argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies) — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Energy
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): Will this new arrangement have any impact on future investment decisions? I note that the east midlands franchise is to be one of the first considered for this new arrangement, so how does that impact on possible electrification there? A scheme was committed to and then paused, and then unpaused and recommitted to. Now it appears to be neither paused nor committed to. Will the Secretary of State explain the impact on that of these arrangements?
Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies) — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Transportation
Albert Owen (Labour, Centre-left): My constituency and the north Wales line are covered by two major franchises, Wales and borders, and west coast; by two Governments, the Welsh Government and the UK Government; and by Network Rail. In future, under the Secretary of State’s plans, who would be responsible for safety? Has he spoken to the Welsh Government about that?
Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies) — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Transportation
Karen Patricia Buck (Labour, Centre-left): When Transport for London took over London Overground, it went from being the worst performing rail line in the country to the best performing rail line. That was why the Government signed an agreement with TfL and the London government in March for TfL to take over Southeastern when the franchise expires in 2018. What exactly has happened to make the Government break their promise to Londoners?
Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies) — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Transportation
Heidi Alexander (Labour, Centre-left): When Zac Goldsmith was standing as the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London, the Department for Transport was all for the idea of devolving responsibility for letting Southeastern’s franchise to TfL, but now that he has gone, the promise seems to have gone as well. Why are the Government jettisoning the practical improvements that could have been associated with devolution in favour of this political experiment?
Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies) — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Transportation
Andrew Francis Slaughter (Labour, Centre-left): The travelling public support devolution, as do a number of Conservative MPs, council leaders and Assembly Members, and indeed as the Conservative Government did when they signed the joint prospectus with the previous Mayor of London. Is it not just a narrow, petty, political point that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to devolve to a Labour Mayor, who would provide more frequent trains, fewer delays and cancellations, more staff at stations and frozen fares?
Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies) — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Transportation
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): Proposals to devolve rail services in London were championed by the Secretary of State’s predecessor, were underpinned by a solid business case, had cross-party support inside and outside London and, most important, were incredibly popular among passengers in London and Kent, who suffer daily at the hands of Southeastern and its unreliable and overcrowded services. Does the Secretary of State accept that his decision to take the proposal off the table today will be seen by those passengers as a betrayal of the hopes and expectations that were raised earlier this year by the Government?
Rail Infrastructure (Train Operating Companies) — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Transportation
Ian Colin Lucas (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Transport for London and Merseyrail are successful vertically integrated train companies. Why, if we want more integration, do we not apply their successful model, which attracts public and private investment, to the rest of our railway network?
Casey Report — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Government Operations
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the Government’s initial reaction to the recommendations in the Casey report and indicate what process the Government will now adopt for detailed consideration of its proposals and their implementation.
Casey Report — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Law and Crime
Michael John Gapes (Labour, Centre-left): The report quite rightly highlights the good work of organisations such as Tell MAMA and the Community Security Trust, and it also draws attention to the upsurge of violence against people from Poland and elsewhere in recent months. Will the Secretary of State have urgent discussions with his Home Office colleagues about how to reduce the impact of the poisonous ideologies that come from other countries and cause tensions and even deaths, as we saw in Glasgow, in this country?
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Government Operations
Robert Howard Marris (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend find it strange that the regulations that might be made pursuant to the Act—the Government have helpfully given us a draft—talk about a review being carried out? Paragraph 14(2) states that the report must in particular "set out the objectives intended to be achieved by these Regulations" Would one not expect those objectives to be set out before the regulations were made? Are the Government not putting the cart before the horse?
Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-12-06
Topic: Transportation
Robert Howard Marris (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman may well be correct on that specific point, and I fully accept that. There is in privatisations, however, a nexus between quality and price, and very often—although not always—the companies that promise a quality at a certain price are unable to deliver it. They cannot deliver the quality of service, and/or they cannot do so at the price at which they promised to do so. He can correct me on this if he wishes, but we see that time and again when rail franchisees come back to the Government and say, "We promised a certain level of service for a certain price. We cannot do it: we need a bigger bung."
Outsourcing and Tax Credits — House of Commons, 2016-11-04
Topic: Social Welfare
Jonathan Neil Reynolds (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) for securing this urgent question, and for her brilliant work in bringing this issue to light. Like her, I do not understand why it was not deemed appropriate for a Minister to come to the House to make a statement on a significant change in Government policy last week, not least because that happened the day after we had had a full Opposition day debate on Concentrix. Having listened to the Minister, I am not sure whether the policy has not actually changed again this morning. How can the Minister reconcile what he has just told the House with the statement last week that there would be no further outsourcing for such matters As my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), made clear in the debate last week, our party continues to stand by the victims of this terrible fiasco, the majority of whom were single mothers. There is clear human suffering at the centre of this chaotic debacle. These people did not deserve to face the hardship and stress they suffered. In order to move forward, we need confirmation that those unfairly targeted by Concentrix will at the very least be properly compensated, and that that will happen as soon as possible. The Government need to announce as a matter of urgency the timetable for a comprehensive investigation into the increasing number of systematic failures that continue to be brought to light As we are continuing to hear the details of these terrible cases from Members on both sides of the House, it would only be proper and decent for the Minister to issue a formal apology on behalf of his Government for the distress and hardship that they have caused. We are pleased that the Government have conceded to the Opposition that this was an unacceptable episode. Such contrition is welcome, but now the Government must proceed by putting right the wrong that has been caused, and they must properly report to Parliament on their progress towards doing so.
Outsourcing and Tax Credits — House of Commons, 2016-11-04
Topic: Social Welfare
Emma Louise Lewell-Buck (Labour, Centre-left): My constituent Ashley Davenport was one of many who suffered for three months under this contract. She had two children, one of them a new-born, and she contacted me after she had not eaten in days. Concentrix is not the first abysmal private company that this Government have allowed to fail in delivering sensitive public-service contracts. Since 2010, billions have been spent on the outsourcing of privately run public services. Is it not time that lessons were learned right across the board when it comes to welfare and benefits in order to mitigate any further hardship such as what we have seen in this latest shambles?
Outsourcing and Tax Credits — House of Commons, 2016-11-04
Topic: Macroeconomics
Stephen Pelham Pound (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister is in a contrite mood this morning. I wonder whether he will extend the balm of that contrition to the PCS members working in HMRC who will have to clear this mess up. Will he tell the House whether there were any formal discussions with the PCS before the contract was awarded to Concentrix?
Outsourcing and Tax Credits — House of Commons, 2016-11-04
Topic: Government Operations
John Francis Spellar (Labour, Centre-left): It is no wonder that the Chancellor is not here today to respond to the urgent question. We have heard an announcement of no change in policy: in other words, "Do not adjust your mind, reality is at fault." Apart from the structural weaknesses of this and so many other contracts, time and again we are seeing Ministers and Departments failing to monitor contracts, and failing to react and respond when those failures are pointed out. Once again, we are hearing the same lame old excuse: "Lessons will be learnt." I ask the Minister, "When will they ever learn?" For a start, will Concentrix be barred from tendering for any future contracts with the Government?
Outsourcing and Tax Credits — House of Commons, 2016-11-04
Topic: Government Operations
Daniel Stephen Zeichner (Labour, Centre-left): I think we have got the message that the Minister wants lessons to be learned. Will he assure us that all that the minutes, recordings and transcripts relating to the process that led up to the tendering of the contract will be published?
National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-04
Topic: Labor
Gillian Furniss (Labour, Centre-left): I would have to have a quiet word with them about that I appreciate that the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell has linked this Bill to the minimum wage, rather than the so-called living wage. We have to strike a balance between providing fair pay for younger people and making internships too expensive for employers to run. By ending the exploitation of young people through internships, this Bill goes a long way towards levelling the playing field I have been brief because I realise that the hon. Gentleman is passionate about the subject of his Bill and I do not want to contribute to its being spoken out.
Sri Lanka: Human Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-04
Topic: International Affairs
Gareth Thomas (Labour, Centre-left): May I ask the Minister, in the remaining minutes of his interesting response to my speech, to comment on the establishment—or not—of the special court, which was one of the key elements of resolution 30/01? In particular, can he say whether international judges might, in the end, still be participants in that court?
Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-16
Topic: Civil Rights
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 4, page 1, line 15, clause 1, at end add— ‘(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not reduce the obligations of the authority not to discriminate against— (a) those with religious beliefs different from those supported or espoused in the prayers or other observances referred to in this section; or (b) those without religious beliefs, and to treat them equally in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010, section 149.’
Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-16
Topic: Civil Rights
Lyn Carol Brown (Labour, Centre-left): Each time I have risen in support of this Bill, I have sought to emphasise my reason for doing so, and it is that this Bill seeks to protect a freedom of choice, and indeed a freedom of local choice. This Bill makes it clear that the choice of including prayers, or not, is for the local authority alone. Equally, I do not believe that it is right to go further than that. To go further would undermine our trust in local authorities to take account of the views and traditions of their communities and to make the right decisions I speak from my own experience in local government, in an area of many and diverse faiths and of strong communities, religious and non-religious, where the inclusion of prayer was something that united those communities rather than divided them. In our council, prayer and reflection was an opportunity to bring people together. So many of our prayers, which were led each year by the chaplain to the mayor—of whatever faith—contained universal messages that underlined shared values, a sense of unity and community that reflected our diversity. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), as I am minded not to support his proposed new clause today should he push it to a vote. It seems to me that we would be stepping beyond the important line and risk fettering the discretion that we want to give to public bodies to make their own localised decision I say to the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot)—he is indeed a gentleman and I shall certainly miss him when he leaves this House—that I agree with the sentiment and intentions behind amendment 4. But I am confident that local authorities and public bodies, all of which are already subject to the public sector equality duty, will exercise their choice with the utmost sensitivity to their communities. We should trust their judgment and believe that they will make the right choices and not the wrong ones It is important that we maintain that trust in anticipation that local authorities will be sensitive to local communities and their responsibilities within the law. I remain hopeful that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.
Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-16
Topic: Civil Rights
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 1, page 1, line 5, after "may", insert "if it has been resolved by a two thirds majority of the members of the council, in a meeting called specifically for that purpose" Amendment 12, page 1, line 5, leave out "may" and insert "shall" Amendment 3, page 1, line 8, at end add— "( ) in no case may more than three minutes be devoted to business under this section." Amendment 6, page 1, line 17, at beginning insert "Subject to section 138BB" Amendment 2, page 1, line 17, after "may", insert "if it has been resolved by a two thirds majority of the members of the council, in a meeting called specifically for that purpose" Amendment 7, page 2, line 7, at end insert— "138BB Local referendum on religious observances (1) If a local authority wishes to use powers under sections 138A or 138B, it must obtain the consent of the electorate through a local referendum (2) The referendum is to be held on a date decided by the local authority and may be held on the ordinary day of local elections (3) The persons entitled to vote in the referendum are those who, on the day of the referendum would be entitled to vote as electors at an election for councillors of the local authority (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the conduct of referendums under this section (5) If a local authority wishes to use powers under section 138A, the question to be asked is of the form "The council of the (County/City/Borough/District) of proposes to hold religious observances as part of the formal business of council meetings. Do you agree that the council should be allowed to do this?" (6) If a local authority wishes to use powers under section 138B, the question to be asked is of the form "The council of the (County/City/Borough/District) of proposes to support and/or be formally represented at religious events. Do you agree that the council should be allowed to do this?" (7) If the majority of persons voting in the referendum under either subsection (5) or (6) approve of the proposal, the local authority may use the powers under the respective sections 138A or 138B for four years from the calendar date of the referendum (8) In no event may a further referendum be held within four years of the day on which a referendum under this section has been held."
Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-16
Topic: Other
Barry Strachan Gardiner (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman said that although we say those words, sometimes they are not observed in the subsequent proceedings of the Chamber. I recall the words of Claudius in "Hamlet" after he had been praying, ostensibly, when he said: "My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: Words without thoughts never to heaven go."
Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-16
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. I might be able to help a little bit. We are not discussing the Prayers of the Chamber. I recognise the benefits and there is an analogy between the two, but the debate is about local government prayers. I have allowed a lot of leeway, but I am sure we will hear the connection made shortly.
Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-16
Topic: Civil Rights
Lyn Carol Brown (Labour, Centre-left): On this group of amendments, I will reiterate what I said earlier. I am confident that councils will make decisions on how they choose to vote or decide to include prayer in a way that suits their local circumstances. A council may well choose to adopt prayers on a majority, a two-thirds vote or an alternative proportion, or under a different procedure. Likewise, it may well decide that prayer should last no longer than three minutes, or it may decide alternative parameters. Such a matter is up to the council, so I say gently to the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) that it should be a local choice, built on an understanding of individual local communities and circumstances. I hope that he will therefore understand why I cannot support his amendments I have already made the point that the measures in the Bill should not be prescriptive, and I gladly make it again. This is permissive, enabling legislation, and choices and judgments should be made locally. That is particularly important with regard to amendments 5 to 7, which would require public bodies to undertake a referendum to decide whether to include religious observances at meetings. Although I agree with the thrust of the speech of the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), at a time when finance is scarce, I do not want to put new burdens on local authorities, and we certainly should not require them to incur additional financial cost. Referendums are expensive and, especially in these straitened financial times, councils would not want to commit to those costs.
Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-16
Topic: Civil Rights
Lyn Carol Brown (Labour, Centre-left): I was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry: I know it is not normal, but Fridays are unusual, and we just have to ride with it Frankly, if we insisted on a referendum, unlike the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) I do not think that everybody would necessarily turn out to vote. If we enabled local councils seeking the power to hold prayers at meetings to hold referendums, I fear that the turnout would not justify the cost. To introduce referendums on the subject would provide a clear disincentive for councils to consider the inclusion of prayers at all. I therefore cannot support the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire. We need to provide local councils with the freedom to choose to hold prayers or reflections, without fettering that discretion or imposing new financial and administrative burdens on public bodies On the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I am sure that it will not come as a surprise to him that, although he read out my favourite part of morning prayers, I cannot support any suggestion of making prayer compulsory. I would not support the amendment if he pressed it to a vote.
Control of Horses Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Barry Strachan Gardiner (Labour, Centre-left): One can only speculate as to why the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) has brought forward this group of amendments. However, Opposition Members would not wish them—or amendment 4, which is to be debated later—to delay the passage of the Bill, so I will be brief Amendment 1 attempts to clarify further the definition of what actually constitutes a horse, and I would encourage the Minister to put on the record later in the debate a full definition and whether, indeed, this covers a jennet or a pony. The term "jennet" is used to describe a Spanish jennet horse. It is, I understand, a fairly new breed registration dedicated to an attempt to recreate the coloured variety of gaited horses that resembles the historical jennet or "Spanish jennet." It would seem obvious, therefore, that the term "horse" as already used in the Bill would cover a jennet, but I await the Minister’s response The term "pony" is used to describe a small equus which, depending on context, can be a horse that is under an approximate or exact height at the withers—usually 14.2 hands, if memory serves, with the hand being 4 inches in imperial measure—or alternatively is a small horse with a specific conformation and temperament. Again, the Minister may wish to elaborate.
Control of Offshore Wind Turbines Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-16
Topic: Mixed Topics
Karl Turner (Labour, Centre-left): It is disappointing for me to hear that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) supports the Bill, which would be very damaging to East Yorkshire and my region, Hull. We have just attracted a £310 million joint investment from Siemens and Associated British Ports—an investment in my area which will transform the prospects for people in the city and the wider region. The Bill would clearly damage something that has not quite started yet.
Asylum (Time Limit) Bill — House of Commons, 2015-01-16
Topic: Immigration
Barry Strachan Gardiner (Labour, Centre-left): I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being far too reasonable or understanding. I ask him to accept that many people who come to this country seeking asylum are severely traumatised and have often experienced torture. Many of them do not speak the language. That is a very good reason why he should not seek to tighten the limits in the way proposed by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Many people are afraid of approaching the authorities because of the experiences they have had in their homeland. That trauma is deep and real and needs to be taken seriously by this House.