argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Afghanistan: Humanitarian Crisis — House of Commons, 2022-01-12
Topic: International Affairs
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): I am sorry—this is terrible. Every single element of this was not only predictable but predicted repeatedly for 18 months and longer. Operation Pitting was a disaster. We did not actually prioritise the right people, or we have no confidence that we prioritised the right people. We have abandoned lots of people, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said. All of us have constituency connections with people who are stuck in Afghanistan, and the Minister has no means of enabling them to get to safety. We have abandoned them to a future where there is not enough food, there is not enough money to pay the bills, there is no electricity and most of the hospitals are not working properly. We have a complete disaster, and part of the blame for that lies at the Government’s door.
Afghanistan: Humanitarian Crisis — House of Commons, 2022-01-12
Topic: International Affairs
Alison McGovern (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) for bringing forward this urgent question. Children facing starvation in a manner that was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, entirely predictable and predicted deserve the attention of the most powerful people in the world. So can I ask the Minister a direct question that has already been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) but that has not been answered? Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has asked our Foreign Secretary to bring together an Afghan rescue conference so that those powerful people can do something about this issue. Is the answer yes or is the answer no?
Afghanistan: Humanitarian Crisis — House of Commons, 2022-01-12
Topic: International Affairs
Seema Malhotra-Saluja (Labour, Centre-left): Frankly, what we are hearing today just is not good enough. We know that the situation is utterly dire in Afghanistan. Could I request that the Minister takes away what she has heard from both sides of the Chamber today and comes back to the House as soon as possible in the next few days with a statement about how the UK is stepping up its leadership on the humanitarian crisis and about what it will do to expedite the evacuation and resettlement of at-risk Afghans who are relatives of our constituents—I have 400 cases outstanding—to make sure there is a strong, clear message about how they could be evacuated for their safety? They are still at risk and they are now falling prey to the worsening humanitarian situation.
Afghanistan: Humanitarian Crisis — House of Commons, 2022-01-12
Topic: International Affairs
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): I have to say that the Minister’s response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) was unfortunate, because there is real cross-party concern on this issue. The Minister was right in her opening remarks to highlight the generosity of the British people, because they recognise our special responsibility to the Afghan people in the face of the unfolding catastrophe following our chaotic withdrawal. She has set out what the Government are doing, but clearly it is not working. What further plans do the Government have to address the appalling situation in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan: Humanitarian Crisis — House of Commons, 2022-01-12
Topic: International Affairs
Rachael Helen Maskell (Labour, Centre-left): When something is not working, we have to look at it again, and that is why an international conference is necessary, to bring greater leverage to the situation and to achieve the outcomes we all want. One group of people that the Minister has not referred to is the democratically elected Members of the Afghanistan Parliament, who are now spread around the world. They know their communities in the same way that we know our communities. Will the Minister open up a dialogue with the very people who know whole communities across Afghanistan, to ensure that they have a say on the future?
Afghanistan: Humanitarian Crisis — House of Commons, 2022-01-12
Topic: International Affairs
Katherine Anne Green (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) was right to praise the Minister for acknowledging the generosity of the British public, but I warn her that the anger and disappointment felt by people in this country at the failures of the British Government threaten to undermine everything that she has said to the House this afternoon Faith and community groups in my constituency are anxious to continue supporting the humanitarian effort towards Afghanistan. What work are the Government doing with faith and community leaders in this country to support their efforts and those of their members and communities?
Afghanistan: Humanitarian Crisis — House of Commons, 2022-01-12
Topic: International Affairs
Anna Rhiannon McMorrin (Labour, Centre-left): The World Health Organisation predicts that 1 million Afghan children under five will die of starvation this winter alone; another 2.2 million will suffer acute malnutrition. The progress achieved by the people there over 20 years has been irreversibly wiped out as a result of this humanitarian disaster. Fears of misuse of donor funds and of validating the Taliban remain valid, but given the urgency of tackling the crisis, does the Minister agree that the UK Government must do more? If this is truly not a time for party politics, will she, as my colleagues requested, say yes to the international conference of 68 nations that Gordon Brown has suggested?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2022-01-12
Topic: Government Operations
Peter John Kyle (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have informed the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of my intention to raise this point of order. In July last year, he released a Command Paper on the troubles in Northern Ireland and the related legacy issues. In his statement to the House, he said that he would be "introducing legislation by the end of the autumn",—[Official Report, 14 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 390.] but no legislation came forward. At the last oral questions, just before Christmas, I asked him where the legislation was and he replied: "We have not had pauses".—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 366.] This week, a Government briefing to the PoliticsHome website about that legislation said that "a government source told PoliticsHome that they needed more time to ‘get it right’ and that the legislation might not make it onto the statute books until late spring or early summer." That strikes me as a clear breach of the ministerial code, which is clear in its intent. Ministers should talk about legislation and how legislation will be handled in this place by talking to this place in an oral or written statement, preferably an oral one so that we can cross-examine it at the Dispatch Box Can you confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you or Mr Speaker have been informed of any intentions for that legislation? If not, it is a discourtesy to Mr Speaker, to the House and certainly to all people in Northern Ireland, for whom anxiety has been provoked by talk of the legislation.
Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill — House of Commons, 2022-01-12
Topic: Government Operations
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 1 and 2 Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 40, at end insert— "(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), the provisions of this Act shall extend to a business tenancy irrespective of whether the property comprised in the tenancy is occupied by the tenant." This amendment broadens the definition of business tenancy to cover arrangements in which the property is not occupied by the tenant. Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 5, line 19, at end insert— "(2B) The Secretary of State must ensure that bodies approved under subsection (1) have sufficient numbers of arbitrators (whether alone or as a member of a panel of arbitrators) required to conduct arbitrations under this Part." This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the approved arbitration bodies collectively have sufficient capacity to hear all arbitrations under this Part. Amendment 10, in clause 9, page 7, line 7, leave out from "beginning" to the end of line 8 and insert "25 March 2022" This amendment revises the period for a reference to arbitration to be made in order that it is consistent with the Code of Conduct. Government amendment 3 Amendment 14, in clause 11, page 8, line 21, leave out "supporting evidence" and insert "any evidence relevant to the proposal." This amendment would require a formal proposal put forward under this section to be made on an open-book basis. Amendment 15, in clause 17, page 11, line 13, after "practicable" insert "and no later than 14 days" This amendment would require awards in arbitrations which do not have an oral hearing to be made within 14 days. Amendment 16, in clause 19, page 12, line 6, replace "may" with "must" This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying limits on arbitration fees. Amendment 11, page 12, line 13, before "When" insert "Subject to 6A," This amendment is consequential to Amendment 12. Government amendments 4 to 6 Amendment 12, page 12, line 19, at end insert— "(6A) When the arbitrator makes an award under section 13 or 14, the arbitrator may also make an award requiring that a party at fault pays costs which it has caused the other party to incur (6B) For the purposes of 6A, a party is at fault where the arbitrator considers that the conduct of the party before or during the proceedings is unreasonable or improper." This amendment would empower the arbitrator to make an adverse costs award where the arbitrator considers that a party has acted unreasonably or improperly. Government amendments 7, 8 and 18 to 21 Amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 19, line 6, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (a) This amendment would extend the debt claims over which a party could apply to the court for the proceedings to be stayed to claims made before 10 November 2021.
Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority — House of Commons, 2022-01-12
Topic: Government Operations
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): I rise briefly to support the motion. As the Leader of the House has outlined, there has been a fair and rigorous process. It has been done entirely in accordance with statute. I just wish to add for the record our thanks on behalf of the Commission and the House to the board members who conducted the recruitment competition, chaired by Clerk Assistant Sarah Davies. We thank our former colleague, Sir David Crausby, Diana DeCoteau, head of reward and employee engagement, and Isabel Doverty, independent panel member. I know that a fair and rigorous recruitment process takes time, thought and effort, and I wish to add for the record our thanks to them. I look forward to working with Ms Middleton soon on SCIPSA.
Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority — House of Commons, 2022-01-12
Topic: Government Operations
John Francis Spellar (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I have no knowledge of or animus towards the individual concerned, but once again it is the great and the good. She is someone who has just recently retired from HMRC. How cosy that they all slot into these positions. It is never truck drivers who are keeping the country going, or nursing sisters who are keeping the health service going, or those from a whole range of occupations—it is always out of the quangocrats and retired civil servants. I would hope that the Scottish National party and our own Front Benchers would be saying, "We need a broader range of people in public appointments, and not just the same merry-go-round of the great and the good"—however good they may be, and who knows whether they are great.
Delegated Legislation — House of Commons, 2022-01-12
Topic: Transportation
Rosalie Winterton (Labour, Centre-left): With the leave of the House we shall take motions 7 and 8 together Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Civil Aviation That the draft Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services Licence Modification Appeals) (Prescribed Aerodromes) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 15 November 2021, be approved Enterprise That the draft Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and Pubs Code etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 30 November 2021, be approved.—(Andrea Jenkyns.) Question agreed to. Adjournment Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrea Jenkyns.)
Strength of the Union — House of Commons, 2022-02-02
Topic: Law and Crime
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): The Sue Gray report released on Monday was utterly damning about the Prime Minister’s conduct, yet the Secretary of State continues to back him against the wishes of his own Scottish Conservative leader, who I notice is not in the Chamber for Scottish questions. We now know that the Metropolitan police are investigating no fewer than 12 incidents in Downing Street, with more allegations every day. It is little wonder then that a recent poll found that the Prime Minister is as unpopular in Scotland as Alex Salmond. Does the Secretary of State think that the Prime Minister, in refusing to do the decent thing and resign, is good for the Union or helps those who want to break it up?
Strength of the Union — House of Commons, 2022-02-02
Topic: Energy
Ian Murray (Labour, Centre-left): What is Groundhog day, Mr Speaker, is the Secretary of State’s defence of this broken Prime Minister Tomorrow, the Bank of England is projected to raise interest rates, and inflation is running at a 30-year high. There will be much anxiety in Scottish households that Ofgem will announce the raising of the energy price cap, leading to a massive hike in bills. Last night, my colleagues and I voted to give every single Scottish household support towards the cost of their spiralling energy bills. Under Labour’s fully costed plans, we would save every Scottish household £200 and save £600 for over 800,000 Scottish households hardest hit by the cost of living crisis. That is proper action on this crisis for those both on and off the grid, like many thousands in the Secretary of State’s constituency. Given that the SNP did not back these plans in the vote last night either, why are Scotland’s two Governments refusing to take any action whatsoever to help Scots with spiralling energy costs?
Coastal Communities — House of Commons, 2022-02-02
Topic: Energy
Mary Elizabeth Twist (Labour, Centre-left): The ScotWind allocation announced last week has the opportunity to create thousands of jobs in Scotland. The reality is that in its time in office the Scottish National party has created lots of highly-skilled jobs, but they are not in Scotland—they are in China, Poland, Portugal and elsewhere. The Scottish Government failed to put in place sufficient demands for local procurement as part of awarding the contract; it is particularly disappointing for coastal communities, who can see offshore wind turbines being installed but cannot see the jobs. What discussion has the Minister had with the Scottish Government about ensuring that the supply chain for ScotWind creates jobs in Scotland and across the UK?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2022-02-02
Topic: Macroeconomics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): Following your opening remarks, Mr Speaker, I want to say to Government Members that theirs is the party of Winston Churchill. Our parties stood together as we defeated fascism in Europe. Now their leader stands in the House of Commons parroting the conspiracy theories of violent fascists to try to score cheap political points. He knows exactly what he is doing. It is time to restore some dignity One of the most absurd claims made on behalf of Operation Save Big Dog is the Prime Minister and the Chancellor writing in The Sunday Times that they are the "tax-cutting Conservatives." Why do these alleged tax cutters keep raising taxes on working people?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2022-02-02
Topic: Macroeconomics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): It is not just the national insurance rise. Thresholds for income tax frozen—a stealth tax on working people. The threshold for tuition fees frozen—a stealth tax on working people. Local authorities forced to increase council tax—a stealth tax on working people. You can be as stealthy as you like, but you cannot hide reality. We have the highest tax burden for 70 years in the middle of an inflation crisis. I ask the Prime Minister again: why do he and the Chancellor keep raising taxes on working people?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2022-02-02
Topic: Macroeconomics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): Lots of words, lots of bluster, but no answers. A word of warning, Prime Minister: that will not work with the police I will tell the Prime Minister why the Government are putting taxes up: low growth. In the decade of Tory Government before the pandemic, growth slumped. It was much, much weaker than under the last Labour Government. If the Tories matched our record on growth, we would have £30 billion more to spend on public services without having to raise a single tax. Surely even this Prime Minister does not need someone else to tell him that he and the Chancellor are having to raise taxes because the Tories failed to grow the economy over a decade.
Engagements — House of Commons, 2022-02-02
Topic: Macroeconomics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): The UK has suffered the worst economic crisis in the G7. The Prime Minister has more chance of persuading the public that he did not hold any parties than he has of persuading them that the economy is booming. High taxes are not just the result of low growth. Under this Government we have seen a pandemic of waste and fraud, from the Prime Minister’s yacht to Government contracts for mates of Ministers. They have treated taxpayers as an ATM for their mates and their lifestyles. Now we find that they have written off £8.7 billion on personal protective equipment and the Chancellor is writing off £4.3 billion in fraud. That is enough to cover the tax hike he is inflicting on working people. Why did this Government block the National Crime Agency from investigating all the billions they lost to fraud?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2022-02-02
Topic: Macroeconomics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): The Prime Minister might want to sharpen how he answers questions under interview; he is going to need to in the next few weeks. Waste and low growth explain why we have high taxes, but they do not explain why it is always working people who are asked to pay more. Yesterday he ordered his troops not to support a windfall tax on oil and gas companies. As a result, the country is missing out on over £1 billion that we could have used to cut taxes on energy bills for working people. Today he is ordering his troops to vote for tax cuts for banks. As a result, the country is missing out on another £1 billion that we could have spent cutting taxes for working people. Why are the Chancellor and the Prime Minister protecting oil companies and bank profits while putting taxes up on working people?
Engagements — House of Commons, 2022-02-02
Topic: Macroeconomics
Keir Starmer (Labour, Centre-left): For all the bluster, the truth is that the Conservative party is the party of high taxes because it is the party of low growth; it is the party of high taxes because it is the party of eye-watering waste We know that this Prime Minister has no respect for decency or honesty. I can take it when it is aimed at me, but I will not accept it when he gaslights the British public, writing absurd articles about cutting taxes at a time when he is squeezing working people to the pips. Isn’t it the case that he and his Chancellor are the Tory Thelma and Louise, hand in hand as they drive the country off the cliff, and into the abyss of low growth and high tax? [Interruption.]
Speaker’s Statement — House of Commons, 2022-02-02
Topic: Labor
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): We now come to tributes to Jack Dromey Jack made his mark long before he came into this House, in particular as a fearless, energetic trade unionist. I remember campaigning with him in the ’80s and ’90s to save the Royal Ordnance factory in Chorley. He was positive, down to earth, and determined to help working people—characteristics that remained with him throughout his career. I have to say, as somebody who knew Jack and worked with Jack: he was innovative; he was absolutely visionary. We sat down, upon a closure where thousands of jobs were going to go, and Jack said, "We’re in this together; we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the people whose jobs are at risk." He said, "We’ve got to look beyond what kills people. We can do something different. Let us look for alternatives that save people’s lives." The expertise that was in Royal Ordnance Chorley was second to none. Of course we had to fight for the jobs in the first place. It became a choice between Glascoed and Chorley, and Jack said, "With the land values we know where British Aerospace will be." In the end we came up with real alternatives. We had seen Lockerbie. We had seen the destruction and the loss of life, and in Chorley they designed a cargo that stopped the plane coming down. That was the vision of Jack, who said, "If we can’t save the jobs in making bombs, let us save jobs by finding an alternative to save lives." So that is my personal experience of Jack Dromey. I knew him on other occasions, but I have to say: he was inspirational to me and he has been inspirational to many others in this House Since his election to this House in 2010, he proved to be an exemplary Member of Parliament. He was an assiduous and effective campaigner for his constituents. As a Front Bencher, he was trusted to lead for the party in particularly sensitive areas such as housing, policing, pensions, and, most recently, immigration. While he was a robust Front Bencher, he always demonstrated respect for his opponents and was well like and admired across the House. Nobody could fall out with Jack Dromey While we mourn a colleague, it is Jack’s family who will of course feel the loss most deeply. I know the whole House will join me in expressing our condolences to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). Harriet, I know that all Members of this House will join me in saying to you and your family that we are so sorry for your loss, and it is a sad loss for this House I will now take brief points of order to allow for tributes to an esteemed colleague.