each Department conducted a decent impact assessment for all sectors for which it was responsible. If he disagrees and wants to say that when he was at the Cabinet Office, he would have been perfectly happy with the Government forging ahead in this way with the single biggest economic—and, I would say, most damaging—project that the country has undertaken in 50 years, I give him the opportunity to do so now. Members will note that he has not taken it. I think that must be taken as an indication that he not happy with Conservative Front Benchers, who have decided to proceed without conducting any impact assessments of Brexit When Opposition Members heard from Ministers about impact assessments and sectoral analysis, we rightly expected the Government to have conducted an impact assessment of hard Brexit, of perhaps the Norway model and the Turkey model, of no deal and of our current arrangements to inform the House properly about the impact of Brexit. We would then have known about not just the down payment of £45 billion, or whatever it will be, but the long-term financial consequences for the automotive, pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors and all the other sectors that will be so greatly affected.
Social Homes for Rent — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Housing
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I asked for this Adjournment debate for two reasons: first, because the Minister for Housing and Planning declined to call in a planning decision in my constituency under which 99 social homes for rent will be lost in a big regeneration scheme; and secondly, because in the recent Budget, which was meant to be the housing Budget, the Chancellor did not once mention social homes for rent. The two are linked The social housing association that will deliver the regeneration at Foxhill in my constituency is being forced to act like a private developer because no public subsidies have been given and the regeneration must be self-funding. Some 70% of the new homes built on the site will be sold privately, and the remaining 30% will be split between social homes for rent and a shared ownership scheme, which is where it becomes non-transparent. The Government put the two together, yet there is a world of difference between them. Thousands of families will never be able to put down a deposit even for a shared ownership home. All they can afford is a decent home for rent, yet the number of homes built for social rent has fallen dramatically Government statistics show that nearly 40,000 social homes for rent were built in 2010-11, and the figure for 2016-17 was just 5,380. In the 2016-17 financial year, 12,383 council homes were sold under the right-to-buy scheme. Year in, year out, the number of social homes for rent is being reduced.
Social Homes for Rent — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Housing
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The Budget also announced that the cap on local authorities’ housing revenue accounts will finally be lifted, but only in high-demand areas. It has not been clarified how authorities will apply, which makes it difficult for local councils People on low incomes, people working on zero-hours contracts and people on universal credit increasingly have nowhere to go except into social housing, which exists as a safety net provided by the state for people who are just about managing.
Social Homes for Rent — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Housing
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The coalition Government started the bedroom tax when I was a councillor in a local authority where the unfairness of the tax became obvious, particularly because the local authority did not have the houses to rehouse people in smaller accommodation. The bedroom tax is just a penalty for people who are already struggling If the Government think this safety net of social homes is working just fine, Grenfell Tower stands as a tragic example to show that it is not. Today, the homelessness charity Shelter has given the facts and figures on homelessness and those in temporary accommodation as of now. Its report reveals a trend that is getting worse each year. A shocking 128,000 children in Britain will wake up homeless and in temporary accommodation this Christmas. That is one in every 111 children in this country and their parents, living in emergency bed and breakfasts and hostels, which are widely considered by experts in this field to be the worst type of temporary accommodation. Let us be clear: one in every 111 children in Britain would not be living in emergency B&Bs or hostels this Christmas if there were more social housing. All the Government’s talk about affordable homes does not house a single one of these children and their parents We know that this Government believe in the private sector and in home ownership, but that is an unattainable dream for millions and millions of people. We need an effective supply of homes to rent in this country. The private sector can be part of the solution, but it is staggering that this Government resist proposals and fail effectively to support new social homes for rent. Why is that? I ask the Minister whether it is an ideological position he and his Government are taking. If it is not, why not give local authorities and social housing associations the tools and the finance to provide what their communities are asking for?
Social Homes for Rent — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Housing
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): One problem we have in Scotland, as my hon. Friend will know, is the housing debt that Scottish local authorities are landed with—it is like a colossus. We spend our time trying to service this debt, which gets in the way of building houses for people who need them, as she says. I hope that at some stage Her Majesty’s Government will look at getting rid of this housing debt, which is crippling and is standing in the way of homes being built for people who need them.
Social Homes for Rent — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Housing
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): In that case, I encourage the Minister to explain to local authorities and social housing associations in clear terms how this mechanism to deliver social homes in local authorities is going to work—and will he do it quickly, please?
Social Homes for Rent — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Housing
Jamie Hume Stone (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I must press the Minister on housing debt. In the previous financial year, the Highland Council’s housing debt was of the order of £205 million. That means that 40p out of every pound that is received in rent goes to service that debt. Surely the Minister can understand that that is crippling attempts to build new houses. What discussions has he had with the Chancellor about trying to get rid of housing debt?
Social Homes for Rent — House of Commons, 2017-12-06
Topic: Housing
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the Minister for giving way again. What will he say to the 99 families who will not be housed in Bath and who will, basically, have to move outside the area because that is the only way that they can find a home to rent? That is what we call social cleansing. What will he say to those families?
Race Disparity Audit — House of Commons, 2017-10-10
Topic: Civil Rights
Joanne Kate Swinson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Let us give credit where it is due, because this data set is important. I welcome the Government’s commitment to the transparency that will help to shine a light on the structural racism that still exists in UK society. May I offer the First Secretary of State some advice based on painful experience? The Conservative side of the coalition Government spent five years insisting that we try to get employers to do gender pay gap reporting on a voluntary basis, until my Lib Dem colleagues and I finally won the battle for mandatory reporting in March 2015. We must not now waste five years in the same way, so will he now commit to introducing mandatory race pay gap reporting?
Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House — House of Commons, 2017-10-10
Topic: Other
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I can see how this is going to proceed, and it will not be as I might have hoped. I had hoped we might raise the debate a little bit higher than that. The hon. and learned Lady is well aware that there are 12 Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament sitting in this Parliament, and if she cares to consult the record she will find that we play a full and constructive part in the proceedings of this House.
Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House — House of Commons, 2017-10-10
Topic: Mixed Topics
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I can almost read the Whips’ brief that has gone round about the Opposition day debates—"Don’t make this about the Government, because this is not strong territory for the Government. Make it all about the Liberal Democrats or the opposition parties." With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I like and regard as a friend in many senses of the word, if not the political one, I am not going to play his game. Today’s debate is the Government’s opportunity to tell the House clearly and unambiguously how they intend to approach their business for the duration of this Parliament There is a further context to the Government’s approach on 14 September that the House should bear in mind. On Monday 11 September, they brought forward the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, including some quite remarkable Henry VIII powers, which many in this House and beyond see as a marginalisation of Parliament. On Tuesday 12 September, they brought to this House a motion to give themselves a majority on all Public Bill Committees, contrary to all previous practice in this House and the formula relied on for many years.
Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House — House of Commons, 2017-10-10
Topic: Other
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Indeed, but the hon. Gentleman will be perfectly well aware that the House has for many years used a formula under which the Government would have been entitled at best to a balanced Committee, while in all other respects the majority would have been with the Opposition parties.
Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House — House of Commons, 2017-10-10
Topic: Other
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There have been only those two debates so far. It was for that reason that, at business questions on 14 September, I gave the Leader of the House the opportunity to refute what was in the Huffington Post article. Had she chosen to do so, we would not be here today.
Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House — House of Commons, 2017-10-10
Topic: Other
Wera Benedicta Hobhouse (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am a new MP and I am still getting to know my way around, but I did not expect my new role to be reduced to being a member of a talking shop. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that not allowing a vote on the Opposition debate reflects a deep disregard for parliamentary democracy?