argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Northern Powerhouse — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Public Lands
Rachel Jane Reeves (Labour, Centre-left): The Chancellor speaks about investment in transport and in flood defences, both of which are crucial in my city of Leeds. Yet last month the Government cancelled the Leeds trolleybus scheme, and in 2011 flood defences were cancelled in Leeds, which contributed to the flooding we saw in December. Earlier this year the Government announced some money for flood defences, but it was just a fraction of what was cancelled five years ago, so I am surprised by the complacency of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and ask the Government to invest properly in flood defences in our city.
Northern Powerhouse — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Housing
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Labour, Centre-left): Recent figures showed a 9.6% drop in the value of new construction project starts recorded in the so-called northern powerhouse to the end of 2015. Interestingly, despite the Chancellor’s rhetoric on investment, much of the public capital invested thus far has been delivered by the EU. Does he therefore disagree with the Minister with responsibility for the northern powerhouse, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), who said recently that Brexit will not affect Greater Manchester’s vision and access to funding?
Employment Trends — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Helen Catherine Goodman (Labour, Centre-left): This morning, the head of Hitachi warned that a Brexit vote means that jobs will be lost. What is the Treasury’s estimate of the number of jobs that will be at risk if we leave the European Union?
Employment Trends — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Stephen Creswell Timms (Labour, Centre-left): It is a concern not just of Hitachi but of any non-European company that has its European headquarters in the UK. The UK is much the most attractive location for them currently, and they would be in great difficulty if we left the European Union. Has the Department made an assessment of what that group of employers contributes and will contribute in future to UK employment, which would be at risk if we left the EU?
Business Support — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): The Chancellor talks about supporting business, and like Labour I am sure he will want to see long-term sustainable business growth in Britain. After his six years at the helm, what is the forecast for business investment growth this year?
Exports — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: Is the Minister aware that more than 25% of small businesses in France and Germany export, whereas the figure in the United Kingdom is about 20%? Does she agree that not just UKTI, but chambers of trade and business organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, can play a role in encouraging more small firms, in particular, to export?
Barry John Sheerman (Labour, Centre-left): Is the Minister aware that Huddersfield and Yorkshire are already a northern powerhouse in terms of manufacturing and the quality of partnership with universities? Is she aware that my universities in Yorkshire and the manufacturing sector are terrified that we will leave the European Union? It will bankrupt the universities and the manufacturing sector.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Other
Melanie Onn (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fear that I am going to disappoint you, because my point of order follows on from that exact point, although it does not relate to Ministers. I discovered that the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Corby (Tom Pursglove) were in my constituency last week with the Grassroots Out campaign. They were not on official business, but were campaigning, and they failed to advise me in advance. Will you remind all Members that, by convention, we notify each other in advance? I might not have wished to be there alongside them, however Another issue is that factually incorrect information was shared with my constituents. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wellingborough would be horrified to learn that he misled my constituents, in the same way that I am horrified. How can he correct that?
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. I know that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) is very good at whistling, but I am sure that shadow Ministers do not respond to whistles, and that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) wanted to give way to him anyway.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I agree with those sentiments. Conventions and attitudes change. To take an example from my past, it was once a convention that a prosecuting authority would not give reasons for its decisions, but that has changed and for the better. The days of politicians with access to particular information assuring the public simply by saying that they have had access and that they are satisfied are well and truly over. That presents problems and difficulties in relation to what must be put in the public domain.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Other
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): Let me put it on the record that I and the Minister said at the end of the Bill Committee that the SNP had played a significant role in ensuring that this Bill reached this stage of its proceedings in much better shape than it was when it was in Committee. It was a very constructive exercise by the SNP. SNP Members took different approaches on issues to us, but to suggest that they have not played an important part in this is not to reflect the views at the end of the Committee stage.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. May I just help the hon. Gentleman? I know that he likes to bring the Chamber alive, but he needs to start to speak to the amendments. We have heard his antagonistic bits. Now I want to hear something about the amendment, because I also want to hear his colleagues, and I am sure that he does too.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): Order. I really do not need much advice. In fact, I will give a little bit of advice, which is that we speak to the amendment—we do not speak around it or leading up to it. It is the detail of the amendment that we want. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be back on track, and I welcome that.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Other
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to the Minister, and I feel that I should put on record my gratitude to him for the way in which he has dealt with the demands that I have made on behalf of the Labour party. They have been considerable demands.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Andrew Murray Burnham (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful for what the Minister has said. It must be possible to find a definition that excludes casual or voluntary bloggers from individuals who make their living from writing or who work for organisations regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation or other regulators.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Other
Andrew Murray Burnham (Labour, Centre-left): I very much appreciate what the Minister has said. I think that any colleague in any part of the House who has read the NUJ’s briefing for today’s debate will struggle to disagree with anything in it. If we want this Bill to leave Parliament with a high degree of consensus across society, it is right that these professional bodies feel, in the end, that the Bill is something they can support. That is a prize worth working for. Given his comments, I get the feeling that the Minister agrees.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Harriet Ruth Harman (Labour, Centre-left): I rise to support amendments 143, 144 and 145, which were tabled in my name and those of the other members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and relate to the protection of journalists’ sources. Since they were tabled, they have been supported by Labour’s Front Bench and the SNP, for which I am grateful Yesterday, we considered additional protections for MPs and lawyers and the question of legal professional privilege. Journalists are in the same group. We extensively considered protections for everybody against the abuse of power and the invasions of privacy by the state, which is right, but there are particular issues about protecting a part of the constitution from abuses of power by the Executive. The legislature obviously holds the Government to account, so it is wrong for the state to abuse its power to prevent us from doing that. The same goes for lawyers and the rule of law. Journalists are in a parallel situation in that it is vital in our democracy that the media are free to hold the Government to account, which is an important aspect of the right of freedom of expression that is guaranteed in article 10 of the European convention on human rights I appreciate from the start that there is a difficulty here. It is easy to work out what a lawyer is. It is easy to work out what an MP is. It is not quite so easy with journalists. Some people are evidently journalists and some people are evidently not journalists, but some people might or might not be journalists, so I say "Good luck" to the Solicitor General with that one. However, that difficulty must be surmounted, because we must ensure that the press’s ability to go about their business and to hold the Government to account is protected.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Harriet Ruth Harman (Labour, Centre-left): It sounds as though the Minister is well under way to solving that problem, so that is encouraging My next point was considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and has been echoed throughout the House. We do not want the provisions in this legislation to contain less protection for journalistic material than the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 did. That Act relates to a very different world and refers to the journalist’s notebook, whereas we are considering communications data, but a key point is that the relevant journalist or media organisation is given notice when a warrant is being applied for so that they can make representations as to why one should not be granted in order to protect their sources. We are not talking about journalists who are up to their necks in criminal activity—that is not the issue. The issue arises from applications for material that relates not to any criminal activity but to a journalist’s work. Can we ensure that journalists are put on notice, because of the special status of journalistic material, so that the authorising authorities have the benefit of hearing from journalists or media organisations before a warrant is granted I appreciate that the Minister has already responded to those issues and has put in additional protections, such as taking the non-statutory code and putting it on the statute, but the issue of notice still remains, which is why we tabled our amendments and why they have gathered support. I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that he will look further at the matter, but other members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in the House of Lords, and many other Members of the Lords, will want to consider it. Nobody wants an unjustified fettering of the ability of the security services and the police to keep us safe. The point in the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was absolutely spot on. We are all in favour of the same thing here, but we must ensure that, at the end of the process, we have the right balance not only for journalists but in many other respects.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Civil Rights
Andrew Murray Burnham (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating an argument that we can only achieve progress by being oppositional or party political. Surely there are occasions when we can do more by working across the House. We have shown that on this issue and on others, such as Hillsborough and other past injustices.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-06-07
Topic: Other
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving advance notice of his point of order during the Division. I think that everybody shares his feeling that under no circumstances should that ever happen. I am delighted that he did make it to the Division, and that there are no further Divisions this evening in which Members could be prevented from voting. We will certainly ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate and get back to us in order to make sure that that never happens again. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.
Broadband — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Julie Elliott (Labour, Centre-left): A senior adviser at the Institute of Directors has said that they expect the Government to meet the universal service obligation, but that is only because the bar is set so low. How are the Government going to provide the physical infrastructure to maintain Britain’s position at the forefront of digital innovation in business? Will the Secretary of State also answer the question about the lack of provision for SMEs, which he did not address?
Regional Growth — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Keith Anthony Vaz (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Secretary of State join me and other Leicestershire MPs as well as many throughout the world in congratulating Leicester City football club on winning the premier league yesterday? Does he agree that this will boost jobs not just in Leicester but in the midlands region, and not just for those interested in football but for those in tourism? Does he accept that rather than Red Leicester, it is actually Blue Leicester?
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Iain David Wright (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Secretary of State for attending the Thursday sitting of the Select Committee, which is conducting an inquiry on steel. He may recall that I asked him about the maintaining of confidence. There is growing concern that firms are not supplying to Tata facilities because they fear that the steel business may go into administration and they will not be paid, and credit insurance is being withdrawn. Businesses that supplied SSI do not want to get their fingers burnt twice, and customers, especially those with long-term horizons, are looking to Tata’s competitors for alternative provision. What further firm steps will the Government take on the matter of credit insurance to ensure that word goes out, loudly and with clarity, that this is a viable operation and firms can supply to and buy from Tata with confidence?
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Kevin Denis Brennan (Labour, Centre-left): Carwyn Jones, the Labour First Minister in Wales, who is at Port Talbot again today, had a package of support in place immediately after Tata’s announcement of its intention to sell. Now that the UK Government have belatedly woken up and followed that lead, how confident is the Secretary of State that Tata’s true intention is to be responsible? It took over a year to sort out long products, and Tata wants this to be done and dusted—including due diligence—by the end of June. Does the Secretary of State think that that is a realistic prospect?
Business Start-ups — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Alison McGovern (Labour, Centre-left): Small businesses might like to start up in the town centre of New Ferry in my constituency, except that footfall has gone through the floor and the Co-op and Lloyds bank are now closing. Who should my constituents blame for the dereliction? Is it the Tory Ministers who withdrew from regeneration, or is it the absentee landlords who bought up property and are now nowhere to be seen?
Apprenticeships — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: What steps the Government are taking to increase take-up of apprenticeships among (a) people with disabilities, (b) care leavers and (c) other disadvantaged groups.
Victoria Jane Foxcroft (Labour, Centre-left): As the Government already have targets to increase the proportion of black and minority ethnic apprenticeships by 20%, does the Minister not agree that they should do the same for people with disabilities and for care leavers?
Tax Returns — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential effect on small and medium-sized enterprises of proposed changes to filing of tax returns.
Ruth Margaret Cadbury (Labour, Centre-left): I am glad that the Minister is listening. My constituent Sheila Knight is the director of a small local business and she is very concerned about the proposal to make businesses submit data quarterly to HMRC. She says: "It will cause a huge amount of extra work, expense and worry for absolutely no benefit. Like most small businesses, I collate my accounts information once a year and give it to my accountant. Having to do this four times a year will be a huge imposition and my accountant’s fees will be pro rata more expensive." Does the Minister not agree that what small businesses need is strategic support from the Government, not more bureaucracy and unnecessary cost?
Tax Returns — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential effect on small and medium-sized enterprises of proposed changes to filing of tax returns.
William Roffen Esterson (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister has singularly failed to explain how the change will help businesses. I do not know whether she has ever produced a set of business accounts, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told MPs in a Westminster Hall debate in January that it would require a "a summary of income and expenses."—[Official Report, 25 January 2016; Vol. 605, c. 36WH.] As every businessperson knows, that can be done only by putting together the full detail each quarter. Whether the Minister calls it reporting, filing or updating, her claim that the change represents a reduction in red tape is laughable. It is a major increase in bureaucracy, administration and costs, especially for those businesses without digital access. The Government should go away and think again.
Business Regulation — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Andrew John Gwynne (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State will be aware that many small businesses often apply to only one lender for finance—usually their bank—and that two in five of those turned down do not go on to apply for finance anywhere else. What more are the Government doing to ensure that small businesses have access to as good a range of financial products as possible to keep the economy moving in the right direction?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: Does the Secretary of State accept that the proposals to allow waiters and waitresses, rather than restaurant owners, to actually receive tips given to them will be warmly welcomed? Does he not think that the House of Commons should show a lead, because in our own restaurants the agency workers and part-time workers who serve Members and their guests do not receive tips?
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Two Select Committees of this House are now preparing to examine the collapse of BHS into administration last week, putting at risk 11,000 jobs. Sir Philip Green bought the company for £200 million, took hundreds of millions of pounds out of it in dividend payments for his own family and then sold it for £1 to a bankrupt with no retail experience. What does the Business Secretary think are the issues for public policy as he contemplates the current situation? Does he think this represents responsible ownership?
Aleppo — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Mixed Topics
Nicklaus Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Centre-left): The recent bombing of hospitals took place in a city that already has a severe shortage of doctors because of the events of the last three or four years. What can the Minister do to ensure that any ceasefire has at its heart not only humanitarian aid, but the resumption of medical facilities to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Civil Rights
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may be aware of a report published over the weekend by Citizens Advice indicating a 25% increase in the number of people coming forward with problems relating to pregnancy and maternity discrimination. This follows hot on the heels of a report shortly before the Easter recess from the Equality and Human Rights Commission indicating that three quarters of women have had negative experiences of work associated with pregnancy or maternity. I am very pleased to see the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who chairs the Women and Equalities Committee, in the Chamber, because her Committee is conducting an important piece of research into this, and an inquiry. However, there has been no comment at all from Government Ministers and so far no indication that time will be made available in the Chamber to debate this important subject. Can you tell me, Mr Speaker, if Ministers have approached you indicating their intention to make a statement on the Citizens Advice report or on the EHRC report, with which the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was associated?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 37 to 58, 91, 184 and 185. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal I also remind the House that certain of the motions relating to the Lords amendments are certified as relating exclusively to England, or to England and Wales, as set out on the selection paper. If the House divides on any certified motion, a double majority will be required for the motion to be passed Clause 2 What is a starter home?
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Other
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 1 Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree Lords amendment 10, and Government motion to disagree Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 9 and 10 Lords amendment 37, and Government motion to disagree Lords amendment 184, and amendment (a) thereto Lords amendment 47, and Government motion to disagree Lords amendment 54, and Government motion to disagree Lords amendment 55, and Government motion to disagree Lords amendment 57, and Government motion to disagree Lords amendment 58, and Government motion to disagree Lords amendments 2 to 8, 11 to 36, 38 to 46, 48 to 53, 56, 59 to 96, 182, 183, 185 to 188, 190, 191 and 195 to 239.
Housing and Planning Bill — House of Commons, 2016-05-03
Topic: Housing
Clive James Charles Betts (Labour, Centre-left): The Select Committee pushed the Minister on his impact and financial assessment of the full costs and implications of his policies around the sale of higher-value council homes; on whether those would deliver the replacement of housing association properties; and on all the remedial work on brownfield sites. When will that analysis be produced? I see that the other day the Public Accounts Committee made exactly the same criticism as the Select Committee: there is no information for us to go on.