argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: In Chelmsford, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the youth offender programme have occasionally recommended that a young offender be placed on a curfew in order to safeguard that young person from being further targeted by criminal gangs, but sometimes the magistrates are not fully aware of the circumstances and overturn the curfew. May I encourage Ministers to encourage the magistrates to work more closely on sharing information between services, so that the full information can be taken into account?; On Friday, I visited Nottingham Prison; I am grateful for the support of the prisons Minister in securing that meeting. Drugs continue to be a significant problem in our prison, as in many others, and body scanners are a really important way of tackling that. What is the Government’s current position on the use of body scanners and when will we get them in Nottingham?; I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for asking almost exactly the question that I was about to ask, because that gives me the opportunity to expand on the answer he was given. Will the Minister tell us a little more about whether the Government are minded to make Spice and Mamba—drugs that are causing huge problems in Nottingham Prison and many others—class A drugs? What other strategies do we have to reduce the amount of drugs in prisons?
Huw William Merriman (Conservative, Centre-right): Citing reputational reasons, one of my local authority employers failed to keep on a member of staff after a probation period because of a spent conviction that was known about. Would public sector employers not get a better reputation if they helped to turn people’s lives around when they want to put something back into society?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: In Chelmsford, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the youth offender programme have occasionally recommended that a young offender be placed on a curfew in order to safeguard that young person from being further targeted by criminal gangs, but sometimes the magistrates are not fully aware of the circumstances and overturn the curfew. May I encourage Ministers to encourage the magistrates to work more closely on sharing information between services, so that the full information can be taken into account?; On Friday, I visited Nottingham Prison; I am grateful for the support of the prisons Minister in securing that meeting. Drugs continue to be a significant problem in our prison, as in many others, and body scanners are a really important way of tackling that. What is the Government’s current position on the use of body scanners and when will we get them in Nottingham?; I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for asking almost exactly the question that I was about to ask, because that gives me the opportunity to expand on the answer he was given. Will the Minister tell us a little more about whether the Government are minded to make Spice and Mamba—drugs that are causing huge problems in Nottingham Prison and many others—class A drugs? What other strategies do we have to reduce the amount of drugs in prisons?; My constituents Gemma and Paul Black were devastated last year when their 22-month-old daughter, Pearl Melody Black, was killed by a runaway car. I understand that the police and Crown Prosecution Service have been unable to bring charges because of a loophole in the law. Will the Secretary of State or a Minister meet me, possibly with Department for Transport colleagues, to discuss how we can avoid having other parents facing this suffering?; Too many prisoners are in desperate need of drug rehabilitation services. How many inmates are currently using drug rehabilitation services and what is the MOJ’s target for 2019?; What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Secretary on the use of Clare’s law in cases where a restraining order has been granted through a civil process, which puts the onus on the victim?; The Scottish Government have raised concerns about the effectiveness of the European arrest warrant as European member states will be permitted to operate constitutional bans on extraditing their citizens during transition. Can the Minister clarify this situation?; The Tories have cut £1 billion off the legal aid budget to the poor. This has meant a cut of 99.5% in the number of people receiving legal aid for benefit cases. Will the Tories sleep well at Christmas knowing that they are starving the poor?
Lucy Claire Leigh (Frazer) (Conservative, Centre-right): I know that the hon. Lady has campaigned very hard on this. I was very pleased to answer her debate shortly after my appointment. As she knows, the appeal bar is set in relation to all cases, not just in relation to this case, but I am very happy to discuss this issue in a meeting with her.
ONS Decisions: Student Loans — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
Elizabeth Mary Truss (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend is correct; that was done under a previous Labour Government. In fact, that Government also introduced tuition fees, which I supported at the time and continue to support. I probably have more in common with some of the last Labour Government than many Members on the Labour Front Bench today. In those days, the Treasury marked its own homework. We have moved on. We now have the independent OBR, which makes decisions about forecasts, and that is the right approach. We are listening to this accounting advice and will take it on board. It will not affect decisions about how we conduct the Augar review or about student finance.
ONS Decisions: Student Loans — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): What the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) conveyed to the House was quite extraordinarily interesting, but most of it did suffer from the notable disadvantage that it did not constitute a question. We got to a question mark very belatedly.
Modernising Defence Programme — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): There is much interest in this statement, but I point out to the House that there is a Standing Order No. 24 debate to follow and then the Second Reading of a Bill. There is, therefore, a premium upon brevity and I am keen to move on at, or extremely close to, two o’clock. Some people might not get in on this statement.
Modernising Defence Programme — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
Gavin Alexander Williamson (Conservative, Centre-right): My right hon. Friend always tries to tempt me with that question. I read his report with interest. He makes a point about an early debate. That would certainly be very welcome. I will make representations to the usual channels to see if that can be granted.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving me advance notice of her intended point of order. The short answer to her question is that I have had no such indication from the Government that they have any intention of acceding to the request for a debate on the motion, although I have no doubt that her plea has been heard on the Treasury Bench. For the avoidance of doubt and in the name of better public understanding of our procedures, I should make it clear that there is a strong convention that the Government provide time at an early opportunity for a no-confidence motion in Her Majesty’s Government if tabled by the official Opposition. However—and this is important—no such convention applies in relation to this particular motion, which is not a conventional no-confidence motion. So that is where things stand at present and I do not think I can add anything further, but the hon. Lady has put her point on the record.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): Well, if the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) really must. I will come to the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey). We are keeping him waiting, but I am sure he will be worth waiting for.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
Anna Mary Soubry (Conservative, Centre-right): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I put on record how much I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on his point of order? This might be a first, but it is an important one. Have you had any communication with Her Majesty’s Opposition to assist them with the correct procedure? Is it not the case that you and your excellent Clerks are always available to Her Majesty’s Opposition, should they seek any information or advice on how to conduct themselves as a proper, functioning Opposition?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I am not aware of any precedent for what he cheekily suggests. However, I would say to him that it is perfectly open to Members to table early-day motions. He is nothing if not an adroit and assiduous Member of the House and, if my memory serves me correctly, he is not entirely unfamiliar with that device.
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
John Simon Bercow (Conservative, Centre-right): The short answer is that the art of persuasion is, I think, the only approach that could possibly succeed in bringing forward that vote. I have explained what the powers of the Chair are, and what they are not. I quite understand that many Members would like to get on with the conclusion of that debate—or with the beginning, continuation and conclusion of it if it is an entirely new debate—followed by the vote, but it is not for the Chair to bring that about. The hon. Gentleman asks how he could bring it about, and I think the answer is through the art of persuasion and the use of the charm and guile for which he is well renowned, at least in his own constituency and perhaps beyond.
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Civil Rights
Simon James Hoare (Conservative, Centre-right): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for knowing parliamentary procedure and for calling for the motion to be tabled correctly. I have been calling for the Labour party to grow up and table the motion with which it keeps threatening us I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the people’s vote, about which I have a sincere question. He is unhappy with the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum and with the outcome of the 2016 referendum. Why would he accept the outcome of a people’s vote any more than he has accepted the other two?
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. I would like to hear the right hon. Gentleman, even if nobody else does. I want to hear what he is saying, and he will be treated with the courtesy due to the leader of a party in this place.
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): Notwithstanding the tone of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), or indeed his conclusion asking the Prime Minister to stand down—in opening his remarks he asked the Prime Minister to stand here and reply—and notwithstanding the inherent contradictions at both the start and the end of his speech, I congratulate him on securing the debate. I recognise that this is an important issue and one on which I know, given that the Prime Minister took questions for two and a half hours yesterday, many Members wish to contribute. I shall therefore keep my remarks relatively brief, but I wish to address directly a number of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He opened his speech by saying that there is a binary choice—
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): I am slightly confused: I am simply quoting back to the right hon. Gentleman how he opened his speech, which he seems to be taking issue with. Members might be forgiven for having slightly lost the train of his argument, but let me remind them—
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): Of course I will give way to the hon. Lady, but the point is that if one is talking of honesty and listening to the electorate, the starting point is to respect the decisions that the electorate take.
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): I appreciate that the hon. and learned Lady has very cleverly made her point into a point of order by asking my advice. I say to her that, of course, she does not need my advice, as she has just taken the opportunity of her point of order to put her point on the record. It is not for me to judge whether the hon. Lady or the hon. and learned Lady are correct in their interpretation of something that has happened in another Parliament, but I am satisfied that both points of view have been put to the Chamber.
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. Nobody can come here and "make stuff up" that is not correct, but this is a debating chamber, and there are opinions on both sides of the House. I would be the first to say that, if this is a matter of fact, I am concerned that a matter of fact should be properly represented in this Chamber—[Interruption.] Order!
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. [Interruption.] Order. We will have no more on this subject. The fact is that there are different interpretations of the actions of people in a Parliament other than this. I am satisfied that both sides have been heard, and that the facts are on the record. We will leave aside that point of order and allow the Secretary of State to continue with his speech.
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is perhaps not a surprise that, notwith- standing its 800 pages, one could finish reading it and still be left confused as to what the SNP’s position is.
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. Again, I am not the adjudicator of whether what any Member says here is correct as far as other Members are concerned, but it is my duty and my intention to make sure that the facts and the truth are always on the record. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State will deal with that point.
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
Rebecca Faye Clark (Pow) (Conservative, Centre-right): Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to provide security for the economy is to agree the deal? We heard a great deal from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) about jeopardising jobs and people losing jobs. If we agreed the deal and the Prime Minister could get some security over the backstop, it would provide the greatest security for jobs that we could give the whole nation, including the Scottish.
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Immigration
Stephen Paul Barclay (Conservative, Centre-right): I am sure my hon. Friend speaks for the vast majority of businesses in Taunton Deane and elsewhere in the United Kingdom that want the certainty of a deal, the benefits of an implementation period that allows businesses to continue trading as now until the end of 2020, and the many other benefits secured by this deal, including a skills-based immigration system, the protections for 3 million EU citizens living in the UK and over 1 million UK nationals living in the EU, an end to spending vast sums of money and control of our fishing policy.
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
James Stephen Heappey (Conservative, Centre-right): It might be argued that the Government are not the only part of this House to be kicking the can down the road, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may well have been wanting to participate in a different debate today. Is that not happening because his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is inept, or invertebrate?
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Other
Eleanor Fulton Laing (Conservative, Centre-right): Order. Before I call the next speaker, the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), let me say that it will be obvious to the House that a great many Members wish to speak, and we have only until just after 5 o’clock. We must therefore have a formal time limit, starting with five minutes. I know that that will be difficult for the right hon. Lady, but she will deal with it.
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Civil Rights
Kirstene Janette Hair (Conservative, Centre-right): In the Scottish Parliament today, the Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Relations was asked whether he would respect the result of a second referendum, and he would not answer. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman: would he respect it?
EU Withdrawal Agreement — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
James Stephen Heappey (Conservative, Centre-right): It is a pleasure to follow the impassioned speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) We are having an emergency debate on matters that are presumably of great importance and urgency, otherwise it would not be an emergency. Yet, having spoken in the Standing Order No. 24 debate roughly this time last week, one has to conclude that we seem to be having exactly the same discussion today as we had last week. It is therefore rather hard to understand exactly how this is an emergency. I suppose this debate was the insurance policy. One cannot blame SNP Members for seeking it, because I suspect they had their doubts about the ability of the Labour Front Benchers to put forward the motion that we thought we were all going to be debating today As I asked the Secretary of State earlier—he blushed and declined to answer—it is not quite clear whether it was the ineptitude or the invertebrateness of the Leader of the Opposition that led to the SNP motion being preferred over the official Opposition’s. But here we are, effectively having exactly the same debate that we had last week—yet more time in which we are chewing over exactly the same issues as we have been for hour after hour over the recent weeks and months The Prime Minister and her Ministers have spent hours in this Chamber, taking questions at the Dispatch Box. The debate on the meaningful vote was three days in. I have to admit that I caught sight of the Whips’ book while I sat near them during those three days, and every single line read, "Disagree". The mood of the House towards the deal as it stood then was absolutely obvious. Rather than proceeding to a meaningful vote last week when it was clear that the House was against it, we went away and sought something different, and when that was not immediately achieved in last week’s summit, we said, "Okay, we’ll give ourselves the Christmas period to push even harder and see if something different can be achieved." That seems to me to be a very rational, very sensible approach by a Prime Minister and a Government acting in the national interest.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time Every Member of this House will agree that we have a duty of care to the most vulnerable in our society, and that everybody deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter what their physical or mental condition. I hope that the House will also agree that liberty is a fundamental right, and that no decision on the deprivation of liberty can ever be taken lightly. Such decisions can be taken only to protect society or individuals. There are currently 2 million people in this country who have impaired mental capacity. Care homes and hospitals often have to take decisions to restrict people’s movements in order to protect them. That could involve preventing elderly people with dementia from moving, or stopping vulnerable people getting access to things that they could use to self-harm. The present deprivation of liberty safeguards are meant to ensure that people who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves are not deprived of their liberty unfairly or unnecessarily, but the current system is broken and needs to change.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): The resource question is an important one, and so too is the process. The question of resources and the question of what the process is go hand in hand. There has been an increase in the amount of resources given to local authorities to enable them to deliver in this area, but the question will undoubtedly arise again as we run up to the spending review.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Immigration
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): I want to make a little bit of progress. For many reasons, the current system is broken. Too many people do not have the protections they need because of a bureaucratic backlog. There are currently more than 125,000 people waiting to be processed, and nearly 50,000 people have been waiting for over a year.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Civil Rights
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): I have had some discussions on that subject, and I am happy for the hon. Lady to take up that point in more detail either directly with me or with the Minister for Care, or in Committee, because there are significant interlinkages between the two areas The Bill builds on the extensive work and recommendations of the Law Commission. It has been fully scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and then improved by the other place, as has been discussed. I am grateful for all that work. Ultimately, it is about striking a balance between liberty and protection.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of getting highly trained social workers to make these judgments and about the importance of making sure such training is provided for and embedded in the Bill. He speaks powerfully, and I agree with how he puts it The Bill introduces a new liberty protection safeguards system, and it makes the authorisation simpler and more straightforward. It removes some bureaucracy and duplication, and it makes the system easier to navigate for individuals and their family. People will get their rights protections sooner, there will be greater independence when decisions are taken to restrict liberty, and the NHS and social care providers will be given a bigger role in the decision-making process so that people under their care receive the right care and their rights will be protected. It will introduce an explicit duty to consult the person being cared for and to consider their wishes and feelings.
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2018-12-18
Topic: Civil Rights
Matthew John David Hancock (Conservative, Centre-right): An appropriate person will have greater involvement in any decision to restrict liberty, so their role is essentially to speak for those whose liberty is potentially being restricted. We have framed this in terms of an "appropriate person" because in large part this will be a family member or a carer, but that cannot always be the case.