argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
International Men’s Day — House of Commons, 2016-11-17
Topic: Mixed Topics
Gavin Andrew Stuart Newlands (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Does the hon. Lady agree that we are doing men a disservice if we do not address our shortcomings during this debate, given that men still perpetrate about 80% of all domestic violence cases? As we approach the international day for the elimination of violence against women, will she join me in calling on all male MPs to take the White Ribbon pledge "never to commit, condone, or remain silent about men’s violence against women in all its forms"?
Maxwellisation Process — House of Commons, 2016-11-17
Topic: Other
Richard Arkless (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): While the Minister is making points about the virtues of Maxwellisation in certain circumstances, is he able to say whether Maxwellisation in the case of the Chilcot report meant that the original findings were diluted to what we saw in the final report?
Higher Education and Research Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-21
Topic: Immigration
William Arthur Roger Mullin (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Minister referred to "an element". The post-study work visa is not just the subject of "an element" of concern to universities in Scotland; it is of major concern, especially given that what the Home Office has proposed is a tiny and completely unrepresentative pilot. This is a matter of great importance to the university sector.
Higher Education and Research Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-21
Topic: Immigration
Carol Frances Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I rise to speak to new clause 14 on post-study work visa evaluation, and I reserve the right to push it to a vote, if required The SNP continues to press for the reintroduction of the post-study work visa. The new clause would ensure we had an evaluation of how the absence of this key visa has affected the UK economy and how a new visa may be implemented As we have heard, the post-study work visa is an important lever for attracting the best international student talent. There is consensus in Scotland among business, education and every political party represented at Holyrood that we need a return of the post-study route to allow these talented students to remain and to contribute to the Scottish economy The outcome of the EU referendum makes it even more important that the UK Government honours the recommendation in the Smith report to explore a potential post-study work route to ensure that Scotland continues to attract and retain talent from around the world. The longer we wait for the Government to move on this, the more damage is being done socially and economically The current post-study work offer is not adequate for Scotland. We have offered to discuss the reasons behind that with UK Ministers and Home Office officials, but, disappointingly, UK Ministers appear to rule out a return of the post-study work visa— without meeting Scottish Ministers or the cross-party steering group that has been set up at Holyrood The current immigration policy poses a significant risk to Scottish universities. Data published in January show that Scotland saw a 2% increase in international entrants in the academic year 2014-15, compared with the previous year. On the face of it, that may appear positive, but by comparison, from 2013-14 to 2014-15 the number of international students entering higher education in the United States increased by 10%. Rather than being able to take advantage of this growth sector and use it to create economic growth locally, our numbers are expected to remain stagnant, which is simply not good enough The Home Office released details of a low-risk tier 4 pilot in July this year, which was—maybe "welcomed" is not the correct word—viewed with some interest. However, we are troubled that it was introduced without any consultation with the Scottish Government, Scottish institutions or, indeed, institutions from across the UK. Universities Scotland said: "we’re disappointed that the opportunity of the pilot has been framed so narrowly to only four universities none of which are in Scotland. We’d argue that a broader pilot, involving a wider group of institutions, would have provided more meaningful lessons from which to build."
Higher Education and Research Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-21
Topic: Immigration
Carol Frances Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Certain rogue institutions—particularly private FE colleges—have in the past not complied with visa regulations, but there is little evidence that the HE institutions in the scope of this Bill have any record of non-compliance, so I do not accept the points the right hon. Gentleman makes.
Higher Education and Research Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-21
Topic: Immigration
Carol Frances Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is well documented that in Scotland our issue is emigration, not immigration, so this is a key lever for allowing us to trigger economic growth in Scotland and something that would make a massive difference to our local economy.
Human Rights Act — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Civil Rights
Steven Alexander Paterson (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): We are no closer to a timeframe, a plan or a common theme in regard to how the Human Rights Act is to be replaced. Earlier this year, Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe commissioner for human rights, said that the "repeatedly delayed launch of the consultation process" was "creating an atmosphere of anxiety and concern in civil society and within the devolved administrations" Will the Minister tell us exactly when the consultation on this matter will be brought forward?
Human Rights Act — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Civil Rights
Martyn Day (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Council of Europe commissioner for human rights has also said of the consultation on the Human Rights Act: "My impression is that the debate over the HRA in Westminster is not a true reflection of concerns outside England" Does the Minister appreciate that there is no support in Scotland for the plans, and that the impact of any attempt to repeal the Act would be to provoke a constitutional crisis?
Access to Justice — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Immigration
Stuart Campbell McDonald (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Government have utterly undermined access to justice for EU citizens and other migrants with their incredible 500% increase in immigration tribunal fees. Will the Minister at least closely monitor the drastic impact that that ridiculous increase is going to have and respond accordingly when everything the Government were warned about during their consultation actually comes to pass?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: I hope that the Secretary of State is aware that the Scottish Government are going to grant a pardon to men who were convicted of historical consensual same-sex offences involving parties over the age of 16. Will she follow the Scottish Government’s example and commit to a pardon that covers the living as well as the dead?; One of the Secretary of State’s four departmental priorities is to build a “One Nation justice system…for all citizens whatever their background”.What impact does she think yesterday’s Orgreave announcement will have on ordinary people’s confidence in our justice system?; The Lord Chancellor, in her role as head of the judiciary, has oversight of all legal action that continues in our country. Today there is an abuse of power whereby soldiers are facing, in effect, double jeopardy through the work of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. Although I understand that the Ministry of Defence is leading on this, will she, as the chief judicial officer of this land, please comment?; Given that 20% of the prison population have spent some time in care, what steps are the Government taking to prevent children in care from ending up in the prison system?; The reforms to family justice included in the Children and Families Act 2014 implemented by the coalition Government are bold and invaluable. However, as the president of the family division recently commented, care applications are rising and high-conflict divorce cases linger for too long in the system and cost far too much money. What steps are the Government taking to resolve this outstanding issue?
Margaret Ferrier (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Ministry’s review into the care and management of transgender offenders was due to be concluded in the spring, but almost a year since the review was first announced, a report is yet to be published. Can the Secretary of State update the House today on when we can expect to see that report?
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Other
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Minister asked me a question. I can only remind him of what Mr Speaker said when he was in the Chair: that legislative consent is not required until the Bill has been amended, as the Minister will know very well. Legislative consent to those aspects of the Bill that require it is not sought from the Scottish Government until the Bill has passed through this House. He is therefore setting a false trap. He will remember a phrase from the Scottish Parliament, "My head does not zip up the back." My head does not zip up the back, and I will not fall into his false trap, but SNP Members will give their support to the Lords amendment on this occasion.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Other
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware of what I did for a career before I came here. I have no intention of making any concession that goes beyond the four walls of what I have already said.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Civil Rights
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Unlike the Minister and the shadow Home Secretary, but like the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), I have been with this Bill since the beginning and it has been an interesting journey. As I said earlier, much was promised from the Lords when the Bill left this House, and, as the shadow Home Secretary has said, people had considerable concerns at that time about its intrusion into civil liberties and the security of data It is a matter of regret that the Lords amendments as a whole have not lived up to expectations. However, some improvements have undoubtedly been made in the safeguards afforded by the Bill, as a result of Government amendments in the Lords. Although the SNP does not believe that they go far enough, we will support them because they improve the safeguards. The Minister has listed some of them. I am particularly happy with the taking up of the recommendation for a technical advisory panel; the imposition of some restrictions on access to bulk personal data sets; and the inclusion of the threshold for internet connection records. I also particularly welcome the Government amendments to clause 233, to ensure that the Scottish Government will be provided with the means to engage with the work of the judicial commissioners relating to the devolved powers in Scotland.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Civil Rights
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I agree with the hon. Gentleman that at some point the House needs to look at the mass harvesting of data by private companies, but there is a big difference between a private company harvesting personal data and the state doing so. A private company does not have the coercive power of the state, and that is the crucial reason why the Bill must be scrutinised so carefully It is a matter of the deepest regret that the review on bulk powers did not report to this House and has not been scrutinised in this House. I would not wish the SNP’s position on the Bill to be portrayed as irresponsible, because it is not. It is an attempt to make sure that the Bill fulfils its purpose while remaining lawful and proportionate. As has been alluded to during this debate, the Scottish Parliament has given legislative consent to the consolidating and enhanced safeguard provisions in the Bill, so far as those matters fall within its legislative competence. If Members care to read the terms of the legislative consent motion, which I do not believe was opposed by anyone in the Scottish Parliament, they will see that concern was reiterated about the potential impingement on civil liberties by internet connection record collection and bulk data collection I want to correct something that the Minister said about Liberty. Liberty has scrutinised the Bill in detail and provided detailed briefings—one might not agree with them all—on every aspect of the Bill. It is unfair to say that Liberty is mistaken about anything. Liberty is quite correct to say that, in reality, all that the double-lock system means is that a judge will check that the correct procedures have been followed; the Minister will still make the initial decision In previous debates, I have said that I would not use the phrase "mass surveillance", because it is a bit too broad, and I have instead talked about suspicionless surveillance. That is the problem with the Bill: SNP Members and many others with concerns about the Bill believe that surveillance should be targeted and based on suspicion. There is a deal too much suspicionless surveillance in the Bill, even as amended.
Investigatory Powers Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-01
Topic: Civil Rights
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I will make a little progress, and then give way again, because I do not want to take up too much time During the Bill’s passage, SNP Members were pleased to offer our support to the Labour party on its amendment to protect trade unionists going about their lawful activities, but what about protections for other activists and campaigners going about their lawful activities and what about non-governmental organisations and whistleblowers? We should not have unjustified spying on trade unionists, and we should not have unjustified spying on other activists either. Whistleblowers can sometimes be very inconvenient to the Government and to the private sector, but they fulfil an important function and the Bill contains insufficient protection for them On the protection of journalists, it is true that significant amendments have been made in the Lords, but it is important to put on the record today that journalists have continued concerns about the provisions in the Bill. They feel that safeguards for journalistic sources should apply across the various powers in the Bill, rather than in their current limited form In parallel, although great progress has been made in the Lords on the question of legal professional privilege, some in the legal profession still have concerns about the way in which the Bill approaches it. The way the Bill is drafted may have undermined the central premise on which legal professional privilege is based. However, credit where credit is due: significant progress has been made. I spoke this morning to the Law Society of Scotland, which recognises that the Government have come a long way but is still concerned about these somewhat controversial measures and is very anxious to have post-legislative scrutiny of how legal professional privilege will work in practice.
Business Revenue — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Civil Rights
Questions: What progress his Department has made on engaging with the tourism industry on the potential effect on its revenues of the UK leaving the EU.; My constituency is home to the Cambridge science park, a centre of innovation and technology. Last week, I met David Newble, the chief executive of TTP Labtech, who is concerned about maintaining access to overseas talent, following the vote for Brexit. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that we continue to attract the international expertise that is helping to drive our tech sector in the UK?
Stephen Patrick Gethins (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I obviously welcome that new information from the Secretary of State, but the Fraser of Allander Institute has already told us that this will cost up to 80,000 jobs in Scotland alone. The CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors have warned about the impact of limiting freedom of movement. They have done their homework, Secretary of State. You did not do your homework during the Vote Leave campaign, when you had a blank piece of paper to campaign on. If the Secretary of State is going to Scotland, he will need to do better than that. When will that assessment be published?
UK Citizens in EU Countries: Rights — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: What rights he plans to secure for UK citizens living in other EU countries; and whether he plans to negotiate a reciprocal agreement with EU partners on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.; What rights he plans to secure for UK citizens living in other EU countries; and whether he plans to negotiate a reciprocal agreement with EU partners on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.
Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The most recent census indicates that 1,588 of my constituents were born in other EU countries. From personal experience, I know that they include doctors, dentists, teachers, nurses, home care workers, residential care workers, pupil support assistants and many more. Why are the Government already able to give unilateral guarantees about the remaining rights of bankers but unable to give the same guarantees to my constituents?
UK Citizens in EU Countries: Rights — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Domestic Commerce
Questions: What rights he plans to secure for UK citizens living in other EU countries; and whether he plans to negotiate a reciprocal agreement with EU partners on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.; What rights he plans to secure for UK citizens living in other EU countries; and whether he plans to negotiate a reciprocal agreement with EU partners on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.
Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Will the Minister now answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant)? Why was the Chancellor yesterday, in front of the Treasury Committee, able to give an unambiguous guarantee about the travel and residential rights of bankers that he is not prepared to give to our hard-working fellow European citizens?
Devolution of Immigration: Scottish Government — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Immigration
John MacKenzie Nicolson (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): During the European Union referendum, the former Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), said that Scotland could decide its own immigration policy in the event of Brexit. Was that proposal defenestrated at the same time as the former Minister?
Topical Questions — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Questions: In Camden, where I live, the Back to Business and FastForward programmes benefit enormously from the European social fund. Those programmes create a more inclusive labour market employing 400 people in my constituency, many of whom are disabled. Will the Minister outline what plans he has to protect the funding for such programmes, which promote social inclusivity?; I did not quite catch the Minister’s response earlier, so will he tell us again what priority he is giving to ensuring that universities and research funding more broadly will not be adversely affected by Brexit, and that current research protocols will be protected?; My right hon. Friend may be aware that according to Cornwall Council’s own figures, only 1,300 jobs will be created from a £350 million EU spend between now and 2020. Does he agree that a much more tailored approach to regional funding could create more jobs more quickly for Cornwall?; Yesterday’s employment figures show that this Government’s successful policies are leading to more people being in employment than ever before. The NHS relies on thousands of EU nationals, not only highly skilled individuals, but cooks, consultants, cleaners and porters, so does the Secretary of State want to reassure the NHS that it will be able to continue to employ those EU nationals after Brexit?
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Secretary of State said yet again that there will be no running commentary on the negotiations. Yesterday, the Chancellor announced plans to protect financial services workers over other EU nationals. Did the Secretary of State agree that strategy with the Chancellor or is it just proof that the Government do not have a clue what they are doing?
BHS — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Mixed Topics
Ian Blackford (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Should we not be raising questions if any company pays out dividends in excess of its free cash flow? That should ring alarm bells, and perhaps there should be a test that companies need to meet if they behave in such a way.
BHS — House of Commons, 2016-10-20
Topic: Other
Hannah Mary Bardell (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank you for indulging me and hope you will excuse my possible ignorance of the parliamentary process, but I am somewhat confused by the Minister’s responding halfway through the debate, before all Members have had the opportunity to bring forward the concerns of their constituents.