argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
David George Hanson (Labour, Centre-left): Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much taxpayers’ money he is expending on the court case, the appeal and future action to stop this House having a say on the important issues of the single market, employment rights and prisoner transfer agreements, which all matter, even if we have accepted the will of the referendum, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has said?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Emma Louise Lewell-Buck (Labour, Centre-left): I would be the first to admit that I am no legal expert, but throughout campaigning on the EU referendum I was clear with my constituents that Parliament would very likely have a vote on these matters. Have the Government been disingenuous with the public from day one, or are they completely unsure of the existing constitutional law of the country they govern?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): The Secretary of State accepts that he could publish a Bill next week and we could have it on the statute book long before the judges have done their business, so the reason for taking the decision to the next stage is not to expedite it but some other. I can only presume that it is because, somehow or other, this man—the Secretary of State—a man who has always fought for Parliament, is suddenly fighting for the prerogative rights of the Crown.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): No, the Secretary of State is fighting for the prerogative rights of the Crown. Would it not be a phenomenal irony if the people who clamoured to bring back control to this country handed it from Parliament to Ministers and the Crown?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Luciana Clare Goldsmith (Berger) (Labour, Centre-left): My constituent Christopher voted to leave the European Union, but he told me: "I did not vote to suspend the rule of law, nor to forgo the protection of Parliament as a bulwark against tyranny." Does the Secretary of State accept that people on both sides of the Brexit debate are appalled by the Government’s approach so far? Will he just get on and accept the judgment that was made last week?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
David Julian Winnick (Labour, Centre-left): I accept that Labour Members’ criticism of the procedure adopted by the Government is fully justified, but given some of the comments made by Government Members, let me make it absolutely clear that although I was on the remain side in the referendum, I accept the electorate’s decision without qualification. There can be no question but that, whatever the procedure, article 50 must be invoked. The British people made the decision by a majority—it does not matter that it was a narrow majority—so we should accept it. That is democracy.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we have negotiating power only prior to triggering article 50 and that, after that, the 27 remaining EU member states are free to determine our fate and to say, "Like it or lump it"? Would it not therefore be right to delay the triggering of article 50 until we have a clear idea of what that means for costs, the economy and migration, so that the British people can then judge in another referendum whether the exit package represents a fair reflection of what they voted for in principle and whether they want to leave on those terms, with a default position of staying in the EU?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Wesley Paul William Streeting (Labour, Centre-left): A majority of voters and a majority of constituencies voted to leave the European Union, so of course Parliament will trigger article 50, but does the Secretary of State understand the difference between revealing his hand in negotiation and telling us what his opening position would be? In the past week we have seen the resignation of a Conservative MP because of the way in which the Government are handling their position and the Chairman of the Treasury Committee urging the Secretary of State to come clean about issues such as the customs union. If the Secretary of State did read the Financial Times, perhaps he would understand that his dithering and delay, and the lack of clear direction, are costing jobs and inward investment, and affecting the pound in people’s pockets today.
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Robert Charles Douglas Flello (Labour, Centre-left): Three quarters of my constituents and the majority of this country have said that they want to exit. I agree that we must get on with it—unequivocally, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). Why, however, are we waiting for a decision that may well go against the Government? By all means let the Secretary of State pursue the case in court if he must, but let him bring a Bill to the House and let us vote on it. Let us vote to trigger article 50 at the right time, as the Government have set out, and let us pursue exit from the European Union. Why does he not just do it?
Article 50 — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Madeleine Moon (Labour, Centre-left): Does the Secretary of State accept that people voted to leave or to remain for all sorts of reasons? When they read that question on the ballot paper, however, very few of them wanted to vote to reduce the power of the judiciary to hold the overweening power of the Executive to account. Very few of them voted to reduce parliamentary democracy and the right of Parliament to discuss Government policy. Is it not therefore right that the Government come back to this House and seek authority to trigger article 50?
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Centre-left): I am delighted to hear the Secretary of State’s commitment to safeguarding existing employment rights here in the UK that derive from the European Union. However, is he aware that while we are debating our exit from the EU, it is forging ahead with new employment rights that we would hope people in the UK would also benefit from, and will he extend his commitment to ensuring that we do not fall behind the rest of the EU?
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): I have been listening to the Secretary of State, but does he understand why people would have concerns that the Government might seek to undermine those rights given that this Government introduced the Trade Union Act 2016?
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Geraint Richard Davies (Labour, Centre-left): Currently all workers’ rights are guaranteed by the European Court of Justice. After we leave they will be guaranteed by the Supreme Court, advised by us. Therefore, in the future they can all be ripped up if we leave the EU, if that is the choice of future Governments; if we stay in the EU they cannot be ripped up but are guaranteed. They are guaranteed only under EU law. They cannot be sustainably guaranteed by the Secretary of State.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Melanie Onn (Labour, Centre-left): Many of the increases in rights for working people that the Secretary of State has mentioned are the result of Labour Governments who have been incredibly progressive on workers’ rights. The Government have introduced tribunal fees and increased minimum employment thresholds to restrict individuals’ access to their rights. With regard to primary legislation, will the working time directive have the same status as the Employment Rights Act 1996 as and when all laws are entrenched in UK legislation through the great repeal Bill?
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Graham Eric Stringer (Labour, Centre-left): I do not share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for the European Court of Justice. The ECJ’s Laval and Viking judgments undermined the minimum wage and changed the definition of what it was to go on strike, which loosened workers’ rights. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will look at those judgments with a view to increasing workers’ rights, guaranteeing the minimum wage against those judgments, and maintaining the previous definitions of going on strike?
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): I note that when Conservative Members talk about being the party of the workers, they can barely keep a straight face. I am pleased to open the debate for the Opposition. Indeed, I am very pleased that we are having this debate at all, given the events of last week and the attitude of Government Members earlier this afternoon Our country is going through a period of dramatic change. We are in a rare moment in history. The decisions made in the coming months will reshape our country and the world for generations to come. As I said to the Secretary of State last week, in moments of such national importance, it is imperative that the Government are subject to scrutiny by the elected representatives of the entire country. That is not in any way to diminish the result of the referendum. Like the Secretary of State, I voted to remain. Like him, I fully accept the democratic decision of this country and am committed to implementing it In voicing their preference to leave the European Union, however, the people of this country did not get the chance to say what they wanted in its place. They voted to set off on a journey, but were not asked their preferred destination. As a result, the Government cannot treat the referendum result as a blank cheque. They must work through a process of dialogue with the House to ensure that Britain exits the European Union on terms that carry the country with them. There are few areas on which Brexit has more potential to impact on people’s lives than workers’ rights.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Foreign Secretary says he wants to scrap the social chapter and the International Development Secretary says she wants to halve the burden of EU employment and social rights, we should be very concerned? That is exactly why Parliament should be scrutinising this issue.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): I will make some progress. I will give way, but I will make some progress first—[Interruption.] I will take nothing back It is a well-established fact, and not one that reflects well on us as a country, that many protections and rights awarded to workers in Britain reside in EU legislation. Throughout the referendum campaign and since, my party has sought assurances that leaving the EU will not lead to any erosion or dilution of those rights. It follows that much of what the Secretary of State has said today will be welcomed by Opposition Members, but let us not forget that it is EU law that has given working people in this country their rights to a limited working week and guaranteed rest periods. It is the EU that has ensured equal pay and protection against discrimination, and it is to the EU that we owe maternity and paternity rights and much, much more. Removing these rights would cause real damage to the lives of working people It is a relief to hear that the Government intend to transfer those rights into British law, but that is not enough. I share the Government’s assessment that the overwhelming majority of the 17 million people who voted in favour of Brexit were not voting to axe our employment rights, but there is a tiny minority who were. It is that minority that has a strong presence on the Government Benches.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): That is a really important point. What we did not hear from the Secretary of State was any promise or guarantee that employment legislation will not, once it comes out of international law, simply go into secondary law. We want to see it in primary law, and our concern is that once it goes into secondary law, the Government will use statutory instruments to undermine employment law and workers’ rights, and that is not what we want to see Let us carry on. I am talking about the Foreign Secretary, who described the weight of EU employment legislation as "back-breaking". Then there is the Secretary of State for International Trade who dismissed the idea of protecting workplace rights as "intellectually unsustainable". Then there is the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU who spent years attacking employment rights embodied in EU law as "unnecessary red tape".
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Melanie Onn (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend also recognise that the former Minister for Employment, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) went so far as to call for the UK to "halve the burdens of EU social and employment legislation" after Brexit?
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): The list is lengthy Let us go back. Who spent years attacking employment rights embodied in EU laws as unnecessary red tape before undergoing his recent makeover into an ally of the working class, insisting that it is only "consumer and environmental protections" that he regards as unnecessary? As an aside, it is worth emphasising that those protections are as important to the quality of life of working people as employment rights, but they are not the topic of today’s debate.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): That is a very important point, and it is one to which I shall come back in the future Let me return to the issue at hand. While I welcome now, as I have before, the Government’s recent apparent Damascene conversion when it comes to workers’ rights, I cannot but remain sceptical about how deep it goes. When it comes to limiting the number of hours people have to work in a week and giving temporary workers the same rights as permanent staff, the Conservative party has resisted at every turn the enhanced protection for workers that was introduced through EU legislation. Yet now we are asked to believe that they will defend that legislation. How are the workers of this country supposed to trust them? The public have already been misled about what Brexit will mean.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): Shall we have a little history lesson? How many Acts of Parliament between 1980 and 1993 that attacked working people through anti-trade union legislation do you think your Government took part in? Was it one, two or three? No, it was six, so don’t lecture us on the history of workers’ rights. You have nothing to say on it.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): No The public have already been misled about what Brexit will mean. On the morning after the referendum, Mr Farage’s hangover had barely set in before the leave campaign withdrew the promise that leaving the EU would free up £350 million a week for the NHS. In the last week, we have seen that the Government are prepared to go to the highest court in the land to avoid proper democratic scrutiny of the terms of Brexit.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): I think you will find that through the employment legislation of the last Labour Government, we made considerable strides on improving workplace rights for working people, so we will take no lectures from the right hon. Lady on workers’ rights.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): I want to make some progress So why should we believe that the party that has fought tooth and nail against EU protections for workers and that has dismissed as "unnecessary red tape" laws that have made UK workplaces more fair and more humane will now be the defender of those rights? I want to believe it—I truly do—but I cannot. It is not just because of the Government’s record of opposing the very legislation that they now claim to support; it is because, despite his good intentions—I am prepared to believe that he has good intentions—nothing that the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister or anyone else in this Government has said or done over the past six years convinces me that they understand or care about the lives of working people. This Government are the children of Thatcher. Sticking up for workers goes against every instinct and is contrary to the very political DNA of so many Conservative Members I would like to shift focus and reflect on people’s experiences of the world of work under this Government, on how workplaces and labour markets are changing, on what this has meant for working people and on what the Government have—or, more often, have not—done for them. From the recent exposé of Victorian employment practices at Sports Direct to the horror stories of Uber drivers being unable to take a toilet break, working conditions in this country are getting worse, not better, for too many people. Over the past six years, jobs have become lower skilled, less secure and worse paid. We have seen the rise of zero-hour contracts and growing reliance on agency workers. We have seen the birth of the gig economy, taking more and more workers outside formal employment regulations. The Tories boast about the recovery of employment since 2008, but on every other criterion, our labour market is failing.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand formally chastised, and rightly so. I think, however, that it reflects the level of anxiety and passion felt by Opposition Members about workers’ rights. I so often see smugness from some Conservative Members who obviously feel that Brexit is going to be bonfire of regulatory rights in the workplace—and we do not want to see that.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): I shall make some more progress. The Tories boast about the recovery of employment since 2008, but on every other criterion, our labour market is failing. Wages, which have been falling as a share of national income for decades, have stagnated under the Tories, creating nearly a decade of lost pay. Too many people are having their work-life balance undermined by rising workloads and suffering stress due to punitive performance reviews. Even those who are not in precarious employment worry about their future job security.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): I am going to make some progress, if that is all right We cannot continue to prioritise quantity over quality in the belief that if we want to ensure that everyone has a job, we have to accept any job. From the millions of women who continue to be paid less than men to the growing number of involuntarily or bogusly self-employed, it is hard to escape the reality that, for most, conditions have become worse. What have the Tories done in the face of all that? They have frozen public sector pay for six years running; they have introduced fees for employment tribunals, making it harder for people to gain access to the rights to which the law entitles them; they have placed severe restrictions on the right to strike, and onerous burdens on the ability to organise. In the Trade Union Act 2016, they have pushed through the biggest attack on workers’ rights in a generation We are back to the issue of trust. The Government have recently taken to calling themselves the party of working people, but in their last six years in office, they have not acted like that; on the contrary. Is it any wonder that, for those of us who genuinely care about workers’ rights, the promises that the Secretary of State has made today provide only cold comfort and a heavy dose of wary scepticism? I do not intend to brand the Secretary of State a liar; he seems to me to be a decent guy. [Interruption.] I did not say that, and I do not intend to.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: International Affairs
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): I will rephrase that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to brand the Secretary of State a person who exaggerates excessively; he seems to me to be a decent guy. However, given that the Brexit triumvirate of Mr Johnson, Mr Davis and Mr Fox have so regularly said and done things that contradict the promises that we have heard today, it is hard to be confident that the Government will deliver.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Stephen John Doughty (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. He is very generous. Does he not also find it incredible that the Secretary of State prayed in aid the appointment of Baroness McGregor-Smith to a position that involves advising on employment rights? She was ennobled at a time when her company, Mitie, and its subsidiary MiHomecare were being investigated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for non-payment of the minimum wage to its workers.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Even if we take the Secretary of State at face value, he is surrounded by the kind of free-market fanatics who, past behaviour suggests, will always work to undermine workers’ rights rather than to bolster them.
Exiting the EU and Workers’ Rights — House of Commons, 2016-11-07
Topic: Labor
Clive Anthony Lewis (Labour, Centre-left): I am going to make some progress. I am conscious of time, and many other Members clearly want to have their say Last time I had the pleasure of facing the Secretary of State across the Dispatch Box, he reached out to me in the name of bipartisanship. One cannot help wondering if the opinion of some of his colleagues has forced him to consider whether he might find it more congenial to work with us on the Opposition side of the House. I sympathise: if he truly believes what he said to us today, no wonder he has reached out for allies on our Benches. So I say to him, "You’re on. " If he is serious in his commitment to workers’ rights, let us work together towards three goals. First, the Secretary of State must accept that given his Government’s record, a day one transfer of EU rights to UK law is simply not enough. Grant Shapps must not get his sunset clause.