argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Online Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Technology
Margaret Eve Hodge (Labour, Centre-left): First, congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). I think his is one of the very few appointments in these latest shenanigans that is based on expertise and ability. I really welcome him, and the work he has done on the Bill this week has been terrific. I also thank the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). When he held the position, he was open to discussion and he accepted a lot of ideas from many of us across the House. As a result, I think we have a better Bill before us today than we would have had. My gratitude goes to him as well I support much of the Bill, and its aim of making the UK the safest place to be online is one that we all share. I support the systems-based approach and the role of Ofcom. I support holding the platforms to account and the importance of protecting children. I also welcome the cross-party work that we have done as Back Benchers, and the roles played by both Ministers and by the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I thank him for his openness and his willingness to talk to us. Important amendments have been agreed on fraudulent advertising, bringing forward direct liability so there is not a two-year wait, and epilepsy trolling—my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) promoted that amendment I also welcome the commitment to bring forward amendments in the Lords relating to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam—I think those amendments are on the amendment paper but it is difficult to tell. It is important that the onus on platforms to be subject to regulation should be based not on size and functionality but on risk of harm. I look forward to seeing those amendments when they come back from the other place. We all know that the smallest platforms can present the greatest risk. The killing of 51 people in the mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand is probably the most egregious example, as the individual concerned had been on 8chan before committing that crime I am speaking to amendments 156 and 157 in my name and in the names of other hon. and right hon. Members. These amendments would address the issue of anonymous abuse. I think we all accept that anonymity is hugely important, particularly to vulnerable groups such as victims of domestic violence, victims of child abuse and whistleblowers. We want to retain anonymity for a whole range of groups and, in framing these amendments, I was very conscious of our total commitment to doing so Equally, freedom of speech is very important, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said, but freedom of speech has never meant freedom to harm, which is not a right this House should promote. It is difficult to define, and it is difficult to get the parameters correct, but we should not think that freedom of speech is an absolute right without constraints.
Online Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Government Operations
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Despite over 50 members of the Government resigning last week and many more Tory MPs submitting letters of no confidence in their own leader, the Conservative party continues to prop up this failed Prime Minister until September. They are complicit. They know—indeed, they have said—he is not fit to govern. They told the public so just days ago. Now they seem to be running scared and will not allow the Opposition to table a vote of no confidence. [Hon. Members: "Shame!"] Yes. This is yet another outrageous breach of the conventions that govern our country from a man who disrespected the Queen and illegally prorogued Parliament. Now he is breaking yet another convention. Every single day he is propped up by his Conservative colleagues, he is doing more damage to this country Mr Deputy Speaker, are you aware of any other instances where a Prime Minister has so flagrantly ignored the will of this House by refusing to grant time to debate a motion of no confidence in the Government, despite the fact that even his own party does not believe he should be Prime Minister any more? Do you agree with me that this egregious breach of democratic convention only further undermines confidence in this rotten Government?
Online Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Government Operations
Margaret Mary Beckett (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I recognise that under the present Prime Minister, this Government have specialised in constitutional innovation. Nevertheless, it certainly seems to me, and I hope it does to you and to the House authorities, that this is stretching the boundaries of what is permissible into the outrageous and beyond, and threatening the democracy of this House.
Online Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Government Operations
Angela Eagle (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The convention is that if the Leader of the Opposition tables a motion of no confidence, it is taken as the next available business. That is what has been done, yet even though we know that large swathes of the party in Government have no confidence in their Prime Minister, they are refusing to acknowledge and honour a time-honoured convention that is the only way to make a debate on that possible. Do you not agree that it is for this House of Commons to test whether any given Prime Minister has its confidence and that his or her Prime Ministership is always based on that? One of the prerequisites for being appointed Prime Minister of this country by the Queen is that that person shall have the confidence of the House of Commons. If we are not allowed to test that now, when on earth will be allowed to test it?
Online Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you know, "Erskine May" says very clearly: "By established convention, the Government always accedes to the demand from the Leader of the Opposition" in regard to a no-confidence motion. There has been a very long tradition of all sorts of different kinds of votes of no confidence. Baldwin, Melbourne, Wellington and Salisbury all resigned after a vote on an amendment to the Loyal Address; they considered that to be a vote of no confidence. Derby and Gladstone resigned after an amendment to the Budget; they considered that to be a vote of no confidence. Neville Chamberlain resigned after a motion to adjourn the House, even though he won the vote, because he saw that as a motion of no confidence. So it is preposterous that the Government are trying to say that the motion that is being tabled for tomorrow somehow does not count Let me remind Government Members that on 2 August 1965, the motion tabled by the Conservatives was: "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government and deplores the Prime Minister’s conduct of the nation’s affairs." I think this House agrees with that today. Of course, we briefly had the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which set in statute that there was only one way of having a motion of no confidence, but this Government overturned and repealed that Act. The then Minister, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), came on behalf of the Government to tell the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act: "It seems to us to be cleaner and clearer to have a return to a more classical understanding of what a vote of confidence involves." It is simple: the Prime Minister is disgraced, he does not enjoy the confidence of the House, and if he simply tries to prevent the House from coming to that decision, it is because he is a coward.
Online Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Government Operations
Karin Marguerite Smyth (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee this morning, Sir John Major presented evidence to us about propriety and ethics. In that very sombre presentation, he talked about being "at the top of a slope" down towards the loss of democracy in this country. Ultimately, the will of Parliament is all we have, so if we do not have Parliament to make the case, what other option do we have?
Online Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Government Operations
Clive Stanley Efford (Labour, Centre-left): Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There have been 50 resignations of Ministers; the Government are mired in controversy; people are acting up as Ministers who are not quite Ministers, as I understand it; and legislation is being delayed. When was there ever a better time for the House to table a motion of no confidence in a Government? This is a cowardly act not by the Prime Minister, but by the Conservative party, which does not want a vote on this issue. Conservative Members should support the move to have a vote of no confidence and have the courage to stand up for their convictions.
Online Safety Bill — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Technology
Barbara Mary Keeley (Labour, Centre-left): I rise to speak to this small group of amendments on behalf of the Opposition. Despite everything that is going on at the moment, we must remember that this Bill has the potential to change lives for the better. It is an important piece of legislation, and we cannot miss the opportunity to get it right. I would like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) in welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) to his role. His work as Chair of the Joint Committee on this Bill was an important part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process, and I look forward to working in collaboration with him to ensure that this legislation does as it should in keeping us all safe online. I welcome the support of the former Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), on giving access to data to academic researchers and on looking at the changes needed to deal with the harm caused by the way in which algorithmic prompts work. It was a pity he was not persuaded by the amendments in Committee, but better late than never.
Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Government Operations
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am very critical of what the Commissions have done in this regard because I have a terrible fear that if we just keep on changing the governance structure time after time, we will never move forward until there is some catastrophe in the building. That is precisely what happened in the 19th century, and it looks as if we are going to do it all over again, with politicians meddling in something that should be done for generations. Can he confirm, however, that his motion today will not be contradictory to a full decant of both Houses across eight years, which I know is his personal preference?
Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Government Operations
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): The Leader of the House has acknowledged that he is not an expert, and that most of us in this House are not experts on running major projects. The original intention of the Act of Parliament passed by this House, which has been unpicked in private in the Commissions, was that an expert body, the Sponsor Body, would be created to deliver that expertise. That body has now been abolished. He says that it has been brought in-house, but many people have left it. Can he be very precise with the House about exactly what will replace it, and where he thinks that expertise will come from in the Commissions, which in both Houses do not have the inbuilt expertise to deliver this project?
Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Government Operations
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): My right hon. Friend is exactly right. We do not have to be expert builders to see that this is going to cost money and it is going to take time. I see no alternative to both Houses having to move out for a period of time, as yet undetermined I also say in response to my right hon. Friend that this shows the critical role of the Commons Finance Committee, the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission, chaired so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), and the Public Accounts Committee, which has done such excellent work. Members of the PAC are here today and are very knowledgeable and skilled at exactly that sort of line by line scrutiny. We would need that whoever was commissioning the works—whether it was the Sponsor Body, and both Committees have paid close attention to the current structure, or any future structure.
Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Government Operations
Karin Marguerite Smyth (Labour, Centre-left): In 2015, I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). On that basis, I went to see the works and the operations of this building. It is still remarkable to me that we keep the entire thing going. My hon. Friend, the shadow Leader of the House, mentioned people who work here and their expertise. Is she confident that account has been taken of their judgment about the way they can continue to operate the building while this procrastination goes on and that we can support them in the difficult work that they do?
Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Government Operations
Thangam Elizabeth Rachel Debbonaire (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is right to raise it and to pay tribute to the work of the Public Accounts Committee. Am I confident? I am not currently confident or certain of where we are at the moment in terms of delivering anything in the way that we wanted to, but I am confident that we need to do it. Having spoken to the Delivery Authority, I am confident that it views this as doable, and it is the authority that will be carrying out the work. Having reviewed the situation, the Independent Expert Panel noted: "in principle the existing governance model could be made to work, but that lost confidence and momentum means that retaining the current model is unlikely to work." What it has also said, which might speak to my hon. Friend’s question, is that the recommendation of bringing the Sponsor Body function in-house should be viewed as a pragmatic measure to cover what is needed for the next 12 to 24 months—the decision phase if you like. It has also recommended that that pragmatism should not preclude alternative future options. We need to see this as part of a process to get us to the decision. Regrettable though it may be, and I do regret it, that we are where we are, this appears to be a compromise way of moving forward, with best value for money, safety and time.
Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Government Operations
Margaret Olivia Hillier (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about the Public Accounts Committee. To be clear, the role of that Committee is no substitute for the role of a proper sponsor or client function that keeps a close eye on the cost on a day-to-day basis. We look at things retrospectively, although we may make recommendations. Nor are we, as the Public Accounts Committee, expert enough to deliver this process. She talks about our report. Our report said that we regretted that decisions were made secretively and in private on a decision that was before the House and an Act of Parliament of this House. Does she have any comment about how we got from that Act of Parliament to where we are today?
Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Environment
Mark Richard Tami (Labour, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman is a fellow person who has been at this for seven years. We have already seen a release of asbestos in Speaker’s House that will lead to a group of people having to be monitored for probably about 40 years to see whether in those terrible circumstances anything actually develops, and that can happen in any part of the building.
Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Law and Crime
Christopher John Bryant (Labour, Centre-left): Is not one of the difficulties that all the alternative places that we would have to go to in an emergency are not safe? Church House is not safe from any kind of bomb attack, and there is no other venue that we could go to. I think the Government have just sold the one other place that we might have gone to. There is nowhere. So this is not only a risk to us and the building; it is also a risk to our democracy.
Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Government Operations
Mark Richard Tami (Labour, Centre-left): That is a very fair point. As I said, the decision has effectively been made Let us be honest: it is not about the cost; it is not about the time it will take; and it is certainly not about the people who actually work in here. So what is it about? It is about people who want to stay in here, come what may, with some fantasy vision that we can somehow live in a little bubble in here, that we can stay put, come what may, while everyone works around us, and that we can come up with some costings and then say, "We don’t like that costing so we are going to halve it or quarter it", and somehow the project can be done for that amount. We are ignoring the reality, and just because the Sponsor Body gave us that reality, we do not like it. The Leader of the House does not like it, so he says we are going to come up with something else and do it on a cheaper basis. It is as if we did not look at these things seven years ago. But this is where we are. As I said, I do not really know why we are having this debate, because the decision was made behind closed doors some time ago. That is a very sad state of affairs, and the House will rue this decision.
Environment Agency and Water Levels in the Sankey Canal — House of Commons, 2022-07-12
Topic: Environment
John Derek Twigg (Labour, Centre-left): Given the scenes filmed today showing that hundreds or possibly thousands of fish have died, will the Minister go back to the Environment Agency and ask exactly what it is doing to advise and help save the fish in the canal?
Spatial Disparities: Annual Reporting — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: If he will make an assessment of the potential merits of requiring Government Departments to report annually on the impact of spatial disparities across the UK on targeted outcomes.
Catherine Malloy Hollern (Labour, Centre-left): The levelling-up missions fall far short of what we really need to make progress in this country. They are nothing more than the Government marking their own homework. Communities desperately need a cross-Government approach that focuses on the different outcomes for people and places in health, education and so many other areas. Will the Minister consider working with colleagues to set clearer lines of accountability on levelling up across Government Departments so that they can be assessed on their effectiveness and on real outcomes for people?
UK Shared Prosperity Fund — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with elected members in the devolved Administrations on the (a) equity and (b) transparency of the (i) levelling-up fund and (ii) UK shared prosperity fund.
Michael Whitley (Labour, Centre-left): This Government fought and won the last election with a commitment to ensuring that post-Brexit funding will, at a minimum, match European Union subsidies, but the shared prosperity fund allocated to the Liverpool city region is £10 million a year less than we previously received from the EU. Will the Secretary of State concede that this is the latest in a long line of broken Tory promises? And will he commit to reforming an out-of-date, inadequate and wholly arbitrary funding formula that has seen some of the most deprived communities in the country lose out on vital sources of funding?
UK Shared Prosperity Fund — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with elected members in the devolved Administrations on the (a) equity and (b) transparency of the (i) levelling-up fund and (ii) UK shared prosperity fund.
Daniel Owen Jarvis (Labour, Centre-left): Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), South Yorkshire will also be disadvantaged because of a miscalculation in the previous round of funding that has been baked into the new allocation process. This means that while Cornwall will get £229 per head, South Yorkshire will get £33 per head. I do not begrudge Cornwall a penny of that money, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will understand why I want a fair deal for my constituents in South Yorkshire. Will he help me get it?
UK Shared Prosperity Fund — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: Macroeconomics
Questions: What recent discussions he has had with elected members in the devolved Administrations on the (a) equity and (b) transparency of the (i) levelling-up fund and (ii) UK shared prosperity fund.
Michael Lee Amesbury (Labour, Centre-left): Despite a manifesto promise to "at a minimum match the size" of the EU structural funds, the shared prosperity fund means £371 million less a year for English regions, as illustrated by hon. Members in the Chamber today. Of course, that cut comes at a time when the Conservative-led Local Government Association rightfully argues that the current council settlement falls £2 billion a year short of what is needed because of sky-high inflation. How does the Secretary of State plan to respond urgently to that plea?
Levelling-up Funds: Criteria — House of Commons, 2022-06-27
Topic: Macroeconomics
Alexander James Jorden Norris (Labour, Centre-left): The recent report from the Public Accounts Committee was a huge blow to the way in which the Government are seeking to level up and it exposed once again the debilitating impact of beauty parades and unclear allocation criteria. If the Secretary of State thinks that was praise, then goodness me! This can be resolved in future by the Government accepting our calls for proper, sustained funding that is targeted at need. Therefore, to make sure that we are never in this situation again, will the Minister commit to accepting amendment 13 to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, which will start this process?