argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
State Pension Age: Women — House of Commons, 2017-11-29
Topic: Social Welfare
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): I said a few minutes ago that we would hear many examples of the plight faced by ’50s-born women, and that is yet another one Although I agree that this mess was created by the Government, I want to touch on the Scottish Government’s social security powers. I know that there have been some heated exchanges on this subject already. The SNP says that it cannot act to resolve the issue in Scotland because pension provision is reserved to the UK Government. Although that is true, the Scotland Act 2016 gave the SNP Government powers to top up social security or to create new social security policies. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) denied that they have the power to introduce new benefits based on age, so will the Minister commit this afternoon to publishing a clear paper outlining exactly what the Government believe the Scottish Government can and cannot do with their powers. Perhaps that would make the matter clear once and for all Labour has made a commitment to extend pension credit and provide early access to a state pension, but we cannot deliver that because we are not in government. Therefore, there has to be a challenge to our SNP colleagues: use your powers to help women north of the border and, if they are insufficient, chat to the Government, because they believe you do have the powers.
State Pension Age: Women — House of Commons, 2017-11-29
Topic: Social Welfare
Alexander Cunningham (Labour, Centre-left): Nobody suggested that the Scottish Government had pension powers; we are saying that they could use social security policy. I suggest again that the Scottish Government chats to the UK Government. I think they just need to get their heads together and talk rationally, but I would rather the UK Government published a paper spelling out the position I do not want to keep having to stand here debating this issue. I do not want us to give false hope to the ’50s-born women who are fighting, because it is their livelihoods we are talking about. I want the Minister to do something—to reach out across the Chamber and work for a real solution—to demonstrate that the House is listening to the residents of this country.
State Pension Age: Women — House of Commons, 2017-11-29
Topic: Labor
Carolyn Harris (Labour, Centre-left): Here we go again: another day, another debate on the injustice facing the 1950s-born women as a result of the pension changes. More than 3 million women have lost out because of the changes to pension law, and more than 3,000 in my own constituency of Swansea East have been unfairly treated by the changes to the state pension.
State Pension Age: Women — House of Commons, 2017-11-29
Topic: Social Welfare
Carolyn Harris (Labour, Centre-left): I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. These women have been the backbone of our country and they have been betrayed by this Government What is really scary is how many women do not realise that they have been affected. Yet this Government are still not listening. They have betrayed these women, stolen their security and shattered their dreams. Without the time to prepare and make the necessary alternative arrangements, very many women born in the 1950s have been left in financial despair.
State Pension Age: Women — House of Commons, 2017-11-29
Topic: Labor
Carolyn Harris (Labour, Centre-left): I am going to make progress The reality is that these women are desperate. I have women affected all over the country calling my office every day, letting me know that they have had to sell their belongings and that they are relying on family, friends and food banks just to exist. I understand that this might not be comfortable to listen to, but it is the reality. These women are only asking for compassion, for fair play and, more importantly, for respect I will continue to call on the Government to stop burying their head in the sand and to do the right thing by these women. My private Member’s Bill is due to have its Second Reading debate in April. It states that these women need reasonable, transitional arrangements to allow them not just to enjoy retirement, but to survive it. So many Members across the House agree that these changes to the state pension age are unjust and unfair, and that these women have been robbed of their pension. When will the Government recognise the mistake they have made with the 1950s women? These women will not be ignored.
State Pension Age: Women — House of Commons, 2017-11-29
Topic: Labor
Roberta Carol Blackman-Woods (Labour, Centre-left): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is totally unfair that these women are not paid their pension when they have a full contribution record, and that instead they are being made to work beyond a time when they are able or are forced to rely on insecure benefits that are too low?
State Pension Age: Women — House of Commons, 2017-11-29
Topic: Social Welfare
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): I congratulate the Scottish National party on selecting this topic for its Opposition day debate. It is one on which I and many other Members—too many to mention them all—have been working. However, I do wish to mention the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for the sterling work that he has done, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who have raised this issue time and again and have worked hard to encourage Members from all parts of the House to speak in the debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that the motion has been carefully crafted to allow anyone to support it—both Government and Opposition Members—and I urge everyone to do so If the Government do not take this opportunity to resolve the issue, I remind them that we will have another big debate on this matter in the Chamber on Wednesday 14 December, and I encourage all Members to come along. I say to Ministers: please do not think that you will get off the hook. If this new Session of Parliament has taught us anything, it is that the Government have been prepared, on more than one occasion, to cover their eyes and ears to pretend that suffering is not happening—on universal credit, employment and support allowance, personal independence payments, food banks and now on WASPI. While I have the attention of Ministers for a very brief period, I therefore want to tell them some of the reasons why they should act.
State Pension Age: Women — House of Commons, 2017-11-29
Topic: Labor
Michael Robert Hill (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend and neighbour agree that 5,500 women in Hartlepool have been victimised by the Department for Work and Pensions, and the consequences have been devastating? They have been robbed of the happy retirement that they deserve and forced into food banks and the dysfunctional benefits system.
State Pension Age: Women — House of Commons, 2017-11-29
Topic: Social Welfare
Grahame Mark Morris (Labour, Centre-left): I really should not give way, because of the time. I do apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but you will admonish me if I give way, Madam Deputy Speaker. I recently tabled early-day motion 63, which has been signed by 197 Members. A petition was signed by 107,000 people, which led to the granting of a debate. It will take place next week, if it is necessary—if the Minister does not concede the point tonight. May I remind him that the early-day motion has been signed by Members from every party, every nation and every region in the UK Every day, I receive completely heartbreaking letters and emails from women who are in dire financial hardship. Many of them have worked and paid national insurance contributions since they were 16. They now find that the deal that they signed with the Government in good faith has effectively been ripped up. We are talking about a contract and a moral obligation on Government. An unnecessary situation has been created, with a generation of women relying on food banks, selling their homes and being forced to rely on the benefits system. It is degrading, completely unfair and unnecessary The failings by consecutive Governments have forced these women, many of whom I have known for years because I live in the constituency that I represent, into poverty and forced them to rely on support from friends and relatives. I am totally convinced of the sincerity of their claim that they knew nothing about the increase in pension age because of the lack of notification. I therefore urge the Government immediately to acknowledge their error, provide all those affected with some level of compensation, and provide those worst affected—those who are waiting six years longer than they had planned before they receive their pension—with some support through a bridging pension. I thank the WASPI women for their support in raising this issue.
State Pension Age: Women — House of Commons, 2017-11-29
Topic: Labor
Laura Pidcock (Labour, Centre-left): I am sorry, but there is not time In our universal credit debate, I heard the argument, which I reject, that the system of monthly payments teaches people lessons. But if we apply the premise from that debate—the one about expectations and notification—the Government have absolutely failed. For these women, who have not had adequate time to prepare, who have had inadequate correspondence from the DWP and who are at no fault at all, the right thing to do is to compensate them and to have a bridging pension The 1950s women will not give up. They will not go away and they will not forgive this Government if their demands are not met. They do not need apprenticeships or platitudes, but they need pension justice now. Let us have a vote and let us see whose side people are really on.
EU Nationals — House of Commons, 2017-11-29
Topic: International Affairs
Ann Clwyd (Labour, Centre-left): We are not convinced of the Government’s integrity on this point. Earlier this year, I took a petition to the European Parliament arguing for equal rights for EU citizens living here and for British citizens living in the EU. The petition, which also asks for several other things, has gone through three committees of the European Parliament. I remind the Minister that, ultimately, the European Parliament has the power of veto over the negotiations, which he should bear in mind. Many Members of this House have signed these petitions, which are now going through the EU process.
EU Nationals — House of Commons, 2017-11-29
Topic: Foreign Trade
Mohammed Afzal Khan (Labour, Centre-left): The International Trade Secretary told the Tory party conference last year that the Government "would like to be able to give a reassurance to EU nationals in the UK, but that depends on reciprocation by other countries" He said any other strategy "would be to hand over one of our main cards in the negotiations and doesn’t necessarily make sense at this point" That is using the EU nationals here as bargaining chips—that is the Government’s approach. This could have all been resolved quickly if the Government had made a unilateral guarantee of rights, as Labour Members were pushing for, and it would certainly have been reciprocated by the EU. At the start of the negotiations, the EU tabled an offer that opened the doors to a reciprocal arrangement. Had the UK accepted it and worked with the EU on the details, we may have settled the issue by now. But the UK did not take that course and instead has created a climate of uncertainty and confusion. That uncertainty has already led to discrimination against EU citizens.
EU Nationals — House of Commons, 2017-11-29
Topic: Government Operations
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): The instruction has been given earlier, but I will repeat it for the record, to make sure that we are all aware. The Leader of the House of Commons made it clear that "the Government are determined to listen and take account of views from all sides of the House. Where there is opportunity for the Government to listen and better enable the effective work of Parliament, we will do so To that end, I am today updating the House on the Government’s approach to Opposition day debates. Where a motion tabled by an Opposition party has been approved by the House, the relevant Minister will respond to the resolution of the House by making a statement no more than 12 weeks after the debate. This is to allow thoughtful consideration of the points that have been raised, facilitate collective discussion across Government, especially on cross-cutting issues, and to outline any actions that have been taken This is in line with suggestions made by Members across the House and I hope colleagues will welcome the new initiative and the opportunity for accountability this provides."—[Official Report, 26 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 12WS.]
Support for Farmers — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Agriculture
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on support for farmers after the UK leaves the EU.; What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on support for farmers after the UK leaves the EU.
Mary Helen Creagh (Labour, Centre-left): Farmers in Wakefield, Yorkshire, and across the country face a triple whammy from Brexit: the loss of common agricultural policy subsidies, and changes to the subsidy regime after 2021; tariff and non-tariff barriers; and potentially a flood of cheap imports after any new trade deal. What steps is the Minister taking to mitigate those risks?
Implementation Period — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Foreign Trade
Hilary James Benn (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State told the Select Committee that it was the Government’s intention to conclude a free trade agreement with the EU by March 2019. Last Friday, however, the Environment Secretary told the "Today" programme that ironing out the details of a free trade agreement and moving towards a new relationship would take place during the transition period. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is the Government’s new position?
Negotiations — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): I can understand why the Secretary of State is not quite his usual bright-eyed and bushy-tailed self this morning, but will he discuss the suggestion of a longer implementation period when he talks to the European Commission? Will he give the House a reason why an extended implementation period would cause difficulties that we do not understand? What research has he done on that?
Negotiations — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): Whatever comes out of the negotiations, this House voted last night that Parliament should have a meaningful vote, enshrined in law, at the end of the process. That was a humiliating and entirely avoidable defeat for the Government. This House now having spoken, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the Government will not seek to undermine or overturn last night’s result on Report?
Economic Effect — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): Last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Treasury Committee that his Department has modelled and analysed a range of potential structures between the UK and the EU and that those analyses inform our negotiating position. Given that Ministers in the Department for Exiting the European Union are responsible for our negotiations, can the Minister say whether he has read those analyses and how they are informing our negotiating position?
Economic Effect — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Agriculture
Jenny Chapman (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister’s sectoral analysis might tell him that the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland depends entirely on an open border, which is to be secured on a promise of regulatory alignment. The Environment Secretary has contradicted the Prime Minister, saying that this is a perpetually open and ongoing discussion, thus placing future regulatory alignment in doubt. Is he not inflicting a lifetime of uncertainty on the agri-food sector and on the people of Northern Ireland?
Horizon 2020/University Admissions — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on (a) UK participation rates in Horizon 2020 and (b) university admissions.
Joanna Meriel Stevens (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Minister confirm that the Government will seek to secure an early agreement with the EU on arrangements for underwriting Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+ bids for their full duration, up to the end of the programmes?
Horizon 2020/University Admissions — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Technology
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on (a) UK participation rates in Horizon 2020 and (b) university admissions.
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): When we discussed this matter last month, the Minister brushed aside concerns about the falling participation rates of UK researchers in Horizon 2020 projects, but since then, as he will know, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has confirmed that in figures it has published. If participation continues to fall at that rate, by March 2019 we will have dropped by two thirds, which will be a significant blow for UK research. What assessment has the Minister made of those figures and what is he going to do about it?
Horizon 2020/University Admissions — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on (a) UK participation rates in Horizon 2020 and (b) university admissions.
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): May I suggest two specific things that the Minister can do? Will he confirm that applications that are not fully signed off at the point at which we depart from the EU in March 2019 will be fully supported for their entire duration? Will he also say that he will put participation in framework programme 9 and successor programmes at the very heart of the ambitions for negotiating our future relationship with the EU?
Negotiations: Confidentiality — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: What assessment he has made of the potential merits of maintaining appropriate confidentiality in the UK’s negotiations with the EU; and if he will make a statement.
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): We saw with the debacle of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership that people were very unhappy with the lack of transparency around such negotiations. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need a much more transparent and democratic process not only for approving trade deals, but for scrutinising the negotiations as they are going on?
Citizens' Rights — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What progress has been made on maintaining citizens’ rights for (a) UK nationals living in the EU and (b) non-UK EU nationals living in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.; What progress has been made on maintaining citizens’ rights for (a) UK nationals living in the EU and (b) non-UK EU nationals living in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): Unfortunately, the 3 million EU 27 citizens living in this country and the UK citizens living in the EU 27 do not feel that certainty because of the words "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed." Will the Government not now commit to putting an amendment down to any of the forthcoming EU Bills to give that certainty?
EU Tangible Assets: UK Share — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Paul Phillip Flynn (Labour, Centre-left): As the first advisory referendum was conducted entirely in ignorance of the contents of the wine cellars and almost everything else, and was a choice between Operation Fear and Operation Lies, is it not appropriate that we listen to all those independent bodies that have looked at the prospects and decided that no Brexit would be better than any Brexit? Is it not time to think about a second, well-informed confirmation referendum?
Aviation Sector — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: Transportation
Conor Patrick McGinn (Labour, Centre-left): The Commission has made it clear that UK carriers will no longer enjoy flying rights under any agreement to which the EU is party. With one UK airline already talking about relocating, what are the Government doing to protect hundreds of thousands of aviation jobs in the UK?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: Recreational boating is a vital part of my constituency’s leisure facilities around Hamble and Netley. Will the Minister outline what assessment his Department has made of the impact of leaving the EU on recreational boating on the Solent?
Matthew Thomas Pennycook (Labour, Centre-left): The House will be aware that yesterday the European Parliament had a vote on a resolution to endorse the agreement reached last week. Can the Secretary of State tell us why, unlike Labour Members of the European Parliament, Conservative MEPs were whipped to abstain and not to vote in support of that joint report?
Foreign Affairs Committee — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Kerry Gillian McCarthy (Labour, Centre-left): Mr Speaker, I know of your long-standing interest in this issue, which you demonstrated when you were on the Back Benches The report is excellent. As it mentions, some of the refugees may be very reluctant to return to Burma given the treatment they have received. To what extent did the Foreign Affairs Committee consider alternatives to either Burma or Bangladesh? Did it feel that there was support from within the Rohingya community for being moved to somewhere else completely?
Foreign Affairs Committee — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for the way in which he has chaired the Committee in his first few months in that position, and, indeed, the Minister for the candid way in which he presented the case of the UK Government when he gave evidence to the Committee Does my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee agree that this again shows the bluntness of the UN, and shows that it does not have enough tools available to it to deal with these kinds of international crises?
Foreign Affairs Committee — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Ann Clwyd (Labour, Centre-left): I, too, congratulate the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee; it has been a very interesting Committee to serve on, and I thank him for the way in which he has conducted this inquiry. I want to ask him in particular about the need to find a way to open access to Rakhine province, including in respect of any process of repatriation, because we must be very concerned about the lack of access and scrutiny, and the news of the arrests of two Reuters journalists believed to be attempting to report on the situation there. The UK Government and others in the international community must find a way to ensure that there is independent monitoring and oversight of what is happening in Rakhine province, especially in connection with repatriation.
Foreign Affairs Committee — House of Commons, 2017-12-14
Topic: International Affairs
Anthony Joseph Lloyd (Labour, Centre-left): I returned from Cox’s Bazar on Monday. I commend what is generally an excellent report: every word of it has value. The real issue concerns the return of refugees to Myanmar-Burma. That is not possible under present circumstances. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the need now is for genuine humanitarian assistance, not just from the Department for International Development but by mobilising the whole world to make sure we are treating the situation with the gravity it deserves?