argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions) — House of Commons, 2019-03-27
Topic: International Affairs
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Absolutely. If there is one thing that we can achieve this afternoon by supporting this motion, it is categorically ruling out no deal. The motion is a revocation backstop. It stipulates that if within two days of exit day we have no agreed deal and Parliament does not positively approve no deal, the Government must revoke the article 50 notice, and we will stay in the EU. But it is important to understand that revocation does not mean that we could never notify the EU of our intention to leave again. That is incorrect, as Members will see if they read the decision of the Grand Chamber in the Court of Justice of the European Union on the case that I and others brought.
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions) — House of Commons, 2019-03-27
Topic: International Affairs
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I will in a moment, but I just want to make this clear: the amendment has been carefully drafted by myself and a team of lawyers to give the Government a clear and unequivocal instruction, and it is the only way to make the Prime Minister hold to her promise that she gave this House on Monday when she said: "unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen".—[Official Report, 25 March 2019; Vol. 657, c. 25.] This motion would achieve that. It is the culmination of cross-party work that commenced with a group of Scottish parliamentarians, including myself and other SNP parliamentarians, two Scottish Greens and two Scottish Labour MEPs and the English QC Jo Maugham, who has helped me draft the amendment. We fought the British Government all the way to the Court of Justice to establish that if the United Kingdom got into the kind of mess we are now in, it would have the right to unilaterally revoke article 50. It is important that the instruction is clear and unequivocal, because if Parliament gives the Government a clear and unequivocal instruction then, if the Government fail to follow that clear and unequivocal instruction, because it is clear and unequivocal, we would have a range of political and legal remedies to make sure they did what the democratic vote of this House was to do.
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions) — House of Commons, 2019-03-27
Topic: International Affairs
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I am going to make some progress as I am very conscious of the time strictures Conservative Members of this House should support this motion because it is making good on the promise that their Prime Minister—she was still Prime Minister the last time I looked—made to the Commons earlier this week when she said: "unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen".—[Official Report, 25 March 2019; Vol. 657, c. 25.] Labour MPs should support it because it fits with their manifesto. They said in their manifesto: "Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option" This motion is the only means today for Labour to fulfil that manifesto promise, and I know that the Labour party has repeatedly asked the Government to rule out no deal so I entreat them to support this motion today as the means of doing that.
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions) — House of Commons, 2019-03-27
Topic: International Affairs
Joanna Catherine Cherry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): That is exactly so, and I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for spelling that out so clearly and for lending his support to this motion Fellow Members can support this motion even if they are supporting other motions tonight. It should be acceptable to supporters of the current draft withdrawal agreement—for some reason that is not on the Order Paper today, but we might see it later in the week. If an hon. Member wished to support the Prime Minister’s deal, they could also support my motion because it is a failsafe. If an hon. Member wished to support Norway-plus, they could also support my motion because it is a failsafe. And, very importantly, those of us who wish to support a people’s vote can also support this because it is a failsafe. Also, it does not even preclude a general election, because the way the motion is worded makes it kick in on the penultimate day before exit day, which is of course a moving target at the moment; so it leaves the door open to a general election, which I know some of us would quite like to see, particularly the SNP in Scotland as we are riding so high in the opinion polls. But today is about cross-party working and democracy, because the decision that we are taking is of generational importance for the United Kingdom and it ought to be the representatives of the people of the United Kingdom in this House who decide between revocation and no deal, not the Prime Minister of a minority Government.
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions) — House of Commons, 2019-03-27
Topic: International Affairs
Neil Charles Gray (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): If it is the Government’s position to ensure that the country does not leave without a deal, and if there is no way for the Prime Minister’s deal to get through, given the Speaker’s intervention, why will the Government not allow the motion tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) to carry, to provide a revoke backstop and to guarantee that there cannot be a no-deal exit?
EU Exit Day Amendment — House of Commons, 2019-03-27
Topic: International Affairs
Kirsty Ann Blackman (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I cannot promise that I will speak without hesitation, repetition or deviation, and I probably will not limit myself to a minute, but I will do my best on all those counts. An extension to the exit day is a good thing for several reasons, but the extension that has been asked for, which we are discussing tonight, is not the one that we should be faced with, and I want to look back at how we got into this mess Several Members have mentioned the fact that people are expecting us to leave on 29 March. However, when people voted in the June 2016 referendum, not one person mentioned 29 March 2019 as exit day, nor did they mention 12 April or 22 May. The people voted either to remain in or leave the EU. That was the proposition, and there was no discussion of the actual exit day. While I am on the subject, nobody during the referendum expected that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) would now be the Prime Minister. No one expected this deal to be the deal before Parliament, because that was not discussed during the course of the referendum, and it is absolutely wrong for anyone to say that it represents the settled will of the UK people.
EU Exit Day Amendment — House of Commons, 2019-03-27
Topic: International Affairs
Kirsty Ann Blackman (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The article 50 process is a two-year period with the possibility of extension. Triggering article 50 does not mean we leave exactly two years afterwards. There is a negotiation period, and anybody with an ounce of sense, for a start, would not have triggered article 50 until they were in a position to negotiate something with which Parliament and the people would agree, and they would have negotiated extensions so we do not leave before we are ready.
EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes) — House of Commons, 2019-03-27
Topic: International Affairs
Ian Blackford (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very serious moment for all of us. We have to reflect that this House of Commons has tried to find a way through the Brexit crisis over the last few months, and we have failed. We need to reflect on the fact, when the Government talk about bringing their deal back, that they got 202 and then 242 votes. That deal should be dead. The people’s vote got 268 votes tonight. I know we did not win, but we got more votes for a people’s vote than the Government did for their proposition. It is becoming increasingly clear that the House cannot find a way forward. The Government and the Prime Minister have failed to provide leadership. The only thing we should now be doing is going back to the people of the United Kingdom in a general election to end this impasse.
Community and Sub-Post Offices — House of Commons, 2019-03-27
Topic: Government Operations
Neil Charles Gray (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the way in which he is setting out his case, which is very strong. He mentioned the problem of closures in communities across Scotland. We are very fortunate in my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts, because we have managed to secure a new post office in Plains that has since been very well supported. Does he agree that that support should send a strong message to the Government to open new post offices, not to close them?
Community and Sub-Post Offices — House of Commons, 2019-03-27
Topic: Government Operations
Martin John Docherty-Hughes (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. In Hardgate in my constituency, the Post Office has been unable to replace the closed post office, which serves Hardgate, Duntocher and Faifley. Does he agree that it is up to the Government to force the Post Office to re-establish Crown post offices, where the Post Office cannot meet that need?
Syria: Civilians in Idlib — House of Commons, 2019-06-18
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: To ask the Minister for the Middle East what assessment he has made of attacks on health facilities and the fate of civilians in the Idlib area of Syria, and if he will make a statement.
Christopher Murray Alexander Law (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): We also pay tribute to Jo Cox’s memory in the House today and to David Nott and his incredible work as a surgeon in Idlib; he recently won the Robert Burns humanitarian award for what he has done We in the Scottish National party are shocked and horrified by the reports that, since Syrian regime forces and their Russian allies began their offensive in Idlib in April, more than 24 medical facilities have been attacked. Tragically, the targeting of healthcare facilities is not new in Syria’s civil war. The US-based Physicians for Human Rights documented more than 500 attacks on medical facilities between 2011 and 2018 The deliberate and strategic bombing of hospitals carrying out their medical functions is a war crime. These latest attacks have eliminated vital lifelines for civilians in desperate need of medical care and medical centres are no longer sharing their co-ordinates with the UN for fear of being a target of Syria and their allies. However, the prevention of and protection from mass atrocities remain almost wholly absent from the UK’s national framework of civilian protection. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to cover this glaring omission? Furthermore, will he ensure that the upcoming review of the Government’s protection of civilians in conflict strategy reflects the changing nature of modern conflict, which blurs the lines between combatants and non-combatants?
EU/British Citizens’ Rights — House of Commons, 2019-06-18
Topic: International Affairs
Martin John Docherty-Hughes (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I am sure that the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) shares my concern about the vacant Benches opposite and the fact that, on such a serious matter, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) from the Opposition Whips Office had to scurry up the back to bob up and down to ask a question. On 21 January this year, the Prime Minister committed to a review of the ongoing concerns of Irish nationals under the Good Friday agreement to exercise their Irish and therefore their European rights in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom after Brexit. Will the Minister tell the House whether he has read the Good Friday agreement? Secondly, will he tell us when the Prime Minister will publish the review before scurrying back to the Back Benches?
Hong Kong — House of Commons, 2019-06-18
Topic: International Affairs
Stephen Patrick Gethins (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) was right in his sentiments about the importance of this issue and in saying that the UK has a particular responsibility to Hong Kong. To be fair, the Minister has acknowledged that himself in maintaining the commitments in the joint declaration, and also in highlighting the importance of the international rules-based order to us all. I know that he agrees, but it would be good if he could reiterate, that citizens of a free society must be able to express their views freely without any fear of violence. We need to send that message out from across this House. No protest must ever be met with violence, and any resolution to this crisis must have the protection of the rule of law at its heart. Does he agree that the rule of law and adhering to the rules-based system is going to be key to Hong Kong’s future prosperity as a society, but also to its economy?
Hong Kong — House of Commons, 2019-06-18
Topic: International Affairs
Martin John Docherty-Hughes (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing the urgent question. Does the Minister agree that the reality is that all that the People’s Republic of China is seeking to achieve in Hong Kong is the legalisation of what it has been doing for years, which is legally kidnapping people from Hong Kong and taking them to China?
Cox Report: Implementation — House of Commons, 2019-06-18
Topic: Government Operations
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The right hon. Lady makes an important point, but what is more important to me when it comes to these things is that they are done right for the constituents I represent, for the staff I employ in this House and for my obligations and responsibilities as a Member of Parliament It is important that we get this right, which is why some of the conversations and negotiations that are required have to be played out so we get to the right solution, and I believe we are getting there. We owe it to the House to get to the right place. We have to make progress, and we have to deal with this I remember when this all started. There was a huge flurry of activity, with party leaders getting together under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister. There was an urgency about it. Something had to be done The energy seems to have been sucked out of that initiative, and I do not know why. The Chamber is a bit busier now but, at its busiest, I counted only 15 Members here to discuss these important issues. At one point during the debate we were down to seven Back-Bench colleagues listening to these important proceedings I suggest that somehow we are not getting the message out to other colleagues, and I am grateful to everyone who has been here. The contributions have been sincere and heartfelt, but we are not exciting the House with these proposals. We have to do more to ensure that Members are engaged with this process, because it is about us. It is about our behaviour and how we respond to staff and to the parliamentary community.
Cox Report: Implementation — House of Commons, 2019-06-18
Topic: Government Operations
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): As the right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, my proposals relate to the Cox recommendations. Can we please do more to look at how we do business in the House, how this place feels and how it looks to people who come into the House? For goodness’ sake, we still have a place down the corridor called the Lords. The forelock tugging and cap doffing goes on, and there are still people called Lords and Ladies. What does that say to the people who come to this place from throughout the country? That somehow these are our betters—these are people who are titled, and they run the country.
Universal Credit: Roll-out — House of Commons, 2019-07-01
Topic: Social Welfare
Andrew Egan Henderson Hendry (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The right hon. Lady’s Government promised that "universal credit should not leave councils out of pocket." Yet Highland Council has nearly £3 million of additional costs, including £640,000 of indisputable administration costs, directly as a result of universal credit. Despite letters, questions and meetings with officials and Ministers, where details and data have all been provided, there is still no settlement. When will this debt to highland households finally be repaid?
Universal Credit: Roll-out — House of Commons, 2019-07-01
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: Universal credit was rolled out in my area last year. Staff at my local citizens advice bureau found that, last year, 1,882 people contacted them in relation to debt linked to universal credit. Surely that is an indication of how many people are finding difficulty in managing during that initial five-week wait. Will the Secretary of State tell me when the Government will act to end the misery of the five-week wait?
Neil Charles Gray (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Research released last week from the Child Poverty Action Group and the Church of England shows that women are being forced to choose between poverty and an abortion because of this Government’s two-child cap—that is the reality facing families with three or more children. It appears unlikely that the Secretary of State will face another Work and Pensions Question Time, so will she make it her legacy to scrap the two-child cap and avoid impoverishing half of all children in those families?
Universal Credit: Roll-out — House of Commons, 2019-07-01
Topic: Social Welfare
Questions: Universal credit was rolled out in my area last year. Staff at my local citizens advice bureau found that, last year, 1,882 people contacted them in relation to debt linked to universal credit. Surely that is an indication of how many people are finding difficulty in managing during that initial five-week wait. Will the Secretary of State tell me when the Government will act to end the misery of the five-week wait?
Neil Charles Gray (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I note that the Secretary of State did not answer my question. I would like to compare and contrast, because CPAG has said of the two-child cap, "you could not design a policy better to increase child poverty", but last week it described the new Scottish child benefit, to which the Secretary of State referred, as "an absolute game changer in fight to end child poverty" Therefore, on the 20th anniversary of the reconvened Scottish Parliament, is this not yet another example of where Holyrood empowers, Westminster impoverishes?
Universal Credit: Working People’s Incomes — House of Commons, 2019-07-01
Topic: Social Welfare
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): My constituent, Craig Ferguson, has Asperger’s, but works in retail. He broke his leg, was not entitled to statutory sick pay and was advised to switch to UC. He then lost his severe disability premium. His UC has automatic deductions for an employment support allowance overpayment and, at times, he receives no UC award at all, which means that he has to depend on savings. How is that fair? Can his case be reviewed?
Disability Confident — House of Commons, 2019-07-01
Topic: Social Welfare
Martin John Docherty-Hughes (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Thanks for the "young", Mr Speaker The Minister seeks, in the Government’s proposal, to promote Disability Confident employers, but does he not recognise that, in April 2019, 85% of all mandatory reconsiderations for personal independence payment modified the original decision? Does he not agree that there seems to be rank hypocrisy in promoting Disability Confident employers while the Government are impoverishing my constituents in West Dunbartonshire and across the United Kingdom?
Department for International Development — House of Commons, 2019-07-01
Topic: Education
Lisa Cameron (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, particularly in his focus on education. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on disability. Does he agree that in many developing countries, children with disabilities still find it too challenging to get to school and that we must focus on those extremely vulnerable children, who are often kept behind closed doors and never seen? We must ensure that they get every opportunity in life and that, in line with the sustainable development goals, we leave no one behind.
Department for International Development — House of Commons, 2019-07-01
Topic: International Affairs
Lisa Cameron (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech, and he has great knowledge and experience in the field of international development. Does he agree that in terms of value for money, one extremely good project is the Small Charities Challenge Fund? Local churches and organisations in our constituencies can raise money and apply for match funding to make a difference across the world both through aid and by connecting our local people with people in developing countries—schoolchildren, churchgoers and so on—which facilitates positivity around the international development budget.