argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
English Votes on English Laws — House of Commons, 2015-07-07
Topic: Government Operations
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) on a truly magnificent maiden speech? He was unfortunate that his time was limited, but I am sure the House will hear more from him in the future If there were any doubt about the need for this debate, it has surely been dispelled by the way in which it has been conducted and by its content. Several issues have come to light. First, the Government are going to create two tiers of MP: that will be the inevitable consequence of their double majority. Secondly, English Members of Parliament will have a veto, but, according to the Leader of the House, a veto will not be afforded to the Scottish Parliament, because the Government insist on the continuation of the Sewel convention The most important issue, and that which causes most concern, is the politicisation of your role, Mr Speaker, because you will be put in the position of having to arbitrate on these questions and then not have to give any reasons for your decision. Surely that means that we will be left to speculate on the Chair’s reasons, and such speculation cannot be sensible or, indeed, healthy in a political forum. We will be excluded not from debate, but from decisions. That is no way to run a Parliament The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) said that she was acting on the resentment of her constituents. I do not doubt that that resentment is real, but I invite her to reflect on whether that is really the proper basis on which to proceed with changes of this sort. What she is supporting will merely reinforce that resentment, rather than address the underlying reasons for it. I am not going to burst into song, but if I were I would turn to the late great Johnny Nash, who said: "There are more questions than answers And the more I find out, the less I know" I am afraid that that is where we are.
European Union Reform (Negotiations) — House of Commons, 2015-10-20
Topic: Foreign Trade
Questions: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that apart from some technical changes relating to the right of EU citizens to claim welfare payments, the basic principle of free movement of people is not going to change in the renegotiations?; What progress is being made to ensure that this Parliament, by itself if necessary, can say no to any unwanted EU directives, tax or regulations?
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Will the Foreign Secretary comment on the solid progress being made on one of the five principles for the Prime Minister’s vision for a new European Union—that is, the competitiveness agenda and specifically, for instance, delivery charges for items posted within the EU, or trade deals with the US?
Steel Industry — House of Commons, 2015-10-20
Topic: Foreign Trade
Gregory Thomas Mulholland (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The first thoughts of those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches are of course with those affected by this devastating news. I must bring to the attention of the Secretary of State his predecessor’s comments in last week’s Standard, where he said that it is clear where the focus of Government attention is when all the focus during the Chinese visit is on currency convertability, to help the banking sector and not on dealing with this problem of the dumping of Chinese steel, which is affecting British manufacturing. Will he give an assurance now that the Prime Minister will raise this specifically with the Chinese premier today?
Tax Credits — House of Commons, 2015-10-20
Topic: Macroeconomics
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, because I agree with an awful lot of his analysis of the problems caused by the whole system of tax credits. The difficulty is that we do not start with a blank sheet of paper. The fact is that the cuts are in the here and now, whereas the possible increase in wages will come only in the future. Can he really see any employer giving somebody a wage rise because they have just had a third child who will not be eligible now for tax credits?
Syria: Refugees and Counter-terrorism — House of Commons, 2015-09-07
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Does the Prime Minister agree that our priority in relation to Syria should be to work with other Arab countries and Iran, Russia, France and Germany to find a coherent response to the fighting in the region, and that we should not repeat the mistakes of the Iraq war—a war opposed by the Liberal Democrats—by following the US Government into bombing and then occupying an Arab country?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-07
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the two groups of people he has identified in his amendment are those who will potentially be the most affected, particularly if the UK votes to come out of the European Union?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-07
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Are there any circumstances in which it would be legitimate for a BBC reporter to ask a UK business that trades with Europe whether there would be an impact on that business were the UK to come out of the European Union?
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-07
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am getting more confused, because now the right hon. Gentleman is drawing a parallel between the impact that coming out of the EU would have on a business and the impact on a social worker. Perhaps he would like to explain in what way the UK coming out of the EU would have an impact on a social worker.
European Union Referendum Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-07
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): And wiping out the Lib Dems would be the final segment I want to make a few points about amendments 8, 19, 17, 20, 21 and 23. With regard to votes at 16 and 17, I will not repeat the arguments that have already been set out on Second Reading and in this debate, but clearly it is something we support. One of the fundamental reasons why we support votes at 16 and 17 in the EU referendum is that young people could be deprived of the benefits of our EU membership, such as the ability to live and work abroad. That would be extremely regrettable, because it would close down their options Amendments 20 and 21 were tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who is no longer in his place. I assume that he did so—I support him in this—to try to initiate some sort of debate, because one thing that is sorely lacking in debates on our membership of the EU is the impact that pulling out would have on UK citizens who live elsewhere in the EU and on other EU citizens who live in UK. I think that he was trying to trigger that debate, because those who support leaving the European Union have to start talking about that. It is only fair that they set out what they think the impact would be on the millions of EU citizens who live in the UK, and on the millions of UK citizens who live elsewhere in the European Union When the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) referred to precedent, I hope that he was not saying that the Labour party could not move on the issue of votes for EU citizens in the UK simply because there was no precedent for that anywhere else in the EU. If we always waited for a precedent to be set, we would never do anything. I hope that there are other reasons why the Labour party cannot support that, although it was not entirely clear what they were. All he referred to was the fact that precedents elsewhere in the EU were against that happening Government amendment 23 relates to the wording of the referendum question. Like the official Opposition, we accept the wording put forward by the Electoral Commission, but we are disappointed that it is more complicated than the original question. Indeed, the Electoral Commission has suggested in its own findings that the change was not necessary because there was no evidence to suggest that the original question resulted in participants changing their voting preferences. I am slightly confused about why the Electoral Commission then felt that it was necessary to put forward an alternative and more complicated question, but that is where we are and that is what it has set out.
Education and Adoption Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-16
Topic: Education
John David Pugh (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I rise in support of new clauses 3 and 9, and to make a few remarks about amendment 11 What bothers me about this legislation is the issue of consultation, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), and parental consultation in particular. That is a long-term anxiety for me, because I am aware of local schools in my constituency that have been subjected to horrific bullying by academy brokers to convert to academies, and I would not wish that replicated anywhere else.
Education and Adoption Bill — House of Commons, 2015-09-16
Topic: Education
John David Pugh (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I will consider the hon. Gentleman’s comments carefully. I am certainly happy with the idea of local decision making—I just wish the Government were more comfortable with it—and I think that we as politicians can do little to improve the educational landscape. We can change structures all the time, but they are not what makes a substantial difference: what makes a difference are the things that we normally cannot control or create but which, if we introduce the wrong kind of legislation, we can certainly frustrate.
G20 and Paris Attacks — House of Commons, 2015-11-17
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I have met a number of Syrians during the past couple of weeks, including a very brave citizen journalist, who is about to return to Syria. They are unanimous in calling for a no-bombing zone in Syria to stop civilians being killed by Assad’s barrel bombs. Will the Prime Minister reassure us that he will ensure that the views of Syrian civilians are taken into account in relation to any UK military action?
M6 — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
John David Pugh (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): This is absolutely currently the most appalling bit of the motorway network anywhere in England. Has the Minister factored into his plans further economic growth in the north and the need to shift freight to rail?
Transport Infrastructure — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Transportation
Questions: How much the Government plan to spend on transport infrastructure between 2015 and 2020; and how much was spent on such infrastructure between 2010 and 2015.
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): Would the Secretary of State or the rail Minister be willing to discuss with me the issue of transport infrastructure investment in south London? Proposals from Transport for London and the Department for Transport, on which local authorities have not been consulted, would lead to a reduction in the number of fast services to Victoria, and I should like to discuss that with Ministers.
Emergency Towing Vessels: Northern Isles — House of Commons, 2015-12-10
Topic: Energy
Questions: What recent representations he has received on the future of emergency towing vessels in the northern isles; and if he will make a statement.
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The Secretary of State will remember the interesting and lively discussions we had leading up to the decision to retain that emergency towing vessel in 2011. He will recall that the people in the MCA and in his Department who wanted to remove it then argued that cover could be provided by the offshore oil and gas industry working in the region. He will also be aware that the price of oil has fallen sharply since then and that there is now much less activity in the north North sea. May I gently say to him that the case that led to the right decision in 2011 is even stronger today than it was then?
Northern Ireland — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: International Affairs
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): May I join others in welcoming the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) to his new position? The maintenance of a bipartisan approach in this House has been enormously useful and necessary at times to keep the peace process on track. I say to the Secretary of State, in the nicest way possible, that that may occasionally mean that she and her colleagues will have to resist the temptation to make the most obvious digs, however tempting that may be May I welcome, albeit with a heavy heart, the Secretary of State’s recognition of the possible need to create a future Independent Monitoring Commission-type body? May I encourage her to talk to the parties in Northern Ireland and, indeed, the Irish Government and other interested Governments about the remit and possible membership of that body so that, should its constitution ever be necessary, it can be done as effectively and as quickly as possible?
Tax Credits — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Macroeconomics
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): It is unfortunate that we have only 90 minutes to debate the regulations, but it is absolutely right that we should debate them on the Floor of the House. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) has done us a great service in bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. It is worth reflecting, however, that the reason why there is not more public outrage about the proposed changes is a reflection of the sheer complexity of our tax and benefit system. That will have to be addressed—not in this way—in the medium to long term There was a lot in the Minister’s speech with which I could agree quite easily. When he spoke about the importance of raising the personal tax allowance, the very welcome increases to the minimum wage and the importance of providing better childcare provision, those are all things with which I could have no difficulty. The difficulty I have with the regulations is that at a stroke they negate the benefits the Minister outlined. It ought surely to be a matter of common consensus in all parts of the House that the best route out of poverty is through work, but what the Government are doing today is giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
Tax Credits — House of Commons, 2015-09-15
Topic: Labor
Alexander Morrison Carmichael (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am sorry, but I am short of time The average household in social housing could lose up to £1,700 a year under the changes. That means for every extra £1 earned, they will lose up to 93p in benefits. That is why the Government are not true to their stated intent to encourage people off welfare and into work by bringing forward changes of this sort. To understand why today’s statutory instrument is the wrong measure at the wrong time, it is worth reflecting on what happened to people’s employment circumstances after the 2008 crash. We expected steep rises in unemployment, and sure enough it went up, but not to the extent we expected, because employers kept people in work. However, their wages were frozen or reduced and those in part-time employment saw their hours cut. We can now see the light at the end of the tunnel—at last, we are seeing some wage inflation—but surely at this moment the Government should be encouraging people to take more hours, not removing the incentives to do so The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made a characteristically thoughtful contribution, and one of the most significant. He said the Government’s proposals were strategically correct. He might well be right about that, but what he said thereafter in the rest of his contribution indicated they were tactically inept. I address myself to him and other Government Members who share his concerns, because they are part of the most powerful group in the House: Government Back Benchers. The Government have a majority of 12, so it needs only six of them to vote with us to take this down and make them think again. I say to him, because I know he is a genuine man, that if he has not had his assurances and compensations before the vote, he will not get them after it.
Investigatory Powers: Police/Security Services — House of Commons, 2015-11-16
Topic: Law and Crime
Questions: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that investigatory powers used by the police and the security services are defined in a legal framework.; What steps she has taken to ensure that the powers proposed for the police in the draft Investigatory Powers Bill are transparent and subject to oversight.
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): The dreadful events in Paris make it even more important that the draft Investigatory Powers Bill is subject to full and proper scrutiny by the Joint Committee to ensure that it provides both maximum security for our citizens and the toughest protection of our civil liberties. Can the Home Secretary confirm that it will get that full and proper scrutiny and that it will not be fast-tracked?
Europe: Renegotiation — House of Commons, 2015-11-10
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am relieved that the Prime Minister has finally outlined his negotiating stance, and I wish him every success with it, because I want him to be able to bang the drum enthusiastically for our EU membership. Will the Minister confirm that, if meaningful reform is secured, the Prime Minister and the European Union will not have to deliver fully on all the fronts set out in the Prime Minister’s letter, including on in-work benefits, for the Prime Minister to be able to campaign vigorously in favour of the UK’s continued EU membership, the benefits of which were clearly set out in the EU’s balance of competences review?
Dangerous Driving: Sentencing — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Law and Crime
Gregory Thomas Mulholland (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I thank the Minister for his answer, and for the real interest that he has shown in this issue. As he knows, we have presented a manifesto for better justice for victims of criminal driving, on behalf of a cross-party group of MPs and other organisations. Could we have a formal, point-by-point response to that from the Department? Will he also meet us again to discuss those points, so that we can get better justice for those people and their families?
Points of Order — House of Commons, 2015-11-03
Topic: Transportation
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that Steve O’Connell, the London Assembly member for Croydon and Sutton, has been sending emails to my constituents in which he states that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who is in his place, is happy to take up cases to do with rail services on behalf of my constituents. I seek your guidance on this, Mr Speaker. I will give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt on this, as he is a new Member and I want to have a good working relationship with him, but could you remind me whether there is a convention relating to these matters, of which it might be useful to remind the House?
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-12-07
Topic: Macroeconomics
Norman Peter Lamb (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I share the hon. Gentleman’s view about financial powers going alongside the responsibility for providing services, but does he not agree that there is a case for devolving responsibility for income tax to below the England level? Most local services in Sweden, for example, are run through tax raised locally, rather than at national level.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-12-07
Topic: Government Operations
Norman Peter Lamb (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I totally disagree with everything that he is saying. Does he not think that there is a risk that with first past the post in local government one can end up with a complete one-party state, as has happened in some Liberal Democrat councils, some Conservative councils and, indeed, some Labour councils? The net result is a sort of rotten borough with poor local government and no accountability.
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2015-12-07
Topic: Government Operations
Norman Peter Lamb (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I would like the Minister to reassure the House that the emphasis will be—I think the shadow Minister made the point in his contribution—on consensus and that we should only get to the point of imposing this if all else fails. Will the Government issue guidance to ensure that the emphasis is on local agreement?
Domestic Oil Purchasing Syndicates — House of Commons, 2015-12-07
Topic: Energy
Mark Fraser Williams (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of domestic oil purchasing syndicates in my own constituency and in many rural communities throughout the United Kingdom. This is apparently not the most scintillating of titles for a debate, but I believe that the subject is of significance, certainly for my constituents.
Serjeant at Arms — House of Commons, 2015-09-17
Topic: Government Operations
Thomas Anthony Brake (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): I beg to move, That this House expresses its appreciation to Lawrence Ward for his distinguished service to this House, including three years as Serjeant at Arms, and extends to him its best wishes for the future I would like to place on the record my sincerest thanks to Lawrence on behalf of myself, the Liberal Democrats, and the House as a whole. He has served this place with great distinction for the past three years as Serjeant at Arms, and the Commons is a great deal better for it. Lawrence began working in the House in 1997 and has served this place in a number of different roles. His skill, dedication and professionalism have always marked him out, and provide a model for all those who are to succeed him The year 2015 marks the 600th anniversary of the role of Serjeant at Arms. At this time when parliamentary politics is being vigorously challenged and is under ever greater scrutiny, it is essential that the House remains open and more relevant to the people we serve. The modern-day role of the Serjeant at Arms and his duty to balance the safety of Members and staff with public access is vital in achieving this. In the summer, the parliamentary educational centre, a project that the Serjeant at Arms presided over, opened. It is a fine legacy and one that will serve this place and the public well. It will provide a valuable tool in connecting our democratic work with the public at large I wish Lawrence all the very best in his new role outside Parliament.